Ok, Fine he didn't create the internet.
He wasn't the basis for the male character in love Story.
He didn't room with Tommy Lee Jones in college.
Maybe he did drink too much 20 years ago.
He does have something that Gore does not. Integrity. Though I can see where someone could disagree with his politics. I don't agree with him on everything, but why the vitriol? Some of you people are hostile and down right nasty. Why?
As much as I despise the racial/cultural epithets that you just used. I have a policy as it relates to computer show shoppining. Never buy from someone who doesn't speak english as their primary language. Never buy from someone from more than 1 state away. Never buy something that comes in a box that is a low quality black and white copy of the original.
How about Gary Kleck? He was an anti-gun university professor who got in on the research because he wanted to back up his position. The facts changed his mind.
Compare the US to Europe. Our homicide rate may be higher, the democide rate of Europe for the past century is MUCH higher. How many centuries will it take for our murder victims to equal the 12 million or so that were snuffed out in europe about 50 some odd years ago?
Just a few days ago, a guy that I work with said "I'm working," so he doesn't care about any other social or economic issue. As long as he has his job and can pay his bills, everything else is secondary.
He's in his 40s. Attitudes are far worse with younger people. I'm 25 and I could count on one hand the number of people my age that I know who actually care about the issues.
None of the justices are so infirm that they'll have to resign within the next four years.
I'm not willing to bet the future of my country that the next president will only serve one term. 8 years is a LONG time.
By all means, cast your vote for Bush. I'll be reminding you for the next four years how Browne got three times as many votes as Buchanan.
I wouldn't care if Browne got 50 times as many votes as Bush, neither of them will win this election. Neither will Nader. This election is too important to me to waste my vote to "make a statement" voting on someone who can't win.
Then you have to balance the risk of allowing the worse major candidate to win with just how much worse that candidate is, and the possibility of improving the publicity of your third party four years down the road.
This election is too important, this president will name 2-4 supreme court justices for terms of LIFE. There is no way to make that up in 4 years. The wide eyed idealism of the 1960s died when the hippies grew up, got haircuts and jobs. This is reality, I'm not wasting my vote to "make a statement". Your vote is yours to do with as you please, I'm not wasting mine.
Do I even need to mention that this is exactly what the Republicrats want you to believe? Go away, Republicrat shill.
It's all a question of when you want to learn to deal with reality. Sure, I'd love to see President Buchanan. That's not realistic. Pat won't get the votes. Voting for Pat won't get him elected. It won't stop Gore from getting elected. Voting for Bush, who is my second choice, can help prevent Gore from getting elected. He's not perfect, but he'll do.
To vote for somebody you *know* is a corporate drone who will support measures you don't only gives them more power.
To vote any other way allows the worst person to get in. When some big goon tries to talk your wallet or grope your girlfriend do you "put up your dukes" and fight him like a man or do you reach for your pepper spray or your gun and do what needs to be done?
The most important thing one can do for this to happen is to work outside electionary politics at a grassroots level; voting for Nader, or any other candidate, is a very small part of this whole process.
What you fail to realize is that one man in one election doesn't maky a third party viable. How many people had the green party put into office? The reform party at least had Ventura as an icon, but what do the Greenies have? Nader WAS big news 30 years ago. If Nader did take the whitehouse what could he get done? There is a duopoly in the congress. Bill Clinton was able to get things done, even with a republican congress because he had media willing to put his spin on every issue and pressure the republicans into giving him his way. Nader will not have that power. He won't be able to force change because there will be no party loyalty within the congress, and big media won't side with him on every thing.
This year, a vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote.
When I had my linux box sitting between my cable modem and the outside world, I killed just about every service on eth1(which was connected to the cable modem) except for appletalk, telnet and a couple of others which I wanted to use from work.
Every once in a while I'd get portscanned. No big deal. If it's some script kiddie, if he doesn't see anything interesting he'll just move on. No response to http requests, and any attempted telnets would give the prompt "Login:". No kernel or distro information to give someone an idea about which buffer overflows to try to exploit.
If you've ever carried large amounts of cash through "bad" areas you already know how to play this game. It's called "Blend In", if you look as plain and normal as everyone else, you're not going to attract the wrong type of attention. If you're machine is responding to requests on every port (figuratively, not literally) and you're giving WAY too much information away in your issue.net, you're making yourself far too tempting of a target for crackers.
I'll admit that the cantidate who fires me up is Buchanan, but he has no chance of winning. The next best guy is Bush. In 1992, or 1996 I would have been willing to cast a "make a statement" vote, but this year's election is too important for me to do that.
You seem like a rational, thinking person. However your unabashed support of Gore is puzzling. How can you even know if he holds the same beliefs as you when he can never keep a story straight or tell the truth?
I don't believe either candidate is trying to "get rid of guns".
