First, as has been rightly pointed out in previous debates on this subject[Google is]...under a legal obligation to make business decisions that maximize the value of the stock to its shareholders.
As others have pointed out, they are under the stockholder wishes. Few public companies have a block which controls more than %50 of the votes, but the Google founders still do.
I believe that they are right to deal with China. However, I am also happy that they are getting some hell for it, as the debate is valuable.
If recent evidence is true, in that Beagle "unluckily" landed in that small crater, we may have soem distinction of scoring the first ever interplanetary "Hole in one"
Only if you were aiming for it, otherwise it was just the golf equilivant of hitting it into a pond.
When I first saw Sam Kinison do his bit on World Hunger, I thought 'he's right! Dammit they should move'. For example, many Katerina victims moved rather than live in a reclaimed swamp, However, for most it's not all that simple. I see a difference between starving and going hungry. When people are starving, there is no food to be had, a people 'going hungry' simply cannot pay for it. They are both bad and often neighbors, but the inability to ship food is most often associated with war. 'Fixing' poverty or at least making a good effort at it would end most hunger, but only peace can end it.
Personally, I think that we should flood the world with [they really need a better name than 'the $100 Laptop']. On a side note, perhaps someone could write a wikiHow on subsistence farming.
you people just wanna feed those poor kids instead of learning them how to feed themselves.
Most people don't have a problem about knowing how to feed themselves. Typically people starve during times of political unrest or drought, but not because they don't know how to do it.
They now refer to it as 'the fabled $100 Notebook', but from the looks of it I'd pay $130 just to keep in my car. I'm sure that it would be a big hit with contractors.
Is this what happens when you keep people from looking at porn all day?
Perhaps it represents the amount of time that intelligent people 'waste' discussing politics.\
Or has the Internet awoken community interest, and those discussions are just the first steps to a more open society.
The site looks slashdotted (wherever that term came from I'll never know.), but I'd say that it complains that some bloggers re-post large sections of content. Allows users to 'skip' advertisements which remain on the remote site unseen, while while still presenting the bulk of the 'useful' information on the blogger site.
Say, for example, one could post the text of the story on this forum. So that we all my read the intellectual property, whilst it's server (and it advertising revenue) sit there.
It wasn't. I voted for Bush because Gore was an idiot. And I voted for him again because Kerry was an idiot.
With all due respect, the idiot is you. Just like Rove wanted, you voted for Bush because you feared Gore and Kerry, you are a good Republican voter. More than willing to accept negative advertising, as your final source. I liked both Gore and Kerry, not as much as other candidates, but what could I do Iowa spoke (why we allow them to have first pick on our president I do not know), but far more than Bush. Besides I find it funny that you seem to think Bush gives a good speech. (Mr. Stumbles himself, WaaaHaHaHaHaHa)
Would that be like Clinton's promises? Do you remember the three big ones he made in his first campaign? He didn't keep any of them. Didn't even seriously TRY to keep but one of them, and didn't push that one when his own Party told him "no"....
Sorry, but Clinton ended his term 6 freaking years ago, please, let it go, I know, it's hard not to blame him for everything. I know that you have been programed, by the neo-conservative radio hosts to make vague "moral questions" and "talk about failed promises" about that darn Clinton guy, but for the sake of accuracy please list them rather than doing the 'you know what he did'. I've said it before (perhaps on this same thread, but it still is appropriate to repeat) "The last refuge for a scroundel is not patriotism, but Clinton bashing".
The big one that I could remember was the Hillary Health care issue. Y'all were so offended that the first lady was actually leading some legislation and was acting as if the husband/wife relationship was something 'special'. Some ideas were a little more 'reaching' but even common sense reforms which were mentioned instantly became fodder for the house races. All of the very negative advertising for the house races in '94 focused on 'health care scare', the Clinton administration quickly found themselves with a overly cautious house which was too scared by attack ads funded by Drug companies, HMOs and the AMA.
