regulated militia (the thing protected by 2nd amendment)
Really, so when they say "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they are refering to the militia. I guess when they mention the PEOPLE in the first and fourth amendment, they are also only refering to the militia then right?
Sorry friend, but the line "a well regulated militia" is intended to be an intro into the amendment, meant to justify it (if you studied history you might know this) and has been decided by the supreme and high courts several times to refer to the whole population.
Lesser courts have decided this differently (usually in the case of a felon arguing to get a gun), but this country still recognises that the second amendment give the PEOPLE the right, and your uninformed opinion doesn't change that.
weirdo gun zealots, an endangered species mostly (only?) nesting in US of A
Don't look now, but over half of us legally own guns. And by calling me a wierdo you only weaken your own arguement by showing immaturity.
and statistcally, but since these statistics don't mesh well with the general bias of the media, they don't get reported (another example of this is how the media conviently never reports the failings of censorware)
And the stats that show guns taking lives are usually exagerated. Remember the gun in your home is more likely to kill a loved one than killing an intruder. That stat counted crack houses as homes, drug dealers and bookies as "loved ones" and suicides were lumped in as well. Statistically, addidental deaths with guns are almost nil. whereas they are used litterally (and documented) daily in preventing and stopping crime.
I live in the state with the second highest consentration of firearms (PA) and the whole state is filled with gangs of criminals and killers. I long for the safety of a gun free place like NYC of DC where I can feel safe.
And everytime I hear of a shooting in church, I can't help but think "This could have been prevented if only the killer was not allowed to take a gun into church". I mean, if the Columbine high school was a gun free school, then the killers there wouldn't have been able to take guns in. *sigh*, if only people would see the logic in banning things they do not like we would all be safer.
Network admins would be exempt from the ban on "hacking tools"
Let's say I'm not a network admin, but I want to be. This law effectivly makes it IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen. It's s simple catch 22, I need to know how to do these things to get the job, but I'm not allowed to until I have the job.
It's a brain-dead treaty no matter how you look at it. It's the same failing war we have fought with drugs and guns. Bans DO NOT WORK at all. Especially on things that have legimate uses (drugs, guns, and hacking software).
Linux itself can be used as a hacking tool, let's remove that from the hands of everyone but trained professionals (thus ending 90% of linux development)
Well said. I would also mention that guns save innocent lives far more often than taking them (at least in the US). Following the news on packing.org shows that nearly every day, a family, a small store owner or just a citizen on the street fights back with a gun to save their life and this is reported in the local news (not national news, thay aren't interested in self-defence stories).
Or as I like to put it, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
Yeah, now there is a great way to pick who you support to lead the country. Why not just pick the one that has better hair or who smiles more. Screw the issues, we make our decisions irrationally:)
Actually, a select few were exaggerations/lies. Most of them are true and in fact a matter of public record. Take the illegal campaign donations for example. The lie about his mom singing to baby Gore the "look for the union lable" song, the andio and video of Gore asking who "these guys" are (they were busts of Washington, Jefferson, etc), the "I didn't know it was a buddist temple" line, etc. This guy just took the "created the internet" (which Gore said, and is in itself a huge exaggeration) and showed how it's blown out of proportion. Well, boo-freaking-hoo. It's just a liberal reporter frustrated that his candidate doesn't have as much support as he would like, so he tried to find a scapegoat. If people were so swayed by the media, then Bush would have the poll numbers of Nader, with all the negative publicity they heap on him.
As for Bush, sure he sometimes stumbles over words, but that doesn't make one dumb. And the coke thing is completly without evidence. All I'm saying is that the same thing happens on both sides, and whining about it bacause the majority doesn't like your candidate doesn't mean it's only happening to you.
I agree his policy sounds a little radical, but remember the bill will go through committees and both houses before it is final. Unless he takes the Clinton route and circumvents the process by signing executive orders, then the bill will be modified from his origional plan. Sort of an "open source" way of writing laws with many eyes looking it over and changing the radical parts.
I look at Bush as the only one who will even try to fix the messed up educational system in the country, since Gore is too much in the pockets of the teacher's unions to make and kind of substancial change. He will just throw more of my money around to make the class size lower. This is all well and good, but lower class size does not a good class make:) It takes more than that.
