Well, this'll be an unpopular opinion, but I can hazard at least one guess on how it has affected me: I haven't died in a fiery terrorist attack.
Now, before you go nuclear on me, note this:
1. I don't agree with many portions of the PATRIOT ACT, but I do admit that some parts are useful. 2. I don't like the government having power (of many kinds) because it is too easy for that power to change hands. 3. I realize that you can't prove a negative. But you do have to admit that there are been terror attacks in the world since 9/11, but none on US soil.....
The voter verification is done by volunteers. You should volunteer to help with voting, it is easy! Just fill out the form on the back of your voting pamphlet.
when Bush confirmed that the cost of the Iraq war was going to be reduced by having a greater contribution of troops from the European allies.
That's what Kerry has said, too.
Here's what will happen:
After the main fighting cools down (as it is now in Afghanistan), other countries start coming back in. If the elections are held (like in Afghanistan), then the country will be peaceful enough for other forces to come in without major risk. That's how it always works.
A vote AGAINST someone isn't the same as a vote FOR someone.
Actually, if you work it out, a vote for Candidate A instead of B is the same as half a vote for Candidate C. It doesn't give a vote to C, but also doesn't give a vote to A. Therefore, there is a half vote difference.
I in no way claim to be intelligent, but one reason I have for supporting Bush (ignoring guns & abortion, which are big issues for me) is that he recognizes that the War on Terror is not like the War on Drugs.
Bush has also answered questions many times, while Kerry has refused to answer questions from a reporter that many consider to be left-leaning!
Bush has also had the balls to say that Social Security is in danger, and will need to be revamped. Kerry's response was, "It'll work long enough." I was pleasantly suprised to find that I actually agreed with Bush's domestic policy.
Perhaps the main reason is that Bush's reelection is going to be 4 more years of the same, which (for me and my friends) has not been too bad. But Kerry's election would be (potentially) 8 years of who knows what. I have no real hope that either party will work to fix the DMCA, as both parties supported it whole-heartedly, but perhaps we can at least keep Congress involved with howling about Iraq and not passing any more extensions.
The PATRIOT act is troubling, but Kerry just says he wants to "review" it. If Kerry says that he passed it without reading it, then he is admitting that he didn't do his job as a Senator. That is frightening. At least Bush seems to know (and do) what his job entails.
And furthermore, we need a decisive electoral victory for Bush, to show Iraq and Afghanistan that we really are going to support them, not dump them like a hot potato the moment it becomes convenient. That was the biggest mistakes we've made as a country recently - pulling up short of Baghdad in 1991, which resulted in many Iraqis who thought we were going to help them overthrow Saddam dying, and ignoring Afghanistan after the Soviet Union fell, which resulted in the Taliban taking control.
Also, I do not believe that an administration that supports the Clinton view of the Second Amendment is good for the long-term freedom in America.
Those are some of my reasons.
Things I disagree with Bush on:
1. Outsourcing. It needs control, but I don't care if an Indian has my job if I'm been blown up by a terrorist, so priorities. 2. Education. I think that education should either be controlled by local politics (cities & counties) or not by the government at all.
In fact, I am more in agreement with the Constitutional Party than with the Republicans in many ways, but I feel that especially after the 2000 election, we need to have a decisive victory. Otherwise every election from now on will be decided in courts by lawyers. This is unacceptable.
Here is a link to a blog that explains some of the reasons behind my thinking.
Other, more personal reasons I don't like Kerry:
1. He attacks Bush about this "Draft," yet the draft bills were introduced by Democrats, defeated 402 to 2, and John Kerry himself supported "National Service" as very recently. This is not just politics, but downright shameful. Also, given that many military personell have said they won't reenlist if Kerry wins, the only way he can keep his 40,000 more troops promise would be to instate a draft. Note that the link is to the archive.org's copy of the John Kerry website; this draft stuff has been modified in his current platform. Even Rumsfeld doesn't want a draft.
No, but I'm tired of people saying that unless we have every county on our side, we can't do anything. Heck, Kerry even voted against the 1991 Gulf War! How much more support than that can you have and still have an enemy to attack?
That's actually a good point - massive piracy for money (as in China, Tiawan with the $2 VCDs) is very bad, as is massive piracy online for free (Napster). But localized disorganized piracy (I burn you a copy of a CD I have) doesn't really hurt anything, as the VCR and audio tapes have proved.
And even the NYTimes admits that the explosives were probably moved before combat. A single truck can carry (or is it Kerry?:)) 10 tons, so that would be around 40 trucks of explosives rolling out of Baghdad under heavy fire from US troops. Highly unlikely, therefore it was probably moved well before the US troops were near the place, or even before the invasion.
