Slashdot Mirror
Al Gore Buzzword Bingo
Rodger Crawford writes "Apparently Al Gore has a history of latching on to high-tech buzzword. So much so, that 3 years ago, MIT student played a friendly game of 'Buzzword Bingo' during Gore's graduation speech. "
I figured we might as well go with the trend and just continue
ripping on the yutz. I've never been so excited to vote
against someone before *grin*.
The ban on vibrators in, IIRC, Kentucky. For use on women that is. Men can use them on animals though (really! for artifical insemination, for those with enquiring minds).
Willfull disregard for the law is hardly a good resume bullet for someone who wants to be the guy in charge of the country's laws. Stack this up with all the other "little" laws the guy's broken. Not the picture of someone I'd want to trust with our country's console.
Oh give me a break! The only reason drugs are illegal is because if they were legal you couldn't take a WEED that cost NOTHING to grow and sell it for 200 bucks an ounce. Do think, just possibly, that it is in the MAFIA'S interest and not SOCIETIES interest to keep it illegal? Ever ponder that really deep thought?
And who brought us here and made the mafia one of the most powerful organizations in America? J Edgar Hoovers homosexuallity and being blackmailed by the mob didn't help. Gee, look what religious "morals" do! It ties the wrist of the head of the FBI and makes 5 dollars worth of chemicals worth thousands! Joy.
I don't need Uncle Sam protecting me from myself. I'm an adult. I give Uncle Sam 50 thousand dollars a year in taxes, I think I've earned the right to tok up 5-6 times a year at least. I don't need a mommy anymore telling me what I can do to protect me from me even if you feel that you do. Get a pacifier for yourself, I don't need one.
They're posers. They do what they do to maintain the image that they think the American public wants them to have.
They're pragmatic insofar as their actions serve their personal gain.
I believe Arandir's assessment of the opposition to the "theocrats and authoritarian reactionaries" is fairly accurate.
Moderates and pragmatists don't oppose anything. They seek balance and fairness based on any given situation.
Control our money = Control everything + our morals.
"I could rant for pages on how drugs destroyed friends of mine how never used them, (Robberies for drug money and the like)"
Robberies which would not be necessary if the price of drugs were not artificially inflated by their illegality.
" or how I have seen families torn apart by them,"
As opposed to what? Alcohol?
"but I feel my words would be lost on you."
Yep, pretty much. How much of the societal cost you ascribe to 'drugs' is more properly credited to 'drug enforcement?' Think about it.
I don't see it as self-evident that drugs are bad. It seems much more evident that incarcerating a large percentage of your population is. The WAR on Drugs is not the only solution for discouraging drug use, and despite its drastic consequences, it doesn't seem to be a very effective one.
Anyway, if you think back an additional four years... I believe it was democrat Jerry Brown who was advocating a flat tax in the previous election.
How about the so-called "War on Drugs"? How's that for a buzzword. The War on Drugs has been responsible for more outrageous violations of the rights and freedoms of American citizens than any other government policy. Not only that but it has failed in it's aims. This campaign is only alive today because of strong arming by the Republican party.
Give one example of Republicans trying to control what people do in America's Bedrooms. Please don't say abortion -- that is a really old and tired argument.
A true Libertarian would see that an unborn child should have the same rights that everyone else does.
This message needs some demoting...
If you speak at all, there will be phrases you say that can easily be picked apart. The way natural language works, it takes context and some elements of common sense to interpret any segment in a conversation. It's not precise like a programming language.
This collection of quotes (and the bonus "flavoring") makes some pretty poor interpretations and a darn obvious attempt at slandering; it might be worth a laugh but nothing else.
The democrats are almost certainly going to run Al Gore. Bleh. I don't think he's up to running the country and I'd hate to have Tipper as the first lady, even if she's been quite useful in helping me to find new music to listen to, yeah if it has a parental warning label, chances are I'll like it. Thanks Tipper.
Who are we going to see from the Republicans? Dan Quayle? Elizabeth Dole? Can you guys PLEASE find someone to run who WON'T make our FLESH CRAWL?
Libertarians will probably run some interesting candidate we never heard of who, like every other libertarian candidate, won't have a chance in hell of winning.
Maybe someone should run Jessee Ventura. I bet HE wouldn't have a problem sorting out this situation in Yugoslavia...
>Democrats == Control our money
> Republicans == Control our morals"
> How about
> Libertarian == As long as it doesn't > doesn't take someone else's life or property >through coercion, you're
> allowed to do it.
Libertarianism. Again. The problem is that any system of governance should most likely take into account the effects of the Golden Rule (he who has the gold makes the rules...) and if at all possible counteract them. Otherwise...it gets unpleasant.
Check out all of Al Gore's technical achievements. Prepare to be amazed (or amused!).
well duh! The thing is that OTHER people would get richer too. BTW, that includes me, Bill Gates, and the janitor at my school. As well as many other people. And a lot of people get a substantial amount of money from the same places. A lot of companies actually pay their employees with stock (as well as cash, but mostly stock).
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that one thinks oral sex should be legal and fireworks illegal, and the other thinks the opposite.
Actually. Most politicians are not hypocrites. For instance, here in Georgia it was brought out that Bob Barr who is pro-life et cetera et cetera had an affair and forced his ex-wife to have an abortion...well first off, it was a matter of public record that he used the 5th amendment when questioned on this in his divorce proceedings. Well, since he used the fifth and clammed up, and subsequently accused bill clinton of perjury (notice bastard clinton's name not in caps) - does that make him a hypocrite? Well accoording to most leftists I hear, yes it does. However...because one realizes past mistakes and changes his mind does make him a hypocrite and using a constitutional right is not the same as lying either.
Bad idea Taco. If you talk about nerd news, you'll keep us all happy. Now you've gone and pissed off 50% of us out here who happen to like Al Gore.
Christ, a vote for Bush means a step back for crytpo. A vote for Dole...thats a giant leap back to the stone age.
Stick to stuff you know about. Your foray into politics only points out that you know less about politics than Gore knows about tech.
His last quote is indeed the reason why I'll vote for him, buzzwords notwithstanding. The single biggest problem with any attempts at environmental policy is that there are just too many people in the world. You can't expect a starving person to care much about the environment, and until we have some policies in place to help slow population growth, excessively large populations living in ecologically sensitive areas such as the forests of Malaysia, the jungles of South America, or the plains of Africa will continue to tax these environments. This point is pretty well outlined in Erlich and Erlich's "Betrayal of Science and Reason" among other places, so it's not exactly novel, but it's refreshing to see a canditate who recognizes the importance of fighting a just cause.
An interesting additional point is that population growth is more strongly correlated to the level of education and freedom of the women in a society than it is to the technological progressiveness of a nation. (I can't give the reference for this yet since it follows from field work for a friend's dissertation--she won't file for another three months, I'm afraid).
The biggest obstacle to drafting effective environmental policy is cultural relativism, in my opinion. Who are we to go into a country and say "Slow down your pop. growth, educate your women?" The Catholic church wants 'em barefoot, many other cultures want em dumb with few options. Neither allows a woman to decide for herself whether to become pregnant. It's not a magic bullet, but empowering women to make these decisions couldn't hurt.
-AC
We don't need the government to make drug users look pathetic...most do on their own (except the lucky few that know exactly how to handle drug use).
I work for Motorola
My friend in California works for Oracle
My friend in Rochester works for a startup and is a PhD candidate in EE
My friend in Indiana has a psychology degree and a masters in CS
My friend/coworker owns his own consulting firm and is almost a millionaire.
My friend in Boston is a speech therapist
Her husband is a mechanical engineer who works in high energy physics.
And we all smoke pot. What a bunch of loosers we are!
You won't be able to legalize it know because the mafia makes billions on it. The mafia has a huge stake in it. Can't kill the sacred cash cow.
Using drugs doesn't make you a "looser", and it doesn't make you a "winner". You are what you are and a substance, be it LSD, mushrooms, THC, doesn't change that unless you allow it too. Food will make you fat, alcohol will make you drunk, but you do it to yourself, the drug doesn't do it to you.
That takes guts, going against everyone else in your party. I mean, a lot of Democrats supported the Communications Decency Act (the really ugly part of the Telecom act), but the way the Republicans drooled over it, and adopted it as their own and made it worse, was scary.
He deserves some credit.
They're political geeks and politcal nerds. If you start talking technical computer stuff to a laymen they will say or think "What a nerd", if out of no where you turn a conversation into one about computers with someone who could care less they probably think "What a geek". If those politicians started talking politics and law to you, and you don't understand or vaguely understand, you're bound to feel the same way, "What a nerd", "What a geek", etcetera. The words "Nerd" and "Geek" are for the laymen, or for someone or group comparing them selves to others.
People seem to forget Tipper and the late 80's
and her crusade against rap. Plus Gore was
big on the clipper chip and the CDA. still
is probably. Just think what Tipper would do
as first lady? Her little crusade in the 80's worked quite well, she brought the heat on a
lot of artists she didn't care for.
Gettin' a little confused there, eh pardner?
Heh heh. Go shake some snakes for Jesus or breed with your sister (or whatever you vermin do for enjoyment), you brainless ape. Don't bother the real people.
It never ceases to amaze me how these dirty, subuman crackers run around loose pretending to be human beings -- and people let them get away with it! Holy shit.
Libertarianism is pure capitalism. It leads to the 1920's again. We've been there once, no need to go back there again. It gives disportionate power to the wealthy. It's not a well thought out political belief.
Fair comment, but it makes a great deal of difference where you draw the line.
Labels on my CDs - I can live with that.
Banning my CDs - now we have a problem.
If it is limited to labeling or rating internet sites I will live with that too...I can ignore those labels with equal ease.
This is a tangent but, I just wanted to mention something. In NY state, the Republican's have really up'ed the heat on the "war on drugs".
If you get caught with a kilo of cocaine, you are sent to jail for life with no possibility of parole. This is mandatory drug sentencing.
If you murder somebody, however, you get out in about 15 years (on average).
How do I know this? Well, my brother works as a prison guard. I would like to thank your little party for keeping the streets safe and the mafia in power. I've also moved to Boston, and taken my 6 figure a year salary with me.
Gore may be an idiot, but at least he isn't a DANGEROUS idiot.
I think the comparison is based on a more fundamental belief that they both share -- The assumption that animals or trees are more important than human lives.
MOST people do. The MAJORITY do.
The solution to the drug problem isn't claiming that smoking cigarette's is as addictive as doing cocaine to scare people out of smoking nicotene, it's being entirely honest about likely cause and effect.
If you want to keep people of heroine, tell them what is actually does and give real statistics, not boogeyman statistics. This is what pisses me off. Somebody is likely to try a cigarette and then try cocaine, because they are "equally addictive" according to dumfuck D.A.R.E. It's a lie. If you're right, you don't have to lie. Why are all the drug prohibitionists lying?
For sweeping the floors and empyting the garbage can I make 140 thousand dollars a year. I put away 800 a week for retirement, and an additional 10 grand a year on top of that if I have it available at the end of the year.
Not bad for the janitor. Just because you're a mindless brainwash victim doesn't mean everyone should be.
"Users are loosers and loosers are users, so don't do drugs! don't do drugs!" It takes more than a commercial to make me come to a conclusion about social policy. It takes evidence, and the evidence isn't in your favor but you woudln't realize that unless you've actually looked and thought about the problem.
Drugs don't "clear my mind" they don't "help me think", it is a purely recreational substance. I don't come to work stoned or drunk. I don't have "low self esteem" in fact I'm pretty damn arrogant, I read a lot of psychology from Frued to evolutionary psychology, from Darwin to Dawkin. And if you knew anything about "right and wrong" you would realize that it has to do only with recripocal altruism, there's no stupid god and if you haven't realized it yet, santa claus is also a myth and so is the easter bunny.
You're delusional and I'm the drug user. That's a switch.
Linus Tovald for President???
:)
hehe.
We already know he has the ethics.
/* Human activity *is* the major factor in climate change. It is the only element of the equation that has changed dramatically in the last ~50 years. */
A common error in environmentalist thinking is that the environment is naturally unchanging and that, therefore, any changes must be related to human activity. The climate has changed radically many times throughout the earth's lifetime and it should be expected to continue to do so.
The degree to which human action affects global environments is a far more subtle question than is normally assumed.
Our anti-trust laws are mostly based on the Sherman anti-trust act. Sherman was, in fact, a Republican.
Although I am a member of the Libertarian Party, I will probably hold my nose and vote Republican if that's what it takes to keep this idiot Gore out of office!
Quite true... the only time this nation will take its head out of its collective ass is when it finally listens to the *real* pragmatists... those that aren't funded by Mr. Tobacco or Mrs. Green Peace... the ones who truly advocate religious freedom because they aren't blinded with dreams of a Christian theocracy... the ones that truly value personal property, and all other personal freedoms... the Libertarians.
Not exactly, your right that the global environment does change, but the part you are confusing on is the rate of change. Most of what the environmentalists are pointing out is that there has been drastic changes starting shortly after the start of the industrial age. This is not some wacko theory, this is actualy science. Some people have experienced bad burns from the sun during certain times during the day on some locations on the earth, scientist have been linking this to a hole in the atmosphere, a lot of temperature and weather changes have also been linked to environment changes such as global warming from green house gases we release every day, the biggest environmental change we have caused is the exon oil spill, that one is still killing animals and mucking up shore lines. Trust me, do more research on it, if your to lazy at the very least watch stuff like the discovery channel once in a while they'll mention something about humans effecting the environment.
yes of course Al Gore would be pro-censorship! He's a liberal! He wants the gov't to make decisions for you so they can control you. Thats the ultimate censorship. If (fat chance) Al was to by some miracle get elected, I forsee taxes by the bit, V-chips in your modem, etc...
1984....
Russia gov, you have no choice, the government is one big monopoly. MS you have no choice in many cases, it is one big monopoly.
Calling any one of these communist is senseless, and the person should learn about something before saying something ignorant.
But what do republicans want to do now, they want businesses to own schools, and stuff like medicare. Businesses like Mircosoft could own schools, and teach what they want to teach, and to whom they want to teach it.
As soon as Clinton changed the tax system from middle class paying the most taxes to the rich paying more taxes, the pigs squeeled about it and republicans came back with this "flat tax" theory, that will get middle working class 90 bucks, and rich people 20,000 bucks, and yet our country is still in debt in the trilions, hell technicaly we are bank rupt, but only russia seems to be brave enough to have admitted it and start over with a solid economic foundation, our economic system is just a bunch of patch work, and the government hasn't had a balanced budget (or a surplus for that matter) until Clinton came in, I'd like to see some of that money get the US out of debt, some people say it doesn't matter but why should the US owe some foriegn banks, isn't the US government an example to its people, and isn't it a bad example to the people to see their government in debt, why should there be rich people, and the government is in debt? I guess the best answer to all this is the simplest, its greed.