Besides I don't know why you are so offended by Clinton's lost legislation, but you are so wrapped up the negative it really isn't surprising. I've never said that every Democrat politician was a little angel, and that every Republican politician was the devil. Politicians may have many goals, but the most overwhelming one is to stay in office, after all "one can't do the good work you were meant to do for your people if you can't stay in office", or at least that's the excuse every 'political villain' in the movies seems to make. In reality, I believe, if you want politicians who are motivated by fear, continue to vote against people rather than for them. Your fear has served the neo-conservitives well, my fiend.
My house now is within 20 miles of several nuclear reactors. Doesn't bother me a 'bit.
I find that hard to believe, as there are only two of them total in your state (and they are both single reactor units), is that some kinda crazy Republican math? I can't tell if they are more than 40 miles apart, but I think that they are. I don't really want go keep looking for exact locations as 'your boys' from the NSA may data mine for the query and send out 'investigators', and I really don't want to visit sunny Cuba (mostly a joke, but sadly...). Perhaps you are including University reactors (still hard to believe that there are several of them), but they tend to slip under the histerical public's radar. Remember I'm not against nuclear power per se, but I OTOH acknowledge the heavy NIBY effect.
Don't kid yourself. Gasoline isn't quite at record prices right now
Yes, you are right, of course oil was higher in the middle of the Iraq/Iran war in the early 80's (not hard to see why), but if you look at the trends t
A Logger who needs work isn't an Environmental single issue voter.
They would be if a law protecting the spotted owl causes them to lose their job. However typically the logging industry want more 'fire roads' on the public lands they harvest for rate lower than any private land owner would agree to. Those logging companies are the corporate equivalent of the 'welfare mom', growing bigger and bigger and expecting more federal money or assets (trees, roads, etc).
You'd be amazed, I expect, at how few people re in favour of destroying the environment. The argument is all over the fringes - do we protect this one lizard at the price of 100,000 acres of (semi) useful land? That sort of thing.
Well, that's what Republican talking heads say, "it's all about that damn lizard". Well, for the most part no. While a unique lizard represent biodiversity that the world may be better off not losing, the real target for most environmentalist pushing issues like that is 'suburban sprawl'. We 'liberal elite' in the Northeast have a little experience with urban/suburban sprawl.
And if the anti-nuke hysterics can ever calmm down enough to allow construction of a large number of identical (as the Navy found out a long time ago, much easier to deal with one or two designs than with 50 or 60) nuclear plants, we might be able to move a bit further along the road toward a cleaner environment.
The anti-nuke groups are broken down into several 'camps', the two that come off the top of my head are:
Those that don't like have big 'dangerous' nuclear facilities near their home or recreational spot.
Those that are afraid of highly radioactive material being stored and transported
Ok so perhaps you aren't a single issue voter, but if Nuclear power was one of the reasons why you voted for Bush, you need to come to the realization that in 6 years he/they still haven't added a single nuclear plant. Again they made lots of promises that their voters never hold them up to. The real reason why is the very heavy 'NIBY' effect of nuclear power, I dare you to put a sign up in your yard which say "Please place nuclear power plant within sight of this house" (a cooling tower can been seen for dozens of miles), or better yet, get the good people in the red-state of Nevada to allow Yucca Mt to come online. However perhaps you could imagine if your county was the nations radioactive landfill, I'd bet your property value would plummet. Would you like it if nuclear waste trucks shared the same highway you take to work every day. Frankly I'd like to see more nuclear power, but what to do with the waste?
The real irony is that according to you the French have done it right, they force people to accept many nuclear power plants, and they reprocess spent fuel, which is a good idea generally, except if you don't like fissionable material being produced/held at dozens (perhaps hundreds) of sites around your country.
As far as energy goes I am most hopeful about Ethanol, as it fits right in our gas tanks which we have now. If we had only put 1% of the money which we have dumped into Iraq on Ethanol, gas would now be $2/ gallon.
The fight will be costly, but it's pretty clear at this point that Blu-ray will win.
