Slashdot Mirror
Let the Campaign Edit Wars Begin
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Megan Garber writes that in high school, Paul Ryan's classmates voted him as his class's 'biggest brown noser,' a juicy tidbit that is a source of delight for his political opponents but considered an irrelevant piece of youthful trivia to his supporters. 'But it's also a tension that will play out, repeatedly, in the most comprehensive narrative we have about Paul Ryan as a person and a politician and a policy-maker: his Wikipedia page,' writes Garber. Late Friday night, just as news of the Ryan choice leaked in the political press — the first substantial edit to that page removed the 'brown noser' mention which had been on the page since June 16. The Wikipedia deletion has given rise to a whole discussion of whether the mention is a partisan attack, whether 'brown noser' is a pejorative, and whether an old high school opinion survey is notable or relevant. As of this writing, 'brown noser' stands as does a maybe-mitigating piece of Ryan-as-high-schooler trivia: that he was also voted prom king. But that equilibrium could change, again, in an instant. 'Today is the glory day for the Paul Ryan Wikipedia page,' writes Garber. 'Yesterday, it saw just 10 [edits]. Today, however — early on a Saturday morning, East Coast time — it's already received hundreds of revisions. And the official news of the Ryan selection, of course, is just over an hour old.' Now Ryan's page is ready to host debates about biographical details and their epistemological relevance. 'Like so many before it, will be a place of debate and dissent and derision. But it will also be a place where people can come together to discuss information and policy and the intersection between the two — a town square for the digital age.'"
Then I'm pretty sure that what Paul Ryan did in high school can be too.
But seriously, I'm a lot less concerned with what Paul Ryan did in high school that what he has done since. I'm not sure what Romney was thinking on this one (excite a base that was ALREADY excited, that would have come out to vote against Obama no matter who you chose?). But he just gave the Democrats an incredible gift. Because he didn't just excite the Republican base, he also just excited the Democratic base (and scared the hell out of the independents, and conceded Florida). Many Democrats were disenchanted with Obama and probably wouldn't have come out to vote for him again in the fall. But stacking him up against an insane-right-wing Ayn Rand ideologue who wants to abolish Medicare and Social Security to give tax cuts to the wealthy is a pretty fucking great way to motivate them. I'm not sure if this is some form of political suicide or just incredibly bad advisers, but either way--speaking as a Dem--thanks, buddy.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Why hasn't it been reverted to the preannouncment page and locked for editing with the addition of "prospective VP candidate for the Republican party? Seems like the best and only proper solution.
Shawn Moore http://www.teuse.net
I'm tempted to say that these kinds of articles aren't where Wikipedia works best. Articles where the majority of the editors are partisans, rather than scholars or knowledgeable enthusiasts, tend to attract a lot of heat and not as much improvement (I made the mistake once of trying to edit something that was in the Israel-Palestine crossfire).
On the other hand, it's quite possible that Wikipedia has the least bad coverage. It's Paul Ryan article is contentious, edited by partisans on both sides, and may or may not end up in a great state, but every other summary of Ryan I've been able to find so far is worse. Most are either pure attack pieces, or pure hagiographies.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If anyone seriously takes the information on Wickipedia as "fact", if they are a (so called) journalist, they need to be flogged. Most of the things you find on the wicki site are at the mercy of whomever put it there, not backed up with FACTS. But, since we are talking about a conservative, it's fair game to trash. Now, since Obama is "the one", his wicki site is probably watched like a hawk, or locked down. I think all politicians wicki sites should be removed or locked down because trolls love to cause problems, and the general apathy of the American public. Most Americans, sadly, get more worked up over who is sleeping with whom, or the latest American Idol standings, than what the IDIOTS in DC are doing to us.
are, of course, pathetic.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
No, but it can be done in four images:
Barack Obama = The epic tome with Tolkein's perfectly-crafted songs
Joe Biden = The novels with Pratchett's funny one-liners
Mitt Romney = The bible for Mormons
Paul Ryan = The bible for Objectivists
Was Paul Ryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Ones_%28TV_series%29#Rick) modeled after Rick?
They're even look-alikes: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul3U_J37YCc
"Hands up, who likes me"
Hands all down.
This is a situation where the page should have locked to prevent the edit wars. Granted, no one knew who the VP pick was going to be, but as soon as humanly possible, the page should have been locked down and only selected individuals allowed to edit it for completeness, not remove things which, while not necessarily relevant, give a broader picture of who the person is.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Romney and Ryan want to increase Defense spending. Why? Do they want us to get us involved in more wars?
At least Obama has got us out of one unnecessary war started by the previous Republican administration, and is slowly scaling back the other one.
