This shit is what I hated most about school, I would get judged more on my attendance, or being on time than my actual work!
I mean I could get all my work done, do a perfect job, but because I was late or had bad attendance suddenly none of it matters.
This is the prolem with school, attendance has absolutely nothing to do with learning, if I can keep up and do my work I shouldnt have to go to ever class. Just like if I do go to class I shouldnt HAVE to pay attention, this is what is destroying our school system. Teachers spend more time trying to "Control" the students, than actually teaching students. A teacher could spend all the class trying to get johnny to sit still, could waste time having johnny see doctors to see why the kid wont pay attention and sit still, and ultimately give johnny pills to make him sit still.
All this time invested trying to get Johnny to act normal could have been time Johnny spent learning!
This is the problem. Kids are judged on stupid stuff, homework, attendance, how they dress, ability to sit still, ability to pay attention.
NONE of this has to do with this kids work, if the kid wants to space out and draw all class but still submits A quality work, why resort to drugging the kid, having all kinds of tests, running tests on a database, and giving the kid some sort of label?
If you dont act a certain way schools and teachers go out of their way to label you.
Theres a whole array of labels, the most popular? ADD, then theres Bipolar, then theres Manic Depression, they basically have a label for anyone who doesnt act in the "normal" way.
Thats just it schools want to put everyone into a little box or track. Intelligence doesnt matter, your work doesnt matter, nothing matters to these people except discipline, obedience, and being on time. You can be a complete idiot but if you do exactly what teachers say, you show up every single day, and you are on time for every class, you will pass, while the other kid who is a genius who doesnt do his homework, doesnt get to class on time, and misses school, this kid will fail.
Forget about the reasons why the kid missed school, maybe school was too easy for them? Maybe it was just boring, maybe they just hate the structure, creativity is not rewarded, intelligence is not rewarded, hard work is not rewarded, the only thing that matters to the teachers and to the students is how well a person fits in.
You have jocks who are complete idiots who get good grades, everyone likes them, they are "cool" and they fit in.
Then you have the eccentric genius who no one understands and who no one wants to talk to. Teachers will spend more time setting this kid up to fail, claiming this kid has some kinda disorder or mental problem, than actually just accepting the kid.
None of these things have anything to do with intelligence or learning. What about looking at a kids work? Where does the quality of their work count for anything? You see school is dumb, currently it focuses more on teaching discipline, good attendence, and obedience more than anything else.
This is why the current schools are failing, none of this helps a kid learn how to think. Its all useless. Why should the smartest kid in school fail because they had poor attendence or because they were late?
School sucks and this database wont help it, predicting drop out is just another way of choosing who will put pressured by teachers to drop out, because teachers dont care generally, they will look at this database and see you were late all the time or have poor attendence and instantly label you stupid, and or a drop out, without even looking at your work.
You don't pay much attention to politics, do you. When the Democrat party controlled the House, businesses gave a majority of their money to them. When the Republicans took over, the majority of money went to them. Businesses give to incumbents in greater amounts than to challengers.
Businesses dont matter. Howard Dean is proving this.
You might have taken the time to look at the individual contributors link in each report. Howard Dean had 10k supporters which is impressive but GW Bush had 20k supporters.
The base which George Bush gets his money from is alot smaller, sure people who make over $100,000 a year donate to George Bush, but Howard Dean has the support of the middle class. The middle class is larger than the upper class and always will be larger, there is a limit to how much a person can contribute, its $2000, so the competition is based on how many people in total contribute $2000 to you. Bush is generating his money from a small number of donors while Howard Dean may have millions of donors, so Howard Dean has potential to surpass Bush in funding.
Both candidacies spent ~$4M according to the reports so don't give me any bull about Dean spending $0 to raise money. Candidates go out, impress potential contributors, and a check is written. That's how it's done everywhere in these united states. Travel, venue fees, salaries for workers, rent, electricity, everything costs money but from the finance campaign perspective it's all a cost of raising funds.
