Slashdot Mirror
IT Industry Presidential Poll: 'Not Sure' Beats Both Obama and Romney
CIStud writes "A new poll conducted of IT industry executives and integrators shows a divided and unsure industry regarding which presidential candidate is better for Information Technology to prosper. The poll, conducted by JZ Analytics on behalf of CompTIA, shows 'Not Sure' winning in four out of five areas. President Obama holds and edge over Mitt Romney in every category, including which person is best for the IT industry in terms of tax policy (remarkably), access to capital, tech exports, education and privacy."
I heard he talked all faggy, and his shit was totally fucked up.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
He's gonna fix EVERYTHING!
Romney and Obama both serve special interests.. the only real difference I can see is that one can prove he's eligible to be President of the United States and the other has used every trick in the book to conceal his true self. Pick the devil you know or the one you don't. Either way, the people lose.
Not Sure gets my vote. http://yellowbananasuit.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/idiocracy21.jpg
Most of the people choosing "Not Sure" probably wanted to pick Ron Paul or Gary Johnson but weren't given the choice. They need to recognize that those aren't the only choices!
I posit that the only reason 'Not Sure' was the number one response is likely because 'None of the Above' wasn't an option.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Put none of the above on all the ballots. So that people can send a message that they don't want any of the candidates in office. If none of the above wins the election then those that are running are disqualified from the election. Time to chose new candidates.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Don't just point out Not Sure, the third option was was Not Sure/Neither.
We all know who they want Mittens and his money buddies. Executives and integrators have no interest is "what's best for the IT industry", they only care about the $$$$$.
"The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
"redefinition of marriage" - I think you mean equal rights for all.
"attacks on traditional morality and religion" - WTF does that even mean? What exactly do you mean?
"legalize weed" - not gonna happen. Too bad too.
A well designed poll would had put CowboyNeal as president.
One or both of them should change his/their name(s) to Not Sure.
> "legalize weed" - not gonna happen. Too bad too.
What other major component of his base has yet to get a major bone thown to them, usually in a totally lawless fashion? Think about it. He announces he is ordering Federal law enforcement resources to be 'redirected' away from enforcing the laws against weed. Lots of blah blah about it being his discretionary authority to direct scarce resources in this time of budget crisis, etc. The message to the college/youth vote will be unmistakable: Romney would instantly reverse this executive order but if I get reelected you can light up forever because after four years weed will be such a open and accepted part of society none would dare revert the change. So you stoners better get off yer ass and put the bong away long enough to drag my sorry ass across the finish line.
Democrat delenda est
Interesting. There was a time, not so long ago where a low 6-figure salary made you the enemy. Some of you are probably getting bit in the balls by the Alternative Minimum Tax, passed and never indexed to inflation, because a handful of evil rich in the 60s used legal tax loopholes to vastly redce or eliminate their tax.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
"including which person is best for the IT industry in terms of tax policy (remarkably)"
Some people might think that in the long run lower taxes is not necessarily "best" for the IT industry.
This is the wrong question.
IT is highly, highly dependent upon a strong business economic situation to do well. Without actual production, there is no market for IT products and services (other than the bare minimum to keep things running). Many, many businesses have cut back over the past 10 years on IT spending, and it shows in both jobs available and the current state of most company's IT infrastructure: many 'big companies' are still running 8-10 year old equipment because it still works.
The correct question is, "Which Presidential candidate is better for business long-term profitability?" I'm not saying that one has an answer, either, but short of vacuous venture capital and angel funded trendy shit, it's the same answer.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
This was central to many polls, even Gallup polls, in the presidential primaries earlier this year that disenfranchised Ron Paul.
He's a flat-taxer, so I wouldn't really worry about him much.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056237&cid=41031159
I agree with everything you've said. I'd like to point out the Paul Ryan is the only candidate that's willing to bring up Medicare's problems and the fact that it's not sustainable at current income and spending levels.
Now it's a question if one agrees with his solution - cut spending - as opposed to increasing the Medicare tax.
Unfortunately, I agree that some serious looks must be taken at federal finances but the Republicans want to increase defense spending while cutting everything else and refusing to increase taxes.
The democrats as far as I can tell, are willing to make some cuts but more than likely they will increase taxes to make up the shortfalls while making token cuts here and there.
As a fiscal and government consevative, I find both parties solutions inadequate and doomed to failure.
I just wish the public would get over the distraction issues - everything the social conservatives care about. The Government has no business in our personal lives and religion has no business in government.
That should beat 'Not Sure'
A vote either Romney or Obama is wasted chance for something different. But if you like things the way they are, you can't beat those two.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'm not sure if Obama has taken a position on the labor alienation, commodity fetishism or historical materialism, let alone the Hegelian dialectic as it applies to capital. He might have said something once about the labor theory of value being wrong, or about the relative moral value of M-C-M' transactions in a market, but I may be mistaken.