But wait, we all live because of something called balance, to much heat and we burn up, not enough heat and we freeze, to much water and we drown, not enough water and we dehydrate, eat to much you can die, don't eat enough you can die. Its because of balance that we live, if the earth had been to close we would have burned up, if it had been to far away we would have frozen. We need some incentive to want us to push technology to its limits, money and property has always been a good incentive, but there needs to be a limit, if we don't make enough of it we could fall into the cracks of society and die, if we make to much of it we end up wasting it away or using it to unbalance society by using the power it gives you. Its like giving someone a nuclear weapon and depending on them to be a sane person. Money is power, power given to a person is bound to be used to satify desire, intentionaly or unintentionaly. Some power is good, to much power is bad. See the japanimation "Akira", "Dragon Ball Z", japanese artists like to play with the idea of power, and its abuse, in extreme ways.
I lived in Southern California for five years. The reason LA has the smog is due to the valley walls, which trap in the smog. The sky of LA has been messed up back since the Indians, who would light fires, which would end up having the smoke trapped in.
Thats true, but just because you can or can't see the polution, doesn't mean its not causing weather effects like el nino.
I'm not disturbed by the fact that he took credit for inventing the Internet, but the fact that he is capable of such a thing. If he'll lie about something like this to feed off the percent of the public that doesn't know much about the Internet, I think he'd lie about much more.
Who says he is lying? He might not even mean it as your taking it, for one thing I keep hearing people say this same junk, but I have not heard what Gore meant by it. Find me, what he meant by it, or on what basis he said it, and then talk to me about lying.
Again, it isn't the fact that he encouraged the TV show Ellen, but the fact that he encouraged what he himself refered to as _forcing_ of Ellen's morals on the viewing public. You may or may not agree with homosexuality, but I for sure don't agree with anyone encouring anyone else to force that view on me.
OK, so what he was refering to as _forcing_ the public morals, is passive and is not the same _forcing_ public morals as the christrian right thinks it is. I mean so what if his idea of _forcing_ is to give people a choice of whether to watch a TV show or not.
Though people may argue about how good Clinton is, isn't just plain stupid to come right out and call him the best president of modern times. Would Ford have gotten away with calling Nixon the best president of modern times?
Want to know why Ford couldn't because Nixon wasn't, he was almost impeached but gave up because he knew he was wrong. Clinton can be considered what Gore said, and in my opinion they might not be wrong, except that modern time is not over yet, he was impeached but he did not think he was wrong, and in the end the prosecution was shown to be nothing more then a witch hunt, prosecution was wrong.
"Probably" is quite different than admitting. Also, don't you think it's a little weird that Clinton and Gore have a lax attitude toward drugs even today, and they even joke about it?
Well the didn't lie about it, so that blows away your previous theory about lieing about everything doesn't it? Of course it does, do you care, probably not. To be honest with you drugs are not really a political problem, they are more of a health problem. I'm not sure what you mean by lax attitude, I grew up during the Reagan and Bush administration, and I really have to say they were uneffective, despite all the fancy talk.
You, you really haven't. You seemed to have left out a lot of information that you really should have defended. How about the part where Gore claims that the struggle for evironmentalism is the same as the struggle against Hitler?
Why is it not? Some of these companies who benefit from polution, can't be fully stopped, the gas engine has been around for around a hundred years and yet with all of todays technology all we have is more effeicient gas engines, we keep hearing about all these new technologies that are supposed to be better for the environment and yet we barely see them in use, they are to expensive and/or inconvenient. Hemp can be used for paper, rope and other materials yet these lame drug laws keep it from being usefull to us, and the other strange thing is why is alcohol and cigarettes legal and Cannibus Sativa not? I think the answer lyes in who benefits from it being illegal. I think all the answers lye in money in one form or another.
How about his support for the V-chip?
How about the weird similarities between the Unabomber's manifesto and Gore's environmentalism?
You need to explain further, he explained in detail, you ask him to explain about more things, I would expect no less from you.
>Isn't gore in the Democratic Party, which is >dominated by leftists with outdated social >theories that have
> been disproven by the collapse of >Soviet Russia and the Eastern Block? Surely a >bozo who doesn't accept
> campaign contributions in a buddhist >temple or doesn't write books about how evill >American corporate
> greed is destroying the planet would >be the lesser evil in this case.
YM "Eastern Bloc". Erm, socialism and communism are two completely different animals, don't forget...especially IRT Soviet communism. Last time I checked, Sweden, Norway et al haven't collapsed, further, last time I checked the farthest left you could find in the democratic party were a few socialists, and _even further_ it's highly debatable as to whether or not the democratic party is controlled by even extremely moderate leftists (AFAICT it's controlled by corporate interest, but that's neither here nor there...), so your um comment about the democratic party being dominated by leftists professing outdated social theories is best as I can tell flatly wrong on every possible level. But at least your grammar was good, so hey.
>> 1. Gore thinks "human civilization is now the
>> dominant cause of change in the global
>> environment." Nevermind the sun, the oceans,
>> volcanoes, and other natural phenomena that
>> actually do control the environment.
>
>So I guess Los Angeles has a brown sky because of >the volcanoes in the area? That's a good one.
I lived in Southern California for five years. The reason LA has the smog is due to the valley walls, which trap in the smog. The sky of LA has been messed up back since the Indians, who would light fires, which would end up having the smoke trapped in.
>How about
>18. Gore has claimed during a 1999 interview with
>> CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "During my
>> service in the United States Congress, I took
>> the initiative in creating the Internet." The
>> preliminary discussions for the creation of the
>> Internet took place in 1967 and, in 1969,
>> the Defense Department commissioned the creation >> of the "Arpanet." Gore was 2l years
>> old at the time and it would be eight more years
>> before he was elected to the US House of
>> Representatives.
>
>If this is a reason _not_ to vote for someone, >then I guess you should completely eliminate Mr. >Potatoe Head.
I'm not disturbed by the fact that he took credit for inventing the Internet, but the fact that he is capable of such a thing. If he'll lie about something like this to feed off the percent of the public that doesn't know much about the Internet, I think he'd lie about much more.
>> 21. Despite the viewing public's disenchantment
>> with the television show, "Ellen", starring
>> Ellen DeGeneris, an outspoken advocate of the
>> lesbian lifestyle, Gore lauded the star for
>> "forcing" millions of Americans to "look at
>> sexual orientation in a more open light." They
>> stopped looking and the show was cancelled.
>
>Sorry, people, you can't vote for anyone who >liked a show that was cancelled. Nope, off the >ticket. Nevermind that this comment is probably >based off of the author's homophobia, and he >thinks that people didn't like the show because >she was a lesbian.
Again, it isn't the fact that he encouraged the TV show Ellen, but the fact that he encouraged what he himself refered to as _forcing_ of Ellen's morals on the viewing public. You may or may not agree with homosexuality, but I for sure don't agree with anyone encouring anyone else to force that view on me.
>> 23. Gore is on record declaring William
>> Jefferson Clinton as one of the greatest
>> Presidents of modern times.
>
>What _else_ is the freaking VICE PRESIDENT >supposed to say? "Clinton sucks ass"????
Though people may argue about how good Clinton is, isn't just plain stupid to come right out and call him the best president of modern times. Would Ford have gotten away with calling Nixon the best president of modern times?
>> 32. Both Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have
>> admitted to being "recreational" marijuana
>> smokers when he attended Harvard. The
>> Clinton-Gore Administration is notorious for
>> having failed to stem the flow of drugs into the
>> country.
>
>And George W. Bush probably took cocaine. What's >your point? You think it's _easy_ to stop drug >trafficking?
"Probably" is quite different than admitting. Also, don't you think it's a little weird that Clinton and Gore have a lax attitude toward drugs even today, and they even joke about it?
>I could pick apart every single one of these, but I think I've made my point.
You, you really haven't. You seemed to have left out a lot of information that you really should have defended. How about the part where Gore claims that the struggle for evironmentalism is the same as the struggle against Hitler?
How about his support for the V-chip?
How about the weird similarities between the Unabomber's manifesto and Gore's environmentalism?
Ben
Well I'm from Buffalo, and spent a little time in NYC. One of my friends who dealt a little on the side and bought from the guy that lived downstairs got ripped off by the cops. Seems that the dealer downstairs got his girlfriend pissed off, who called the cops, who broke into the house, who put a shotgun to both the dealer and my friend's head, stole their stash, stole their cash, and took off. Ah college!
I like Boston a lot better. Btw, I live 2 blocks away from Fenway. Want an appartment? I may be moving to California for 8 months and just signed an 6 month lease (1 month up) and I'd hate to loose the 4K I have in finder's fee, first & last month rent, and security deposit. I pay $800/month, it's a hole in the wall, and I'd be happy to sublet for $600.
Well I'm from Buffalo, and spent a little time in NYC. One of my friends who dealt a little on the side and bought from the guy that lived downstairs got ripped off by the cops. Seems that the dealer downstairs got his girlfriend pissed off, who called the cops, who broke into the house, who put a shotgun to both the dealer and my friend's head, stole their stash, stole their cash, and took off. Ah college!
I like Boston a lot better. Btw, I live 2 blocks away from Fenway. Want an appartment? I may be moving to California for 8 months and just signed an 6 month lease (1 month up) and I'd hate to loose the 4K I have in finder's fee, first & last month rent, and security deposit. I pay $800/month, it's a hole in the wall, and I'd be happy to sublet for $600.
P.S. this site screws up a lot when you're posting. I swear I responded this your post the first time. It must have something to do with 'Preview'.
Come on, I reread the motto, politics isn't in it.
Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Bob Barr, Ross Perot, they're all non-nerds. Further, since when has politics ever qualified for "stuff that matters". If them dolts "on the hill" make laws which aggravate me, I igore 'em. Most of the time they just go away.
Let's just go on making fun of Al Gore because he's an easy target!
Nope.
why must you persist in believing in something that is just untrue?
*some* drugs are certainly bad, including ones you may not be thinking of when you stated you beliefs..for instance, DXM (active ingredient in almost all cough syrup) causes Olney's Lesions, ie permanent and rather severe brain damage over the long term.
most psychedelics are not really damaging, and their benefits far outweigh their dangers.
dkl
I'm not disturbed by the fact that he took credit for inventing the Internet, but the fact that he is capable of such a thing. If he'll lie about something like this to feed off the percent of the public that doesn't know much about the Internet, I think he'd lie about much more.
.... 4. In government : a. The right or power to propose legislative measures b. The process by which the electorate acts to orginate legislation.
This whole situation is all about lieing, this is what he said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.", a definition...
Initiative -
Doesn't mean he "invented the internet" or is the "father of the internet" as some people purposely like to misquote. He did pass bills that were about an "information" system "highway" for educational use, but there are essentially 2 seperate arguments about this, 1) the internet was really created, before Gores bills, by the government, ARPANET or spawned shortly there after when people where writing messages to each other. 2) some people are complaing that "the internet" was not "the internet" untill it became totally commercialized which was something Gore did not plan to do or start. Either way every one seems to agree there is no true defining moment of the internet it just sort of appeared out of no where, but Gore may or may not have had influence over it. Personly I think this is all BS, the internet is just a word, what it does is more important then when or how it was created, and the fact that no one knows or can agree exactly when it was created proves the point that no one has or ever will really cares when it was created, the only time they pretend to care is when it politicaly benefits them to care. The same BS "oooooo, the dems are so evil, you have no choice but to vote for reps."
I'd rather have a candidate who said nothing than one who tried to misappropriate our language for his own political ends.
Moderate. Another word for someone that doesn't stand for anything so that they can get both sides' votes.
I actually think more political discussion would be interesting. But it should be argument and not just humour. There is no deliberation in all of these repetitive jokes, and very little information on comparative POLICY.
I can't wait to vote against him either...
techno-gibber/aware or no, after these past
4 years, I'd be dammed to vote Democrat again
Thanks for writing that. You actually have complete thoughts, not just soundbytes. Voting is more important than playing Quake(or whatever). The soul and conscience of a politician is more than just a few things taken out of context in his speeches. Paying close attention is a requirement for responsible citizens. Democracy is compromise. Raise the bar, don't play to the lowest common denominator.
Who's the one who is spreading hate? Go back to your hole you intolerant bastard.
See subject.
> People seem to forget Tipper and the late 80's
and her crusade against rap.
Yeah. Now we got those evil labels on the recordings.
I suppose labeling irradiated or genetically modified food is also considered "censorship".
More Market Information = Censorship. Not.
> 32. Both Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have
> admitted to being "recreational" marijuana
> smokers when he attended Harvard. The
> Clinton-Gore Administration is notorious for
> having failed to stem the flow of drugs into the
> country.
I just have to say, who HASN'T used marijuana? I mean, give me a break. As if this is some sort of social ill that is tearing the nation apart.
Yeah, but he is neither born in the states or old enough..
The same age difference is there between the disaffected (do they vote? or just gripe?)voters and the politicians. The generation gap that existed in the 60's isn't going away. Greed will always be a factor. In order to work for change you need to WORK for change.
In 1997 Clinton/Gore proposed outlawing all domestic encryption that did not include a back door for the FBI. That wascally Right Winger Bob Barr organized the effort to kill it.
The Wassenaar Agreement would standardize this kind of stuff throughout the world.
Do you still like algore?
No. Actually, it's the belief that animals, trees, and human lives are all more important than corporate profits.
Go read the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto. And then look at long term goals of the Democratic Party. They look pretty similar to me.
I said there were no good choices from the right or the left, and some one told me to vote liberatarian, WHICH CANIDATES ARE THOSE?
The creation and distribution of new wealth is more important than any program [pogrom?] for shutting down the production of food or of depopulation. In a preceeding comment, the closing quote from Einstein, about the danger of [closed source] technology in the hands of pathological fascists, is totally on point, even if the Einstein tidbit seems to contradict the contributor's intended point.
/. board, I can see that our real choices about future technology are emerging. On the one hand, we can choose an open source model for distribution of all forms of technology, including production of nuclear energy!, or on the other we can choose depopulation and the technological collapse and environmental degradion which will soon follow any such program. (Trees and rivers cannot be saved except by deployment of new technology, which will require new populations to support. Anyone who prays that our remaining forests and rivers should be destroyed need only dream of knocking society back down to good old days of the horse and buggy, and the wood burning stove. Or, maybe after depopulation, everybody will be a nuclear physisist.)
As to the importance of open-source, take production of food for example. The difference between open-source distribution of technology for food production and closed-source distribution is portrayed by the relationship between Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland, and their implementation of "terminator" technology. They have proclaimed for themselves the "intellectual property rights" on the production of food, and are doubtless deploying "terminator" technology as an "improvement," which it is for fascist thieves and terrorist control freaks. Now, the slave-tenant farmer of the future ADM complex (which today already controls the distribution and storage pipeline for 92% if the food produced in the US) can use their intellectual property right to destroy the seed crop of his adjoining family farmer, whose farm will soon be rendered into the ADM system.
There are definitely two sides to technology, and at long last, through this
Improvements in technology require that we develop and educate every segment of the planet's population, that we stand on the shoulders of our predecessors, and that we continue to support new technology. Killing the population necessary to sustain existing technology and create new ones is total insanity, from the perspective of saving our rivers and forests!
In the present and the future, the creation of new wealth, of the actual and physical kind, not of the banking/mass terrorist kind, will require that all technology be open sourced and openly regulated. God bless.
Then I might as well not vote republican in that case, I don't like there choices in the majority of the issues they are focusing on. I guess Al Gore or Libertarian are my only choices.
Me? And I'm not even running for office.
Trust me at some point, someone you know, has, does or will. Why? Its not peer pressure, if anything at first its to know the truth about it.