Dean did not spend 4 million to raise money, that was spent to advertise himself, to travel, etc. Dean raised his money over the internet, that doesnt cost him a penny. However to win states you have to advertise and this costs money.
Bush spent $3M on those kind of activities and a bit under $1M in check writing to promising candidates. Dean spend ~$4M just on his own expenses. That makes the Bush campaign a better fundraiser in $$$, a broader base (more grass roots), a more efficient fundraiser (expenditure per $ raised is way lower), and a more generous candidate who is more likely to get others of his party elected.
Bush doesnt have to compete with 4-5 other Republicans to win a state like Dean does.
Don't get me wrong, the rest of the Democrats are pretty weak compared to Dean but against Bush? Dean still comes out a distant second place.
Right now in 2003, I agree with you Dean would come in second place, A year from now however, thats a long time and if Bush doesnt straighten up, hes not going to win. Let Dean get a few million supporters, and raise 100 million dollars or so, Bush wont stand a chance if we are still having troops die in Iraq, havent found the WMDs, and are suffering through a weak economy.
Real-life experience in politics at the national level. Until I got utterly disgusted with it. Dean's strategy is nothing new, and has never worked before. Ask President McCain, Anderson, or McCarthy. Except you can't, as they were never elected despite their "Hey, I'm a new outsider with fresh ideas" shtick. Read some history: there's nothing new under the sun. ..
Thats because until Dean came along, politicians NEEDED the support from the established right/left special interest groups. McCain was better than Bush in every way, more people agreed with McCain, the problem with McCain is he couldnt raise as much money as Bush because he didnt have the support from the special interest groups, he was an independent hiding behind the Republican label, everyone on the Right and Left knew it, so neither the Right or Left liked him.
Now, if McCain raised more money than George Bush I have no doubt that McCain would have beaten Bush, its all about how much money you raise, not where you get that money from.
Dean has raised more money than all the other Democrats, hes going to be nominated, and once he is, its Dean vs Bush. To the people, they wont have much of a choice, it will be a choice of choosing the lesser of the two Evils. Most people are not members of a special interest group and most people dont like either of these guys, so people will be forced to just pick one.
I'm an engineer. I've learned, the hard way, that it's NEVER as easy as it looks, and the "small stuff" always comes back to bite you in the ass.
Why not make people buy new Cars? Increased spending is exactly what this economy needs.
Your failure to fully analyze the effects of your "simple solution" is typical of college students, I did it myself at your age. But I ask you a final question: how much will a hydro-powered car cost, and how will the working poor be able to afford it ? You know, the people who currently drive 500-dollar beaters because it's all they can afford, to get to their minimum-wage jobs ?
I'm poor, most poor people spend more on their cars than they spend on anytihng else. Go to a poor neighborhood, you'll see more spent on rims and stereos than the actual car. People love to waste their money on new tihngs.
And if you think both parties are evil, then why are you supporting a Democrat, rather than a Green, or a Socialist Worker's candidate ?
Because I'm realistic, I know that a vote for a Green or Socialist is actually a vote for Bush, so I'm going to choose Dean, mainly because Dean out of all the Democrats is the most hated by his own party, and is not a part of the establishment.
Anyone is better than Bush and I plan to vote for any human who runs against him, I'd even vote for Arnold, I'd vote for Al Sharpton, I dont really care, as bad as these people are, very few people are as bad as Bush.
Its just like with the California recall, most people dont care who comes after Davis, Davis did such a terrible job and pissed so many people off that they'd vote for Arnold before voting for him.
This is what Bush has done, he has very few allies which are actual people, his only allies are businessmen, and the religious zealots, both of which have only a few states which they control, maybe Utah, Taxas, Florida, and the south will vote for Bush but the rest of this country will go with Dean, Gore, anyone who ends up running against Bush.
The Green party who voted for Nader will now vote for Dean, the libertarians will now vote for Dean, the far left will definately vote for Dean, the only people who would pick Bush over Dean are the religious right. The conservative right may be forced to vote for Dean or else be stuck with Bush for another 4 years of spending spree.