This word, "marxism," I do not think it means what you think it means.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I fundamentally disagree with your analysis. It displays a lack of understanding of political power and Obama is neither a Marxist or a Socialist. But that's not what I want to address today. What we need to address is this:
Obama and Romney differ very little when it comes to the actual issues
You're kidding, right?
One pushed through a big health care reform which will cover millions of uninsured people while the other is moving as far away from his (mostly identical) program as possible.
One believes that progressive taxation is essential to prosperity. The other has done everything he can to make the tax system regressive.
One believes we need to regulate the financial sector to ensure stability. The other has pledged to tear down what little regulation we have.
One has invested in renewable energy and the other says he will fund "traditional" energy sources and dismantle decades of environmental law.
One may agree or disagree with the candidates on these points but one cannot honestly say there is no difference between them.
Who -isn't- pro-outsourcing/rightsizing on the ticket? The Democrats have been a source of constant disappointment on this, but are you seriously trying to sell us the Bain guy or the Libertarian as the solution?
The only "economic consequences" leading to outsourcing are the pools of cheap labor outside the U.S. and the lack of restrictions on exploiting it from inside the U.S., much as the only forces leading to "job creation" are people with money (or credit) who are willing and able to spend it, such as the middle and lower classes. I would love a better choice on this than the Democrats but the others only seem to want to accelerate the destruction!
This poll would have been more informative if they surveyed people working in the IT industry rather than the executives running it. The latter party has different interests than the former. For example, they might want to see the H1B visa cap lifted, whereas, I being somewhere in the trenches, do not.
So his "preference cascade" is where he sides with the "cut taxes erryday!" party and then suddenly falls into line on prohibition, establishing a state religion, and oppressing homosexuals. I see that happen with a lot of libertarians.
I guess it's the only way to explain a party that's basically an alliance of hardcore Christian social values and economic policy lifted from LaVeyan Satanism.
The fact that "derp" is generally a more popular choice than a reasoned, deliberate stand on one side of a choice is news because...?
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Very very few people are really not sure. What this really means is that most people are voting "I'm not a republican but I'm voting Romney anyways and don't want to admit it."
"I'd rather suck a dick" would probably win.
Flat taxes are not inherently bad... If they also go along with sufficiently effective and progressive social benefits.
The problem with most flat tax advocates though is that they want the rich to play less and keep getting all their benefits, but want the poor to pay more and get fewer benefits.
A 50% flat tax on all personal income (including capital gains, and with a 0% corporate income tax rate) could pay for 100% of what the government currently spends money on and also provide a stipend to every household equal to the poverty line. That isn't really an optimal solution, but it is technically feasible.
Most It types are progressive in their political leanings, favor Obama's redefinition of marriage, attacks on traditional morality and religion and are just waiting on him to legalize weed, probably as soon as the convention. So of course they are chomping at the bit to pull the lever again. Of course they also live in constant fear of being outsourced or rightsized and totally fail to connect their political views to the economic consequences they cause.
So how exactly does marriage, religion, and cannabis connect to outsourcing and rightsizing? Connect the dots for us.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Boy, wouldn't it be nice if more people who talked about economics read, you know, actual economics? Instead of partisan blogs?
Thanks for that. You'd get mod points, if I had any. Instead, you are alienated from the fruits of your labor.
That's not even slightly what he was suggesting.
I agree, that sounds feasible. But since you're giving everyone back a huge portion of their tax, is it really a flat tax anymore? Seems like it's basically just a progressive tax structure, by virtue of giving the poor all their taxes(and them some) back.
Too bad the facts don't agree with you.
> Connect the dots for us.
Should be pretty obvious. They are voting for social policy. They either don't believe Obama's (and the rest of the Ds) policies are the reason for the bad economy or don't care about that as much as they care about the social stuff.
Democrat delenda est
Obama has shown what he is very clearly when he confiscated GM from the owners and handed it over to the union labour (in fact the non-union labour was also left out to dry). He does not believe in ownership of means of production. As to him being a socialist, it is you, who must be kidding.
One pushed through a big health care reform which will cover millions of uninsured people while the other is moving as far away from his (mostly identical) program as possible.
- They are identical on this topic. First of all Romney's plan is Obama's plan. Secondly Romney is not going to cut anything from either Medicare or SS. It's not his plan.
Paul Ryan is a complete joke, total sell out, a fraud. His 'plan' makes rosy assumptions that will never come true about the interest rates and growth of economy and he never cuts anything from any budget.
Even his supposed cuts to the rate of growth of the government are nonsense, they can't start for another 10 years, that's what the point is that he is bringing across - if you are 55 or over, you will not be affected by his cuts.
But there are no cuts. No cut is a cut unless it's done in the first term of presidency, everything else is a funny game they like to play. Even the so called 'sequestration', or automatic cuts that were the deal to avoid the US rating from being cut further by the rating agencies (political beats, not real rating agencies), even this is not going to happen and this was the agreement just 1 year ago.
Why would anybody care what anybody says about any cuts 10 and more years into the future? USA doesn't have 10 years, the US dollar and bonds will be destroyed much earlier than that.