Tell the Republicans that if they want to lower the deficit they should cut back on the defense budget and stop getting us into wars.\
And the rich people don't need more tax cuts.
Was Paul Ryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Ones_%28TV_series%29#Rick) modeled after Rick?
They're even look-alikes: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul3U_J37YCc
"Hands up, who likes me"
Hands all down.
that is funny.
Be seeing you...
How long until we see PAC ads accusing him of being a big smelly poopy face? Wait, those already started? Hmm.
Welcome back to kindergarten, folks. I think I'll go hibernate for the next three months so I don't have to witness the ridiculous stupidity of American society when polarized by two equally bad alternatives.
The smart people have already looked at the real platforms of the candidates and know for whom they're voting. That leaves those who are too lazy to do any research; these are the ones swayed by stupid bullshit like how
Paul Ryan's classmates voted him as his class's 'biggest brown noser'
as well as attack ads and other campaigning that can be best summed up by "my opponent will destroy this country," even though a rational, objective thinker would realize that neither major candidate will likely do so.
The rest of us? We're not the targets of this late-stage campaigning so we're completely ignored. I'll be fast forwarding through the political ads like the rest of you and wishing it was already November 7. Hell, I can't even vote (yet) so this really just feels like being forced to watch a bunch of idiots fighting from the sidelines.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
You could always look him up in Wikipedia ... oh, wait, never mind. ;-)
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Since this is the era of the politics of personal destruction, anything is fair game.
Of course, it's dysfunctional, but we aren't going to change this soon. Our political process is too polarized now.
And of course, issues really don't matter to the side that sees them as a liability.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
...write half a sentence about who the hell this "Paul Ryan" guy(?) is supposed to be?...
A paragraph for each. I'm not going to vote D or R, so you can trust my analysis is non-partisan and pretty accurate guide to people who aren't paying attention:
Barack Obama = Vote for change, then change nothing. He would have made a pretty decent pre-neocon somewhat left of the road republican more or less in the image of Tommy Thompson back in ye olden days. Just another crook from Illinois. Basically a leftish conservative using the traditional definition of conservative not wanting to change much of anything. Despite being "commander in chief" has a strong historical record of doing whatever his masters tell him to do (D leadership, 1%ers, wall street). You can't trust him, he has bad ideas, but he never does anything, especially not if he promises it or campaigns on it, so that's OK.
Joe Biden = Probably the closest thing in national govt to a 99%er. Poorest member of the senate (still rich, but he's not rollin with the 1%ers). Babbles a lot. Most likely of all the candidates to have a twitter tag like "shitbidensays", because he's got the largest collection of memorable quotes (both good and very very bad). Fundamentally seems to be a good guy at heart (unlike the other 3 who are all crooks) but in practice a bit too lefty for my tastes. Fairly conservative, just another elderly hippie reliving the great society programs of the 60s. If he could be jolted out of the 60s and into modern era he'd be a pretty good leader, maybe not the best, but not bottom of the barrel like the other 3. You can trust him, but he's got an obsolete outlook on the world.
Mitt Romney = Gordon Gekko come to life, 1%er to the core. Another power hungry rich crook. Apparently wants to surround himself with bootlickers and quislings aka neocon Rs. Doesn't seem to have much of a message other than "I'm a 1%er now lick my boots, proles" alternating with "I'm not Obama". The hardest core evangelicals who run the R party are all in a tizzy about him because they now have to vote for what they consider a cult member, he's not "religiously pure" enough for them. You can't trust him and he's got big ideas, most (all?) of which are bad ideas.
Paul Ryan = 1%er wannabe bootlicker quisling originally from my home state of Wisconsin but left decades ago to become a wash DC insider so he really doesn't represent anyone other than whoever pays his re-election bills. Pretty much interchangeable with all the other 1%er bootlicker quislings. Wants to portray himself as a budgetary expert. In the traditional definition of liberal = wants to change things, he's the most liberal of the bunch. He hasn't actually done anything or stood for anything other than PR stuff (and he's "from my state" so I should know). In that way he's kind of a mystery man. The 1%er Manchurian candidate. You can't trust him and he's apparently got no ideas at all of his own.
I would anticipate Biden is going to crush Ryan in the veep debate just on general mental horsepower, which will be entertaining to watch.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Barack Obama = Dorothy
Joe Biden = Toto
Mitt Romney = The Scarecrow
Paul Ryan = The Tin Man
Apparently there's an article about him in Wikipedia.
Just f'ing great. Just as the US is going down the tubes, let's all base our choice on politicians NOT by the policies they espouse [1], but by gossip someone posted just like they were in high school. (clap clap clap)Good job Internet, you brought out the best of humanity for voting.