Read, the conservaties view Dean as a threat, I dont know where you get the un-electable crap.
You also make the unwarranted assumption that everyone will want, and will buy, a new hybrid or hydro-car, in a relatively short period of time. 10 years is by far too short a changeover period: I'd think 30 years is more reasonable. After all, people are still driving 1960's-vintage cars out there as classics, and I still see plenty of 1970's-vintage cars on the roads.
We were attacked by TERRORISTS because we use ridiculous forms of energy which supported them. Why cant Bush blame this on the terrorists? He can make up these masterful speeches about Bin Laden and Saddam being on the same team and having nuclear weapons, let him have his same speech writers write some new lines to get people to stop using gas in their cars. And, recall that quite a few people cannot afford a new vehicle: a quick transition such as you propose would severely impact the lower end of the economic spectrum. By the standards that you appear to espouse as a general case, this is a rather large-turnabout. Somebody convert to to Pat Buchanan last night ???? (g)
I'm a college student, there are millions of me who dont even have their first car. Another excuse.
Pat Buchanan ? No I didnt convert to Republican, I'm independent and always will be. Both parties are evil in my opinion, I vote for the person who benefits me at the time. If I were a religious millionaire I'd vote for Bush.
As a challenger, President Bush raised $193M. The report is here. I don't have any doubt that he will raise far more than that this time around.
Why would he raise more this time around? Sure he might raise alittle bit more but as far as how many common men support him, alot less.
What should worry Democrats is the transfers of money out to other committees. Almost a quarter of President Bush's $3M in expenses are such transfers. That means that President Bush is spending less to raise funds and sending money down ballot which will result in some marginal races tipping Republican. I would guess that a lot of money is going to go that route and Democrats are going to have a tough time because of it.
Howard Dean spent $0 to raise millions via the net. So whats this stuff about the democrats this and that, this is about Bush vs Dean.
No doubt both candidates will pick up more strength, President Bush isn't going full out in fundraising right now and Governor Dean would pick up additional supporters from the rest of the Democrat field as they drop out (if he keeps up his strength).
Bush went full force when he raised about a month ago, he spent every day week after week raising money, he raised about 30 million dollars in a few weeks.
Governor Dean would pick up additional supporters from the rest of the Democrat field as they drop out (if he keeps up his strength).
Yeah but what you dont seem to understand is Dean is going for grass roots support, Dean is generating money from normal people on the internet. Bush generates his money from rich CEOs and others. The difference is this, theres more of us than there are of them, meaning theres more people who arent rich than people who are. One person can only contribute $2000, most of George Bush's supporters generate $2000 all in one night, which is good for Bush because he raises money quickly, but overall Dean can raise more money because Dean can continue to tap about 1-2 million donors over and over again until they all reach around $2000.
If Dean can manage to get a few million supporters he could raise hundreds of millions of dollars overnight, I dont think Bush can raise this kinda month because Bush just doesnt have as big of a pool to draw contributions from. Special Interest groups only take you so far, at some point the people do begin to matter.
Bill didnt write Basic by himself, someone else did but I guess he did a great job taking credit for other peoples work like he did for MSDOS and Windows
Well, Dean only has 200,000 supporters, he raised $500,000 in a few days and only about 8000 of those 200,000 supporteres donated.
What happens when Dean has 2 million supporters, and 1 million of them donate $100, how much money is that?
Yes Dean can keep up and outraise bush, but it will require Dean to actually have a few million supporters, consider the elections are about a year away, I think he can easily get a few million supporters and if 3 million people donate $50, Dean will out raise Bush with $150 million dollars in a few days instead of half a million.
I see, so I guess because Sony cant sell CDs anymore now they want to make machines which learn from successful musicians and generate music I guess so they can fire the musician and sell the new machine product to consumers.
I guess musicians should prepare to be replaced by the machines.
Follow the constitution, there is no need for a national military, use local militias.
What if Idaho, Deleware, or Montana has nothing to contribute?
The currently have nothing to contribute now but they are here and supported.