One believes that progressive taxation is essential to prosperity. The other has done everything he can to make the tax system regressive.
- ha, the ONLY difference between Romney and Obama in this is that the top earners will have the SAME CUTS as the rest of them under Romney's plan, and Obama, as the Marxist that he is, is leading the class warfare, so he is going to give tax cuts to everybody except the top 1% (that's his platform).
(As to 'believing in progressive taxation' - what a stupid idea. Progressive taxation is simply theft, nothing else, it cannot grow anything by definition, it removes the investment funding from the productive part of society and moves it to the unproductive part).
One believes we need to regulate the financial sector to ensure stability. The other has pledged to tear down what little regulation we have.
- USA has over 100,000 regulations of financial institutions in place, that's first. Secondly - Obama is not going to do anything more than than Romney.
Here is the real problem - the financial sector is the symptom of the dying economy, it's not the cause of it. It doesn't produce anything on its own, it can only discover prices and allocate resources, the production is dying not because of the financial sector, but because of the size and power of government, that destroyed the savings, investments and incentives to create the welfare state. Regulating or not regulating the financial sector will do absolutely nothing to fix the economy, this is about as meaningful as your idea on progressive taxes.
By the way, James Calaghan was one of the PMs in UK, here is what he said at the 1976 Labour Party conference, when UK was doing what US is doing now:
"We used to think you could spend your way out of recession and increase employment by boosting government spending, I tell you, in all candour, that that option no longer exists. And in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion⦠by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next stepâ¦
As to the energy sources, this is again, a market decision, not government decision to make and it will not be.
There is no difference between Romney and Obama.
You can't handle the truth.
This is because you are very closely aligned with the status quo. Romney isn't really going to deregulate banks. He's not going to get rid of fractional reserve banking and go to 100% hard money. He is just going to use the power to benefit a different group than Obama.
From the libertarian point of view both of these guys just want to use their power to punish their enemies and reward their friends. Would you call it socialist, capitalist, or fascist or some other term?
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Are you trolling? You actually think its a good idea to waste taxpayer dollars going after weed?
Reality has a liberal bias
On what basis do you claim that GM was "confiscated"? Did the state ever hold title on GM? It did make loans to GM, and it only tendered these loans with conditions, the sort of conditions any lender in such a situation might do, but it never appropriated or "nationalized" GM in the style of a popular socialist government (you're actually accusing him of socialism, not Marxism).
If you want to argue about the priority of labor contract claims over shareholders and bondholders, you need to take your argument up with three hundred years of bankruptcy law.
I'm not sure if, by your standard, there's ever been an American president who wasn't a Marxist. Your criteria, if the GM bankruptcy liquidation to New GM is your predicate, is indistinguishable from an FDIC bank reorganization. We could call it Marxism, but given that Obama is more right-wing than a French UMP deputy, more militaristic than a British Tory, and more free-marketeering than the median German libertarian, I'm not sure where that leaves the terminology.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Mr. Not Sure may be relatively popular among the IT crowd, but why should I throw away my vote on someone who isn't going to win?
I'm voting for Kodos.
When I read the conspicuous, "tax policy (remarkably)," I immediately clicked on the link to see what kinds of other bias TFA harbored.
And I found none - not even the original glaring "remarkably...."
So now /. allows such blatant editorializing to be added by any submitter who otherwise copy-paste?
Romney just doesn't do well with off the cuff remarks, at all' His latest gaffe, his birther remark, shows once again what a loose cannon he is. I don't think he means to sound malicious and mean, he just can't help himself. Someone glue a teleprompter to him 24/7.
Submitter seems to have presented the poll result quite inaccurately, assuming we can believe TFA. The choice wasn't "Not Sure" ; it was "Neither / Not Sure". People might have been very sure about which candidate was best, but it wasn't listed in the previous two choices, so they picked "Neither."
What's is your favorite pet to cuddle with?
People who like to cuddle with dogs, when they pick the third choice, are not actually signalling any sort of lack of conviction. They can be very sure and saying they answered "not sure" would be a damn lie.
Mitt doesn't want it, and Obama is for it. I would suspect most /. people would side with Obama on this issue?
Which planet did this happen on? Speaking as a GM stockholder I can assure you it did not happen on Planet Earth.
What is wrong with legalizing drugs. Why should the government waste millions of our taxes on idiots that are hurting themselves. It's not my responsibility to make sure you can take care of your self, so why should I pay for it?
What is wrong with a flat tax? In a capitalistic community there should be a fairly flat tax of near zero or zero. About the only thing that taxes should pay for is public goods. And there should be little to no laws that limit our entry into any market, this includes the currently illegal drugs, education, medical.
Why does it matter who marries who, even if you think it's a sin. How does someone else marriage affect you? Heck with today's tax laws it's even less beneficial to be married (don't let the tax guys lie to you, the taxes for a single person filing solo = limit * 1, takes for a married person = limit * .75, for a married couple filing joint = 1.5 (which is .75*2 which is effectively the same as two people filing solo. So if you both work the government actually takes more.) The thing is that the law won't stop gays from living to together, doing what they want, holding a ceremony, or even preaching their views to your or your children. So all the law is stopping them from doing is getting a piece of paper and making them pay more taxes. (unless one of them is a leach then the marriage actually benefits them.)