Willfull disregard for the law is hardly a good resume bullet for someone who wants to be the guy in charge of the country's laws. Stack this up with all the other "little" laws the guy's broken. Not the picture of someone I'd want to trust with our country's console.
Are you telling me if the law told you, you can't believe in God, that you would not willfully disreguard it and you would not attempt to run for office? And if you never get to be in charge of the law because you believe in God, which breaks the law, then how do you change it so that you are aloud to believe in God?
That was just an extreme example, but something to think about, before assuming all law is good, and breaking a law is evil.
Perfection is not effortless. Life is not meant to be perfect, or else we would have nothing to strive for. So good day to thee, Mr. Perfect.
And what, vote republican because you have no choice?!?!?!? Thats what the republicans keep saying, "Look how bad they are, because they are so bad you have to vote for me", yeah right. To me I find it strange that if you try to stereo type the democrat party that it doesn't make much sense, look at congress and you can see what I mean. If you look at the republicans in congress you'll definetly see that its easier to stereo type the republican party then it is to stereo type the democrat party.
You know, most of those "35 reasons not to vote for al gore" are the reasons I support him.
>Libertarians are.
>Republicans just pretend to be >libertarians during election day, and then go >right back to flaming up the war
>on drugs, and all their idiotic >social conservative movements.
Feh. I really don't know why so many otherwise intelligent people are enamoured with the Libertarians...I mean, _civil_ libertarianism is great stuff, but the party has chosen to tie that extremely nice idea to laissez-faire economic policies, which are to put it nicely nuttier than fruitcakes. Yuck.
Anyway, does anyone know if Nader is "running" again, with the Greens or otherwise? Registering a protest vote for him _might_ be worth the time...
My only problem with Gore is that he is not a real person -- he is a boron, half bore and half moron. Really, the only reason he even spouts this stuff is because boron thinks it will get him votes and his face on TV. He obviously has no idea what he's talking about half the time. The other half the time, he's not talking at all so he can't be too wrong there.
Since when were most /.ers anti-drugs? The jargon file seems to say that we're pretty drug tolerant.
Yep, I'm one too. Here's a generalization :
Democrats = Big Government
Republicans = Smaller Government
I would guess that the vast majority of Slashdotters would be for less government.
--
It's an actual Yiddish word, but then again,
all Yiddish words are spontaneously
improvised Yiddishisms.
I doubt I'll vote for Gore, but I hate seeing bad science used as a basis for attacks on him. The '35 reasons not to vote for Al Gore' is full of bad science. It reads like a fundementalist Christian screed against evolution. Ultra-right wingers are, in my book, far more evil and dangerous than Gore will ever be. Here is some of the stuff on this site that I consider to be completely wacko:
> 1. Gore thinks "human civilization is now the
> dominant cause of change in the global
> environment." Nevermind the sun, the oceans,
> volcanoes, and other natural phenomena that
> actually do control the environment.
Human activity *is* the major factor in climate change. It is the only element of the equation that has changed dramatically in the last ~50 years.
> 3. Gore's "strategic goal" is to "eliminate the
> internal combustion engine" by the
> year 2020. This particular kind of engine can be
> found in automobiles, trucks,
> vans, and a whole host of labor saving devices.
Whats wrong with this? The IC engine is a dirty, polluting, *inefficient* way to produce mechanical power. Whether you accept the Greenhouse theory or not, the health effects of polution are reason enough to do away with it. Ask anyone that lives in a smog prone area like L.A., Mexico City, etc. Better alternatives like fuel-cells, hybrid engines, etc. are in production or prototye now.
> 6. Gore favored a government crackdown on the
> tiny trickle of electricity used by
> devices like television sets, whether
> they are on or not, because it results in a
> steady emission of carbon dioxide.
Good! Its absolutely ridiculous that many consumer devices are designed with little or no regard to their energy efficiency. The trickle wattage that these devices consume even when not in use costs you and me money!
> 15. Gore advocates that the United Nations
> consider "the idea of establishing a Stewardship > Council to deal with matters relating to the
> global environment." In other words, give the UN > total control over the actions and decisions of
> sovereign nations worldwide. Meanwhile, the UN
> already has a plan for "global governance"
> complete with the ability to tax nations, set up > its own permanent army, and now has an
> international court which can indict and convict
> American citizens.
Oh yeah! I hear the Black Helicopters coming! Join your neighborhood militia and move to a remote compound to defend your women-folk.
I have to say that, despite the fact that in my eyes he consistantly makes an ass of himself, I still like Gore better than any of the other assholes trying to be come the next president.
This is why I'm tempted to, instead of vote for the lesser of 2 evils, I may just write in the only public figure that I have any respect for anymore: Larry Flynt.
He is 1) honest about where he's been and what he's done (and not a fucking hypocrite like just about every politician) 2) understands human nature better than most people are willing to admit and 3) would unite the democrats and republicans against him, making congress get something done for the first time in its history. I realize that his sounds like a joke, but believe me I am serious. I'm curious to see other peoples opinions on this.
- They propose the Clipper chip & key escrow to ensure that government can expand its ability to spy on its own citizens
- They vigorously oppose even moderately strong crypto products
- The Gore 2000 campaign (at least we think algore2000.com is legit) is willfully abusing the Open Source legal requirements
My impression of Gore -- since his 1988 presidential campaign -- is that he desperately wants to be a candidate for the future. He thinks posing as a tech-literate will help him. Anybody else remember Gore posing with Crays during the '88 campaign?The US Republican party has its flaws, too. In particular, the GOP has been silent about consumer protection from database aggregators, etc. But the GOP has stronly supported giving citizens the strong crypto they need to ensure their privacy in our wired world, while the Dems have actively pursued measuers that would reduce citizen privacy, like the universal medical identification number.
Gore doesn't care about technology, tech workers, intellectual property, and definitely not individual rights and privacy.
I wouldn't mind having a president that at least payed lip service to open source rather than ignoring it. This could be a very good thing.
-Steve
This is a tangent but, I just wanted to mention something. In NY state, the Republican's have really up'ed the heat on the "war on drugs".
If you get caught with a kilo of cocaine, you are sent to jail for life with no possibility of parole. This is mandatory drug sentencing.
If you murder somebody, however, you get out in about 15 years (on average).
How do I know this? Well, my brother works as a prison guard. I would like to thank your little party for keeping the streets safe and the mafia in power. I've also moved to Boston, and taken my 6 figure a year salary with me.
As to their personal views about technology, i.e. "nerd stuff," and its future role in society, here are a few quotes from Al [Gore], taken from his book "Earth in the Balance" and a few quotes from Ted [Kaczynski], taken from his Manifesto [for a Unabomber].
... Standing bravely against the juggernaut, a new kind of [technological] resistance fighter has appeared: men and women who have recognized the brutal nature of the force now grinding away at the forests and oceans, the atmosphere and fresh water, the wind and rain ... " [Kinda like the way M$, DOJ and taxes grind away at my wallet, I guess.]
:"Once a revolutionary fever has taken hold of society, people are willing to undergo unlimited hardships for the sake of their revolution ... The revolutionaries [against future technology] should not expect to have a majority of the people on their side."
... [This is why geeks are like drug dealers. Thanks for your insight, Ted.] ... The speed with which the change [i.e. increase in technology and population growth] has occurred has itself been a major cause for ecological disruption. Kenya - Egypt - Nigeria!, all three countries are already putting great strains on their ecological systems so it is truly frightening to imagine the impact of doubling or tripling their numbers - not to mention the pitiful quality of life these extra [whoa!] scores of millions can expect ... [Break out the bombs, boys. Let's perform some ecological work on these "extra" Africans, since they have only the prospect for a pitiful quality of life anyway! On the basis of that quote alone, Al Gore cannot qualify as a fully socialized human being.]
... have greatly increased the life expectancy of those ... who live in advanced countries, but they have destabilized society ... and have inflicted sever damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities [, especially the so-called "extra" ones in Africa] ... and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in advanced countries."
From their own words, you can decide about the social and technological capacities of these two men. The last quote by Gore, where he talks about "extra people" in Africa, is totally a killer for me.
Al : "We have also fallen victim to a kind of technological hubris, which temps us to believe that our new powers may be unlimited. We dare to imagine that we will find technological solutions for every technologically induced problem. It is as if civilization stands in awe of its own technological prowess." [Beware the prowess of the geek, warns Al.]
Ted : "It is certain that technology is creating for human beings a new physical and social environment radically different from the spectrum of environments to which natural selection has adapted the human race." [The creativity, charity and agape of geeks being not a part of natural progress of mankind!]
Al : "Today, most of the world is looking the other way, pretending to notice industrial civilization's terrible onslaught against the natural world
Ted
Al : "Just as a drug addict needs increasing doses to produce the same effect, our global appetite for the earth's abundance grows each year. We transform the resources of the past into pollution of the future, telescoping time for self-indulgence in the present." [Damn, I always knew that pollution was caused by Geeks! Thanks for your insight, Al.]
Ted : "Technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technological innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it. Not only do people become dependent on a new item of technology, but even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it
Al : "No goal is more crucial to healing the global environment than stabilizing human population [growth]
Ted : "The industrial revolution and its consequences
In short, their message is, Fear technology and the prowess of geeks, at whose feet lie technological hubris and all causes of "extra population" and ecological waste. I have only this to add: If this man gains control over our right to build internet communities and our right to create new wealth for mankind through open source, we are all doomed in a big way.
Dunno about you, but I'm terrified of the prospect of Congress uniting to Get Something Done. The result would probably be a national disaster....
-- brandon s. allbery, sysadmin @ cmu electrical & computer engineering "Think, youth, THINK!"
>Here's another generalization:
> Democrats == Control our money
> Republicans == Control our morals
Hmmm... Wasn't it Tipper Gore the VP's wife who formed the organization to censor "filthy" songs? Looks like the Dem's want to control our morals as well.
But the GOP has stronly supported giving citizens the strong crypto they need to ensure their privacy in our wired world
If they so strongly support it, why do we still have this insane crypto export restrictions? The GOP is in control of both houses of Congress, so if they really cared about this, they would've done something about it by now.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Incorrect.
Democrats = Big Government.
Republicans = Even Bigger Government.
As you probably know, the biggest fiscal deficit in United States history was run up under Republican President Ronald Reagan and his extremely big government policies ("Star Wars" defense system, drug war, Iran/Contra, etc.).
Clinton, despite some tendancy towards big government, has actually reduced the size of government from its high under Ronald Reagan.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Cutbacks? Spending reductions? This must be a different Republican Party we're talking about.
Ronald Reagan's failed "Star Wars" defense system cost billions of dollars. His illegal Iran/Contra affair cost us quite a bit more. The war on drugs took billions more.
Overall, Reagan ran up the biggest deficit of any President in United States history, more than tripling the total federal deficit.
And you call that spending reduction?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It would appear that banning a standing army was the intent of that article, but we all know that politicians care little for the principles contained in the constitution. Reagan and his predecessors probably used some sleazy loophole to do it, most likely by claiming that they were only appropriating the money two years at a time - they just happened to be doing it every two years.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Giving credit to Reagan-era policies for the collapse of the Soviet Union is debatable. Historians disagree over whether the United States military buildup was too much for the Soviet economy (as conservatives claim), or whether increasing openness, especially with Mr. Gorbechov (sp?), opened up chinks in the Soviet totalitarian system, and was the cause of its downfall (as liberals claim).
Either way, one might also consider whether the fall of the Soviet Union is even a good thing. Then, there was a big country with nuclear missles pointed at us. Now, there are lots of nuclear missles being sold off to random people we don't know anything about. Is having a nuclear missile in the hands of terrorists supposed to be better than having the USSR pointing it at us?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Umm, those 35 reasons are really bad reasons not to vote for him. You count the DOJ case against Microsoft as a bad thing?
As for the drug use, when asked whether he had used marijuana or cocaine when he was young, George W. Bush dodged the question, saying it was not relevant to his campaign. So he probably has.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
->If they so strongly support it, why do we still have this insane crypto export restrictions? The GOP is in control of both houses of Congress, so if they really cared about this, they would've done something about it by now.
Bouth houses of Congress also voted in favor of the ban on partial birth abortion. Clinton vetoed it. Clinton would veto any ease on the restriction of cryptography. Louis Freeh, has been the mose crypto-hostile FBI director in history, he just so happens to be buddy-buddy with the perjurer in chief.
LK
Posted by proteusrage:
I would not vote for him on the sole basis that he's made all these idiotic claims about inventing the internet. Instead of coming back and saying "Sorry, what I meant to say was that I fostered the development of the internet while I was in congress" or something like that, he's never retracted it. In fact, he an Billy Boy never admit to doing anything wrong or making any mistakes. It really is a shame.
Maybe we could organize a "Geeks For Libertarians" campaign?
i sure hope that you sweep the floors and empty the garbage at Motorola, but I think that I see here a classic case of denial. You can stop whenever you want to, right? It helps clear your mind, right? That is the only explanation for such a non-sensical comment. Using drugs DOES make you a loser, whether you use them for acceptance, low self-esteem, the inability to deal with reality, psychological problems or the inability to determine or care about right and wrong. It is wrong for a reason, and not because of the mafia. You benefit (if it's appropriate to use that word) from the majority of people that don't use drugs, who drive down the street not stoned, who show up for work everyday and produce, who raise kids who learn that drugs are bad, addictive and no solution for anything. So just keep the windows clean, the floors vacuumed and remember to lock the doors on your way home. What a looser. I mean luser. I mean losur. I mean LOSER.
What I see here is a classic case of someone spewing classic FUD because they know nothing of the issues. Try to educate yourself on a topic before calling someone a loser for understanding it better then you. Either that or post as an AC so there isn't a permanent record of your foolishness.
(The post I'm replying to flames a Motorola employee for admitting to smoking pot.)
This discussion may be off-topic, but Slashdot is still a good forum. It is a good forum because the war against marijuana consists almost entirely of FUD. Slashdot readers are some of the best FUD fighters out there. Here's an article that should disgust even the most conservative Slashdotters.
http://www.norml.org/news/index.shtml# story2
Todd
---
Every 45 seconds, another arrest for using Linux. 695,000 last year. It's time for a change.
-- National Organization for the Replacement of Microsoft with Linux.
Every 45 seconds, another arrest for Linux. 695000 last year. It's time for a change.
Posted by JY:
I'm happy to hear that he's aware of the open source community, at least he didn't stare in wide eyed wonder at a supermarket check-out scanner.
That second sentence is false. Jerry Brown ran in the Democratic Primary in 1992 on a flat-tax platform. Granted, he didn't win the primary, but he was a candidate.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
--
--
=8^
The face time he gets during the Kosovo War is valuable (this is not to say that he has the White House in mind when he goes on Larry King), but it's too late for him to run. Gore (PMRC, Gore '88, "Mister Environment" books, "Mister Technology" speeches, VP and "co-president"), Bush (First Son, "ownership" of a baseball team as a platform for "family values", Governor's races as test runs for the White House), and Dole (numerous cabinet posts, Bob Dole's almost-co-president, and a high-profile Red Cross gig) have been preparing for 2000 since 1980-something; people like McCain and Bradley were too busy being statesmen -- their Rolodexes and coffers are now empty, and their name recognition is puny compared to the Big Three, which is remarkable considering one's a Hall of Fame athlete and the other's a legitimate War Hero.