There is no reason to have universal gun registration except for confiscation. Nowhere in the history of this world has gun registration NOT lead to confiscation. Being reasonably well read on this topic is all it would take to be aware of this. If Al Gore wants to ban them, let him do it honestly. Let him be upfront about it instead of pretending that he has another agenda.
BTW, I don't see how preventing people with criminal records from purchasing guns is "unconstitutional".
How is taking a test to show that you know what you are doing with a gun "virulently anti-gun" and "take away a freedom from otherwise law-abiding citizens"?
Who determines what a passing score on this test is?
What if you don't get that score? Would you deny someone a constitutionally protected right because they didn't pass an arbitrary test? Isn't that a bit like the voting tests that southern blacks had to take?
Truly weird, just last week I was talking with my grandfather about this. Offer alternative sentences to non violent offenders. 2/3 of the amount of time to be spent in jail spent in the military instead.
This is still worlds apart from guns, which have no other use other than the one they are designed for: to kill, maim, incapacitate or otherwise cause damage to people or objects.
If you want to make the purpose of a car that basic, do the same with guns. Firearms are designed to launch projectiles. No more, no less. What you do with that from there is up to you. It is impossible to design a firearm that can do that if it is inappropriately misused.
This is not a flaimbait or a troll but honestly how can anyone with a frontal lobe, let alone a techno geek, vote for Bush?
Because out of the only two with a real chance of winning, Bush is the one who is more like me on issues that I consider to be important. Bush may not be the brightest bulb on the string, but he feels the way I do about Second Amendment rights, he feels the same way I do about abortion. He feels the same way I do about taxes. Ditto for the death penalty. And he is in no way beholden to the eco-whackos.
There should be an IQ test for gun ownership in this country.
People who think like you are precisely the reason why I'm voting for Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
I just can't understand how any intelligent republican can even think of voting for dubya.
I'm a Republican because of two issues Gun Control and Abortion.
Given the two men with any chance of winning, GWB is the man who gets my vote.
Ok, Fine he didn't create the internet.
He wasn't the basis for the male character in love Story.
He didn't room with Tommy Lee Jones in college.
Maybe he did drink too much 20 years ago.
He does have something that Gore does not. Integrity. Though I can see where someone could disagree with his politics. I don't agree with him on everything, but why the vitriol? Some of you people are hostile and down right nasty. Why?
LK
As much as I despise the racial/cultural epithets that you just used. I have a policy as it relates to computer show shoppining. Never buy from someone who doesn't speak english as their primary language. Never buy from someone from more than 1 state away. Never buy something that comes in a box that is a low quality black and white copy of the original.
LK
How about Gary Kleck? He was an anti-gun university professor who got in on the research because he wanted to back up his position. The facts changed his mind.
Compare the US to Europe. Our homicide rate may be higher, the democide rate of Europe for the past century is MUCH higher. How many centuries will it take for our murder victims to equal the 12 million or so that were snuffed out in europe about 50 some odd years ago?
LK
Just a few days ago, a guy that I work with said "I'm working," so he doesn't care about any other social or economic issue. As long as he has his job and can pay his bills, everything else is secondary.
He's in his 40s. Attitudes are far worse with younger people. I'm 25 and I could count on one hand the number of people my age that I know who actually care about the issues.
LK
None of the justices are so infirm that they'll have to resign within the next four years.
I'm not willing to bet the future of my country that the next president will only serve one term. 8 years is a LONG time.
By all means, cast your vote for Bush. I'll be reminding you for the next four years how Browne got three times as many votes as Buchanan.
I wouldn't care if Browne got 50 times as many votes as Bush, neither of them will win this election. Neither will Nader. This election is too important to me to waste my vote to "make a statement" voting on someone who can't win.
LK
No president has been willing to end it, because they give up their special powers when that happens.
Forget not the fact that the geezers vote en masse, no smart politician wants to get them angry(Or scared).
LK
Then you have to balance the risk of allowing the worse major candidate to win with just how much worse that candidate is, and the possibility of improving the publicity of your third party four years down the road.
This election is too important, this president will name 2-4 supreme court justices for terms of LIFE. There is no way to make that up in 4 years. The wide eyed idealism of the 1960s died when the hippies grew up, got haircuts and jobs. This is reality, I'm not wasting my vote to "make a statement". Your vote is yours to do with as you please, I'm not wasting mine.
Do I even need to mention that this is exactly what the Republicrats want you to believe? Go away, Republicrat shill.
It's all a question of when you want to learn to deal with reality. Sure, I'd love to see President Buchanan. That's not realistic. Pat won't get the votes. Voting for Pat won't get him elected. It won't stop Gore from getting elected. Voting for Bush, who is my second choice, can help prevent Gore from getting elected. He's not perfect, but he'll do.
That's why it pays to be in the higher eschelon of your company's IT pyramid.
LK
To vote for somebody you *know* is a corporate drone who will support measures you don't only gives them more power.