You forgot one option: they have no reason to believe that the alternative would be any better regarding the economy, and therefore have to choose based on other issues.
Dilbert RSS feed
You ought to be a member of the Prohibition Party
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
I guess my point, that by your standard, every politician on Earth is a Marxist, is basically conceded?
Governments interfering with large bankruptcies is quite common; George W. Bush was no Marxist, but he initiated TARP. If you wanna argue the merits of your approach do so, but your attempts to label your enemies are obnoxious and lacking in any kind of rational basis.
I'm sorry the world doesn't live up to your standards, but as the saying goes, you can either carpet the earth or wear shoes. (OTOH you might have a point: George Bernard Shaw, A FUCKING SOCIALIST, once said that all progress depended on the unreasonable man. So shine on you crazy diamond.)
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Fox Approved language, hot off the fax machine from the RNC. And you didn't notice his sig.
"Obama's redefinition of marriage" Check.
"Attacks on traditional morality and religion" Check.
Only things he missed were, "Obama's high gas prices" and "Not a US citizen". Obviously not ready for his own show quite yet.
Die-stamped neocon with typical disregard for freedom, fairness, and the American way? Check.
Let's add "None of the above" as a choice and require the winner (of a states electoral votes) to have a simple majority in that state's race.
Of course, if we did that, we'd need to shorten the length of the election process dramatically or we'd all go insane.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
"Obama does not believe in private ownership and operation of means of production and he has displayed this in practice, GM was confiscated from its rightful owners, the non-union labourers also lost their share and the company was given away to the labour union."
And then Obama, the Marxist, apparently let GM buy back what was "confiscated" from the government?
I don't get it. Where's that part in the communist manifesto or whatever source you're using?
"I don't need Obama to be theoretically a Marxist, he is practically a Marxist."
By that rationale, so was Roosevelt for that whole "New Deal" thing, but I think the case would be a lot stronger for his example. Not that it is a convincing case (it's ridiculous), but it would be more plausible. Ironically, it was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act from that era that is widely held to be one of the reasons for the 2008 financial crisis. Those free-market capitalists. Always looking for a little less constraint on their operations. Always looking out for the interests of the free market and the general economy, of course.
I guess the correct free-market, non-Marxist thing to do was to let the whole economy crater. Alas, the start of the whole "bailout" approach can't really be pinned on Obama. He can only be blamed for continuing it. It started with George W. Bush in the last few months of his term, who, I presume, is also regarded as a Marxist for starting the process.
Frankly, I think the economic policies of these guys has more to do with the Marx Brothers than Karl Marx. Same for your understanding.
I heard he ain't even got a tattoo...
(but then again I also heard Obama ain't even got a birth certificate or Romney tax returns so what the hell...)
Between a lying, two-faced, hypocritical tyrant wannabe and a lying two-faced, hypocritical, predatory mega millionaire either one of which will say absolutely anything to get elected!
Oh wait! there ARE "OTHER" candidates and political parties, all of which have been systematically ignored by the corporate media and excluded from any presidential debate!
Assuming ANY presidential election isn't rigged and assuming that your vote matters (BIG ASSUMPTION) vote you conscience, but keep both eyes open!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.
That's what happens when you elect a Democrat president and Republican congress.
You get a government that can't actually do anything. i.e. that acts exactly as if it's not sure of anything.
And thus the libertarians actually win a lot of the time, since there are so many castrated governments in the US.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
All the folks stumping for Not Republican AND Not Democrat need to get in a room and then hash things out so that there is a Single Viable Candidate (or at least maybe a Green and a Purple Candidate). Then hit they can hit the road and when 2016 gets here we can attempt to break the Red/Blue lockup.
right now what we have is Donkey Elephant and a Zoo full of chattering Critters
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Obama's a DICK! That's right!!! South Carolina!!! REPRESENT YA'LL!!!
The original flat tax moron is the guy suggesting obama would legalize weed to get "stoners" to vote for him. He's not supporting legalization.
So all the law is stopping them from doing is getting a piece of paper and making them pay more taxes. (unless one of them is a leach then the marriage actually benefits them.)
Marriage is about a lot more than taxes. There are cases of gay people being denied visiting rights in a hospital to their de-facto spouse because they weren't married and couldn't be married. Then their spouse died.
So yeah, go fuck yourself if you think it's not important and not a civil right.