--
--
=8^
Which "radical leftist party" would this be? Being as radicals and leftists are completely excluded from the political entertainment discourse in the United States, this must be some party that is barely a bliplet on the national radar. Is it the Socialist Workers Party perhaps? The CPUSA? The Wobblies? Don't leave us hanging...
--
--
=8^
They probably are, in fact; a truly honest politician would have a difficult time getting elected these days. A truly honest politician doesn't toe the party line on every issue, and doesn't maintain that he/she has always toed that party line when he/she in fact hasn't. A truly honest politician isn't afraid to admit that his/her "team" doesn't have a monopoly on right answers and truth.
For instance, here in Georgia it was brought out that Bob Barr who is pro-life et cetera et cetera had an affair and forced his ex-wife to have an abortion...well first off, it was a matter of public record that he used the 5th amendment when questioned on this in his divorce proceedings. Well, since he used the fifth and clammed up, and subsequently accused bill clinton of perjury (notice bastard clinton's name not in caps) - does that make him a hypocrite? Well accoording to most leftists I hear, yes it does. However...because one realizes past mistakes and changes his mind does make him a hypocrite and using a constitutional right is not the same as lying either.
It doesn't take a leftist to call Barr a hypocrite. He didn't actually plead the Fifth -- he invoked some clause in state law that would have left him with a vastly inferior divorce settlement (since it was a divorce proceeding IIRC, and he didn't want to go into any detail about his mistress). He stonewalled about his previous wives and mistresses; he stonewalled about the abortion; he stonewalled about his speech(es) to the CCC. He later did his lame mea culpas, once enough people (of all political and apolitical stripes, including Flynt's investigators) confronted him.
But he can't be all that bad; Geraldo seems to have taken a liking to him, plus he wasn't always the hardcore right-winger he paints himself out to be -- there may be hope that in the future he can just be an intelligent, open-minded legislator instead of a disingenuous grandstanding blowhard. I'll keep watching and crossing my fingers.
--
--
=8^
--
--
=8^
On the twin anniversaries of Three Mile Island and the Exxon Valdez you say this? Some things are beyond human control, but things like the cleanup often depend on human intervention. Speaking of which, you might recall President Hoover's hands-off policy after the crash -- it exacerbated the situation. He got voted out, the power of his incumbency was outweighed by the power of the inadequacy of his proto-Libertarian solutions. FDR at least stopped the bleeding; I wouldn't call him a rousing success, but he did a better job than his predecessor. Why is it we never bring Hoover into these arguments? FDR's first term didn't begin until 3 1/2 years after the crash; much damage had already been done.
I should also remind you that Milton Friedman, great man that he is, isn't God.
Go ahead and rant and rave. I, like Louse, am not a fan of the revisionism of fundamentalists. We'll see how the truly-invisible hand of history deals with your solutions and your truisms. And your excuses.
--
--
=8^
See you at the virtual barricades, maaaaaaan!
Rah rah rah!
I hope you read this tripe of yours in 20-30 years; I can hear your embarrassed semi-laugh right now, in my mind's ear. Groooooovy!
Maybe you should have prefaced it with: "I was drunk when I wrote this / forgive me if it goes astray..."
The "Slashdot political mind"? WTF? That "mind" seems even more selfish, childish, and uninformed than the electorate at large, and you wish to swell their egos further? Take your little revolution and go back to the sandbox. Technology progresses by leaps and bounds, but humans don't. Deal with it.
Rah rah rah! Hooray for our team!
--
--
=8^
The worst excesses of capitalism come from its robber barons and leading lights -- modern-day examples include Bill Gates, Phil Knight, Michael Eisner, the late Sam Walton (RIP) and literally hundreds of others, large and small. They draw at least some of their power from the absence of government interference, not from government's help.
A Republican ex-General coined the phrase "military-industrial complex"; it came from Dwight Eisenhower in his presidential farewell speech. His cause has been championed for decades by a wide variety of people. This has nothing to do with the Libertarian Party -- did the Libertarian Party invent the internet too?
As for using troops against striking workers, Henry Ford did it in the 1930's, and various manufacturers do it today. It's often a public-private partnership, a collusion between the owners, their security people, and the local authorities. In Ford's case, he paid for his own people to do most, if not all, of the whoop-ass stuff. None of this has much to do with your "point"; the absence of government intervention enabled Ford to try this solution -- laws protecting and enabling labor came after heads were busted open by the rent-a-thugs.
Libertarians do not stand for government support and subsidy of industry. Libertarians do not stand for government being used as the tool of the rich against the working class.
The rich can do a far better job of raping the working class without government getting in the way. This is proven every day in the Third World, where limited government rules, al least WRT to businesses and corporations. By being hands-off with labor-related legislation, and by not holding domestic corporations accountable for their Third World escapades, Clinton and Congress are essentially endorsing a Libertarian way of doing things.
Libertarians stand for the government having one purpose and one purpose alone: the protection of individuals against violent force, threat of force, and fraud.
Fine.
There is nothing in Libertarianism that speaks against labor unions, cooperatives, worker-owned businesses, and other forms of empowerment of the working class. Libertarianism allows for whatever steps a person may take to improve his/her position in the market --- including unionizing or cooperating with others --- as long as those steps do not involve the use of force. The market competition which libertarianism supports permits cooperation within a competitive framework --- whereas the forced, pseudo-cooperative framework which socialism mandates does not permit competition.
Oh that magic shape-shifting word: socialism. Apparently our only choices are "liberty" or "socialism". Is this "socialism" as defined as: "anything I don't like"?
Socialism would end oppression by placing all power in the hands of the government, which is presently the largest source of oppression on the planet --- "whitewashing a wall by painting it black", to quote Hagbard Celine. Libertarianism, by directly undercutting this oppressive force, is in a sense more true to the intentions of socialism than socialism itself is.
Come on. Governments don't have a monopoly on oppressing people. You're just as bad as a Republican or Democrat who gives us the God-ordained Choice A and the evil Choice B, while ignoring a perfectly good alphabet. Get a clue, kid. Isms don't oppress; people do. The problems today don't result so much from an ism, they result from the people in power (be that power political, economic, or both), and even more from the people who elect them or give their tacit approval to them.
Can you tell me which ism is doing damage in Yugoslavia? Which ism is bloddying dissent in Honduras? Or in Burma? Which ism is responsible for life in Chiapas? Or life on Smoky Mountain? Which ism causes a kid to open fire on his classmates? Which ism tries to smuggle a truckload of people into New York, nearly killing and bankrupting them in the process?
I'm a conservative, and I believe in a government limited in size and scope. But I also believe in honesty and accountability; I believe in a democracy that really empowers the bosses -- namely you and me, the voters. I also believe that we, the bosses, should not be as willfully distant and clueless as we have collectively been for the last couple of decades. The real enemy is us, to paraphrase Walt Kelly.
Enough. All you're doing is adding noise to an already noise-corrupted discourse in a multi-corrupted body politic. Wake me when the Libertarian Party (or the Librarian Party or the Veterinarian Party) comes up with some real answers.
--
--
=8^
Does a Democrat write stuff like this?
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
Are these the planks?
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
I don't see any connection here.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
In fact, while income tax is still mildly progressive, there are things like FICA and sales taxes on necessities that pretty much wipe out any progressivity that exists. I wouldn't mind a truly progressive income tax - even if my own ox is gored; the Democrats disagree with me.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Hmmm. I don't think you'll find that in the Dems' platforms.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
I have no idea what this refers to in a modern context. Rebels tend to be in prison anyway.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
And where is this One True National Bank? Considering how much money political parties get from banks (and Clinton has had a banker or two in his administration as well), no sane party would advocate this.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.
Of course, this was written long before radio, TV, or Henry Ford. Do public broadcasting and public transport count? Not really, since they're far from a monopoly. I find both to be valuable, and they could use more funding, but that's not what Marx is talking about; what he talks about exists in the form of commercial broadcasting, which indoctrinates us all into the "American way of thinking" -- i.e. the religion of consumerism and consumption.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
The waste lands and soil part has been done, by both Democrats and Republicans. The other part has never been advocated.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Sounds a little like that "workfare" buzzword, eh?
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Since both parties (Donkey/Elephant) pander to the moats of suburbia, while turning the inner city alternately into guinea pigs and sacrificial lambs (depending on whether it's Guinea Pig Season or Lamb Season), I think this is another non-issue.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Public education -- A Communist Plot! Film at 11! An end to child labor? This is bad? Unfortunately, many of your possessions were made by the hands of kids, and with the blessing of American pols of all stripes. And, of course, both parties (Donkey and Elephant, that is) would like to combine education with the demands of corporations; I myself prefer that institutions of learning be about learning, but the Dems and GOP (and their sponsors) disagree.
So there you have it. It would be nice if those who would demonize Marx -- or call dissenters Marxist -- would actually take the time to read Marx. I started doing just that, as a right-wing adolescent in the 70's; now, thanx to the WWW, I can read him some more. BTW, it's marx.org.
--
--
=8^
But bosses, in your scenario, would be perfectly within their rights to fire everyone who mentions the word "union". That's the sort of violence (neither physical nor explicit, but still very real, and not uncommon in some countries) in which a Libertarian government would be complicit. The owner of the workplace has all the rights, and those rights override those of the workforce. These are the "rights" that FDR "stole" from Henry Ford. I'm sure you can say that there may be scattered cases in which management will gladly work with labor, but I doubt labor would be willing to take a chance on a Libertarian solution if there is no right to collective bargaining and no right to collectively withhold one's labor. I find genuine labor-management dialogue to be of more overall benefit (to everyone, including the peanut gallery) than the monologues that generally exist; a Libertarian solution, via sins of omission, does more to foster monologue than dialogue.
And what is this but an enhancement of the already-ongoing privatization of oppression? Like the old line about a free press, this is liberty only for those who can afford it.
--
--
=8^
It actually takes us back further, to the Dickensian 19th Century. It makes the 1920's look like a rave.
It gives disportionate power to the wealthy. It's not a well thought out political belief.
But it's actually pretty mainstream, thanks to corporate-funded think tanks like the Cato Institute. They "invest" in our national dialogue by bankrolling Libertarian ideas and their purveyors, and they've been pretty successful -- the fact that they're only a "fringe party" is testament to their success, since politicians (Republicans mostly) have swiped their ideas. The fact that the Dems and GOP pretty much agree on purer (if not "pure") capitalism being "the only way to go" is a sign of at least a partial Libertarian victory. It's also a sign of cowardice, arrogance, and sell-out to corporate interests.
--
--
=8^
Maybe it shows the voters' hatred for Reagan/Bush/Quayle? Maybe his, uh, seductive qualities made up the difference? I don't know.
Bush had actually been in the "public eye" (perhaps better described as the "chattering-class eye" or the "talking-head eye") for 20 years by then. But Clinton had been maneuvering since adolescence: in one of his letters written while "dodging" the draft, he spoke of trying to retain his "political viability" or some such thing. He was a legitimate liberal until he tried to run for office in Arkansas in the mid-70's; with each failure and career setback he became more and more conservative -- these were the seeds of the DLC (the We're Not Liberal branch of the Dems), his main venue in the 80's/90's for positioning himself for a White House run. He also made a long, boring keynote speech at the 1988 Democratic Convention, and made a public pandering ass of himself on C-SPAN doing 1991 photo ops (at a time when he'd promised Arkansas voters, IIRC, that he wouldn't bolt and run for president).
So I wouldn't call him an unknown; McCain and Bradley are unknowns because they were pretty much doing their jobs in the Senate, rather than trying to get on C-SPAN or CNN. Bradley's book didn't get a third of the publicity that Gore's "environmentalist" book got, because it was a real book (by a former Rhodes Scholar), not some "Look At ME!" piece of fluff. McCain's hero status dates back to the 60's -- ancient history, like Bradley's hoop career. McCain's high-profile issues in the Senate were campaign-finance reform (I call him "John Quixote") and boxing reform (he's a fight fan and an ex-boxer); these are very unsexy issues, and he never got any reform legislation passed anyway.
--
--
=8^
'nuff said
-Erik-
At the moment I'm not saying anything pro
or con about the GOP, even though I don't
really like the Dems; I'm waiting to see
who gets nominated.
But please keep in mind the GOP has _very_
slim majorities in both houses, and isn't
very united, which makes things worse.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
(currently testing something about signatures here)
If you have an example of someone accepting political donations in a Christian church, please post a link.
:(
If you would like to see what my comment is based on, check out the "35 reasons not to vote for Al Gore" link that someone else posted.
If you're just being sarcastic, sorry, I missed it.
Isn't gore in the Democratic Party, which is dominated by leftists with outdated social theories that have been disproven by the collapse of Soviet Russia and the Eastern Block? Surely a bozo who doesn't accept campaign contributions in a buddhist temple or doesn't write books about how evill American corporate greed is destroying the planet would be the lesser evil in this case.
Or do you mean the Green or Peace and Freedom or Amercian Communist or some other unlikely-to-get-elected fringe group?
I'm not sure whether he is in favor of technology or not..his environmental stance clashes horribly with his
`information superhighway'-type statements..which one is it, Al Gore?
Are you for or against technology?
"Fundamentalist forces are undermining the integrity of liberal and democratic political structures."
> Incorrect.
> Democrats = Big Government.
> Republicans = Even Bigger Government.
> As you probably know, the biggest fiscal deficit
> in United States history was run up under
> Republican President Ronald Reagan and his
> extremely big government policies ("Star Wars"
> defense system, drug war, Iran/Contra, etc.).
> Clinton, despite some tendancy towards big
> government, has actually reduced the size of
> government from its high under Ronald Reagan.
Actually, it's:
Democrats == Big Social Programs
Republicans == Big Military
The difference? One's explicitly in the Constitution (read the Preamble).
As for Al Gore, I can safely say that just about any Candidate the Republican Party puts forward will win over him, although I think that a Colin Powell/Jack Kemp ticket would be the best one.
Now if only the Christian Coalition will act more Christian-like this time around (I am a Christian, but can safely say that the Christian Coalition is not a truely Christian organization anymore, despite the name -- threatening to dig up every bad thing Colin Powell ever did because he happens to be pro-choice [I'm pro-life] in '96 doesn't sound very Christian to me).
Jim Cape
http://www.jcinteractive.com
Jim Cape
http://www.jcinteractive.com
A wild thought: maybe had the government done a drug sweep of technology-intensive areas (the Bay Area, Cambridge (MA), &c.), mandatorily testing all tech workers for drug use, incarcerating drug users, herding them into Y2K work brigades and setting them to the task of fixing the Government's doomed mainframes, the coming collapse of the U.S. Government could have been averted?
(For those who don't get it, this is cynical black humour.)
Is "yutz" an actual Yiddish word, or a spontaneously improvised faux-Yiddishism?
Inquiring Minds Must Know.
If you want to go smoke-up, go ahead, but don't say the war on drugs is idiotic. The truth is that drugs are bad, in one way or another, and SOMETHING should be done to stop their abuse.