SONY, saying so will not make it true. You will need to compete on price and very aggressively, you are now late to the market, those who are late will need to pay more to compete. Spin aside, you know and I know that Blu-ray is not needed, if that division 'needs' to ride into consumer homes on the gaming console, make the Blu-ray division pay for it. The gaming console is too precarious right now, y'all are a year behind Microsoft, and seem to be a few months behind Wii. 360 has early access to next gen games, Wii has an innovative default controller, you will need to focus on price. Yes, I know that Sony fears price competition, and the idea of just forking over another $100s to the consumer is tough to swallow, but just think how it would be when 360 and Wii fight for 80% of the game disk market.
Oh? And when has gun control ever reduced crime? Check the evidence - it is, at best, inconclusive
I'm not arguing that it is or it isn't, but you sure are ready for the fight. Seeing that, I'd bet dollars to donuts that your vote hinges on this particular issue. You sir are (almost certainly) a single issue voter.
As far as the 'left' goes with single issue voters, the ones you mention are more general than specific. Anti-nuclear power is about the biggest 'left-based' single issue. To be a single issue voter one must care for your position passionately. Also, it is important for a single issue voter to know what that position is for their candidates and their competition. It's not that a single issue voter doesn't care about other issues, just that that issue is the hinge.
the environment is well protected (if you didn't live through the 60's you might be foolish enough to disbelieve that, if you did then it's self-evident),...
So then like, we're living in a utopia. All thanks to George Bush I suppose. Personally I wouldn't call the environment 'well-protected', but in spite of the current administration there are protections in place. However, I live in the Northeast, I've seen 150 year old industrial sites (places used for like 100 years or more continuously), and it ain't pretty, an that was after they were cleaned up, I cannot imagine the mess just 30 years ago when no one was held responsible.
No I am not a member of the 'Me generation', we got the name 'slackers', but I suppose that your child and my son will be members of the 'paying generation' for being the low income earners who have to support your generation's retirement, and deficit.
All that aside, the Left has as many single-issue voters as the Right. Different issues, of course
The Environment is more a category than a single issue, think like 'personal freedom', or 'restricting govenment'. However, I say that even in the enviroment Rebpulican 'single issue' voters win the numbers game. For every person who gets charged up enough to protect the spotted owl, there are twenty loggers who need the work. For every person who really cares to stop subsidizing oil companies, I mean drilling on public land, there are (lets say) 2 people who believe in allowing the oil companies to drill anywhere but the top of GW's head on Mt Rushmore.
The elephant in the room for liberal single issues voters, is the biggest one in the nation and has been for the last 4 years. I am surprise that you missed it, more liberals are against this than any other issue. It the most 'leftist' cause in the country, it's so far left that you would need to be left of communist (because communists are generally in favor of it) [that's why I've grown to hate left vs right]. That issue of course is the Iraq war, some might even lump Afghanistan into it as well (not me I am very for our involvement in Afghanistan). I know of many liberals who would easily vote for a Republican if they held a stronger 'get out' policy than a competing Democrat. And that is the definition of a 'single issue voter'.
I'd say the reality moved past Sony. At one time Sony produced innovated good quality products at the high market price. They still do, but one thing that they have always tried to do, and more often failing than not, is lock consumers into their propriety technology, hoping that consumer adaptation whould lead to industry adaptation. Sony plays this gambit every time it can, as it sees money coming in from both ends, but it seems to fail to live up to expectations every single time (Betamax, mini-disc, memory stick). Now they are using their hottest property to sell Blu-ray to the consumer, the problem is that it tacks another $200 to the price of an already expesive product, and has (in part) put it one year behind the closest competetor. I've said it before, but they need to make Blue-ray optional.
If Blu-Ray becomes VHS and HD-DVD becomes Beta (we'll see) then the PS3 is going to have a very nice selling point over the competition, especially if the price of stand-alone Blu-Ray players hovers around $200 or more.
Blu-Ray is Sony and it's more likely to be the Beta than the VHS as Sony has a long history crippling innovative ideas by holding to tightly to intellecual property.