Only an American would call Obama a Marxist. The United States is made of up 300 million political ignoramuses. Have you even read Marx?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What we've understood is that you know little or nothing about Marxism, socialism or political theory. How can you possibly b an adult when you have the political sense of a three legged dog trying to chew his apps off.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Judging by what happened to the economy last time a Republican held the presidency, can you blame them?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1) "Some Puerto Rican guy"
2) "Lance Armstrong"
3) "None of the Above"
4) "Seymore Heinee"
I'm pretty sure they'll all do better than Obama or Romney. Just goes to show you Romney should have chosen Seymore Heinee as his running mate.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
On bOth points I think you're likely lying. Making absurd. Pains to cover you're incredible stupidity is not unusual. And your post has all the hallmarks of some pathetic partisan trying to find cover.
Wake me up when Obama is instituting the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
idiocracy is becoming true Not Sure is leading in the polls for president
Most of Romney's foreign policy advisors are from McCain's camp, complete with warmongering views. I hoped the election of Obama had ended neocon influence in the presidency, but I was wrong. I hoped that Donald Trump could talk Romney out of the advisors' warmongering ways, but I am wrong. I am not voting for another Neocon. Obama has been a disappointment on Iraq, but I might have to choose the lesser evil... again.
obamacare is better on the outsource Contract side where Contractors have more choice then the Romney plan.
I don't see athletes being good candidates for any big office I will take bill gates for the office
> Are you trolling? You actually think its a good idea to waste taxpayer dollars going after weed?
Doesn't really matter what I think. Or you. What matters is Congress has spoken on the issue in the form of making laws. If we don't like them we should take it up with them, I hear there is an election on; now might be a good time. The President doesn't get to decide which laws he will enforce, he swears an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States as written. Same goes for 'gay marriage', amnesty for illegals, card check, regulating CO2 as a pollutant and so on. We don't have a king, we have a president. And I can absolutely promise you will instantly agree with me the second Obama leaves office and a Republican administration is sworn in, whether that be this year or some later election.
Democrat delenda est
They're only different in how they want to screw over the country. So, please stop trying to make Obama look good.
big health care reform which will cover millions of uninsured people
The new health insurance rules won't help anyone. If you couldn't afford healthcare 5 years ago, you won't be able to afford healthcare 5 years from now. By forcing everyone to have health insurance, they're going to bring in huge profits to the insurance industry. The best way to fix healthcare from a liberal perspective would be to have the government pay for everything. The best way to fix healthcare from a conservative perspective would be to stop forcing people to get it from their employers, by allowing it to be payroll tax deductible, or making all healthcare a taxable income.
One believes that progressive taxation is essential to prosperity
Which one is that? Like most politicians, they both favor their corporate overlords, and support laws, taxes, and contracts that will most benefit the people who donated to their campaigns. Giving huge contracts to corporations is effectively a regressive tax.
They are different only in that they have different corporate overlords. They each support a different 1%.
The other has done everything he can to make the tax system regressive.
Neither has ever proposed a regressive federal income tax, aside from the already existing regressive payroll taxes like social security, which they both support.
One believes we need to regulate the financial sector to ensure stability
Are you referring to Obama? He passed weak new financial regulations, but they wouldn't prevent the disaster from happening again. Also, Obama voted FOR the bailout, even though it was done in the worst possible way.
The other has pledged to tear down what little regulation we have.
I don't doubt that Romney would tear down regulations that hurt his campaign's corporate sponsors, but rest assured that he would keep the regulations that make it difficult to compete with them.
When you say "little regulation", are you aware just how much banks are already regulated? They are one of the most highly regulated industries. The IRS requires it.
One has invested in renewable energy
Corporate sponsors
other says he will fund "traditional" energy sources
Corporate sponsors
Perhaps "Not sure" was a choice on the survey, and "none of the above" wasn't?
In this “He/She with the most money wins” version of democracy, if this is the best government money can buy, I say we really need a complete over-haul.
Here’s something I think would help:
1a. A representative’s pay will be equal to the average income of the citizens they represent.
or
1a and.. 1b. From now on, we select our representatives by random lottery. (Of non-fellons, with some minimum level of education, 2-yr College?, competancy exam? Mental Eval?) We can’t possibly do any worse.
These seem to be the only alternatives left in the 21st century where money equals speech, and more people vote for crap like American Idol than President.
"redefinition of marriage" - I think you mean equal rights for all.
Equal rights for all?
How about all single people get the same artificial advantages as married people, eh? No?
You don't know what equal rights actually means. First you set up an unfair situation where some people get special treatment. Then you go on about how some other people dont get the same treatment.
Meanwhile why not just let all people have the same treatment? No? Yeah.. thought so.. empty words from you.
"His name was James Damore."
both obama and romney gave that answer when asked "what the fuck are you doing here?"
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
What's your suggestion? All I see is you think we should get rid of marriage entirely.
This is an obviously retarded position to take. Did I miss the solution you wanted?
What's your suggestion? All I see is you think we should get rid of marriage entirely.
You are seeing things that arent there. Thats part of the problem with your generation. You make things up.
Why not let all people have the same advantages? Seriously.. why not? Whats wrong with that, and what does that have to do with ending marriage?
"His name was James Damore."
Only an American would call Obama a Marxist.
Americans also think that Obama is in the "left" on the political scale, while in reality he is a moderate right by any measure.