Assuming for a moment that your "drugs are bad and must be stopped" argument is valid, and disregarding pesky issues such as civil liberties, the argument is still flawed. The War on Drugs is not a consistent anti-drug campaign; some drugs (such as alcohol and tobacco) are tolerated, or even subsidised; other drugs are banned. And the latter category lumps together widely different drugs such as cannabis, heroin, cocaine and PCP. The difference between the dangers of marijuana (somewhere on the level of alcohol and tobacco) and those of crack cocaine (evil stuff, that) are quite dramatic.
The War on Drugs is not based on scientific evidence of harm; it's based on superstition and paranoia, and the age-old principle that if you unite the people against a common enemy and sow the seeds of fear, many will be willing to sacrifice any amount of freedom and privacy to win some modicum of security. Additionally, the growing prison-labour industry has many cost benefits, as the People's Republic of China discovered before and the U.S. is discovering now.
I'm not a big fan of Albert Gore's, and I take great delight in bashing him for his gaffes (in the same way Dan Quayle was bashed for four years by people who are whining about the Gore jokes now), but I'm worried that Slashdot is going to turn into a constant political flamewar as the primaries and election approaches. Maybe we ought to avoid political articles like this, whether they are Pro/Con Reps/Dems it just leads to a bunch of angry bickering that distracts from the true purpose of the site. Just my 2 cents...
-GNU/Eric
I read it. I still don't get it.
The morality of taking donations in a Buddist church is up to the Buddists. According to the "35 reason's page, he called it a community outreach, which it probably was, in the broad sense of the term.
So what's the point, if it's not just a religious sneer?
Surely a bozo who doesn't accept campaign contributions in a buddhist temple...
Why? I assume taking contributions in a Chrisian church would be better? I don't understand contibution problems, but that summary just reaks of discrimintion.
You would not feel that way if you live in Minnesota. We didn't elect a governor, we elected a political whore who's just out to make his own life better.
Case in point -- he recently went to Hollywood to try to get filmmakers to do shit in MN. Sounds good, right? Well, he also took his son with him, and his son just happens to be an aspiring filmmaker. Hmmm...
One of his first actions a governor was to propose eliminating a tax on personal watercraft (he just happens to own three himself). He said something like "I don't see why we should all have to pay extra so the cops can come around and bust us." (the tax was to pay for additional law enforcement to protect public safety, since people tend to be assholes on personal watercraft).
-30-
so neener, neener, neener! :-) I believe we should go back to the states and local government making the decisions. (The closer to home, the better)
We absolutely do not want to make Congress do anything! The less they do, the better! At least with the Clinton impeachment they were too busy to mess things up.
A bunch of scare tactics. Things are nowhere near as bad as they try to make them sound. If, however, you are seriously worried about our oxygen supply, start worrying about the oceans--the oceans produce 70% of our oxygen.
Until we reach a point in American where we vote for what we WANT instead of voting AGAINST what we do NOT want, we will settle for garbage in government.
Too often, people vote for a Republican to keep out a Democrat or vice versa, when in reality, they do not agree with either party's agenda. You get what you vote for.
I am a Libertarian, both in philosophy and in party affiliation. Most people on the Internet are libertarian (small 'l') in philosophy. "You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" type of value system. Many would happily vote Libertarian if they knew the Libertarian agenda and they didn't feel their vote would be wasted.
The bad news is that your vote is being wasted in two ways. First, your vote AGAINST the opposition is telling the recipient of your vote that you support his agenda. If you do not, don't be surprised when business as usual is the result. Second, when electing a president, your vote is not even an issue. The Electoral College elects the president, not the people. Your vote CAN be of ENORMOUS value though. Vote for what you WANT in a president, rather than voting to keep someone out of office. That way you are clearly telling them that business as usual is unacceptable. Anything less is a true waste of a vote.
Xitron
When I was going to the University of South Carolina (25 years ago) it was a well known fact that you should date Democrat girls but marry Republicans. :^)
Seriously, in the South, the only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is in the number of Black members/voters. Philosophically there's no difference. Just another reason I have to continue living overseas.
Believe it or not, some of us who support the Republicans have come down out of the trees and can actually walk on two legs. And use Linux!
How do you think he got all his money????You ever hear of EDS (Electronic Data Systems)?? When Jimmy Carter (a Democrat) left American citizens in the lurch in Iran, Perot had the balls to send a commando team made up of nerds in to get them out.
... a political playing field, i dont think nerds give a damn about politics.. let alone who becomes the president of usa.. do we? no.. make a new site for that.. and expressing your poltiical feeling in this site just creates opturnitues for flame..
--
Welcome to the wonders of the two-party system.
I for one would love to see someone in the White House who actually embraced technology, rather than feared it and the people who have mastered it. Would life be easier on us if someone like Pat Buchanan were President? I'd doubt it.
If he has a genuine interest in courting the technologists' vote, then perhaps we should "give him a clue," afterall.
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
Here's another generalization:
Democrats == Control our money
Republicans == Control our morals
Forced to choose between the two, I'd go with Democrats anyday of the week, and twice on Sunday.
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
We just talked about Forbes' flat tax in my political science class. Under his planned flat tax, Forbes would get even richer. The flat tax he proposed only taxes earned income. That doesn't count capital gains and dividends from stock. That's where Forbes gets his money.
Slander involves deliberate misrepresentations of the truth about someone. It is an attempt to make a person look bad by telling lies about them. Where exactly are the lies in a series of direct quotations from Algore's own book? Where exactly are the lies in the post's author putting his spin on those quotes?
I would truly be interested to see anyone attempt to legitimize Algore's appalling remarks about population control. "Quality of life" indeed!! As if he has a right to dictate it! As if he is in a position to declare whether we might have "extra" people! What arrogance!
Here's a tip for Algore: the technology you condemn now is responsible for our long lives now. It's responsible for the eradication of smallpox (note to Algore: smallpox virus is a living organism. Should we destroy what remains of it, or release it into the wild again? A *consistent* eco-whacko like yourself ought to oppose the extinction of a species, right? How about smallpox, Algore? And is it fair -- is it "just" -- is it "decent" -- to cage smallpox virus in test tubes? Shouldn't a *consistent* eco-whacko like yourself favor the return of smallpox to its natural environment -- humans? What about quality of life for smallpox, Al? After all, it's another species, just like us). Technology's responsible for the quality of life we now enjoy. Take it away -- yes, Algore, right back to sticks (but no fire -- that's technology, and besides it pollutes) and no weapons (technology) or plows for planting or...or...or... Take away technology, and we're back to life expectancies in the 20s or 30s. Sounds like fun to me!
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Draft dodger? Let's see which stone-throwers went to Vietnam... Reagan? no.. Dan Quayle? nope... George Will? not even close... Rush Limbaugh? no...
Drugs are bad? Thats a wide generalization. Most all drugs have some ill effect on the user, yes. Republicans, it seems, have a fascination with supply-side economics. They try to apply it to out drug "problem", resulting in an artificial shortage of drugs on the street, meaning extremely high prices, meaning addicts turn to crime to pay for their habit, leading to more violent crime, leading to more police action, leading to higher drug prices, and so on. Int this way, the "war on drugs" is *increasing* our crime rate! The solution is *education*: squash the demand for drugs, and the suppliers will go out of business on their own. Of course, that assumes that the truth about drugs is bad enough to scare potential users away, which in some cases (like cannibis which has been scientifically studied for over 200 years) it isn't, but legalization is a subject for another thread...
Do you ewant to hear about "big brother"? Let's talk about the current property-forfeiture laws involving drug cases. Let's talk about the GOP's constant will to "get tough on crime" at the expense of American's civil liberties
0 1 - just my two bits
Seems that most folks here seem to accept that Gore's "I invented the Internet" claim has absolutely no basis. I've no great love for the man, but IMHO he probably has as much claim to the Internet as any other politician.
First off, go look up the original quote; "I took the inititive in creating the Internet" is a bit different than saying "I invented the Internet." It's an overstatement, but not an outright falsehood: he had nothing whatever to do with the original ARPANET, but he did have a lot to do with aiding its extension beyond military contactors at a point when DARPA was reducing its funding and becoming increasingly strict as to how the ARPANET was used. He certainly wasn't the only legislator who supported NSFNET (the entity which became the Internet's backbone during its transitional phase), but his office had a major role in forming legislation for it.
Such explanations don't make for good sound-bites, though, and even some original ARPAnauts seem unaware of what transpired in the late '80s and early '90s, insulated as they were at places (like MIT) that were major defense contractors.
Personally, I suspect that a fair amount of Gore's original technophile reputation had to do with his Senate staffers, and that at the time the only "networks" he had an understanding of had initials like "CBS" or "NBC." But he acquired enough of a reputation that as VP he's automatically assigned as the point man for all technical issues that pass through the Clinton administration, from Clipper and V-chip to Y2K. So it makes a certain amount of sense to judge him on his technical savvy (and I think I'm with the majority here is thinking that he's demonstarted none of late). You may be certain that very little in technical policy originates with him; I'd suggest judging him on other grounds.
I was at the Paramount Theatre in Oakland, CA last night and saw a license plate that said "Gore 2k"! That's loyalty. I'd sure hate to have that plate if he doesn't win ;)
I mean, if the voices tell him to do something, who are we to argue? These are _the_ voices afterall.
Sorry
Is anyone planning on running against Gore for
the Democratic nomination? I'd like to have a candidate that had a personality. I know the Republicans are not going to field anyone worth voting for and the other fringe groups will never be taken seriously in our bipartizen govenment. I'm not looking forward to Gore being my only option, but I'll support him if no one else comes along.
Spending is only ONE aspect of government. Another is the amount and kind of regulation. This having been said, the difference between Democrats and Republicans can be summed up very succinctly in the following manner:
Democrats: A desire to control what people do in America's boardrooms.
Republicans: A desire to control what people do in America's bedrooms.
While I'm not sure I agree with *everything* the Libertarian party stands for, it does offer a much better approach to government.
"Libertarianism. Again. The problem is that any system of governance should most likely take into account the effects of the Golden Rule (he who has the gold makes the rules...) and if at all
possible counteract them. Otherwise...it gets unpleasant."
Well, businesses wouldn't buy the government under a libertarian system...the government wouldn't offer much for businesses to buy unlike now.
People who are rich got there because they KNOW HOW TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE. The difference is that the government forces them upon you, while you can choose NOT to buy things you don't want. (like Windows).
The panic of 1921 (or 1923) could have been MUCH worse, but it wasn't..because the government stayed OUT.
in 1929, the Federal reserve forcefully CONTRACTED the money supply. This caused the stock market to crash.
You obviously know how to use drugs without abusing them and being adversly affected by them..congratulations :-)
"a) drugs are bad, the government is not solving it, and whatever is doing is just plain lame.
:-)
b) you want privacy
c) you dont like the taxing system
d) you dont like the justice system (exept vs m$)
e) your ruling parties just don't cut it for ya.
f) freedom of speech (copyleft)."
And the Libertarians are on your side on each point
(Except they think that Microsoft should fall by it's own sword instead of the government pretending that IT had anything to do with the fall of Microsoft.)
Will republicans get rid of the idiotic war on drugs?
Will republicans repeal the income tax?
Will republicans stop sending our troops where they don't belong?
They just want to get rid of LIBERAL programs..they don't want to get rid of their OWN programs.
Harry Browne is likely to be our presidential candidate....we're not sure who the vice-president will be yet :-)
"There are plenty of drugs that almost instantly change a person into a raving lunatic."
:P :-)
Drug induced psychosis is RATHER rare...people generally don't go in "destroy" mode over drugs.
"It is plain to see that you have never been affected by drugs because the only people who advocate making drugs leag are addicts and people who have never seriously used drugs."
Wrong. I've had close friends use drugs at parties..and what I've seen has made me choose to never use drugs. But the legality of drugs won't affect its use, and I've also seen neighborhoods destroyed by the fighting between the gangs.
"It is very few drug users who have not stepped on other peoples rights."
VERY wrong. you cannot tell me that Marijuana makes people agressive, yet most arrests come from possession of marijuana. In the 40's and 50's..all these drugs were legal and USED. Wow...people really remember the drug rampages from back then, don't they?
Time to read "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Freedman.
"Face it, economies are like ecologies: Sometimes they get out of whack, and there's a very painful readjustment."
And like ecologies, there's not a damn thing that the goverment can do execept stay out of the way and let it correct itself.
"So there's a tendency to try to soften the blow. Since we've found things to do which really do help, why not keep it up? "
1. They DON'T work (we have constant inflation, which we didn't have before the federal reserve).
2. Trying to "soften the blow" made the Great Depression last for 10 YEARS instead of a few months. And the current depression in Japan is dragging on for the same reasons.
Of course, since the depression was CAUSED by the government contracting the money supply, (which you never refuted, you just blew off as "couldn't e possible"), they probably felt that they eventually needed to do something to counter it.
"But bosses, in your scenario, would be perfectly within their rights to fire everyone who mentions the word "union"."
Well, right now (in non-right to work states), I can be fired for NOT joining the damn union. If employees WANT to join a union and the management DOESN'T want a union, suddenly they'll be no employees working on production. That would kinda cause the management to make concessions.
"The owner of the workplace has all the rights"
You're damn right, if it's MY workspace. However, if I'm a business, I need people to work in my workspace, and therefore, I'll have to make terms that are ATTRACTIVE to most workers to gain workers.
"I'm sure you can say that there may be scattered cases in which management will gladly work with labor, but I doubt labor would be willing to take a chance on a Libertarian solution if there is no right to collective bargaining and no right to collectively withhold one's labor."
What makes you think that you DON'T have the right to withhold your labor? Simply STOP WORKING if you don't want to. But remember, your manager is a person too, and you're likely to get MUCH more constructive things done if you TALK TO HIM/HER then if you just act childish. If you want to "collectively" withhold labor, then get a bunch of people to agree to stop working at the same time...it COSTS businesses a LOT of money to find qualified workers, and would be in THEIR best interest to try to satisfy the group and end the strike instead of trying to re-hire everybody.
"I find genuine labor-management dialogue"
Why do you think you need a UNION to have a dialogue with your employer? Why work for somebody if you can't sit down with the boss and have a reasonable discussion?
"And what is this but an enhancement of the already-ongoing privatization of oppression?"
How the hell can a PRIVATE industry LEGALLY oppress you? If they take away your property or your life, then they are acting illegally. When the GOVERNMENT does it to you, they are acting perfectly legally and you have no recource.
Only governments can oppress.
"Here's another generalization:
Democrats == Control our money
Republicans == Control our morals"
How about
Libertarian == As long as it doesn't doesn't take someone else's life or property through coercion, you're allowed to do it.
Don't you yearn for your natural freedom?
Libertarians are.
Republicans just pretend to be libertarians during election day, and then go right back to flaming up the war on drugs, and all their idiotic social conservative movements.
the whole anti trust thing goes against the basic nature of a free market
True. The "basic nature of a free market" is for some areas of the market to coagulate into monopolies. What happens then is that prices rise, quality plummets, and society as a whole loses in a big way.
The gov't has no damn business in the business world and should get the hell out.
They tried that already. It brought us the Great Depression. Nowadays they're a bit more realistic about it. If you're not selling apples on a street corner, you can thank a lot of people for that (including, no doubt, yourself), but the SEC is not the least of them.