[1] As if they won't change 180 deg. when they get into office anyways
Your HOSTS file is pathetic. You must cower in the shadow of MyCleanPC. Teehee.
he was also voted prom king
Damn dislexia - I saw "porn king" instead of "prom king".
#0: local elections.
But seriously, if the vote were as meaningless as you dropouts like to make it out, why is so much energy being spent to deprive people of it?
Someone had to do it.
You forgot:
11. Don't vote, thereby assuring the guy you like least wins
If a frw more assholes had gotten off their asses in 2000 and voted, we would not have invaded iraq and we would not have a horrible deficit. al gore is not g w bush. and if you think they are the same person, or that their parties are the same, you really are a giant fucking moron
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Thought experiment:
EVERY SINGLE US Citizen voted on a referendum TODAY - with 100% turnout and 100% majority in favour of a mandate: "Withdraw US presence from Afghanistan and Pakistan without residual bases or support for any military or police forces."
What would be the outcome?
The issue is not AfPak. Substitute ANY issue you like of importance - particularly those that establish Imperial presence and influence. There would be no representation in the sense of a real Republic, for the governed people's wishes to be realised.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
If you don't know who Paul Ryan is, why do you care?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
... you'd realize that the GP was talking about George Romney running for President DESPITE being born in Mexico ...
US Citizenship is not simply based on where you were born, it also depends on the citizenship of the parents. If your parents were US citizens it does not matter where the child is born. Basically its being the child of US citizens OR being born on US soil.
Similarly, even if it were true that Obama was born outside the US - which he was not, his mother was a US citizen so he would have been born a US citizen.
As for the usefulness of Ryan's brown-noser status: Well it's not particularly important except that Americans like to know the personality of their prospective leaders.
All politicians are brown nosers, even Obama. Witness the years of sitting through Rev Wright's sermons even though he severely disagreed, sitting there merely because Wright was the local "king maker" and getting elected to the Illinois legislature without the Rev's support would be impossible.
Somehow "Screw You if You're Over 55!" doesn't have the ring if an effective campaign slogan to me.
Its not a campaign slogan. Its a campaign lie from the Dems. Ryan has always said that nothing changes for the over 55. Its only for the younger that he *proposes* radical changes. Note "proposal". You always propose more than you actually want so you have something to negotiate away.
How do you get your brain so broken that you only see bogeymen? Do you hit yourself with a hammer every day? Grow up, would you? All you geeks need to grow the everloving fuck up and shed this ideological mind cancer.
It seems that more people know what Paul Ryan's classmates thought of him than know who Libertarian VP candidate Jim Gray is, or Libertarian POTUS candidate Gary Johnson. Regardless of your views on Libertarians, it has to be considered an atrocity that the public isn't informed on all of the candidates who have a mathematical chance of winning the election. To me, that's a bigger concern about the media than what insignificant details they are squabbling over.
Brown noser? That's what they plan to run with? Amusing, maybe, but really irrelevant from a campaign standpoint. I agree with his supporters on that point.
The only forces there now are a small unit (under 1000 people) helping them with anti-terrorist operations.
Exactly, US forces are still stationed in a country in which we were formerly at war with. What's the exit strategy? Isn't 110 years of war in the Philippines enough?
Bosnia isn't a war situation for the US at all, but a police operation.
I seem to remember Bush saying the same thing about Iraq, and the liberal media attacking him for it, saying it was a real war. If it was a police action, then they should send POLICE OFFICERS. Not Soldiers.
But do keep blaming Democratic presidents for their historical actions as if you were genuinely offended. Such petty complaints only demonstrate the lack of authenticity from conservatives.
I'm not offended by overseas military presence, I am glad there are troops over there. Only pointing out the fact that there are US forces stationed in 4 countries as a result of wars started during Democratic presidents. AC posts like this reveal the institutional bias from liberals concerning their messiah, Barack Obama.
sudo make me a sandwich
The Left-leaning media is hard at work too.
FoxNation.com | 8/13
For some reason '60 Minutes' sent out a transcript of the Romney-Ryan interview but decided not to air the portion where Paul Ryan tells Bob Schieffer his mother is a "Medicare senior in Florida." Don't you think this is an important piece of information considering the Democrat Party's central line of attack against Ryan is that he "ends Medicare as we know it?"
BOB SCHIEFFER: You're going to have to see-- you're going to have to do a little selling.