To vote any other way allows the worst person to get in. When some big goon tries to talk your wallet or grope your girlfriend do you "put up your dukes" and fight him like a man or do you reach for your pepper spray or your gun and do what needs to be done?
The most important thing one can do for this to happen is to work outside electionary politics at a grassroots level; voting for Nader, or any other candidate, is a very small part of this whole process.
What you fail to realize is that one man in one election doesn't maky a third party viable. How many people had the green party put into office? The reform party at least had Ventura as an icon, but what do the Greenies have? Nader WAS big news 30 years ago. If Nader did take the whitehouse what could he get done? There is a duopoly in the congress. Bill Clinton was able to get things done, even with a republican congress because he had media willing to put his spin on every issue and pressure the republicans into giving him his way. Nader will not have that power. He won't be able to force change because there will be no party loyalty within the congress, and big media won't side with him on every thing.
This year, a vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote.
LK
When I had my linux box sitting between my cable modem and the outside world, I killed just about every service on eth1(which was connected to the cable modem) except for appletalk, telnet and a couple of others which I wanted to use from work.
Every once in a while I'd get portscanned. No big deal. If it's some script kiddie, if he doesn't see anything interesting he'll just move on. No response to http requests, and any attempted telnets would give the prompt "Login:". No kernel or distro information to give someone an idea about which buffer overflows to try to exploit.
If you've ever carried large amounts of cash through "bad" areas you already know how to play this game. It's called "Blend In", if you look as plain and normal as everyone else, you're not going to attract the wrong type of attention. If you're machine is responding to requests on every port (figuratively, not literally) and you're giving WAY too much information away in your issue.net, you're making yourself far too tempting of a target for crackers.
LK
I'll admit that the cantidate who fires me up is Buchanan, but he has no chance of winning. The next best guy is Bush. In 1992, or 1996 I would have been willing to cast a "make a statement" vote, but this year's election is too important for me to do that.
LK
You seem like a rational, thinking person. However your unabashed support of Gore is puzzling. How can you even know if he holds the same beliefs as you when he can never keep a story straight or tell the truth?
LK
I don't believe either candidate is trying to "get rid of guns".
There is no reason to have universal gun registration except for confiscation. Nowhere in the history of this world has gun registration NOT lead to confiscation. Being reasonably well read on this topic is all it would take to be aware of this. If Al Gore wants to ban them, let him do it honestly. Let him be upfront about it instead of pretending that he has another agenda.
BTW, I don't see how preventing people with criminal records from purchasing guns is "unconstitutional".
Who is championing any such effort?
LK
Who determines what is "stupid". It is a very subjective thing.
Rights don't need to be earned.
How is taking a test to show that you know what you are doing with a gun "virulently anti-gun" and "take away a freedom from otherwise law-abiding citizens"?
Who determines what a passing score on this test is?
What if you don't get that score? Would you deny someone a constitutionally protected right because they didn't pass an arbitrary test? Isn't that a bit like the voting tests that southern blacks had to take?
LK
Truly weird, just last week I was talking with my grandfather about this. Offer alternative sentences to non violent offenders. 2/3 of the amount of time to be spent in jail spent in the military instead.
Would it make it sound any better if I said that Rush Limbaugh also think the same way that I do about them?
LK
Consider this: Nearly half of all murder victims have detectable amounts of cocaine in their bloodstream.
In some cities like LA and DC it's an even higher percentage.
LK
This is still worlds apart from guns, which have no other use other than the one they are designed for: to kill, maim, incapacitate or otherwise cause damage to people or objects.
If you want to make the purpose of a car that basic, do the same with guns. Firearms are designed to launch projectiles. No more, no less. What you do with that from there is up to you. It is impossible to design a firearm that can do that if it is inappropriately misused.
LK
You have no right to keep and bear garbage.
LK
I'm 25. In fact I wasn't of voting age until after William Jefferson Clinton was elected to his first term. What difference does that make?
Reagan is also the father of high technology export laws. Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.
I feel the same way about the democrats who are trying like hell to give socialism a chance here.
LK
How is it regulating the right to own them?
Imposing criminal penalties based upon how you store your firearms is regulating that right.
I'm in favor of civil penalties under certain circumstances but not criminal.
This is not a flaimbait or a troll but honestly how can anyone with a frontal lobe, let alone a techno geek, vote for Bush?
Because out of the only two with a real chance of winning, Bush is the one who is more like me on issues that I consider to be important. Bush may not be the brightest bulb on the string, but he feels the way I do about Second Amendment rights, he feels the same way I do about abortion. He feels the same way I do about taxes. Ditto for the death penalty. And he is in no way beholden to the eco-whackos.
There should be an IQ test for gun ownership in this country.
People who think like you are precisely the reason why I'm voting for Bush.
If the hoplophobe lobby hadn't handcuffed them, the school's security guards could have been adequately armed to quell the violence.
Al Gore controls one half million dollars worth of Oil Stock. Who's soul has been sold?