A pure free-market economy operates with just about as much concern for the common good (read "national interest") as a pure centralized economy. As Bill Buckley said, "As ideals approach reality, the cost becomes prohibitive". The free market is no less an ideal than Maoism. It's not as crazy as Maoism, but it's still an ideal. It assumes that reality as a far simpler thing than it ever actually is.
The government has a legitimate interest in trying to avoid monopolies and depressions, just as it has a legitimate interest in maintaining a military. I'm not so fond of the military, you're not so fond of anti-trust legislation, and other people aren't so fond of other things. Realistically, you have to weigh one thing against another and optimize. Imagine if Microsoft manages to kill off the rest of the domestic software industry. Next, imagine how long the US will remain competitive in the world market, against nations which can still produce quality software at a reasonable price. Nations whose networks don't crash. Nations whose navies can go cruising along day after day without being towed back into port because of a divide-by-zero error in a database program. I'm really not joking here.
There's also a lot to be said WRT the notion that a corporation is legally equivalent to a human being, and has rights and so forth. Not everybody sees a whole lot of sense in that.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Um, I guess nobody ever told you about photosynthesis and all that.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Seriously. Read up on what happened. The government could be considered responsible because of their failure to regulate the securities industry, but not in any other sense. Yes, there were other factors that contributed to the Great Depression, like for example the whole dust bowl thing.
This revisionist history fad is getting dull. First, we had the Holocaust deniers, then they blame education for unemployment (HELLO?!?!), now the government is responsible for the market doing what markets DO when they're completely unregulated: Go belly up. Face it, economies are like ecologies: Sometimes they get out of whack, and there's a very painful readjustment. The difference is that (unlike the GOP) I and a lot of other people don't consider human beings to be disposable the way wild animals are. So there's a tendency to try to soften the blow. Since we've found things to do which really do help, why not keep it up?
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
the Democratic Party, which is dominated by leftists with outdated social theories that have been disproven by the collapse of Soviet Russia and the Eastern Block?
Um, no. That "Democratic Party" exists only in the fertile imaginations of right-wing propagandists -- and, unfortunately, in the imaginations of those who believe that nonsense even though (IMHO) they should know better.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Is anybody saying that Al Gore is against technology in general, as a matter of principle? Or is that just a strawman that you dreamed up?
Is anybody saying that Al Gore is into animal rights? No, of course not. You're arguing with a strawman again.
As for your rah-rah technology worship, it's crazy. My car is responsible for getting me to work in the morning, and home at night. This is good. So by your logic, my car can is always good, all of its effects are always good, and everything that is done with it is always good -- like, for example, if I happen to run somebody down while driving, would you call that a good thing? And if I said it was bad, you'd call me an "anti-automobile wacko" and throw a fit.
I would truly be interested to see anyone attempt to legitimize Algore's appalling remarks about population control.
Easy. When living organisms overbreed, they die off. We're living organisms. When we overbreed in a given area, we die off there. When we overbreed on a worldwide scale, we'll be in deep shit. We're getting there pretty fast. We can wait until billions of people are starving, or we can try to find a reasonable solution before then. Interestingly, a high standard of living correlates very highly with a low birth rate. There are a few exceptions here and there, but on the whole the correlation is remarkably consistent. So. One way to begin dealing with overpopulation might be to pay fair wages to factory workers in third-world nations.
"Quality of life" indeed!! As if he has a right to dictate it!
You're in hysterics again. Nobody ever said anything about Al Gore dictating anything. Al Gore expressed concern about it. His sincerity is debatable, but expressing concern has nothing to do with dictating anything. Okay?
As if he is in a position to declare whether we might have "extra" people!
He's talking about population in excess of what can be supported by the local economy. The "extra" ones are the ones that starve to death. You seem to be under the impression that they will enjoy starving to death. That is because you are insane.
the technology you condemn now is responsible for . . . the eradication of smallpox
The smallpox vaccine was developed by Edward Jenner in the 18th century. He used scrapings from cowpox sores (cowpox is a similar but much less dangerous disease). Unfortunately, he didn't invent a vaccine for idiocy while he was at it.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
look at long term goals of the Democratic Party.
Were these "long term goals" stated in an actual document you found on the Michigan Militia web site, or did you just make it up off the top of your head? I've been following both parties for a few years now just about as closely as I can stand (admittedly, that's not very close
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
the status quo says that we must nominate the Vice-President no matter how ignorant he is.
Bag that. I may yet write in H. L. Mencken, but if I don't I'm gonna give Bill Bradley a shot. It's true that the conventional wisdom says Gore, but Gore is obviously hopeless and it's time to demand a serious candidate for a change. Clinton has done a lot better than I ever thought he would, but the truth of the matter is that he ran in 1992 because all of the serious Democrats thought it was impossible to run against Bush. Heh. So much for Bush. The Democrats have a real solid shot this time, assuming they can put up somebody who was never a regular character on Sesame Street.
I say down with the status quo of both parties
Well, the Republican status quo looks to be on a short road to Hell these days (except Pat Robertson, who seems to have gained a grip (that, or else he knows for sure that Bush fils is a stealth candidate, and he's biding his time)) what with all their big names running off to join Operation Rescue and ban flag burning (That's not a joke! They're really harping on that one again!). The fundies got the taste of blood in their mouths in the '80's, and they just aren't gonna stop chewing. They really believe that they can turn the U.S. into a theocratic dictatorship. They're probably wrong, but ever since the Reagan regime they know with absolute certainty that they can do a really incredible amount of damage to this country. They're not going to be backing off any time soon. They're like a barbarian army: Once they start burning, looting, and raping, no power on earth can stop them until they run out of steam and fall asleep in the wreckage. Jesus, when I think about Pat Buchanan, I swear to god I know just how the French felt in 1940.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
blame his wacko environmental ideas
You have to bear in mind how tightly controlled the media are in this country. The real "wackos" (the ones who are ethical, knowledgeable, and realistic about the situation) make Gore look like Strom Thurmond -- but you don't hear much about them.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Who the hell ever heard of Bill Clinton before 1992? Bush had been in the public eye for 12 years.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
If I post in favor of bombing federal buildings, will I get a four? How about if I post some "creation science" [sic, loud laughter] nonsense? Will that help?
It's a bit annoying to see an incoherent, ill-informed post get a high score, presumably on the basis of its political orientation. I mean, there's nothing else about it that's even vaguely interesting.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Libertarians do not stand for government being used as the tool of the rich against the working class.
Of course they do. They stand for people with money buying what they damn well please with it.
Consider for instance the use of police and National Guard troops to attack striking workers,
I'm considering it, but I'm also considering their use of the Pinkertons and other private, "free-enterprise" thugs. If the government will do it for free, that's fine by industry; but don't think for a minute that industry won't dig into their own pockets to hire thugs when they have to. Bear also in mind that the government which sent those thugs was the closest thing to a libertarian government that this country has ever had (granted, they weren't that close, but they were a hell of a lot closer than, for example, Al Dumbass Gore).
The market competition which libertarianism supports permits cooperation within a competitive framework -- whereas the forced, pseudo-cooperative framework which socialism mandates does not permit competition.
Aren't you excluding some middles there? Not to mention comparing apples and oranges. Libertarian socialism has been suggested as well as tried (read up on the Spanish Civil War), and an awful lot of capitalistic governments in the last century or two have been horrifyingly repressive.
Don't get economic systems mixed up with political systems. That's something that really bugs me about the U.S.; people think "capitalism", "free market", "democracy", and "freedom" are all synonymns. They're not. They're not even all that compatible with each other.
Anyhow, Libertarianism is about fostering personal freedoms unless they can be demonstrated to harm others -- and in that there caveat lies a world of wiggle room.
Socialism would end oppression by placing all power in the hands of the government,
Close. Socialism, broadly defined, wants to put power in the hands of the workers. Most socialists are in favor of implementing that with a government-as-we-know-it, but by no means all. 100 years ago in the U.S., "anarchist" was confused with "socialist" in much the same way that "libertarian" is now confused with "capitalist". Both conflations are like saying that all tall people have brown hair. Hey, I'm tall, I have brown hair . . . same for my brother . . . two guys I know at work . . . Hey, whaddya know!
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
How do you wish to restrict what people with money buy?
Um, I dunno. Ask nicely, maybe.
Would you prefer that we not be allowed to buy tobacco?
Aarrgghh! Those anti-smoking maniacs piss me the hell off. It's as intellecutally groundless as the "war on drugs". Utter madness. Dammit! Ever flown from the U.S. to Germany without a cigarette? I mean, assuming you smoke. If you don't smoke it's probably not so bad.
Or fur coats?
I'm firmly in favor of snickering at people with fur coats, making fun of them, sneering at them, smirking, putting up posters saying they're losers, etc. I'm also firmly in favor of doing very bad things to people who kill members of endangered species. But if you make a coat out of minks (which are depressingly far from endangered) and some vulgar moron buys it and wears it, I'm okay with that on a moral basis. Aesthetically, I'm so far beyond appalled it ain't even funny. And I don't care how many p's there are in "appalled", either. The more the merrier!
I never mentioned democracy.
Heh. Neither did I.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
> I just have to say, who HASN'T used marijuana?
Me? And I'm not even running for office.
> I mean, give me a break. As if this is some sort
> of social ill that is tearing the nation apart.
Willfull disregard for the law is hardly a good resume bullet for someone who wants to be the guy in charge of the country's laws. Stack this up with all the other "little" laws the guy's broken. Not the picture of someone I'd want to trust with our country's console.
I lived in Southern California for five years. The reason LA has the smog is due to the valley walls, which trap in the smog.
China attempted to solve a similar smog problem by having hundreds of thousands of workers with shovels remove a mountain. Whee.
Al Gore would be the worst imaginable president?
I can think of worse; the name Pat Robertson comes to mind.
Don't take this to mean I like Gore- I won't vote for him. But most of the points in these articles are nonsense.
Actually, environmental issues would be one of the first things I look at in a candidate's platform, but I think Gore's full ignorance and hot air on this one. But attempting to discredit someone with a pro-environment standpoint by pointing out that the Unabom suspect held similar views is absurd; that would be like trying to discredit all libertarians based on what McVeigh (supposedly) did, or all Christians based on those involved in womens' clinic attacks.
As far as Gore's technical savvy, I think he more or less thoroughly discredited himself in this area long ago.
I wonder who the Natural Law party will put in the race? How about the Libertarians? It's a shame that we tend to think that there are only two real choices, two that invariably turn out to be slightly different flavors of the same pile of trash.
For all people who don't know what the proper definition of a 'yutz' is please consult Everything's definition of yutz
For the Y iddish literate, please add more definitions!
-AP
It seems to me like Slashdot needs an Al Gore
logo and an Al Gore topic/keyword...
I found this on civilliberty.miningco.com. Basically, the UN is strongly against the idea of legalized drugs. So much that their INBC (International Narcotics Control Board) feels that any inducement to take drugs, even calls for legalization, are illegal and should be punished by prosecution. The relevant article is right here.
And yeah, as soon as I'm 18, I'm registering with the Libertarian Party. Not one of my friends, even the Democratic ones, are going to vote for that putz Gore. Blame his wife, censorious puritan that she is, blame his wacko environmental ideas, but he's dead meat.
in discussing democrats,republicans, and liberterians, one thing has been overlooked: the point of the original post is that al gore has tried to represent the technology community without ever being a part of this community! this is the overiding theme to the clinton/gore whitehouse. clinton/gore say they feel the frustration of parents with kids in public education, yet neither sent their kids to public school. clinton/gore tell the press they support the us forces yet neither have served. clinton says he supports sexual harassment laws, yet he continues to show he doesn't abide by them. i am not saying that person has to have something happen to them inorder to know how it feels, but it has become apparent that clinton/gore will latch upon any community that might gain them a single vote. i'll admit that i vote republician. i have meet and spoken with George W. Bush. he is not the type of man that would lie to you and tell you he knows something when he doesn't. i'd rather be told "i'm not sure what you are talking about but i can find out" than be told "o'h ya i understand and we'll make a fine law for you- be sure and vote for me"
"Did I say a buzzword?"
I loved that quote. At least someone told Gore what was going on, and he had a sense of humor about it. That's about the only thing I like about him though. Between algore and the holy bush, I sure hope someone else comes along to vote for.
Food will make you fat, alcohol will make you drunk, but you do it to yourself, the drug doesn't do it to you.
i sure hope that you sweep the floors and empty the garbage at Motorola, but I think that I see here a classic case of denial. You can stop whenever you want to, right? It helps clear your mind, right? That is the only explanation for such a non-sensical comment. Using drugs DOES make you a loser, whether you use them for acceptance, low self-esteem, the inability to deal with reality, psychological problems or the inability to determine or care about right and wrong. It is wrong for a reason, and not because of the mafia. You benefit (if it's appropriate to use that word) from the majority of people that don't use drugs, who drive down the street not stoned, who show up for work everyday and produce, who raise kids who learn that drugs are bad, addictive and no solution for anything. So just keep the windows clean, the floors vacuumed and remember to lock the doors on your way home.
What a looser. I mean luser. I mean losur. I mean LOSER.
What, you think that Socialism is a very whacky and very scary idea. Well for corporations, religious groups, anti-abortion protesters, corporate lobbying groups, the healthcare industry, utilities, insurance companies, HMOs, anyone who thinks ( socialism == communism ), people who have a paranoid fear of taxes, and right-wingers in general, it is a very scary idea. And I also think that strict environmental controls are also a very good idea. And corporations are just as scared of environment controls as they are of socialism. I also think that it would be a good idea to adopt the metric system and use military time with all the place holder zeros, as well as the day-month-year date format.
Let's make the US as socialist and as liberal as Sweden! Free healthcare, free 6 week vacations, free utilities, free pension for people over age 65, free insurance, free housing for the poor, free education (including college), and free unemployment pay for all! And while we're at it, implement strict environmental controls and only use hydroelectric, wind, and nuclear power! And to top it off, adopt the metric system, and the Dutch time and date format!
DES Khaddafi KGB genetic jihad Uzi Rule Psix Qaddafi cryptographic Peking Mossad Legion of Doom Albanian Serbian Saddam
No, it's dominated by moderates and pragmatists. Something which we could use a lot more of on slashdot.
Just when I thought the moderating system really worked to improve the quality of postings I have to reconsider when it comes to political discussion.
It seems to work fine when there is a consensus on the technical merits of a posting in other threats, but politics is always controversial. The politcal opinion of a moderator will affect his/her rating.
The government created the internet...and is funding InternetII.
I've heard nothing from Al Gore about censorship. That sounds unlikely...
Afte reading the last eight or none comments on this thread, I have to ask: Holy Sh_t, are we off topic, or what????????
Just a thought.......
Doobie doobie dooo....
You seem to be stating that for the love of money or just the kicks you get when contemplating our insignificant technological achievements you are willing to ignore the fact that our beloved technology may have the side effect of rendering the planet unfit for human occupancy. Has your devotion to technology blinded you from the fact that we do indeed live on a planet with a finite amount of natural resources? Questioning the effect that technology has on our environment is a healthy process, and implying that anyone who holds this view is somehow related to a murderer is lunacy!
"All our lauded technological progress -- our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal."
- Albert Einstein
>>>>clinton/gore tell the press they support the us forces yet neither have served Um just FYI...Al Gore is a veteran of the Vietnam War.
What Fools These Mortals Be!