PAUL RYAN: My mom is a Medicare senior in Florida. Our point is we need to preserve their benefits, because government made promises to them that they've organized their retirements around. In order to make sure we can do that, you must reform it for those of us who are younger. And we think these reforms are good reforms, that have bipartisan origins. They started from the Clinton commission in the late '90s.
http://nation.foxnews.com/cbs-news/2012/08/13/cbs-doesn-t-want-you-know-ryans-mother-medicare
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
I used to follow the political cycle quite closely, but over the years as the attacks have gotten nastier and the facts less important, I've found myself completely turned off by the whole thing. I was getting upset enough that it was actually causing me to stress out, which was when I decided to just tune out completely. I still vote and I still try and get the most unbiased facts about each candidate (not an easy task), but I don't listen to any of the news about the election and I've found that I'm a much happier person for having done so. As Ford Prefect said "Let them have their fun", I'm not going to be a part of the 'teh political drama' anymore.
Also, the vice presidential candidate was vote Biggest Brown Noser in high school. Really? This is the best we can come up with? Unless he was voted 'Most likely to become a homicidal maniac' I don't see how this is important. Funny? Yes. Something to actually seriously consider? No. Aren't there bigger things for us to worry about?
I was hoping for a discussion about how technology (and the ubiquity of Wikipedia) now allows for revisionist history in real-time, potential guards, etc.
I feared the discussion would quickly devolve into a political debate and ignore the actual topic.
I discovered that it didn't even start to talk about the technical topic, but instead went straight for the political flamebait material.
Thanks a lot, Slashdot. You managed to underwhelm even my most pessimistic expectations.
I normally try not to feed the trolls or the retards, but.... did it ever occur to you that there might be some differences in how troops are used in, say, Phillippines and Afghanistan? That there might be some differences in the costs associated with keeping troops in those countries? Or, heck, even a difference in how the troops are viewed and treated?
If anything, your pattern would indicate that Republican presidents are incapable of starting a proper war that has a good outcome for the US.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Your comment makes, from logical point of view, no sense
Exactly because I don't know who it is, I don't know if this is important enough for me to care. Google search brings up at least some actors and one(?) talk show host, one cinematographer, some politicians and a ton of other people by the same name - no wonder, it's a rather generic one. I guess he must be some politician in some country, given the context, but this still doesn't give me the nearly same info "Paul Ryan, proposed for the next free seat in Canada's highest court" or whatever would do without checking a bunch of results to see which one could match.
If you have not been paying enough attention to national politics to know who Paul Ryan is, you have not been paying enough attention to national politics to make an informed decision on who to vote for for President. If you do not know who Paul Ryan is and are still going to vote for President this fall, you are just picking a candidate at random.
If you are not a resident of the U.S., since Paul Ryan is running for Vice President, he is completely irrelevant to you (the Vice President is an irrelevant post unless the President dies while in office). The only reason Romney's selection of Paul Ryan is relevant to the U.S. electorate is because it tells them something about how he will govern, but it does not contain enough information to be useful to anyone who is not a resident of the U.S. and paying attention to national politics over the last few years.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That way we all could've voted for a ticket that is guaranteed to kill our country in one fell swoop AND keep the Democrats happy.
Seriously, you guys have Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Are you really feeling smug about this?
I was only pointing out Democratic wars in which the military is still stationed in the location where the war took place. To include everything would bring up Vietnam (started by a Democrat) among other wars.
If we want to switch to Republican wars we can look at Lincoln and the Civil War, Reagan and the Cold War, HW Bush and the Invasion of Kuwait. 'nuff said.
sudo make me a sandwich
...in high school, Paul Ryan's classmates voted him as his class's 'biggest brown noser,'...
Damn, this is one hard-ass high school. In my high school, we voted for things like 'Best Dressed', and 'Most Likely Too Succeed". The school let something like 'brown-noser' into the yearbook? Harsh.
That's the best you can do? You're missing Grenada, Ruby Ridge and Panama in your comparison as well. I mean, while we are on the topic of "wars" that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.
So really, you have no clue even about what you're saying yourself. You're just trying to cheer for a particular team, and don't real care whether you get the reasons right why you're cheering.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
See, that's all the info that needed to be in the starting sentence or the second one the latest - "running for vice president of the USA" (optionally for which side, but that's not that important really). Seriously, the story doesn't even have an "usa" tag or icon (it has the "wikipedia" icon), so how the hell should somebody from the outside guess?