I've heard Bush explain his just as well. If you are following this election through "Gore colored glasses" (a new phrase I just made up and patented) than of course it's going to look like Gore is explaining everything and Bush is just bumbling. It works the other way around also. Actually objectivly listen to what they say and propose and they are both just about on equal footing, with the only real differences being policy.
openly gay people allowed into the millitary
Anyone ask the millitary if they want this? I don't the the nations fighting force is where we should be playing social games. Isn't moral low enough yet?
Bush's responces have generally been a variation of "well, *I* don't distcriminate against anybody."
Isn't that the way is should be?
Funny, I didn't hear any sighs until TV shows increased the volume on the clips by about 500%.
I heard them during the debates, so did everyone else watching them with me. The news immediatly picked up on it. I haven't heard any of these "enhanced" clips you are talking about. My only poinnt was if you are going to somehow claim Bush was whimpering, I'm going to remind you of how childish Gore also acted.
Not at all. What is impossible with giving states automony with how they choose to teach, but holding them accountable for the results? That sounds reasonable to me.
What if I told you to write a program, I don't care what language you write it in, as long as it produced the proper results?
95% of the time he talks in vauge, feel good generalities
As does Gore, but they both HAVE put forth some specific plans.
does he support gay rights or not.
Were you watching the same debate? Gore was just as vague, if not more as Bush on this. It seems neither of them support gay marriage, and everything else is up in the air.
Christ, he whimpered in the first debate when pressed on the issue of the abortion pill.
I certainly don't remember hearing anyone whimper. But if we are going to get into childish, immature sounds while debating, I don't think you want to be defending mr *audible forced sigh* Gore.
I understand the poll's working tricks, and they have been in use for both sides as long as I can remember (most likely much longer than that). I wholeheartedly agree that they may be invalid, but I can't find ANY polls that support the simply stated "fact" by the article's author that the public supports Gore's policies over Bush's.
It really doesn't matter what the people of this country think about the issues. It only matter what the media SAYS they think.
You hit tha nail on the head there. And this is what the author of the article was doing by telling as fact that the majority of American's favor Gore's policies. I was just playing devil's advocate and questioning this baseless "assumption". We may never know where America's preferences are since the election seems to be based on who is dumber and who lies more. The policies seem a secondary consideration.
From the "character" link:
the people support Al Gore's policies, but the polls are shifting toward George W. Bush because the media is filled with false attacks on Al Gore's character.
Not that this sounds ANYTHING like sore-loser whining, but it's also blatently false, according to nearly every Reuters/Zogby poll.
(http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/zo/)
While some of Bush's policies are opposed by almost half the population (vouchers and gore's upping minumium wage are favored), these polls clearly show Bush's policies favored. Some examples of headlines:
Bush's Star Wars Anti-Ballistic Shield Favored
Majority Opposed to Selling High-Tech Weapons to China
More Autonomy for States to Set School Standards
Accountability Narrowly Beat Out Smaller Class Size
State Rights Favored Over Federal Regulations on Health Care
Teaching Certification Based on Teacher's Ability Favored
Half Favor Bush's Social Security Investment Plan
Bush-Cheney's Military Build-Up Narrowly Approved
More Than Fifty Percent Favor Bush-Cheney's Homeless Plan
Yes, I know these are just polls (although pretty well-respect polls) and are subject to inconsistancies and could be way off, but I have yet to see a major poll say that Gore's policies are favored.
Taco, I respect your right to have you opinion, and to publish it on your own website (which I enjoy), however by not doing your own research and posting your opinion supported by false articles and sloppy reporting, you are only destryoing your own credibility. Stop buying everything spoon fed to you about how bad Bush is and how great Gore is, and do your own research.
I'm glad someone on the left took time away from trying to portray Bush as a stupid coke head, Cheney as old and dying, and republicians as evil to recognise the disgusting actions of those on the other side who have the audacity to do the same thing to their exualted party.
It's a sad state of affairs when a liberal has to take time away from hate mongering and slandering to respond to the same thing from conservatives.
Thank you Taco, for bringing this injustice to our attention.
I agree. It is wrong to ever utter a wyrd that could possybly offend anyone. What we need are fylters that can remove every wyrd that has any negatyve connotation wyth any specyfic mynority or oppressed group.
That will leave us wyth about seven wyrds we can use to communycate. Sure it wyll be dyfficult, but we must protect the feelyngs of everyone at all costs.