I would have thought that the reason to vote
AGAINST him was because all the Democrats are
all war mongering morons? We're almost at WW3
thanks to kkklinton.
I do believe that it was our current draft-dodging, coward-president, Billy Clinton, who has been sending troops all over the damn globe, even though he was afraid to go himself. The democrats, republicans, politicians in general in this country send troops to places where they shouldn't be.
If you want to go smoke-up, go ahead, but don't say the war on drugs is idiotic. The truth is that drugs are bad, in one way or another, and SOMETHING should be done to stop their abuse.
I believe that it was a republican (Forbes), who suggested that we repeal the income tax and switch to a flat tax system. It is the democratic candidates that wouldn't even suggest we switch.
The democrats support unemployment, large "big brother"-style government, and other liberal programs.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
That notion increasingly pops into my mind as I observe persons currently in leadership positions who seemingly believe that "technology competence" is knowing how to boot Win95 and run a couple of apps. Perhaps there is too much truth in Dogbert's statement that "Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow". It seems to me that today's (and certainly the short term future's) leadership will have to understand how the Internet works. Politicians and business executives whose notion of using email is having their administrative assitant print out a bunch of messages, prioritize the, after which they make handwritten notations in the margins from which the assistant keys in and sends replies is wearing a blindfold. It is my viewpoint that those who refuse to take pro-active technological leadership stances, undergirded by their personal knowledge obtained by experience, are diminishing in value.
Considering that he seems to want to attract the technical type people, but he just doesn't seem to have a clue when it comes to technical things, perhaps we could send a few emails like:
Dear Al,
You seem to like us, but every time you open your mouth in our direction, you make yourself look like a fool. So here's some clues:
...
...
...
----
obviously not stated like that, but the overall message the same
Calmacil
I can't seem to face up to the facts, I'm tense and nervous and I can't relax... --Talking Heads
Well for what I see must slashdot users agree in the following
a) drugs are bad, the government is not solving it, and whatever is doing is just plain lame.
b) you want privacy
c) you dont like the taxing system
d) you dont like the justice system (exept vs m$)
e) your ruling parties just don't cut it for ya.
f) freedom of speech (copyleft).
maybe you should consider building your own party
that represents what you really want, and not that of some financial behemoth.
oh sorry! you would be called comunist by the elephant and the donkey.
20. Gore was an advocate of the "V-chip" to permit parents to block out programming they considered inappropriate for their children. It is widely regarded as a complete failure.
Okay, here's the deal, if you're gonna look at the v-chip as a huge reason for Gore's incapability, look at one thing. Star Wars, you remember, that interesting and money-sucking vampiric and far-fetched program started by those damned liberals, no wait, that's right, Reagan. Modern republicans Golden Boy of the 80's....
-Zen I'm gonna make the _world_ my bitch.
Ok.....heres how it goes, people have the right to destroy their bodies all they want to, up to the point it affects ANYONE else. There are plenty of drugs that almost instantly change a person into a raving lunatic. It is plain to see that you have never been affected by drugs because the only people who advocate making drugs leag are addicts and people who have never seriously used drugs.
_ ____________________
I could rant for pages on how drugs destroyed friends of mine how never used them, (Robberies for drug money and the like) or how I have seen families torn apart by them, but I feel my words would be lost on you. It is very few drug users who have not stepped on other peoples rights. It IS the governments responsibility to protect it's citzens, even from theirselves.
___________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
What if I don't wnat to crawl ??_ __________
_____________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I am well aware that the Excel example illustrates a very anti-microsoft point. Let me re-state this I hate M$. Bu I do not feel what they are doing compares with the companies that the anti-trust laws were enacted to protect the public from. In fact they do just the opposite, strangely enough the only other choice for a new home user would be Mac. M$ and Mac are the only two OS's friendly wnough to keep a new user interested in using computers. KDE is nice but once again Linux is about siz months or more in supporting new hardware, both KDE and X have trouble with high end AGP adapters.
_ ______________
Are we off topic or what 8-)
The company I work for has a corporate directive that nothing critical will be run on NT. So I can see both sides of the coin. However I hold a firm belief the most of our laws are antiquated. Anti-trust, income tax are tow examples. Until a new computer user can put in a CD and install Linux with only four or five options then M$ will be on top no matter the damn gov't does. If you force then to stop what they are doing then you will turn ne users off to computers completely. I hate to say this but right now M$ is good for the public. Fight your Jyhad all you want, but you won't win, at least not yet, because the public wants M$. You can no longer say that it is because they don't have any choice, because the choices are out there.
_________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Are you even remotely aware of a concept known as as "free market" the whole anti trust thing goes against the basic nature of a free market. As anti-Micro-squish as I am, I have to say the governments actions in this case are apalling to me, and as much as I hate MS, the public loves them, much like Clinton or any President who gets elected, there are some who hate them, but they were elected.
_ _____________
Now before you scream and rave about "lack of choice", every store I shop at has Redhat Linux in a box about 3-6 feet from MS's OSs, and you know the honest truth, as much as I hate to admit it, MS' OSs are more "user friendly" than Liunx. I personally use the SuSE distro at the office, and unfotunatley have to use MS at the house for two reasons, the main reason being lack of hardware support for X Windows or XFree86. I have a dual boot to a SuSE install but the Apps my wife needs to use require a GUI, and there is the second reason. My wifes job requires her to use Excel. Until there is a much more user friendly version of Linux or a release of X that supports the high end of video cards things can't change.
Synopsis: The gov't has no damn business in the business world and should get the hell out.
Flesh99 (Expecting the flames very soon)
__________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Forget about political parties and vote for people that support issues you like. Too often people go into the voting booth and pick the person affiliated with their party wthout even knowing their names and stance on issues.
Hell no they aren't. The Democratic partry get most of its support and cash from labor unions and high-tech industry. What they do is follow what lobbies want and what the NSA wants as does every politician.
Hell no they aren't. The Democratic partry get most of its support and cash from labor unions and high-tech industry. What they do is follow what lobbies want and what the NSA wants as does every politician.
The NSA doesn't want secure software going out to other countries because it makes their job harder.
does everyone here remember when they caught that dude selling secrets to China from our National lab. The only reason we caught him was because we USA) had a spy in china that found out that.
But as I recall, Al didn't actually use any buzzwords in the speech he gave. This was a classic MIT "hack" which was foisted not upon Al Gore in particular, but jargon-spouters in general.
And I admire that Al was able to joke about it. While he may not_entirely_get it, he sure as hades gets it more than most_politicians_.
*Sigh*, guess Rob didn't like it when I sent it to him... check out hacks.mit.edu for more...
"Responsibility for my career? I'm just a freakin' phone monkey!"
It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off
Yeah, but one flat tax package is not the same as another. Forbes' package only taxed paycheck type income, not interest payment income. I don't know what Brown's tax package looked like, but looking at who we're talking about, my money is on a relatively progressive taxation - something along the lines of every income, no matter where it comes from, gets hit with an tax of a constant rate. Which is really excessive. BillG would be payiong through the nose, whereas someone with the same paycheck but nothing in the bank or otherwise earning interest would be paying way less. A very nice way to do flat taxes if you ask me.....
itachi
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
- snip some stuff that allows congress to borrow money, create the post office, and established the PTO -
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
So, having read that, my take on this would be that the founding fathers were pro social programs, and thought that a standing army (read defense budget) was a bad thing. Oddly enough, as far as I can tell from reading all 27 admendments, article 1 section 8 was never modified or nullified. I'm not an expert on the constitution, but doesn't that suggest that a standing military is illegal in the US?
itachi
I find it highly unlikely that a dead-head who tray-surfs with the press corps on Air Force 2 would be pro censorship. The man might not know a pal pilot from a sparc station (the palm pilot's the little one, right?), but he's not all that bad when you try to find out more about him. He's downright cool, in fact.
itachi
> Ronald Reagan and his extremely big
> government policies ("Star Wars"
> defense system, drug war, Iran/Contra,
> etc.).
Yes the defense buildup had much to do with the deficits. However, Reagan originally intended to eliminate or reduce many social programs and corportate tax breaks (i.e., Windfall Profits on oil). These reductions were impossible to get through a congress that was more concerned with bring home the pork. The benefit of the military buildup was that it directly led to the econmic collapse of the Soviet Union, which also caused the politcal collapse of totalitarian Soviet Communism. Hence, we have been able to reduce our defense spending and infrastructure by over 40% since its high of 1985-86.
> has actually reduced the size of
> government from its high under
> Ronald Reagan.
To use a Clintonian term: It depends on what "reduced" means.
Non-defense spending, and non-defense government employment has risen under Clinton. All of the total net reductions have come from the Department of Defense, to include both the uniformed military, and the civil servants. Since the reduction of the DOD was result of policies of previous administrations, it is incorrect to give Clinton credit for this.
Algore is a dork, not a nerd.
The most technical savvy politition of this decade was Newt Gingrich. I remember watching his televised college class back in the late '80s, and thinking "This guys a politician?" Unfortunately, Newt has now been reduced to making $50,000/night on the chicken and mashed potatos circuit, and as such, he will only tell those groups what they want to hear, not what he thinks is interesting or important.
How about this:
Republicans = Big Business (Yes, that includes M$ too)
Democrats = Real People
I think everybody forgets that it's the Democrats who wrote this country's anti-trust laws, and it's a Democratic Justice Department that is trying to enforce them right now. Imagine a Republican standing up to a big corporation. Now imagine them standing up to the biggest corporation the world has ever seen. This is clearly impossible.
Democrats have a healthy distrust of big business and that is what we need.
There's nothing wrong with competition, but it has to be regulated. Imagine a sports event without judges or rules.
:)
Microsoft, by leveraging their Windows monopoly makes it impossible for companies like Netscape or Corel to compete. If every Windows system comes preloaded with IE, and there are no major differences between it and Netscape (M$ copied Netscape's entire look and functionality), Netscape is going to lose, even if it didn't deserve to.
That is the whole point about monopoly power - it discourages (not helps) competition. A superior product loses and an inferior product wins. Before trying Linux (yes, I am a newbie) I thought that computers were supposed to crash every few hours. Most people still think that way because 95% of all computers sold in stores are preloaded with Windows.
And by the way, your complaint about Excel illustrates, not undermines my point. Your wife's job requires her to use Excel not because it's a better product, but because MS has been successful at establishing MS Office as a standard, inventing proprietary file formats along the way to squish even a possibility of a competition.
As to Linux not being as user friendly as Windows - that is changing fast. Future versions of major Linux distributions will probably include KDE or GNOME, eliminating that excuse once and for all. The distro I use (Red Hat 5.2) is user friendly enough for me
.. to see if he's ever had any speeding tickets. A compulsive speeder would make a terrible President, and it would be a shame for this wholesome country to elect such a man.
An article in "Human Events" also claimed that Gore wet his pants not once, but twice in the first grade. This must also be looked into.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
'nuff said.
Denying the importance of the U.S. government to the world would be like denying the importance of Linux to Open Source. The fact is, no matter who (or what) you are, the U.S. government *has* affected you to some degree... those living in the US or its territores feel its influence much more directly than those in China, Russia, or Germany, but I guarantee you that in some way, be it covert (financial aid to Mexico), overt (bombing of Yugoslavia), or whatever, the US government has affected you, and your beliefs. How much it will continue to affect you is of critical importance to you, especially with Congress' belief that it has the manifest destiny to govern the internet. I wasn't old enough to vote in the last election, but I have no fear of being one of the 5% of 19 year-olds that vote in 2000, because I'm not a fucking dolt - I realize the US government likes to stick it in me, and I'm screaming at them (for what my voice is worth) to take it out.
If we distributed our encryption tech to all who wanted it, what would be the use of encryption? If we can have 20 scientists/programmers working on an encryption initiative and it succeeds, why distribute? so the chinese can put a hundred folks to work on the **real** product and crack the code? Why bother with encoding things if you are going to give it all away?
Not Cool, Dangerous......
When this guy will try to say he invented the internet... IN PUBLIC.... and then when the smack down is applied, try to spin the statement, I see a pathetic weakling who is trying to slip and spin his way to the top, like his current partner (BC).
I believe on the point of sending troops and fighting where we don't belong is a product of Democratic Government, Hoss. Do you remember a man named Lyndon Johnson and a place called Vietnam. Johnson started all the escalation and I believe a republican (Nixon) ended it.
She didn't only chase after rap, she tried to close the door on rock as well, remember Dee Snyder and Frank Zappa testifying before the hill?
Those two are a dangerous couple of politicians. They believe that they are making the best decisions for everyone and that the government will take care of us all (does anybody here remember what socialism is?) If given the chance, this liar and con artist (AG), who still believe's he had everything to do with the beginning of the internet, will give everything we have away as a country. His partner (BC) is in bed with the chinese, as well as himself (illegal donations funnelled through buddhist monks). We all need to put these to megalomaniacal children out to pasture.
sorry for the rant, but those two liars and cheats on the hill really burn me up!
tg
Who the hell cares? If it's never been on Slashdot before, it's new news to everyone else.
There are moderates out there (I like to think that I'm one). We are usually ignored by, what in my opinion, amount to a bunch of big government statists and cold, uncaring, selfish bastards on both sides of the political spectrum, at least within the party system, particularly in the House. Unfortunately, moderates don't do very well in the party structure. But there is a need for moderates, especially when it comes to running for national office. Successful presidential candidates are usually moderate. The whole reason the GOP has been foundering has been a failure to get national candidates who are sufficiently moderate out there. I would bet that they have their act together for this election though. Personally, I still think Gore is a better bet than Dole or Bush or whoever the Republicans line him up against. I don't exactly admire his techo-bumbling and idiotic self-promotion, but as long as he just butts out and keeps blowing his own horn, I couldn't give a damn.
I have to say amen to that. I'm moderately libertarian in my viewpoint, but I recognize that government can do good for people (and sometimes, rarely these days, it does). I'm not an anarchist. Anyway, I just hope the Democrats continue to support a free and tolerant society. The idea of Tipper supporting censorship or Al supporting crypto-restrictions scares me. If I can't vote Democrat in this election, I'm going to have to go 3rd party.
Giuliani and Pataki really do know how to screw things up don't they? I am from NYC, also currently living in Boston. I liked the tolerant attitude the NYPD used to have to minor infractions (i.e. I could smoke a joint in the Sheep Meadow in Central Park without getting arrested). Not to mention the fact that NYPD has become 10 times more violent since Giuliani was elected. This is based on personal experience of getting harrassed in my own apartment in NYC, and I'm an unassuming white guy. Can't imagine what it's like if you're not.
Wrong-o...the republicans really are for lesser government. I work for the federal government, and if you knew about all the cutbacks and positions the republicans got rid of a few years ago, your opinion would change. I'm a republican...but I like libertarians too. If Jesse Ventura ran for Pres, I'd vote for him. :)
Would you prefer to elect a technophobe who just keeps his mouth shut about it?
Yes I would...as long as he butts out too. The government needs to just leave the internet alone, and if Al Gore could censor and control it, he would.
All he's done to deserve your enmity is put his foot in his mouth about technological issues -- and what politicians hasn't put his foot in his mouth at least a dozen times?