It also makes the whole story a non-story. This happens with pretty much ever presidential candidate and people in their circles in those countries where this position matters. Francois Hollande's page (on the French Wikipedia) is still semi-locked, and the edit wars there didn't feature on Slashdot either. Pretty much the only exception I can think of in recent times is Vladimir Putin's presidential campaign.
if you don't vote, you reward the corrupt plutocracy. alienated and self-disenfranchised losers like yourself is what they DEPEND on happening, einstein, they put out propaganda and make political moves they KNOW will make zero heart, low iq fuckups like yourself wallow in self-pity and helplessness and withdraw from society. because you are WEAK and they know it
this is you, psychologically, and all other pathetic loser who rationalizes not voting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
THAT IS YOU PSYCHOLOGICALLY. KNOW THYSELF, LOSER
what deranged bullshit rationalization you have too: "I don't vote and I encourage everyone to not vote. When voter turn out is under 10% then perhaps you thick, dim-witted motherfuckers can finally pull your heads out of your ass and help us make a democracy that works and actually represents us."
what!? LOL
"i won't play with you, and that will force you to change your policies because you want me to play with you"
this is what you really believe?!
NO, RETARD: what happens is the plutocracy laughs even harder all the way to the bank: you've bowed down and submitted to them meekly and completely! they don't fucking care about you, they will never care about you, they are glad you won't participate and fight for beliefs, they depend upon your weakness! fight for what you believe, or roll over. you choose to roll over, with this bullshit low iq zero social skillset rationalization. fucking pathetic!
seriously, you and other self-disenfranchised morons to me represent the lowest scum of the earth. at least the plutocracy is evil. at least they honestly stand for something vile that you can fight. pathetic losers like you just represent zero willpower, complete cowardice, and utter lack of any human spirit or desire to fight for themselves. a fungal growth of useless loserville. you have done nothing but be deserving of zero respect. a perfect, meek, self-disenfranchising slave
a country of free people requires a country of people willing to fight for themselves. for not fighting for your beliefs, you represent the end of a free society. i cannot adequately express how much i disrespect and loathe your thinking, because your thinking and bullshit rationalizations represents the end of free society
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No troops in Grenada today, Ruby Ridge is already the U.S. so not applicable. Panama has troops for the obvious reason, to keep the Panama Canal open and shave weeks off of a voyage from the East to West coast.
It appears the best you can do is steal Obama campaign talking points (a.k.a. newspeak) and blindly support your messiah.
sudo make me a sandwich
Note to Slashdot readers: You must hate Paul Ryan.
His classmates voted him as his class's 'biggest brown noser,'
The shorter version of that would be “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Yes, it's often frustrating how voting isn't effective, but would your rather not be allowed to vote?
Saying the vote is meaningless here is going too far. You don't live in a banana republic, a soviet state. You don't get your ideal candidate partially because none of you vote in the primaries, and partially because this is the real world. Vote, and if you're still not satisfied with the results, do more next time.
Quisling. I've learned something new.
You know, if you toned down the cynicism a bit you'd be a decent political commenter. Or if you staged it in such a way that everyone knew you were a crotchety old bastard. Like if you (or a 60+ facimile of you) recorded this in a recliner and told everyone to piss off when you were done. Or if you were arguing at the other regulars in a barbershop.
Then please help me, informed one, who the fuck do you vote for? The plutocrat on the red team, the plutocrat on the blue team, or the third party guy that everyone seems convinced is a lunatic? How do I sift through all the bullshit to find out reality surrounding the third party candidates? Is Ron Paul a madman, or is there a conspiracy to illegitimize him? What the fuck happened to Buddy Roemer? Who here immediately responded with: "Who?"
Where do you find these facts upon which you base your decision to vote, and with such conviction upon which you judge those who don't vote. How do you validate those facts? More importantly, rather than bitching at and insulting the people who are so fed up with the system that they've become apathetic, why aren't you actually try to fix things by sharing with them your magical nuggets of golden truth that you seem to possess. I sure as fuck could use some of them, 'cause I feel like I can't vote for feeling it's impossible to be well informed about any of the candidates beyond their rhetoric, misinformation, bumper sticker sloagans, and American flags. I'm not a slave; I just refuse to take part in making a decision blindly or based upon rhetoric.
Accomplishing that last bit is what makes you informative and helpful, and helps you accomplish what you seem to want to do. Up until you do that though, you just come off as a self-righteous asshole, getting high off his latest moral crusade.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Sham democracy is a real shame.
The 2000 US Presidential fiasco only served to highlight the obvious - that US democracy functions about as effectively for the Republic as did the voting for party members in a Soviet.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
You know, I missed the fact that they never mentioned that it was a presidential campaign, which would have provided the little bit of context that would allow someone who is not in the U.S. to connect this to what is going on (and ignore it if they were not following U.S. Presidential politics closely enough to know who Paul Ryan was, since such a person would have no interest in the story).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Heh. Can't keep your own rules straight about what wars qualify, actually don't know your history and get your facts wrong, make random accusations... you're entertaining. In a trainwreck way.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Aren't those usually funny, or at least amusing?