Sad indeed.
What are these same advantages?
What are you proposing?
If you weren't suggesting we get rid of marriage entirely, what ARE you suggesting?
If you elect that stupid sleazebag of an asshole for president, you are going to learn a lesson in humility, the hard way, and you are going to deserve it to !
some danish guy with 2000+ years of waring/democratizing in the backpack, and btw best of luck to you :-)
do you have an actual argument
Yes, Obama is financially conservative and socially liberal and rarely strays far from the center. The reason you think he's a socialist is because you are way out on the right wing, the left wing is over your horizon and it's difficult for you to even see the center.
I am not an American, I was born in the former USSR. Unfortunately for me I actually had to read Marx and Lenin too
We've crossed paths before, I believe you are sincere and passionate but it comes across as ignorance and arrogance, unfortunately you routinely believe the most outlandish propaganda and then repeat it as truth. You grew up in a land and time where intense state propaganda was the norm and motivated the behavior of the adults around you. Pravda and Fox are two faces of the same evil, I hope that one day you can get past resenting the adults from your childhood and realize that you've been fighting dragons for so long that you have become one.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I see you support a nanny state. A government that tells you who you can be with and what you can ingest.
You vote for someone who believes in magic underwear your a moron. I mean Mormon.
Whoever wins. We lose.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Would you call it socialist, capitalist, or fascist or some other term?
Corporatist. That's the word you were looking for. Both parties are heavily statist and deeply invested in corporatism. When these guys trumpet new regulations that are going to "punish the bad guys and clean this industry up", just bet that there is some big, entrenched interest that is getting its nest feathered. Creating barriers to entry and protecting the incumbent works for the politicians and it works even better for the corporations.
Socially liberal? What, because he "evolved" to a position of tolerance on gay marriage? Exactly what socially liberal policies does this government have?
He claimed he was going to roll back the drug war - and promptly ramped up raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. Is he better on civil asset forfeiture? No, decidedly not. What about warrantless wiretaps? Not really, no. How about the whole stupid USA Patriot Act? How about undeclared wars? Not so great there. How about due process - that's a pretty basic civil liberty. Yet this government has declared for the first time that the President has the authority to issue a death warrant for an American citizen without charges, trial, defense... just on the say-so of one man they can target and kill an American citizen. That's really socially liberal....
Don't listen to the rhetoric, watch the actions. Other than the soaring rhetoric and excellent image-making, exactly how much different is this "socially liberal" president from the previous "paleo-conservative" president on civil liberties? His position on Roe v. Wade vis-a-vis supreme court nominations? I suppose that's a difference. Hardly enough to warrant a label of "socially liberal" in my book, but hey, opinions differ.
No... a flat tax would be a huge tax cut for the middle class, while raising taxes on the poor and the rich classes (both have effective tax rates that are quite low). This effect is amplified in high cost-of-living areas, since the additional amount of money it takes to eat and sleep can take you into a higher tax bracket.
That is why the idea is gaining popularity with the middle class...the current tax system is designed to screw us! If you're reading this, your taxes would go down if a flat tax was instituted.
However....such a policy would be ludicrous to implement during a recession, or even a flat economy. Same as ye olde health care reform, there is going to be unforeseen economic fallout.
The real path to male liberation
Judging by yet another Republican-bashing karma whore...I'd say no
The real path to male liberation
You know who gave the best damned speech on legalization evar? William F Buckley. Now I apologize if I don't get it word for word but it has been 35+ years since I heard him give that speech and since it was before the net I'm not gonna spend ages hunting it down, but here goes:
"If I put a bottle on the middle of a table with a skull and crossbones on it and tell you 'this is poison, it will wreck your health, your family, and finally your life' and you push me aside and drink it down? Well then you are obviously too stupid and self destructive to be here, so why should I pay billions to lock you in a cage and build fences around the bottle, all because you are too ignorant not to drink it?"
And this is why I support legalization across the board, because there is no way to babyproof the world and ultimately a man should be responsible for his own life. In most cities a 15 year old can score meth quicker than they can a beer, what does that tell you? it tells me that without legalization and regulation you have the illegal drugs easier to get that the legal ones.
In the end though this whole conversation is moot because both the D and R are bought and paid for and what they say on the trail don't mean jack shit. Remember how Obama said he wasn't gonna raid the legal pot shops in places like CA on the trail LAST time, what did he do? I believe he raided them. BOTH sides are as crooked as a snake and if you think one or the other is gonna change a damned thing I have some magic beans you might be interested in.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
What I'm confused about is what indications are there that the dipshit who authorized a crack down on the medical marijuana dispensaries in Cali is going to suddenly legalize weed after the election.
Your constant reference to "redefining marriage" and "gay marriage" in quotation marks only goes to show your bigoted angle.
Go read some history on the Roman Empire. Same sex marriage was common and a non-event. Hell, 2 emperors were married to men - Nero was even the 'bride' to one.
Until you pull your head out of your arse, it automatically makes the rest of your arguments look bad. Based on your ignorance, I'd be inclined to believe that black was white if your opinion was that black was black.