Since the best voting strategy is usually "lesser of two evils," I'd wait and see who the GOP nominates before saying who you're voting for/against. Personally, the only Republican I can imagine voting for is John McCain, but he doesn't have a chance in hell of being nominated, assuming he even runs.
--
I still think the article was great, but to take this as Yet Another Gore-bashing Foray (or as yet another chance to fish for proselytes on behalf of the "clueful" "outsider" Libertarian Party) misses the point.
--
--
=8^
As you may recall, many of the worst excesses of "capitalism" have stemmed from big government aiding industry, often in a corrupt fashion. Consider for instance the use of police and National Guard troops to attack striking workers, or the continued corruption of the military-industrial complex, or the continued federal support of Big Tobacco through subsidies (even as with the other hand the government prosecutes the tobacco companies).
Libertarians do not stand for government support and subsidy of industry. Libertarians do not stand for government being used as the tool of the rich against the working class.
Libertarians stand for the government having one purpose and one purpose alone: the protection of individuals against violent force, threat of force, and fraud.
There is nothing in Libertarianism that speaks against labor unions, cooperatives, worker-owned businesses, and other forms of empowerment of the working class. Libertarianism allows for whatever steps a person may take to improve his/her position in the market --- including unionizing or cooperating with others --- as long as those steps do not involve the use of force. The market competition which libertarianism supports permits cooperation within a competitive framework --- whereas the forced, pseudo-cooperative framework which socialism mandates does not permit competition.
Socialism would end oppression by placing all power in the hands of the government, which is presently the largest source of oppression on the planet --- "whitewashing a wall by painting it black", to quote Hagbard Celine. Libertarianism, by directly undercutting this oppressive force, is in a sense more true to the intentions of socialism than socialism itself is.
> They stand for people with money buying what
> they damn well please with it.
How do you wish to restrict what people with money buy? Would you prefer that we (I say "we" because both of us, I assume, have money) not be allowed to buy tobacco? Or fur coats? The present regime in the U.S. thinks we should not be allowed to buy Cuban cigars or domestically-produced hemp products. Do you think these are reasonable restrictions on our property rights? I don't.
> I'm considering it, but I'm also considering
> their use of the Pinkertons and other private,
> "free-enterprise" thugs.
A libertarian government, concerned with protecting the people from force, threat of force, and fraud, would by no means have ignored such abuses. "Libertarian government" does not mean "no government"; it means a government whose sole concern is the protection of individual liberties from violation by (once again the refrain) force, threat of force, or fraud. If the bosses hire thugs to attack union leaders, then the thugs are guilty of assault and battery, and the bosses complicit.
> Don't get economic systems mixed up with
> political systems. That's something that really
> bugs me about the U.S.; people think
> "capitalism", "free market", "democracy", and
> "freedom" are all synonymns. They're not.
I never mentioned democracy.
If technology is your issue, and your going to vote based on that, I would suggest that you look at the Libritarian Party, where your vote against someone will actually count as a vote for your platform. They have a strong stance on Internet Censorship, Cryptology, etc...
Personally, I won't vote for Gore for MANY reasons, I might vote LP, but I am going to wait and see who the choices end up being.
Isn't the opposition to Gore the Republican Party, which is dominated by fundamentalist theocrats and authoritarian reactionaries? Surely a bozo who inanely spouts buzzwords he doesn't understand would be the lesser evil in this case.
Or do you mean Libertarian or Socialist or Natural Law Party or some other unlikely-to-get-elected fringe group?
<SARCASM>
A republican who believes in evolution? Will wonders never cease?
</SARCASM>
Seriously, the unfortunate reality is that sensible republicans are surrounded by the theocrats; it's an unfortunate fact that the more fanatical one is, the more effort one is going to put into their campaigning and politicking, which is why a small extremist fringe holds alarming sway over one of the two major US political parties. Even though the religiots haven't yet succeeded in turning the Republican Party into a Pentecostal Hezbollah, the party line has to bend a lot to accommodate their prejudices and tyrannical ambitions. And that in itself is more cause to worry than bozotic buzzword dropping.
Actually, the only reason he makes these gaffes is because he has a great interest in courting the technology-aware voting base. Okay, it hasn't worked out as well as he would have hoped, but at least he's sympathetic. Would you prefer to elect a technophobe who just keeps his mouth shut about it?
"If you want to go smoke-up, go ahead, but don't say the war on drugs is idiotic. The truth is that drugs are bad, in one way or another, and SOMETHING should be done to stop their abuse. "
Read the book "Drug Crazy" by Mike Gray.
We've been trying prohibition for the last *100* years on one damn substance or another! IT DOESN'T WORK!!!
We don't need the government to make drug users look pathetic...most do on their own (except the lucky few that know exactly how to handle drug use). However, by making it illegal, you make drug trade VERY VERY VERY Profitable, where the drug people can buy off any one they want, and shoot and kill any competitors while destroying whole neighborhoods in the process.
in the 1920's, the people selling alcohol did so in the same way that people sell drugs in the 1990's.
And finally, people have the RIGHT to put WHATEVER THEY WANT into THEIR BODIES. They DON'T have the right to blame their behaviour on the drug afterwords, but it's MY cells, MY blood, MY body, and I'll do with it whatever I please. In my case, I choose not to do drugs (or alcohol) because I don't want to lose control of what I am doing. As long as I don't hurt anybody else physically or destroy property, HOW DARE they say otherwise?
Amazing. Actual thoughtful political *thinking*.
See, Slashdotters? It can be done.
I saw Al Gore speak in DC a couple weeks ago and all I can say is, I hope they get rid of that horrid World Cup theme song as his campaign song.
Gore is a pretty smart guy and I think people will warm up to him once he gets out from Clinton's rapidly diminishing shadow. I disagree with him in quite a few areas, and he is basically too cautious for me in areas I do agree with, but as an actual possibility to be the next president, we could do far worse.
Question to those who despise Al Gore: are you registered to vote? And if so, did you vote in the last election? I do voter files for a living and I can predict that many of you are not registered, and of those who are registered, if you are under 40 years old you probably didn't vote.
If you want someone better than Al Gore to be in office, then you have to participate.
-------
Bill Gates Is My Evil Twin.
If you're referring to Steve Kubby, he's not a drug dealer. He was growing marijuana for personal medical benefit in full compliance with California state law.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Isn't the opposition to the fundamentalist theocrats and authortarian reactionaries dominated by religiphobic socialists and radical statists?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Here are some other funny hacks on campus:
Micr o$oft posters
Anomalous banners appeared upon Gates' visit
Everyone's heard of the CP car on the Great Dome. Don't ask how it got up there...you really don't want to know.
Hackers greet the new Institute president
Boston Pops VU meter during Esplanade concert
my personal favorite
We may be nerds, but dammit, we're FUNNY nerds. Browse around hacks.mit.edu for more.
Bradley is an impressive character, and he had a surprisingly large turnout among volunteers (perhaps 3-1 in numbers over Gore). If you're interested seeing how the man walks and talks in a relatively informal setting, check the C-Span schedule over the next few days; they had a crew there taping the event. Worth checking out if you won't vote Republican but don't find Gore an attractive candidate.
(Apropos of nothing, having checked the C-Span schedule just now, I find that no less a grey eminence than Jon Katz will be appearing on C-Span tomorrow morning (Sunday, April 10, 1999, at 8:27 a.m., repeating at 12:47 a.m. ET) as part of a panel discussion on writing biography. Love him or hate him, it's certain to be better than Sam & Cokie.)
My problem with Gore is that he appears to think that he has personal understanding of technology. He has delusions of competence. That's much, much worse than being merely ignorant. One who is ignorant usually knows enough to ask an expert. The poser experts are the dangerous types.
I'd rather get medical treatment from someone with no medical training than from someone who thinks he's a doctor. The one with no medical training will likely do nothing, or find someone with medical training. the poser doctor may well break out the scalpel and stare, amazed, at my incredible array of innards. For much the same reason, I'd rather have a president who didn't understand tech than one who thinks he does.
--The basis of all love is respect
So you are stating you would vote against a party, and not for a canidate. It is voters like you that make both major parties the evil that they are today. If every one of us would study the canidates and vote based on their qualifications and views then maybe we would actually send a message by electing more than a few independants.
_ ________
It is directly because of voters like you that the "fringe parties" you mentioned are unlikely to get elected.
To stay on topic however, Al Gore seems to jump on any bandwagon that rolls past. The technology bandwagon wasn't the first and it won't be the last. Much like Clinton when push comes to shove he will back down and weasle his way out of whatever promises he makes. I think the Democrats only chance is to put canidate up who will stand behind the issues and fight for what he believes in. You say the Republican party is reactionary, wouldn't Al Gore jumping on the technology bandwagon and using buzzwords when he has no idea what they mean be a little reactionary. Maybe not in the same sense you use it in, but reactionary none the less.
I choose not to reveal my party affiliation but, suffice it to say Gore does not have my vote, if for no other reason than by being un-informed he only proves his ignorance. There are canidates within the Democratic party who would stand a much better chance than Gore, but the status quo says that we must nominate the Vice-President no matter how ignorant he is. I say down with the status quo of both parties and down with ignorant voters.
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
And for good reason. Anyone born after about 1962 or so cannot remember the government bringing together SQUAT. Previous generations have had common threads: the government getting people to work, getting armies together to fight evil, and in its last great collective breath, sending a man to the moon. Generations since then have seen government generating more problems than it has solved. 91% of people born after 1962 feel there won't be any social security money for them. (And they're right; amazingly, the fund is now due to call it quits just as generation X hits 65. Coincidence?)
Slashdotters reaction to all of this is to turn away from government to solve its problems. And it *has* been solving problems -- in spades. We've started by popularizing a concept so revolutionary that it could do away with any collective control of production in an entire industry. Howzat! We've shrugged off the government-for-life model, are busy shrugging off the company-man-for-life model and are establish a NEW model that works better than those dinosaurs.
You're right, Al Gore may well be the best candidate available in the next presidential election. Why doesn't that scare the shit out of you? Point made: if we seek true leadership, we must find it outside of the usual channels. Every one of us has more principles, more leadership ability, more guts and moxie than any politician in the old system. Nobody here is waiting for the USDA stamp of approval on software we write; we've found a new guarantee of quality better than any envisioned before.
And if you haven't "ruled out" Al Gore and every last one of those blood-sucking, egomanical Washington leeches, you may also be stuck trying to make the old models work. So I have one last word for you: if you aren't going to participate in this new model, at least help by getting Gore and his cronies on both sides of the aisle to stay out of the fucking way as much as possible... before they, too, are hit by the cluetrain.
The only other announced Democratic candidate is Bill Bradley.
Geez, some of you people need a humor transplant. The person who wrote those 35 reasons was just heaping ridicule on Gore, not outlining a detailed case of why not to vote against him. I was interested to see Owen defend Dan Quayle though. (Not that his analogy was even correct: Dan Quayle mis-spoke because he was stupid, Al Gore just plain lied). It is interesting to see some people parroting the radical leftist party line on the affects of humans on the environment. Accuse your opponents of bad science without presenting any scientific evidence whatsover.
Al Gore would be just about the worst president I can possibly image. Here are a few articles with reasons why:
35 Reasons Not to Vote for Al Gore.
How to Tell the Difference Between Al Gore and the Unabomber
Apocalypse Gore
Not only is Al Gore a pathological liar like his buddy Clinton, he's also full of very whacky and very scary ideas.
Whenever slashdot focuses it's collective mind on a political matter, I have to stop and suppress the temptations put forth by this beloved Hyde Park. I will not stoop to petty bickering. I will not participate in a thread that relies on two-sentence come-backs, such as, "Democrats want to to control the boardroom. Republicans want to control the bedroom," or, "Republicans support small government. Democrats support unemployment, big brother, and other liberal programs." I refuse. This stupidity (err, "political naivite") is insulting, and the shame of the matter is that there is a _real_ issue at hand.
The issue at hand is not as transient as Al Gore or the election in the year 2000. It's how this community views itself politically. How does it look at politics? Five years from now, will young politicians in training be joking about computer freaks? I can hear the jokes beginning: "Did I tell you the one about the computer nerd who tried to take his computer into the voting booth?"
And there will be grounds for the jokes. Not because the computer users will be recluses who didn't get a date for the prom, but because they (we) will be sitting on the biggest gold mine of raw power and they (we) will have no idea how to use it or how to control it. This community has only begun to comprehend that this young medium has the opportunity to take control of the staple of politics: images. Who will set the standards for communications over the Internet, Internet2, and its successor? Who will produce the technology and the content? Technology and content do go hand-in hand. (Note the controversy over MP3.)
Does Al Gore realize? He at least acknowledges as much. Does George W. Bush realize this? Who knows? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he's scheming. I'm not George W. Bush, and I don't know enough about him to judge. (Of course, many of the members of the slashdot community are themselves too ignorant to judge Al Gore, but, hey, he's been VP for seven years. Since we're all naturally good and take not note of what our government has been up to for the past few years [or months? days?], we have the inherent right to judge him for one boast if we damn well please.) I know,though, I certainly am not going to rule out Al Gore until I look around hte political landscape a bit more.
It seems right now that there's reaction to some foreign entity. The electronic world is sending its white blood cells out to kill the political bacteria. I'm just disappointed that we've jumped the gun on him.
I just the 35 reasons not to vote for Al Gore, and I must say they are simply wrong. Let's look at number one:
> 1. Gore thinks "human civilization is now the
> dominant cause of change in the global
> environment." Nevermind the sun, the oceans,
> volcanoes, and other natural phenomena that
> actually do control the environment.
So I guess Los Angeles has a brown sky because of the volcanoes in the area? That's a good one.
How about
18. Gore has claimed during a 1999 interview with
> CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "During my
> service in the United States Congress, I took
> the initiative in creating the Internet." The
> preliminary discussions for the creation of the
> Internet took place in 1967 and, in 1969,
> the Defense Department commissioned the creation > of the "Arpanet." Gore was 2l years
> old at the time and it would be eight more years
> before he was elected to the US House of
> Representatives.
If this is a reason _not_ to vote for someone, then I guess you should completely eliminate Mr. Potatoe Head.
> 21. Despite the viewing public's disenchantment
> with the television show, "Ellen", starring
> Ellen DeGeneris, an outspoken advocate of the
> lesbian lifestyle, Gore lauded the star for
> "forcing" millions of Americans to "look at
> sexual orientation in a more open light." They
> stopped looking and the show was cancelled.
Sorry, people, you can't vote for anyone who liked a show that was cancelled. Nope, off the ticket. Nevermind that this comment is probably based off of the author's homophobia, and he thinks that people didn't like the show because she was a lesbian.
> 23. Gore is on record declaring William
> Jefferson Clinton as one of the greatest
> Presidents of modern times.
What _else_ is the freaking VICE PRESIDENT supposed to say? "Clinton sucks ass"????
> 32. Both Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have
> admitted to being "recreational" marijuana
> smokers when he attended Harvard. The
> Clinton-Gore Administration is notorious for
> having failed to stem the flow of drugs into the
> country.
And George W. Bush probably took cocaine. What's your point? You think it's _easy_ to stop drug trafficking?
I could pick apart every single one of these, but I think I've made my point.
Owen Williams
Not trying to talk you out of voting against AG, just wondering how are you going to vote for anyone if having personal understanding of technology is part of criteria :-)