Gad. If only 350 tons escaped out of 600,000 tons, I'd say we did a pretty "bang-up" job, if you pardon the expression.
So Germany and France are the key to success? The only reason they're in Afghanistan is that the Taliban didn't have an Opium-for-Food deal setup. And, after all, we have even fewer countries supporting us during WWII. I seem to remember that Germany was unhappy about the US joining.
But you're right. What is going to happen is that the laws will get tighter and tighter, but have no effect, just like the drug laws. This will be true no matter who is President, unless some unlikely like Cobb or Peroutka gets elected.
So here's how it boils down: If you want a government that continues to restrict consumer rights in favor of large corporations, vote for Bush; if you want a government that continues to restrict consumer rights in favor of Hollywood corporations, vote for Kerry. It's that simple.
T,FTFY.
If you think for one minute that the party of Hollywood is going to support removing or changing the DMCA (one of the few unanimous votes in the Senate), you're sadly mistaken.
The best hope is that Bush gets pissed at all the Hollywood type's continual attacks, and doesn't enforce the DMCA. But a law that passed 99-0 (one not voting) is unlikely to change no matter who is in power, unless Cobb or Badnarik or Peroutka got elected. And then only because such a large change in the Presidency would indicate a major upheaval of politics as we know it.
Maybe we should work to convince the NRA that CD & DVD ripping programs are "Arms" in the information age, and should be protected by the 2nd Amendment.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Register innocentslashdotmirror.org or something. :)
Well, this'll be an unpopular opinion, but I can hazard at least one guess on how it has affected me: I haven't died in a fiery terrorist attack.
Now, before you go nuclear on me, note this:
1. I don't agree with many portions of the PATRIOT ACT, but I do admit that some parts are useful.
2. I don't like the government having power (of many kinds) because it is too easy for that power to change hands.
3. I realize that you can't prove a negative. But you do have to admit that there are been terror attacks in the world since 9/11, but none on US soil.....
The voter verification is done by volunteers. You should volunteer to help with voting, it is easy! Just fill out the form on the back of your voting pamphlet.
Hmm. 7.4 trillion is a lot less than $280,000 per citizen. That'd be 84 trillion.
To compare, Americans hold about 2 trillion in personal, non-mortgage debt. So our government is just like the people.
Uh, check the number of murders and fatal car accidents in the United States. I think you'll find them to be frightenly high.
US Murder rate: 5.7 per 100,000 = 17100 murders.
Vehicular deaths = 41,000.
So, in the United States, which is not undergoing major upheavals and bombings, had over 50,000 people die.
Remember that in a Republican-led Senate, not voting ends up making you look more Republican. Read the site.
There is still some reference to it; mandatory has been removed.
I'd like to see his voting record brought out on intelligence issues
Then look at it. Senate.gov has a record of all votes since at least 1989, which should give you a good idea what he does.
Yawn. Here's the rebuttal.
Bleh.
when Bush confirmed that the cost of the Iraq war was going to be reduced by having a greater contribution of troops from the European allies.
That's what Kerry has said, too.
Here's what will happen:
After the main fighting cools down (as it is now in Afghanistan), other countries start coming back in. If the elections are held (like in Afghanistan), then the country will be peaceful enough for other forces to come in without major risk. That's how it always works.
I wouldn't be suprized at all if the .mil domains internet access goes through the Pentagon's proxy servers.
Had a similar problem caused by a wire tester on the line just inside the junction box. It would cause my DSL to drop every time the phone rang.
No, but it will help the popular vote count get high enough. (Which means nothing, but many idiots seem to think it does)
If it was Bill Clinton v.s. Bush, I'd probably vote Constitutional.
However, the Constitutional party is not even an option in California.
A vote AGAINST someone isn't the same as a vote FOR someone.
Actually, if you work it out, a vote for Candidate A instead of B is the same as half a vote for Candidate C. It doesn't give a vote to C, but also doesn't give a vote to A. Therefore, there is a half vote difference.
This assumes B won't win.
I in no way claim to be intelligent, but one reason I have for supporting Bush (ignoring guns & abortion, which are big issues for me) is that he recognizes that the War on Terror is not like the War on Drugs.
Bush has also answered questions many times, while Kerry has refused to answer questions from a reporter that many consider to be left-leaning!
Bush has also had the balls to say that Social Security is in danger, and will need to be revamped. Kerry's response was, "It'll work long enough." I was pleasantly suprised to find that I actually agreed with Bush's domestic policy.