Obama has shown what he is very clearly when he confiscated GM from the owners and handed it over to the union labour (in fact the non-union labour was also left out to dry). He does not believe in ownership of means of production. As to him being a socialist, it is you, who must be kidding.
If GM had failed, then the bond holders would be out the money anyways. You might disagree with who ended up with money and who didn't, but in either case, your example doesn't prove that he doesn't believe in private ownership or that he is socialist. Most of the ownership of various corporate entities have been sold off already. If he were truly socialist, then where are the big efforts for national takeovers of entire industries? Where are the overt price controls? It might have been nice to be able to set the price of gas to $2.50/gallon by law and taken over the entire industry to make it so. That didn't happen. Either your definition of socialism != dictionary definition, or you are just falling into the Republican name calling/fear mongering trap.
First of all Romney's plan is Obama's plan.
The problem is that we don't know what Romney's current plan is other than the fact that he's now against the plan he used to be for, just most of the Republicans when it was the Heritage Foundation's plan. The problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't go far enough... it's just mostly the old Republican plan with a big buy-in from the insurance industry (which is Obama's big win) which made it possible to even get this far. We just don't know about Romney in this regard, other than the fact he's raised flip-flopping to a new art form.
- ha, the ONLY difference between Romney and Obama in this is that the top earners will have the SAME CUTS as the rest of them under Romney's plan, and Obama, as the Marxist that he is, is leading the class warfare, so he is going to give tax cuts to everybody except the top 1% (that's his platform).
(As to 'believing in progressive taxation' - what a stupid idea. Progressive taxation is simply theft, nothing else, it cannot grow anything by definition, it removes the investment funding from the productive part of society and moves it to the unproductive part).
Hmm... taxes... marxists or communists don't believe in taxes. You see, you don't pay taxes in a marxist or communist system. Instead, you work. The government pays you and your family just enough to live. The government pays roughly the same to you as everyone else. Except for the elites. But most people make roughly the same amount regardless of the job you perform. The very fact that you are talking about class warfare, taxes, or any of that and still calling Obama a Marxist just shows the level of brainwashing you've suffered.
As for your comments on progressive or regressive taxation, and whether or not government spending is "unproductive", if you look at our past history of taxation and government spending, it is not true that periods of high government spending or high taxes caused economic hardship. Actually, it is very hard to find evidence that trickle down economics works. Obviously the very rich want you to believe that they aren't hiring because they've been paying too much taxes or other nonsense. Instead, they aren't hiring because of uncertainty, especially of consumer demand. But make no mistake, corporate balance sheets on a whole are flush with cash. Whether or not government can force a change in demand there is a different debate.
- USA has over 100,000 regulations of financial institutions in place, that's first.
But often there is no appetite for enforcement... and the enforcers are too close to the entities they are supposed to regulate. I do agree that regulation to remove all risk is stupid. The whole idea is skin in the game. However, too big to fail is a huge structural problem that we do need to fix. Obama is not likely to be able to fix it. But Romney
President Obama holds and edge over Mitt Romney in every category
All that proves is that the tech industry is still full of morons.
In other words, nothing has changed from the dot-com bust or the Windows era. So, par for the course.
If you weren't suggesting we get rid of marriage entirely, what ARE you suggesting?
I said exactly what I am suggesting. I take great care is not saying things that I do not mean. I also take great care in making sure that what I meant is clearly established. The only way to fuck this up on your end is if you do not understand these simple premises of communication.
Apparently you think Homosexuals want to get married because of their respect for the institution of marriage, and not for all the legal advantages that go with that institution. Apparently you are completely unaware that there are any advantages at all? Nah.. you cant be that ignorant.. right? Clearly the problem is that you do not understand the simple premises of communication.
Homosexuals want to get married because it is the only way to secure these advantages.
We created a group of elite people with special rights, and now homosexuals also want the opportunity to join the elite group that has special rights. There is nothing at all about "equal rights" in their demands for same sex marriage. They want to join the unequal rights club.
"His name was James Damore."
Seriously? They polled the CEOs and CFOs from major IT Industries and found out the wealthiest people in the industry were 'not sure'? I'd actually call that quite amazing when you consider wealth in the US often leans Right. No, topples.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
we opened up education to more people. Regular people started going to school, instead of just the elite idle rich and the occasional genius. This is why test scores have been failing in America. It's not because people are dumber, it's because we're trying to uplift more of them. In the past they would have worked like slave for 40 years and then died. The cool thing is that the powers that be are using the lower test scores as an excuse to privatize the school system and reduce the quality of education in America. Ain't American Great?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How can the information technology sector prosper if the rest of the economy is shit?
That's what you get if Barack Obama Junior is reelected.
So no matter where these IT executives live, even if surrounded on all sides by lefties, if they have any cajones then they need to prove it. Checking "not sure" is hardly a sign of moral courage.
The problem with most flat tax advocates though is that they want the rich to play less and keep getting all their benefits, but want the poor to pay more and get fewer benefits.