You did it all yourself, so why should others do the same? Nobody said life would be fair. I think that is where I appear heartless. I shouldn't be going bald at 22, someone on the street shouldn't have been born poor, some whiny kid who never worked in his life should not have been born into a rich family, life is not fair. However, people make the best of the cards they have been dealt and try to make something of themselves. People have risen from nothing to become rich and rich people have fallen into poverty. That's the great thing about this country, anyone can be anything. But it will be harder (or damn near impossible) for some. If we want to change that, then we need to try communism. It hasn't worked yet, but it's the only thing I can think of that would attempt to make everything fair.
Now, I'm assuming you're probably a fan of Ayn Rand
Actually, I know very little about Ayn. I AM a fan of Brown if that helps you classify me somewhere. However, I have yet to find a candidate (or party) that holds all the same values I do. For example, I support both the first and second amendments, which of the two leading parties should I most identify with?
You see, it's all great to be proud of yourself for your accomplishments, but to forsake others because they don't do what you do is ignorant and yes, heartless.
I'm not forsaking others, I simply have priorities. I come first. Currently I'm swimming in debt and trying to get out of it. I've given to charity in the past and will again in the future, however, I will do so willingly and to charities of my own choosing, not of the government's choosing.
What I AM asking you to do is to not accept back money that can be used to better the entire nation and to help bring more people up to a level of equality.
I don't look at it as accepting back money, that would imply the government should have some claim to it to begin with. I look at it as having more of my own money to use as I see fit. I also look at it from a realistic perspective. We have been pumping money into welfare and other such programs since FDR, but I don't see the situation improving. I DO see government getting larger (despite Gore's strange "going against the facts" claims last night) but I also see the nations poor situation getting worse. So obviously that money is not helping. Should we look for alternative solutions or keep blindly pumping out our money?
I agree with much of what you said. I was only trying to correct some of the strange assumptions of the previous poster (Gore's policies have more public support, democrats are the only ones getting attacked for things they didn't do/say).
I personally don't trust the media (the same media that 90 some percent of voted for the current moron in office) to be objective of anything. Looks at Slashdot, nobody claims they are independant, but they have fallen over each other to prop up Gore and trash Bush. The regular media has it's own biases and they show (FOX seems to like Bush, most of the other stations seem to like Gore).
Sure it's popular to hate both candidates and assume we are all better than them, but you had better listed to what they say because they might just act on it after being elected.
It's a whole lot of people all trying to make it in this world
This election being about the United States, I'm going to assume that is what we are talking about.
I look out for myself. Why? Not because I'm some cold heartless billionaire, but because nobody else will. I have only a high school education and I worked my ass off to become a mainframe system programmer. Nobody bought me a mainframe to learn on, I didn't have any special advantages, I just went out and did it. Now I'm told that there are people who didn't and I should give them a portion of what I worked hard to earn because they didn't. Well sorry, but until I get my debts paid off, and get myself a house to live in, I don't give a rat's ass about those who didn't make it. Sound heartless? Would I be more noble if I lived on the street because I gave all my money away? Is poverty now something that makes one noble and morally "right"?
Much of our tax burden does go to the debt, and I'm none to please that I'm covering for my irresponsible government's innability to manage money. However, I believe that MORE money should go toward paying off the debt. Should taxes be raised to cover for this? NO, government should be streamlined. It has taken on way too much and what it does take on, it does inefficently. I should easily be able to keep more of my money AND have a functioning government that can pay off it's own debt. Will either candidate succede in doing this? Not a chance in hell. However, I believe Bush will do a better job than Gore (based on policy and record)
If this were the "United States of Finkployd", I might agree with you.
I'm not asking you to agree with me. I understand that everyone comes from a different background, has different values, and different priorities. I'm going to vote in the way that I believe and I hope you do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
regulated militia (the thing protected by 2nd amendment)
Really, so when they say "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they are refering to the militia. I guess when they mention the PEOPLE in the first and fourth amendment, they are also only refering to the militia then right?
Sorry friend, but the line "a well regulated militia" is intended to be an intro into the amendment, meant to justify it (if you studied history you might know this) and has been decided by the supreme and high courts several times to refer to the whole population.