P.S. he left out the thing that belongs to a top ten reason.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045075&cid=40973323
if you can't tell the difference between the candidates, this says more about you than the candidates
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045075&cid=40973323
if you can't tell the difference between the candidates, this says more about you than the candidates
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So, from your link, I _AM_ supposed to just flippantly vote for whatever guy I happen to like the most at the time based upon whatever information I happen to have heard about them most recently? That's what I'm hearing, or you're supplied me with a snide copout, one of the two.
I will ask, again, more plainly: Where do you get your political information from such that you can trust it's validity? I don't like either of the major party candidates. I think they're both sides of the same coin on everything that actually does matter. Clearly this DOES say much about me. Now, can you recommend me an alternative or not? All the third party candidates I'm aware of have either been buried or subject to such smear campaigns I can't tell if they're raving lunatics or not. You're the well informed one here, and I am just a stupid slave after all. Please, help me save me from myself.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
if you don't vote, you reward the corrupt plutocracy.
If you do vote, you also reward the corrupt plutocracy.
If you abstain: You allow evil to prevail by default
If you vote R: You're voting for corrupt plutocracy
If you vote D: You're voting for corrupt plutocracy
If you vote third party: You get laughed at.
What does one actually do that hurts the plutocracy?
a country of free people requires a country of people willing to fight for themselves. for not fighting for your beliefs, you represent the end of a free society.
What part of voting == fighting for your beliefs?
I don't vote, but if you're serious about fighting for what's right, I'll meet you in the city square with everyone else. When do we start?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
There are multiple ways of looking at the 2000 election. The way I take is that the election was extremely close. More people voted for Gore, but not by an overwhelming amount. That's still way too many idiots who actually voted for Bush. It should have been a landslide: Bush was proposing putting a giant hole in the economy with the tax cuts for the wealthy during the campaign. And nearly half the country voted for it.
That the supreme court declared Bush the president despite the butterfly ballot and popular vote was really just the cherry on the top. To me, the bulk of the problem was that the voters were too dumb to know they were voting to sacrifice the economy for the extremely wealthy to buy another mansion.
It looks like this AC is having a bad day. It's alright AC, be quiet and let the grown ups discuss events. And this time, don't drool loudly.
There are a variety of things that contribute to higher health care costs, but getting more services (particularly imaging) is expensive, and not driven by evil insurance companies. They quietly pay the bill. Insurance companies went through the hate of HMOs (when services were limited, price negotiations with providers were tough, etc). They don't do that anymore, they just pay whatever bill they are handed.
If you are going to extend the same standard of treatment the "haves" get right now in the US to the "have nots", you will have to dramatically increase the number of doctors, specialists, hospitals and equipment. That will cost more money, not less. The only way to provide the same service to everyone is to increase cost, limit service, or somehow force providers to work for little or nothing. 60% of health care costs are labor costs. If your going to make a big difference in cost, your going to have to touch labor somehow.
Overall, there are a number of contributers to higher prices:
Defensive medicine (extra tests/imaging, "just to be sure", and because when you are legally liable, you can't trust another doctor's tests/diagnosis without risk of a massive suit)
Extravagant use of medical care (ER for sniffles, etc - talk to an ER nurse, they are a cynical lot; hip replacements for extreme elderly - recall Obama's discussion of his grandmothers hip replacement (which he partially paid for, and quietly wondered whether it was worth it), etc, etc.)
Poor acceptance of responsiblity for one's own health amongst the American population (poor diet, poor exercise, poor compliance with dr. instructions - personal recollection of a 400lb-ish diabetic heart patient on dialysis "doc, just fix me")
Legislation restricting price negotiation by insurers, reimportation of drugs, training of doctors, etc.
Profit by providers
Profit by insurers
Lottery style lawsuit system (cost rolled back into the system via malpractice insurance, resulting in dr charging higher fees)
In other words, its not just greedy insurers. Pretty much everyone involved in heath care, including (especially) the recipients, is playing a part in making health care more expensive.
You do what everyone does in life in everything: you decide based on the imperfect information you have. Having imperfect information is no excuse for inaction.
Generally, the way a voucher plan works is:
1) Companies offer insurance plans that have some set of defined benifits. This plan is required to have some minimun elements. It might use a different deductable/co-pay schedule. It might have different copays for different services. It might even have some restrictions on services (must see a plan doctor, must get approval of non-emergency services, doesn't cover brand names drugs for which there is a generic equivelent, etc). Medicare itself does these things to some basic degree (not all dr accept Medicare, not all services are covered, pays 80% on most services). This would include your NHS comparable level of benifit. It may have additional elements (plastic surgery, health clubs, international coverage, etc). But, you could not have exclusions for pre-existing conditions or not cover dialysis, for example.
2) Price of the plan set by the insurance company.
3) Value of the voucher set by the government.