Now they are trying use the success of PlayStation to push this format into consumer homes. Unfortunately it cripples the unit on price and is currently unneeded. Need drives adaption, not neat.
we may actually start growing some balls and voting for what we really believe in, instead of voting AGAINST what we fear
[Karl Rove must be getting a sick feeling right now].
then why not vote third party? i'll tell you why you don't vote third party
I strongly support 3rd (and 4th and 5th) party participation, but one needs to be realisitic. I fail to understand why those people don't concentrate on getting (and keeping) at least a house seat or two. I belive that if he had really worked on it Nader could have gotten a Senate seat in 2000 and if he really tried I think he could still get a house seat. They could always organize with one of the other parties.
Political parties need to start as grass-roots, when all the little parties I know of just seem to try for the top job. Kinda like a new college graduate poking their head into a Fortune 500 HR dept and asking for the CEO spot.
And it's interesting that your definition of "single issue" includes pro-life, but not pro-abortion (many of whom are single issue), or pro-gun-control (also single issue...
Perhaps I did show my bias, but while I don't have any 'hard facts' to back up my assumptions I'd say that pro-life and gun-freedom have the biggest platform 'payoff' for a political party.
Every single platform issue has voters who will make their decision based on a candidate's position. These are distributed by the candidate and the party in (appropriately named) position papers. Generally they are not well distributed, but interested parties (such as the NRA) will ask for theirs specifically. I've noticed that some candidates have been posting them (or content like that) online, but sometimes they are hard to find.
Anecdotal, I have found that when I have conversations about abortion with pro-life folks, they coincide nothing, and insist that their candidate support criminalizing (or at least restricting) abortions, while pro-choice people tend to think of it as part of the package (granted an important part). My best guess is for them it's legalized murder, while pro-choice see it as part of the personal privacy issue.
Also in nearly conversation I've seen, a NRA guy will insist that they need guns to protect themselves from the government, a gun-control guy will see it as part of a larger issue of fighting crime (perhaps an important part). I see the real irony here is the same party which support 'a gun in every home'*, seems to be intent on giving you a real need for the guns. [Perhaps it's the gun manufactures trying to build up sales! ]
* well, that's a glib way of saying it, but sometimes it's true
And yes there are a number of Democrats who support gun rights, they have to. Unsurprisingly, the ones who are for gun control tend to be from urban areas where crime is more of a concern. However if you look at state wide races (such as Senators and Governors), vs district races (such as US Representatives), I believe that you'll find gun-freedom to be a more common position for the state-wide candidates. Which would (I believe) indicate a higher 'tolerance' of gun control voters for candidates with the 'wrong' position.
Sorry that I don't have enough time to write a more elaborate response, but this is wrong. The Republicans already controlled Congress, and had for some time (about 6 years I believe).
Actually, you're wrong, Clinton was impeached during a lame duck session of congress, as Newt and his buddies knew that the next congress wouldn't have the votes. Largely because just enough of their supporters were voted out.
One might be able to argue (well, I for one) that the marginal success which the Democrats had during that electition caused the Repblicans to understand that they needed to fully attack Clinton on 'moral issues' as they couldn't go after his largely successful policies. I don't think that any of them really expected the Senate to convict (Heck, did they really want to take the chance of making 'Mr Clean' Gore a sitting incumbant in a good economy).
I believe that it was really just a ploy to give 'talking points' to Republican pundits in the next couple of elections. You know, the implied moral high ground which one gets by knocking down others, it should also be noted that the era saw a massive increase in 'negitive advertisment' in political races (not that it was new, just that we saw a lot more of it).
Is it that hard to comprehend that someone might not be a Democrat or a Rebublican or part of any political party? I choose and form my OWN opinions about individual issues and how our $current_leaders are performing myself. No group think required, requested, or needed.
I love it when I see talk about 'group think', because it means the arguments have dried up, and now y'all have resorted to a variant of 'minority rights'. It's particularly arrogant to expect that a minority opinion should be heard as loudly, and as often as the majority opinion for every forum. Freedom of Speech shouldn't be restricted for 'Fair and Balanced' discussion, otherwise every time someone invoked Godwin's Law, one would have to find a Nazi to allow them a 'fair shake' against the 'group think' that Nazis were bad.