War? Thats why we have local militias, the UN, and so on and so forth, in the situation of a war the president should get representitives from each state to act as advisers to help him with decision making, also the leader of the militias from each state should meet in a central office to discuss with the President military strategy and so on and so forth.
The President along with advisers he chooses will sort it out.
Without the federal government we have a libertarian country =)
Not that I care because I'm a socialist, and I dont like government unless it provides services.
What stops government from spending some money and having this built? It would take maybe 5 years, but thats not a long time. I think we begin to move from oil right now and start with hybrid cars, then work our way to full hydogenfuel cell, I think we can break our oil dependencies by 2008 if we spend the money to build the infastructure.
Do you think Gas stations were all built overnight?
Especially when off to visit Grandma in Podunk, USA, with the wife, kids, and the MiniHydroVan ???? Unless you can get a fuel cell that runs on a liquid monopropellant that's room-temperature stable, plus or minus 50 degrees Celsius, the entire current fueling infrastructure will have to be updated. Likewise, even more so with the maintenance infrastructure
Well theres another option, we can use the current infastructure and just bring tanks with new fuel to them, this would allow us to switch within 5 years, but we still need to get people to buy the cars, this is why we need to start with hybrids, and then maybe 10 years from now we wont be using oil at all.
It can be done if we want to do it, it wont be easy but alot of things arent easy, its certainly easier and cheaper to do this than to rebuild IRAQ.
First you say that you don't need a federal gov't, and then you say that you need a president to take charge of military issues.
A presidentt is not a government. Hes one man.
If your only sovereign is at the local level, you have a lot of countries, not states. If you have competing states and yet have a federal government, then what's the purpose of that government except to regulate interaction between the states and between the country and other countries... and if you have that, then how do the states ensure they have adequate representation at that federal level except through Congress and the Senate?
Exactly.
Currently Federal government serves no purpose but to tax all the states which compete.
As you see, hundreds of thousands of Americans donated around $50 to Howard Dean. Thats the only reason Howard Dean is currently winning the primaries, he has the support of the people, I mean he has ALOT of support, far more than Bush, so if fundraising is done properly, Dean should be able to get as much money as Bush with about a million or so supporters.
Currently Dean is at 212,000 supporters, this is more than enough to put him in the lead of all his Democrats who pander to special interests.
As for Dean being un-electable, let's look at his core constituency: the Hard Left. American Presidential Politics is based on uniting your core faction with as much of the uncommitted Center as you can. The hard left supports Gephardt, Sharpton, and Gram, not Howard Dean(Dean supports the NRA, low spending, etc etc)
The hard left doesnt like Deans fiscal policy, if you think Dean is hard left name one Democrat who is more moderate than him, just one. Who?
Stop reading conservative and liberal news, and research Dean based on his vermont record, if you think hes a far left liberal after you see his record in vermont, then you have every right to post this. But from what I know Dean did a better job being a conservative in Vermont than Bush did in Texas.
Bush's core vote is somewhere between 30 and 40% of the voting populace. Dean's is MAYBE 10%. His outsider message has been seen before. Eugene McCarthy. John Andersen. H.Ross Perot John McCain. NONE have been elected to the Presidency. Add to that his home voter base in Vermont, a hardly-significant electoral state, and I forecast a maximum of 20% of the votes in the Democratic Convention. And, as the cherry on top, please recall that Dean doesn't own the Hard Left: he shares it with the Greens, and they'll support Nader again, the way things look. ..
Bush has 30-40% of the voting populace? What is Bush left or right? He pisses off both sides so why would either side pick him over Dean? Dean may be new, but theres nothing wrong with Dean, Dean appeals to both sides, he supports alot of conservative ideas on economics which I dont always agree with, like limiting spending,cutting taxes, etc but his plan for universal healthcare would require no additional spending, he plans to simply use money already being used for other things that Bush wants to use the money for to pay for this. But if its really a problem, since you dont mind us being in a deficit when under Bush, why not let Dean borrow money and use that money to fund Universal Healthcare?