4) Consumer chooses a plan, pays the difference (if any).
With the elderly, everyone has a pre-existing condition. Modern medicine can find something wrong with everyone, if they look. Only people without pre-existing conditions are those avoiding doctors.
The idea is that a privately run plan can be more efficient. As a Medicare recipient, I think this is highly likely. For example, Medicare requires a "diagnosis code" every time I get a service, including drugs. As it happens, I am a transplant recipient, and am on immunosuppressives. I will be on them for the rest of my life (barring some miracle medical advance), and the diagnosis code for those drugs will be the same for as long as I am taking them. But, Medicare continues to insist on this piece of bureacracy. Anthem/Blue Cross does not - they just pay the bill without question, so far.
Wow, the second time in my life that I end up agree with CTS... I do hope hell freezes over soon since its almost 115 degrees (F, obviously) on my patio.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I made no claim that our health costs are lower than those of nations with socialist health care, I said our economy is better off than it would be under such a system. Comparing the amount spent does not compare the effect on the economy. The economy is not a zero sum game, the amount of health care goods and services consumed per capita is not a constant, and the GDP per capita of a nation- and thus their ability to afford a given level of health care- would not stay constant when shifting to a socialist health care system.
A relatively free market generally leads to greater economic growth and greater prosperity. In a more prosperous nation, people are able to afford more - and higher quality - goods and services. When people can buy what they want rather than only consuming what some central authority decides they "need," they're likely to buy more.
If you had compared US per-capita spending on food or real estate to that of the USSR you would have seen the same effect. Saying "we were able to reduce health care costs by making everybody wait in a long queue to get most kinds of service" is just like saying "communism can feed the masses more cheaply- through rationing, we only spend $0.25 per person per day on food." The result is not prosperity.
as long as civilization exists, in whatever democratic political system possible, you will only get a choice between weakly appealing candidates
the point of a candidate is to appeal to as many people as possible. therefore, he or she will have beliefs that appeal broadly to many people, and therefore, as a direct consequence of that fact, also appeal weakly across that spectrum of people he or she appeals to. the alternative is to have a narrow set of beliefs that appeal strongly to a handfu of people. this is what you want. but you want, is for the candidate to lock themselves into a narrow ideology. they will excite a select few who strongly agree with the candidate, and therefore, obviously, the candidate will lose the election
because you are not a realist on this matter, because you are an idealist, you hold your vote hostage to a fantasy existence that will never take place
grow up, you petulant child
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045075&cid=40973323
if you can't tell the difference between the candidates, this says more about you than the candidates
"I don't vote, but if you're serious about fighting for what's right, I'll meet you in the city square with everyone else. When do we start?"
if you want a revolution, i will fight you myself. because a revolution is full of far greater misery and suffering than the corruption of the plutocracy. furthermore, no one controls a revolution, and what comes out on the other end of that horror and terror could be a system far worse than what you started with
your democracy is a sick patient. CURE IT, YOU FUCKING LOSER, DON'T KILL IT
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if you can't tell the difference between the candidates, this says more about you than the candidates
Even if that were true, it's unhelpful. Some people are naturally less interested in politics or have a lower 'political IQ', or IQ in general. How do you suggest they discern between the candidates?
Wait, you think they're on the same side regarding Social Security & Medicare? Then you need to read some more. (If you'd've said they were on the same side regarding government mandated health care in general, I might agree.. Romney's flip-flopping is one of the things I dislike most about him.)
you are correct. it is perhaps natural that we must suffer these loud whining blind ignorant naive fools who will never understand the simple concept. it seems more like an elementary math concept to me though, not a political concept:
1. someone who appeals weakly to a lot
2. someone who appeals strongly to a few
#1 wins the election, obviously. loud dumb boorish fools still glom onto #2s, and pollute internet discussion forums with WHARGARBBBL.
forever, in all democratic systems, our choice will only be between #1s
it is a shame some are just too fucking blinded by their idealism to see the simple point. hopeless stubborn stupidity. but in election like in the year 2000, we see the costs. this is why they anger me. if only a few more had voted for gore rather than nader: no massive deficit, no iraq war
a tragedy of blind stubborn ignorance
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yea, your real independent. Democrats are golden gods, Republicans are filthy fucking shill necon manchurian bootlickers.
And this crap gets modded interesting? Really? What in the world did this add to anything?
The independent. Failing to vote shows you don't care. Voting for an independent shows you care, but don't like either candidate.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, they should keep the ideology, and ditch the party-blindness.
What we really need is more gridlock. If they can pass laws unfettered, they will spam us with so many laws (some good, perhaps, by inverse sturgeon's law), that we won't know where to begin to try and roll back the tyranny.