Perhaps the main reason is that Bush's reelection is going to be 4 more years of the same, which (for me and my friends) has not been too bad. But Kerry's election would be (potentially) 8 years of who knows what. I have no real hope that either party will work to fix the DMCA, as both parties supported it whole-heartedly, but perhaps we can at least keep Congress involved with howling about Iraq and not passing any more extensions.
The PATRIOT act is troubling, but Kerry just says he wants to "review" it. If Kerry says that he passed it without reading it, then he is admitting that he didn't do his job as a Senator. That is frightening. At least Bush seems to know (and do) what his job entails.
And furthermore, we need a decisive electoral victory for Bush, to show Iraq and Afghanistan that we really are going to support them, not dump them like a hot potato the moment it becomes convenient. That was the biggest mistakes we've made as a country recently - pulling up short of Baghdad in 1991, which resulted in many Iraqis who thought we were going to help them overthrow Saddam dying, and ignoring Afghanistan after the Soviet Union fell, which resulted in the Taliban taking control.
Also, I do not believe that an administration that supports the Clinton view of the Second Amendment is good for the long-term freedom in America.
Those are some of my reasons.
Things I disagree with Bush on:
1. Outsourcing. It needs control, but I don't care if an Indian has my job if I'm been blown up by a terrorist, so priorities.
2. Education. I think that education should either be controlled by local politics (cities & counties) or not by the government at all.
In fact, I am more in agreement with the Constitutional Party than with the Republicans in many ways, but I feel that especially after the 2000 election, we need to have a decisive victory. Otherwise every election from now on will be decided in courts by lawyers. This is unacceptable.
Here is a link to a blog that explains some of the reasons behind my thinking.
Other, more personal reasons I don't like Kerry:
1. He attacks Bush about this "Draft," yet the draft bills were introduced by Democrats, defeated 402 to 2, and John Kerry himself supported "National Service" as very recently. This is not just politics, but downright shameful. Also, given that many military personell have said they won't reenlist if Kerry wins, the only way he can keep his 40,000 more troops promise would be to instate a draft. Note that the link is to the archive.org's copy of the John Kerry website; this draft stuff has been modified in his current platform. Even Rumsfeld doesn't want a draft.
2. Why the hell does he try to pret
No, but I'm tired of people saying that unless we have every county on our side, we can't do anything. Heck, Kerry even voted against the 1991 Gulf War! How much more support than that can you have and still have an enemy to attack?
Might be correct....
That's actually a good point - massive piracy for money (as in China, Tiawan with the $2 VCDs) is very bad, as is massive piracy online for free (Napster). But localized disorganized piracy (I burn you a copy of a CD I have) doesn't really hurt anything, as the VCR and audio tapes have proved.
I would have complained about old given that your UID is about 65K above twitter's.
And I'm much older than both you whippersnappers. GET OFF MY SERVER!
Oh, and did I forget to mention that 110,000 tons ha[d] been destroyed by June 2004? And another 138,000 tons were captured?
:)) 10 tons, so that would be around 40 trucks of explosives rolling out of Baghdad under heavy fire from US troops. Highly unlikely, therefore it was probably moved well before the US troops were near the place, or even before the invasion.
And even the NYTimes admits that the explosives were probably moved before combat. A single truck can carry (or is it Kerry?
Gad. If only 350 tons escaped out of 600,000 tons, I'd say we did a pretty "bang-up" job, if you pardon the expression.
So Germany and France are the key to success? The only reason they're in Afghanistan is that the Taliban didn't have an Opium-for-Food deal setup. And, after all, we have even fewer countries supporting us during WWII. I seem to remember that Germany was unhappy about the US joining.
You don't see Standard Oil selling kerosine do you?
:)
No, but somebody is selling [Dr. Evil] One BILLION gallons[/Dr. Evil] a year.....
But you're right. What is going to happen is that the laws will get tighter and tighter, but have no effect, just like the drug laws. This will be true no matter who is President, unless some unlikely like Cobb or Peroutka gets elected.
T,FTFY.
If you think for one minute that the party of Hollywood is going to support removing or changing the DMCA (one of the few unanimous votes in the Senate), you're sadly mistaken.
The best hope is that Bush gets pissed at all the Hollywood type's continual attacks, and doesn't enforce the DMCA. But a law that passed 99-0 (one not voting) is unlikely to change no matter who is in power, unless Cobb or Badnarik or Peroutka got elected. And then only because such a large change in the Presidency would indicate a major upheaval of politics as we know it.
Correct, because no one voted against it. And this is under Clinton!
If there was so much support for it then, why do you think anyone would vote differently today?
Maybe we should work to convince the NRA that CD & DVD ripping programs are "Arms" in the information age, and should be protected by the 2nd Amendment. :)