Y'know, I LOVE idealists. But Dean WON'T balance the budget, his Universal Health Care proposal guarantees that. He CAN'T cut the Defense Budget too far, way too much pork in there for all the Congresscritters. It's not gonna happen.
Did you actually READ his plan? Its actually not that expensive. It will cost maybe 100 billion or so.
My guess at who actually has a shot and who doesn't ? Dead in the water: Gephardt, Edwards (who, in fact, may not even get re-elected to the Senate in 2 more years. ..). Never even stood a outside chance: Moseley-Braun, Kunicich (who was revealed to be fundraising overseas, a big no-no). The Pat Paulsen Award for Comic Relief: Al Sharpton. Contenders: Kerry, Lieberman, and Hillary Clinton. And any of the three will lose to Dubya: especially so for Hillary. The Hard Right, and a good chunk of the Middle Right hate her with a passion rarely seen in politics. They might not like Dubya, but they'll be damned if they let (as I've heard her called) "Hitlary" back into the White House. ..
No one wants Hilary to run but the Hard Right. The Hard Right fears Dean the most because hes the onl y one in the list who can beat Bush. Remember Dean doesnt have to get over 50% of the votes, he just has to get a higher percentage than Bush, and this should be easy because I dont know anyone on the Hard Right or Hard Left who want Bush for another 4 years. The only ones who want Bush for another 4 years are the Religious Right, so Bush has about the same chance of winning as Dean considering his whole conservative base now knows hes not a real conservative, its the Religious Right vs the "Far Left" and I think the far left outnumber the Religious Right.
My guess at who actually has a shot and who doesn't ? Dead in the water: Gephardt, Edwards (who, in fact, may not even get re-elected to the Senate in 2 more years. ..). Never e
Thats why democracy should be LOCAL. There should be no federal government, just a bunch of local governments which operate by Democracy, then have each state vote and combine the votes of the entire country.
Example, if the south is racist, let minorities move to states which arent, and then through economic development and political discussion minorities can negotiate with the few rogue states which decide to be racist, of the rogue states continue to be racist, you can simply cease doing trade with them and force the racists to fend for themselves.
Theres no need for a cival war, you just dont trade with hostile states in the same way we dont trade with hostile countries like Iraq.
. Should civil rights be subject to mob rule? Remember that following 9/11, 80% of the US populace favored using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. Populations were also widely in favor of World War I, and we know how well that went for Europe.
But that statistic is skewed, the population should not even be voting on military issues, that should be left up to the president. The people however should vote for the president via popular vote, the whole point of having a president is so he can decide issues like this.
We do not however need congress, we dont need senate, and career politicians, we just need a President, Mayor, Governor, and things like that, and then we need people who communicate directly with these guys, advisers, who the governor or leader person chooses.
Senators should not outlast the President, the President should choose his senators, and we should choose the president.
So if we vote in a proper President, we will get a proper congress and senate.
Do you post for the approval of your peers? Are you too afraid to get into an arguement?
And no I didnt think the article was about cold fusion although I admit I couldnt read the article at first because it was slashdotted and someone on here mentioned cold fusion, I took advantage of their mention of cold fusion to talk about cold fusion the energy source because we know that you cannot have something like this without having infinite energy.
"Do what I've just done, but him on your foe list and set them a negative modifier."
Go right ahead, be my guest, but don't give orders to other people, not everyone comes here to agree with everyone else 100% of the time and never get into any debates.
The only reason really I come to a place like Slashdot is because I can post my opinion and get flamed by about 30 people.
Usually those flames turn into debates and sometimes I learn something new. Perhaps you should try it, I'd think without guys like me on the site this site wouldnt be popular, I mean if everyone were timid and just read the article and posted something like "YEAH!! THIS IS GOOD!" and the next person "I AGREE WITH YOU DUDE!", and then the next person "YAY! WE ALL AGREE!"
This site wouldnt have half as many people posting on it, however when that one guy posts something which makes everyone drop what they were doing and read it, and that post draws 30 responses, this is what slashdot is all about.