In fact, I think a lot of idealistic slashdotters would like to see rollback of a lot of the laws we already have, though there is probably some division as to precisely which ones (I suspect we'd be better of with the union of those lists than the intersection, though...).
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
All the third party candidates I'm aware of have either been buried or subject to such smear campaigns I can't tell if they're raving lunatics or not. You're the well informed one here, and I am just a stupid slave after all. Please, help me save me from myself.
The third party candidates have websites, you know. Can you not read what they claim they want and evaluate for yourself how crazy it sounds?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Did it ever occur to you what they might have in common?
Looked so intently that you went off on a post that didn't actually have the comparison you were looking for? Interesting.....
vote strategically, not idealistically
it's that simple
you will never get your hero to win an election
forever more, you will only have a choice between a handful who weakly appeal to you. pick the one who appeals to you slightly stronger than than the rest: strategic voting
that is as good as it will ever get, that is the best you can ever hope to do with your vote
if you hold it hostage because your hero is not available to vote for, or you vote for your hero to get 1% of the election, you are a moron, and your vote rewards the electability of the guy you like the least
understand reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's obvious that the pages for President Obama, Vice President Biden, Governor Romney and Representative Ryan have been "locked" (which means only a very tiny cadre of editors can change the page) for some time. As such, this avoids most of the issues of editors putting in incorrect information.
Yea, your real independent. Democrats are golden gods
LOL astroturf much? "Just another crook from Illinois" "You can't trust him, he has bad ideas" "Babbles a lot" "a bit too lefty for my tastes" " just another elderly hippie" "he's got an obsolete outlook on the world" Yeah, obviously I'm angling for a cabinet post by kissing up.
Or the alternative interpretation of your remarks is the R's are so horrific that in comparison the D's are, relatively, "golden gods". Not in an absolute sense obviously.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The best explanation of Romney's flip flopping was pretty simple: He just wants to win so he says whatever people want to hear and does whatever the loudest voices in his party tell him to do. As president he'll probably do whatever the real power controllers in the Republican party tell him to do. That will probably start with pay backs to his billionaire backers.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Again you really believe that? WOW! I figure he was a life insurance policy by Obama.
Like I wrote, he is a talker.. big time... easily the biggest talker of all 4 candidates. Lets say for the sake of argument that every 20 hours that he babbles he says one comedic blooper that belongs on twitter hashtag #shitbidensays or something like that. Its probably much higher number of hours, but whatever. Luckily for him the debate is only a tiny fraction of 20 hours, and everything is rehearsed and planned in advance unlike his weirdest off the cuff remarks, so statistically he's extremely likely not to screw up at the debate. Other than that he's pretty good at this public speaking stuff....
Ryan's trying to portray himself as mr budget, and he's got nothing else but tired tea party sloganeering, which is going to make his performance about as appealing as a watching a cross between a video taped accounting audit and a tea party rally, which is probably going to horrify all but the core who were going to vote for him anyway regardless of how much he screws up. It's just a dumb way to "play the game" for a veep like WTF are you thinking or maybe he's an idiot. Probably more likely, he was playing the game trying to get some kind of vaguely financial-related post in Romney's cabinet (probably a very good place for him...) and now he has to figure out a whole new strategy. Whoops.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I've talked to some otherwise reasonable people who voted for Bush (twice even), and their reasons were spectacularly stupid. They voted for him because they hoped to one day be rich enough to take advantage of the massive tax cuts for the rich. These were 9 to 5, mid level IT people.
It's a fairly common delusion among Americans, even when the only thing they're doing to reach the goal is buying lottery tickets, that they believe that one day they will be one of the rich and powerful and thus they oppose any limits on the rich and powerful. It's madness.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
An optimist tells you the glass is half full, a pessimist tells you the glass is half empty.
Which one is lying?
But that doesn't really fit him signing the Romneycare bill into law, does it?
That's what I don't get. I believe the same side as what he _says now_ (that he's against mandated health care), but the fact that he can't even see the inconsistency or anything is what I dislike. (If he honestly changed his mind, and tried to overturn the bill he signed, I could understand.)
9 times as many Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader. And each Gore vote going to Bush was twice as bad for the Democratic ticket as a Gore vote going to Nader.
Indeed. So are you going to spend the next 180 years blaming conservative Democrats to make up for the last 10 of blaming liberal voters?
Well, sure. On one hand, you have a right wing authoritarian who has no respect for the Constitution or his base, wants more free trade and less regulation, more drilling, wants to slash Social Security, Medicare, and home heating assistance.
And on the other, you have a guy who wont release his tax returns.
Obama could have mounted a right-wing primary challenge of Reagan in 1984, based on his record.