Personally, I've said before and I'll say it again, I don't entirely trust any politician Democrat, Republican, or other. A BIG part of my 'problem' with the Republican party is that I was a registered Republican, and I found myself consistently 'at odds' with both the legislation they pushed and the disingenuous way they seem to govern. They do nothing about rising trade deficits, sky rocking federal deficits, plummeting world opinion. Voter apathy favors corrupt well-funded incumbents, and single issues campaigns both of which the Republicans have specialized in for a number of years.
So, if you're through with cheap jabs that are an attempt to be modded up for humor, please contribute something constructive.
What?!? 'cheap jabs' on Slashdot, one wouldn't think of such a thing. Seriously, 2/3rd of your submission details how great you are, now, 70% of your reply does the same. Good for you, like many (but not all) Slashdotters, I'm very happy for you.
You know I've heard the stories about 3 year layoffs, frankly I've always thought "what the hell were they doing for THREE YEARS". The self-employment tax is basicly your contribution into the Social Security Potsy scheme and is 'only' assesed on the first $94,000 of income. Most people like to bitch about it because it seems larger than SS, but for regular employees the company is charged the other half (any accountant with a sharp pencil knows that's a real cost). It just keeps people from skirting the regressive middle class tax, by either claiming to or actually working for themselves.
What would I do, well, live off of the layoff money (if any), then unemployment (as an employee I pay into unemployment insurance [1.5% of income I think]), while I look for work, and try to build a business while I'm at it. I have no money saved, but I do have a fair amount of credit left!. Like many here I'm a programmer, but this is my second career, I would go back to the first if I had to, but my real hope is to build out the 'billion dollar idea' which I have had for a couple of years now (I'm kinda working on it now, with a quite weekend).
While your ability to save money is really awesome, it already sounds like you live like you were laid off already. However it's most likely that I'm just really really jealous and more than a little impressed (if it's true* [*standard internet disclaimer]).
Why whould I assume that you WANT to live in a fantasy world?
True, the DNC isn't perfect, but you seem to expect it. You want a perfect little world where people don't act in their own best interest, polititions don't lie, and happy little trees dot the landscape. If you don't get it, you get pissed.
Apathy works really well if you are trying to get into the pants of a college age goth chick, but it doesn't serve the discussion of the politics which govern our country.
Trust me, the Republican leadership see 'thinkers' such as yourself a great.
People like yourself tune to their 'mad as hell radio pundits' all day long, and you think "I'm really an independent", but in reality you learn their chants, and repeat them all day long.
I'm not defending Republicans. I can't stand them or the Democrats. I just laugh at how the game is played, and how people get so caught up in the details when the truth of the complicity is so obvious. I can see the evidence of it right in your post. You're so caught up in the game it's like you can't even see it's being played.
This is not a game, this is OUR LIVES, our country, better men than you or I have suffered and died for it, all we ask is that you vote the bastards out. Go ahead, drum up some more appathy, you are serving your Republican masters well.
Truth is I will never love every issue in my party, I don't EXPECT to live in that fantasy world, but I suspect that you do.
Yeah, go on believing that while you serve the same masters from the other side of the aisle. Go on believing there are significant differences because you like some detail or another better. Please, continue to be fooled that it's only the Republicans that are the problem.
We Democrats have our problem politicians as well, but weren't we better off under Clinton.
I remember when all y'all (Republican backers) could talk about was Yugoslavia, and how Clinton got us into 'that mess' well, it sure pales in comparison to Iraq. Fucking Yugoslavia is a goddamn success story compared to anything in this Administration.
I remember when all you bastards could say was 'wag the dog' when Clinton took a shot at Bin Laden, you sure did cow him from pursuing it further, good thing too.
I could remember when I could call a friend with out the government knowing who it is.
Last election, y'all ran on "Don't allow the Fags to be happy" and "Make that slut to keep her child" and "We're more decisive". Now all you have left is "The Democrats aren't any better" and "they don't have a plan". Well it's going to be really hard to clean up this mess, and I for one (of many) am tired of the Repblican "plan"
A bad war.
A government hemorrhaging money.