Lesser courts have decided this differently (usually in the case of a felon arguing to get a gun), but this country still recognises that the second amendment give the PEOPLE the right, and your uninformed opinion doesn't change that.
weirdo gun zealots, an endangered species mostly (only?) nesting in US of A
Don't look now, but over half of us legally own guns. And by calling me a wierdo you only weaken your own arguement by showing immaturity.
Finkployd
Guns saving lives show up anecdotally
and statistcally, but since these statistics don't mesh well with the general bias of the media, they don't get reported (another example of this is how the media conviently never reports the failings of censorware)
And the stats that show guns taking lives are usually exagerated. Remember the gun in your home is more likely to kill a loved one than killing an intruder. That stat counted crack houses as homes, drug dealers and bookies as "loved ones" and suicides were lumped in as well. Statistically, addidental deaths with guns are almost nil. whereas they are used litterally (and documented) daily in preventing and stopping crime.
Finkployd
I live in the state with the second highest consentration of firearms (PA) and the whole state is filled with gangs of criminals and killers. I long for the safety of a gun free place like NYC of DC where I can feel safe.
And everytime I hear of a shooting in church, I can't help but think "This could have been prevented if only the killer was not allowed to take a gun into church". I mean, if the Columbine high school was a gun free school, then the killers there wouldn't have been able to take guns in. *sigh*, if only people would see the logic in banning things they do not like we would all be safer.
Finkployd
Network admins would be exempt from the ban on "hacking tools"
Let's say I'm not a network admin, but I want to be. This law effectivly makes it IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen. It's s simple catch 22, I need to know how to do these things to get the job, but I'm not allowed to until I have the job.
It's a brain-dead treaty no matter how you look at it. It's the same failing war we have fought with drugs and guns. Bans DO NOT WORK at all. Especially on things that have legimate uses (drugs, guns, and hacking software).
Linux itself can be used as a hacking tool, let's remove that from the hands of everyone but trained professionals (thus ending 90% of linux development)
Finkployd
Well said. I would also mention that guns save innocent lives far more often than taking them (at least in the US). Following the news on packing.org shows that nearly every day, a family, a small store owner or just a citizen on the street fights back with a gun to save their life and this is reported in the local news (not national news, thay aren't interested in self-defence stories).
Or as I like to put it, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
Finkployd
Or revolt. Study your history, we are better at staging a revolt than emmigrating :)
Finkployd
Yeah, now there is a great way to pick who you support to lead the country. Why not just pick the one that has better hair or who smiles more. Screw the issues, we make our decisions irrationally :)
Finkployd
When he gets his way to have mandatory tracking of every user from the ISP level.
Finkployd
Actually, a select few were exaggerations/lies. Most of them are true and in fact a matter of public record. Take the illegal campaign donations for example. The lie about his mom singing to baby Gore the "look for the union lable" song, the andio and video of Gore asking who "these guys" are (they were busts of Washington, Jefferson, etc), the "I didn't know it was a buddist temple" line, etc. This guy just took the "created the internet" (which Gore said, and is in itself a huge exaggeration) and showed how it's blown out of proportion. Well, boo-freaking-hoo. It's just a liberal reporter frustrated that his candidate doesn't have as much support as he would like, so he tried to find a scapegoat. If people were so swayed by the media, then Bush would have the poll numbers of Nader, with all the negative publicity they heap on him.
As for Bush, sure he sometimes stumbles over words, but that doesn't make one dumb. And the coke thing is completly without evidence. All I'm saying is that the same thing happens on both sides, and whining about it bacause the majority doesn't like your candidate doesn't mean it's only happening to you.
Finkployd
Domain names are not JUST for web sites
Finkployd
I agree his policy sounds a little radical, but remember the bill will go through committees and both houses before it is final. Unless he takes the Clinton route and circumvents the process by signing executive orders, then the bill will be modified from his origional plan. Sort of an "open source" way of writing laws with many eyes looking it over and changing the radical parts.
:) It takes more than that.
I look at Bush as the only one who will even try to fix the messed up educational system in the country, since Gore is too much in the pockets of the teacher's unions to make and kind of substancial change. He will just throw more of my money around to make the class size lower. This is all well and good, but lower class size does not a good class make
Finkployd
At least Gore can explain his
I've heard Bush explain his just as well. If you are following this election through "Gore colored glasses" (a new phrase I just made up and patented) than of course it's going to look like Gore is explaining everything and Bush is just bumbling. It works the other way around also. Actually objectivly listen to what they say and propose and they are both just about on equal footing, with the only real differences being policy.
openly gay people allowed into the millitary
Anyone ask the millitary if they want this? I don't the the nations fighting force is where we should be playing social games. Isn't moral low enough yet?
