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
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"
A well designed poll would had put CowboyNeal as president.
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.
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.
Reminds me of Frederic Bastiat. He said we are all consumers and producers. We want what we consume to be cheap and abundant and what we produce to be scarce and expensive. A prosperous and free society tends to move towards abundant and cheap things. This requires we don't pass laws that protect producers from competition.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
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.
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?
Shill to whom? I'm reasonably sure Paul is sincere. Just as sure as I also believe him to be ignorant of history, economics, political theory and jurisprudence.
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!
"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."
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."
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.
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.
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."