Freedom to associate going down the toilet. It's not what a polition promises, it's what they deliver. Republicans have been good at delivering money into the pockets their leadership, and that's about it.
oh, yes, quite, so very so sophisticated of you. Contrary to Samuel Johnson "the last refuge of a scoundrel" is not "Patriotism", but instead " Clinton bashing".
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that they are right to deal with China. However, I am also happy that they are getting some hell for it, as the debate is valuable.
Personally, I think that we should flood the world with [they really need a better name than 'the $100 Laptop']. On a side note, perhaps someone could write a wikiHow on subsistence farming.
They now refer to it as 'the fabled $100 Notebook', but from the looks of it I'd pay $130 just to keep in my car. I'm sure that it would be a big hit with contractors.
Is this what happens when you keep people from looking at porn all day? Perhaps it represents the amount of time that intelligent people 'waste' discussing politics.\ Or has the Internet awoken community interest, and those discussions are just the first steps to a more open society.
Say, for example, one could post the text of the story on this forum. So that we all my read the intellectual property, whilst it's server (and it advertising revenue) sit there.
With all due respect, the idiot is you. Just like Rove wanted, you voted for Bush because you feared Gore and Kerry, you are a good Republican voter. More than willing to accept negative advertising, as your final source. I liked both Gore and Kerry, not as much as other candidates, but what could I do Iowa spoke (why we allow them to have first pick on our president I do not know), but far more than Bush. Besides I find it funny that you seem to think Bush gives a good speech. (Mr. Stumbles himself, WaaaHaHaHaHaHa)
Sorry, but Clinton ended his term 6 freaking years ago, please, let it go, I know, it's hard not to blame him for everything. I know that you have been programed, by the neo-conservative radio hosts to make vague "moral questions" and "talk about failed promises" about that darn Clinton guy, but for the sake of accuracy please list them rather than doing the 'you know what he did'. I've said it before (perhaps on this same thread, but it still is appropriate to repeat) "The last refuge for a scroundel is not patriotism, but Clinton bashing".
The big one that I could remember was the Hillary Health care issue. Y'all were so offended that the first lady was actually leading some legislation and was acting as if the husband/wife relationship was something 'special'. Some ideas were a little more 'reaching' but even common sense reforms which were mentioned instantly became fodder for the house races. All of the very negative advertising for the house races in '94 focused on 'health care scare', the Clinton administration quickly found themselves with a overly cautious house which was too scared by attack ads funded by Drug companies, HMOs and the AMA.
Besides I don't know why you are so offended by Clinton's lost legislation, but you are so wrapped up the negative it really isn't surprising. I've never said that every Democrat politician was a little angel, and that every Republican politician was the devil. Politicians may have many goals, but the most overwhelming one is to stay in office, after all "one can't do the good work you were meant to do for your people if you can't stay in office", or at least that's the excuse every 'political villain' in the movies seems to make. In reality, I believe, if you want politicians who are motivated by fear, continue to vote against people rather than for them. Your fear has served the neo-conservitives well, my fiend.
I find that hard to believe, as there are only two of them total in your state (and they are both single reactor units), is that some kinda crazy Republican math? I can't tell if they are more than 40 miles apart, but I think that they are. I don't really want go keep looking for exact locations as 'your boys' from the NSA may data mine for the query and send out 'investigators', and I really don't want to visit sunny Cuba (mostly a joke, but sadly...). Perhaps you are including University reactors (still hard to believe that there are several of them), but they tend to slip under the histerical public's radar. Remember I'm not against nuclear power per se, but I OTOH acknowledge the heavy NIBY effect.
Yes, you are right, of course oil was higher in the middle of the Iraq/Iran war in the early 80's (not hard to see why), but if you look at the trends t
Ok so perhaps you aren't a single issue voter, but if Nuclear power was one of the reasons why you voted for Bush, you need to come to the realization that in 6 years he/they still haven't added a single nuclear plant. Again they made lots of promises that their voters never hold them up to. The real reason why is the very heavy 'NIBY' effect of nuclear power, I dare you to put a sign up in your yard which say "Please place nuclear power plant within sight of this house" (a cooling tower can been seen for dozens of miles), or better yet, get the good people in the red-state of Nevada to allow Yucca Mt to come online. However perhaps you could imagine if your county was the nations radioactive landfill, I'd bet your property value would plummet. Would you like it if nuclear waste trucks shared the same highway you take to work every day. Frankly I'd like to see more nuclear power, but what to do with the waste?