Bush's responces have generally been a variation of "well, *I* don't distcriminate against anybody."
Isn't that the way is should be?
Funny, I didn't hear any sighs until TV shows increased the volume on the clips by about 500%.
I heard them during the debates, so did everyone else watching them with me. The news immediatly picked up on it. I haven't heard any of these "enhanced" clips you are talking about. My only poinnt was if you are going to somehow claim Bush was whimpering, I'm going to remind you of how childish Gore also acted.
Finkployd
Not at all. What is impossible with giving states automony with how they choose to teach, but holding them accountable for the results? That sounds reasonable to me.
What if I told you to write a program, I don't care what language you write it in, as long as it produced the proper results?
Finkployd
95% of the time he talks in vauge, feel good generalities
As does Gore, but they both HAVE put forth some specific plans.
does he support gay rights or not.
Were you watching the same debate? Gore was just as vague, if not more as Bush on this. It seems neither of them support gay marriage, and everything else is up in the air.
Christ, he whimpered in the first debate when pressed on the issue of the abortion pill.
I certainly don't remember hearing anyone whimper. But if we are going to get into childish, immature sounds while debating, I don't think you want to be defending mr *audible forced sigh* Gore.
Finkployd
obviously conservative media
hahahaha
That's a new one.
Finkployd
They are going to have to rename OS/390 now (actually they did, to zOS, but that is a different rant altogether)
Finkployd
I understand the poll's working tricks, and they have been in use for both sides as long as I can remember (most likely much longer than that). I wholeheartedly agree that they may be invalid, but I can't find ANY polls that support the simply stated "fact" by the article's author that the public supports Gore's policies over Bush's.
It really doesn't matter what the people of this country think about the issues. It only matter what the media SAYS they think.
You hit tha nail on the head there. And this is what the author of the article was doing by telling as fact that the majority of American's favor Gore's policies. I was just playing devil's advocate and questioning this baseless "assumption". We may never know where America's preferences are since the election seems to be based on who is dumber and who lies more. The policies seem a secondary consideration.
Finkployd
From the "character" link:
the people support Al Gore's policies, but the polls are shifting toward George W. Bush because the media is filled with false attacks on Al Gore's character.
Not that this sounds ANYTHING like sore-loser whining, but it's also blatently false, according to nearly every Reuters/Zogby poll.
(http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/zo/)
While some of Bush's policies are opposed by almost half the population (vouchers and gore's upping minumium wage are favored), these polls clearly show Bush's policies favored. Some examples of headlines:
Bush's Star Wars Anti-Ballistic Shield Favored
Majority Opposed to Selling High-Tech Weapons to China
More Autonomy for States to Set School Standards
Accountability Narrowly Beat Out Smaller Class Size
State Rights Favored Over Federal Regulations on Health Care
Teaching Certification Based on Teacher's Ability Favored
Half Favor Bush's Social Security Investment Plan
Bush-Cheney's Military Build-Up Narrowly Approved
More Than Fifty Percent Favor Bush-Cheney's Homeless Plan
Yes, I know these are just polls (although pretty well-respect polls) and are subject to inconsistancies and could be way off, but I have yet to see a major poll say that Gore's policies are favored.
Taco, I respect your right to have you opinion, and to publish it on your own website (which I enjoy), however by not doing your own research and posting your opinion supported by false articles and sloppy reporting, you are only destryoing your own credibility. Stop buying everything spoon fed to you about how bad Bush is and how great Gore is, and do your own research.
Finkployd
Hahahaha :)
I love anti-polytical correctness
Finkployd
What if I consider the "people's right to keep and bear arms" a liberty?
Not trying to start a gun control debate, just saying that both sides would love to squash liberties for political gain.
Finkployd
I'm glad someone on the left took time away from trying to portray Bush as a stupid coke head, Cheney as old and dying, and republicians as evil to recognise the disgusting actions of those on the other side who have the audacity to do the same thing to their exualted party.
It's a sad state of affairs when a liberal has to take time away from hate mongering and slandering to respond to the same thing from conservatives.