Wrong. The problem is that a pure flat tax works best with the elimination of all exemptions, credits, and other tax preferences and expenditures. Then, as soon as you start the discussion, people want to introduce exceptions like mortgage interest deductions and charitable contribution deductions. And some want to keep municipal bond interest tax-free. Or capital gains and dividends should be taxed more lightly or not at all.
If we were starting from scratch, it would be easy to create a proper flat-tax system. But our federal income tax system was screwed up within one or two years of its creation back in 1913 or so.
Not really. A flat tax that didn't involve deficit spending or abandoning nearly all of our social programs and the military would be in the 25% to 28% range. That is close to what most middle class people already pay in federal taxes.
However, a 25% to 28% cut to the available income of people at the poverty line will dramatically increase both the number of those living in poverty as well as the depth of poverty of those who can no longer make ends meet. This is why any flat tax must be accompanied by a strong social welfare element that mitigates that effect among the working poor.
Beginning with Bush II the right started moving the goal posts so far to the right in an attempt to make the "near right" look centrist. The left has now done the same thing in the opposite direction. That's why you see anyone who calls him a socialist as "way out on the right wing."
Obama is neither socially liberal nor financially conservative. I'm not sure he's anything except by mouth. He's simply doing what he wants to do with an authoritarian approach. That you see him as "rarely stray[ing] far from the center" just tells me that he supports your particular ideology. To me, he's just Bush III.
I know that on /. this is going to be met with a huge outcry from all sides, there will be more funny kind of moderation, as if this is a 'troll' or 'overrated' or 'flamebait', but as far as I am concerned this is just the reality.
Being as you lied repeatedly in your post, you can expect to be moderated down. The real question in, in light of how many of your comments in this thread have been moderated down, at what point will you switch to a sock puppet in your attempt to further propagate your beliefs here in this discussion?
And of course, how many sock puppets do you have? We know about one for sure, but why would you stop with one?
Are you living in the American Dream fantasy world?
PROTIP: It is 100% COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT who's the president. He's nothing more than a decorative veil of distraction. It could be your perfect dream candididate... It could be *you*... It's meaningless!
(Disclaimer: I work in the field.)
Because whoever it is, he gets to live in the engineered fantasy world that the lobbyists / social engineers create for him. And *anyone* in that world, *wants* to do what the lobbyists want, because in the perceived reality, it's the rational, fair and good action. You'd fall for it. I'd fall for it. Everyone would.
Hell, you fall for it *right now*, even with the third-class social engineering done on TV, and you can't even tell. And I did most of my life. (Denial is a bitch.)
Anyone who still gives a flying fuck about politicians and parties, is living a delusion on the level of religion, and must ask himself, if he's even still an individual!
The right way to go... and I'm telling you this as a professional with more than a decade of experience in the field... is to either make your own lobby and keep them under very tight mental control and *well*-paid... or lobby the *lobbyists* themselves.
Think of lobbying lobbyists as a transistor. the big companies feed major cash into the lobbyists, yet you control them. Giving you huge leverage.
(But beware: It won't work long, if the companies catch on. So my suggestion is to back-lobby the fueling company too, creating a positive feedback-cycle for you, and destroying their cancer from within.)
That's called "the law of the jungle". Or as you know it by its current name: "the free market". (Which has as much to do with capitalism, as the Soviet Union had to do with communism.)
Or by the standards of THE REST OF THE WORLD, he's a extreme right-wing lunatic.
It’s just that the others are EVEN WORSE. (NSDAP worse. And I say that as a German.)
(Assuming we're talking perceived appearance here. Of course, behind it all, they are exactly the same, because they are all controlled by companies via their lobbyists / social engineers.
Romney sucks less.
Organization? You must be joking..
Yes, Obama is financially conservative
LOL
Yeah, you lost me there
Neither one is capable of preventing the coming train wreck in the economy, so it doesn't really matter.
NO, it is YOU who are on the far left and are blind to your position.
Here is what Obama does to the productive class in USA, this is an audio interview from today, the interview I am talking about is between minutes 19:19 and 49:19
The interview is with a small business entrepreneur who was framed by Obama to be his poster boy when it was profitable politically, when Obama wanted to sell the idea that he is for 'small-business', while giving money to huge industry and what he actually did to small businessman, destroyed him.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
the difference is that both of them will sell you out to whomever gives them the biggest contribution.. if you believe different you're a moron..
PROTIP: It is 100% COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT who's the president. He's nothing more than a decorative veil of distraction. It could be your perfect dream candididate... It could be *you*... It's meaningless!
(Disclaimer: I work in the field.)
As do I. Frankly, your dismissal of the power of the executive makes me seriously question exactly what you do in this field. Obama has made a huge difference in important areas. Transportation is one of them. With an obstructionist Congress there's not much he can accomplish in the legislative arena but he can very well influence the way existing law is carried out.
No, I'm not delusional. I've seen and experienced the difference Obama has made. Personally.