The real irony is that according to you the French have done it right, they force people to accept many nuclear power plants, and they reprocess spent fuel, which is a good idea generally, except if you don't like fissionable material being produced/held at dozens (perhaps hundreds) of sites around your country.
As far as energy goes I am most hopeful about Ethanol, as it fits right in our gas tanks which we have now. If we had only put 1% of the money which we have dumped into Iraq on Ethanol, gas would now be $2/ gallon.
As far as the 'left' goes with single issue voters, the ones you mention are more general than specific. Anti-nuclear power is about the biggest 'left-based' single issue. To be a single issue voter one must care for your position passionately. Also, it is important for a single issue voter to know what that position is for their candidates and their competition. It's not that a single issue voter doesn't care about other issues, just that that issue is the hinge.
So then like, we're living in a utopia. All thanks to George Bush I suppose. Personally I wouldn't call the environment 'well-protected', but in spite of the current administration there are protections in place. However, I live in the Northeast, I've seen 150 year old industrial sites (places used for like 100 years or more continuously), and it ain't pretty, an that was after they were cleaned up, I cannot imagine the mess just 30 years ago when no one was held responsible.No I am not a member of the 'Me generation', we got the name 'slackers', but I suppose that your child and my son will be members of the 'paying generation' for being the low income earners who have to support your generation's retirement, and deficit.
The Environment is more a category than a single issue, think like 'personal freedom', or 'restricting govenment'. However, I say that even in the enviroment Rebpulican 'single issue' voters win the numbers game. For every person who gets charged up enough to protect the spotted owl, there are twenty loggers who need the work. For every person who really cares to stop subsidizing oil companies, I mean drilling on public land, there are (lets say) 2 people who believe in allowing the oil companies to drill anywhere but the top of GW's head on Mt Rushmore.The elephant in the room for liberal single issues voters, is the biggest one in the nation and has been for the last 4 years. I am surprise that you missed it, more liberals are against this than any other issue. It the most 'leftist' cause in the country, it's so far left that you would need to be left of communist (because communists are generally in favor of it) [that's why I've grown to hate left vs right]. That issue of course is the Iraq war, some might even lump Afghanistan into it as well (not me I am very for our involvement in Afghanistan). I know of many liberals who would easily vote for a Republican if they held a stronger 'get out' policy than a competing Democrat. And that is the definition of a 'single issue voter'.
Now they are trying use the success of PlayStation to push this format into consumer homes. Unfortunately it cripples the unit on price and is currently unneeded. Need drives adaption, not neat.
Political parties need to start as grass-roots, when all the little parties I know of just seem to try for the top job. Kinda like a new college graduate poking their head into a Fortune 500 HR dept and asking for the CEO spot.
Every single platform issue has voters who will make their decision based on a candidate's position. These are distributed by the candidate and the party in (appropriately named) position papers. Generally they are not well distributed, but interested parties (such as the NRA) will ask for theirs specifically. I've noticed that some candidates have been posting them (or content like that) online, but sometimes they are hard to find.
Anecdotal, I have found that when I have conversations about abortion with pro-life folks, they coincide nothing, and insist that their candidate support criminalizing (or at least restricting) abortions, while pro-choice people tend to think of it as part of the package (granted an important part). My best guess is for them it's legalized murder, while pro-choice see it as part of the personal privacy issue.
Also in nearly conversation I've seen, a NRA guy will insist that they need guns to protect themselves from the government, a gun-control guy will see it as part of a larger issue of fighting crime (perhaps an important part). I see the real irony here is the same party which support 'a gun in every home'*, seems to be intent on giving you a real need for the guns. [Perhaps it's the gun manufactures trying to build up sales! ]
* well, that's a glib way of saying it, but sometimes it's true
And yes there are a number of Democrats who support gun rights, they have to. Unsurprisingly, the ones who are for gun control tend to be from urban areas where crime is more of a concern. However if you look at state wide races (such as Senators and Governors), vs district races (such as US Representatives), I believe that you'll find gun-freedom to be a more common position for the state-wide candidates. Which would (I believe) indicate a higher 'tolerance' of gun control voters for candidates with the 'wrong' position.