Thank you Taco, for bringing this injustice to our attention.
Sheesh
Finkployd
I agree. It is wrong to ever utter a wyrd that could possybly offend anyone. What we need are fylters that can remove every wyrd that has any negatyve connotation wyth any specyfic mynority or oppressed group.
That will leave us wyth about seven wyrds we can use to communycate. Sure it wyll be dyfficult, but we must protect the feelyngs of everyone at all costs.
Sheesh
Finkployd
You did it all yourself, so why should others do the same?
Nobody said life would be fair. I think that is where I appear heartless. I shouldn't be going bald at 22, someone on the street shouldn't have been born poor, some whiny kid who never worked in his life should not have been born into a rich family, life is not fair. However, people make the best of the cards they have been dealt and try to make something of themselves. People have risen from nothing to become rich and rich people have fallen into poverty. That's the great thing about this country, anyone can be anything. But it will be harder (or damn near impossible) for some. If we want to change that, then we need to try communism. It hasn't worked yet, but it's the only thing I can think of that would attempt to make everything fair.
Now, I'm assuming you're probably a fan of Ayn Rand
Actually, I know very little about Ayn. I AM a fan of Brown if that helps you classify me somewhere. However, I have yet to find a candidate (or party) that holds all the same values I do. For example, I support both the first and second amendments, which of the two leading parties should I most identify with?
You see, it's all great to be proud of yourself for your accomplishments, but to forsake others because they don't do what you do is ignorant and yes, heartless.
I'm not forsaking others, I simply have priorities. I come first. Currently I'm swimming in debt and trying to get out of it. I've given to charity in the past and will again in the future, however, I will do so willingly and to charities of my own choosing, not of the government's choosing.
What I AM asking you to do is to not accept back money that can be used to better the entire nation and to help bring more people up to a level of equality.
I don't look at it as accepting back money, that would imply the government should have some claim to it to begin with. I look at it as having more of my own money to use as I see fit. I also look at it from a realistic perspective. We have been pumping money into welfare and other such programs since FDR, but I don't see the situation improving. I DO see government getting larger (despite Gore's strange "going against the facts" claims last night) but I also see the nations poor situation getting worse. So obviously that money is not helping. Should we look for alternative solutions or keep blindly pumping out our money?
Finkployd
I agree with much of what you said. I was only trying to correct some of the strange assumptions of the previous poster (Gore's policies have more public support, democrats are the only ones getting attacked for things they didn't do/say).
I personally don't trust the media (the same media that 90 some percent of voted for the current moron in office) to be objective of anything. Looks at Slashdot, nobody claims they are independant, but they have fallen over each other to prop up Gore and trash Bush. The regular media has it's own biases and they show (FOX seems to like Bush, most of the other stations seem to like Gore).
Sure it's popular to hate both candidates and assume we are all better than them, but you had better listed to what they say because they might just act on it after being elected.
Finkployd
It's a whole lot of people all trying to make it in this world
This election being about the United States, I'm going to assume that is what we are talking about.
I look out for myself. Why? Not because I'm some cold heartless billionaire, but because nobody else will. I have only a high school education and I worked my ass off to become a mainframe system programmer. Nobody bought me a mainframe to learn on, I didn't have any special advantages, I just went out and did it. Now I'm told that there are people who didn't and I should give them a portion of what I worked hard to earn because they didn't. Well sorry, but until I get my debts paid off, and get myself a house to live in, I don't give a rat's ass about those who didn't make it. Sound heartless? Would I be more noble if I lived on the street because I gave all my money away? Is poverty now something that makes one noble and morally "right"?
Much of our tax burden does go to the debt, and I'm none to please that I'm covering for my irresponsible government's innability to manage money. However, I believe that MORE money should go toward paying off the debt. Should taxes be raised to cover for this? NO, government should be streamlined. It has taken on way too much and what it does take on, it does inefficently. I should easily be able to keep more of my money AND have a functioning government that can pay off it's own debt. Will either candidate succede in doing this? Not a chance in hell. However, I believe Bush will do a better job than Gore (based on policy and record)
If this were the "United States of Finkployd", I might agree with you.
I'm not asking you to agree with me. I understand that everyone comes from a different background, has different values, and different priorities. I'm going to vote in the way that I believe and I hope you do the same.
Finkployd