One might be able to argue (well, I for one) that the marginal success which the Democrats had during that electition caused the Repblicans to understand that they needed to fully attack Clinton on 'moral issues' as they couldn't go after his largely successful policies. I don't think that any of them really expected the Senate to convict (Heck, did they really want to take the chance of making 'Mr Clean' Gore a sitting incumbant in a good economy).
I believe that it was really just a ploy to give 'talking points' to Republican pundits in the next couple of elections. You know, the implied moral high ground which one gets by knocking down others, it should also be noted that the era saw a massive increase in 'negitive advertisment' in political races (not that it was new, just that we saw a lot more of it).
Personally, I've said before and I'll say it again, I don't entirely trust any politician Democrat, Republican, or other. A BIG part of my 'problem' with the Republican party is that I was a registered Republican, and I found myself consistently 'at odds' with both the legislation they pushed and the disingenuous way they seem to govern. They do nothing about rising trade deficits, sky rocking federal deficits, plummeting world opinion. Voter apathy favors corrupt well-funded incumbents, and single issues campaigns both of which the Republicans have specialized in for a number of years.
You know I've heard the stories about 3 year layoffs, frankly I've always thought "what the hell were they doing for THREE YEARS". The self-employment tax is basicly your contribution into the Social Security Potsy scheme and is 'only' assesed on the first $94,000 of income. Most people like to bitch about it because it seems larger than SS, but for regular employees the company is charged the other half (any accountant with a sharp pencil knows that's a real cost). It just keeps people from skirting the regressive middle class tax, by either claiming to or actually working for themselves.
What would I do, well, live off of the layoff money (if any), then unemployment (as an employee I pay into unemployment insurance [1.5% of income I think]), while I look for work, and try to build a business while I'm at it. I have no money saved, but I do have a fair amount of credit left!. Like many here I'm a programmer, but this is my second career, I would go back to the first if I had to, but my real hope is to build out the 'billion dollar idea' which I have had for a couple of years now (I'm kinda working on it now, with a quite weekend).
While your ability to save money is really awesome, it already sounds like you live like you were laid off already. However it's most likely that I'm just really really jealous and more than a little impressed (if it's true* [*standard internet disclaimer]).
True, the DNC isn't perfect, but you seem to expect it. You want a perfect little world where people don't act in their own best interest, polititions don't lie, and happy little trees dot the landscape. If you don't get it, you get pissed.
Apathy works really well if you are trying to get into the pants of a college age goth chick, but it doesn't serve the discussion of the politics which govern our country.
Trust me, the Republican leadership see 'thinkers' such as yourself a great. People like yourself tune to their 'mad as hell radio pundits' all day long, and you think "I'm really an independent", but in reality you learn their chants, and repeat them all day long.
Truth is I will never love every issue in my party, I don't EXPECT to live in that fantasy world, but I suspect that you do.
I remember when all y'all (Republican backers) could talk about was Yugoslavia, and how Clinton got us into 'that mess' well, it sure pales in comparison to Iraq. Fucking Yugoslavia is a goddamn success story compared to anything in this Administration.
I remember when all you bastards could say was 'wag the dog' when Clinton took a shot at Bin Laden, you sure did cow him from pursuing it further, good thing too.
I could remember when I could call a friend with out the government knowing who it is.
Last election, y'all ran on "Don't allow the Fags to be happy" and "Make that slut to keep her child" and "We're more decisive". Now all you have left is "The Democrats aren't any better" and "they don't have a plan". Well it's going to be really hard to clean up this mess, and I for one (of many) am tired of the Repblican "plan"
oh, yes, quite, so very so sophisticated of you. Contrary to Samuel Johnson "the last refuge of a scoundrel" is not "Patriotism", but instead " Clinton bashing".