Alot of my posts do draw 30+ comments, and I usually get a rating of 4-5 on all my posts. I must be doing SOMETHING right.
Well at least you seem to "get' how slashdot works. Thats why we bboth get 4s and 5s in all our posts while this guy got a 1 or whatever.
If you never once post your opinion, always trying to seem like you arent a troll, no one will even READ your posts here. The only way to get your posts read is to state your opinion no matter how crazy, and to challenge the opinions of others you dont agree with.
I'm not even arguing with you about socialism, I want the socialist world to happen, I'm just saying people in this world are trying their best to prevent it from happening and you wont make it happen without a big fight. I mean even on the net the RIAA is trying to kill P2P because they want to CONTROL the internet, we have people offline who want to CONTROL other people and if everyones equal we no longer need the boss, the CEO, and the power that comes with having all this money is now gone.
Thats a dream, if what you say is correct, why arent we providing universal healthcare? We have the money. Why arent we working toward making certain things free? Why the hell arent we doing it online with P2P? Why is the government and RIAA trying to prevent your socialism from working even in the digital world?
Its simple, certain people are just too greedy to ever allow a socialist world to happen, why share everything when you can have everything and everyone else can have nothing?
Class warfare creates civil wars as well, and in a plutocracy, class warfare is eventually created.
Eventually the lower class will begin to despise the upper class, be it because of jealously, or because the upper class wants to continue to cut services and safetynets away from the lower class.
Believe me I know alot of people who absolutely HATE the rich, they hate the rich as much as some of you slashdot people hate the government.
anarchism cannot work, because individuals are not responsible, intelligent or mature enough to handle it. This is why we have wars, we are ignorant, if our species could handle power we would cease to have wars and wouldnt need to build nuclear weapons.
Slashdot Mirror
This shit is what I hated most about school, I would get judged more on my attendance, or being on time than my actual work!
I mean I could get all my work done, do a perfect job, but because I was late or had bad attendance suddenly none of it matters.
This is the prolem with school, attendance has absolutely nothing to do with learning, if I can keep up and do my work I shouldnt have to go to ever class. Just like if I do go to class I shouldnt HAVE to pay attention, this is what is destroying our school system. Teachers spend more time trying to "Control" the students, than actually teaching students. A teacher could spend all the class trying to get johnny to sit still, could waste time having johnny see doctors to see why the kid wont pay attention and sit still, and ultimately give johnny pills to make him sit still
All this time invested trying to get Johnny to act normal could have been time Johnny spent learning!
This is the problem. Kids are judged on stupid stuff, homework, attendance, how they dress, ability to sit still, ability to pay attention.
NONE of this has to do with this kids work, if the kid wants to space out and draw all class but still submits A quality work, why resort to drugging the kid, having all kinds of tests, running tests on a database, and giving the kid some sort of label?
Its all a waste of time.
If you dont act a certain way schools and teachers go out of their way to label you.
Theres a whole array of labels, the most popular? ADD, then theres Bipolar, then theres Manic Depression, they basically have a label for anyone who doesnt act in the "normal" way.
Thats just it schools want to put everyone into a little box or track. Intelligence doesnt matter, your work doesnt matter, nothing matters to these people except discipline, obedience, and being on time. You can be a complete idiot but if you do exactly what teachers say, you show up every single day, and you are on time for every class, you will pass, while the other kid who is a genius who doesnt do his homework, doesnt get to class on time, and misses school, this kid will fail.
Forget about the reasons why the kid missed school, maybe school was too easy for them? Maybe it was just boring, maybe they just hate the structure, creativity is not rewarded, intelligence is not rewarded, hard work is not rewarded, the only thing that matters to the teachers and to the students is how well a person fits in.
You have jocks who are complete idiots who get good grades, everyone likes them, they are "cool" and they fit in.
Then you have the eccentric genius who no one understands and who no one wants to talk to. Teachers will spend more time setting this kid up to fail, claiming this kid has some kinda disorder or mental problem, than actually just accepting the kid.
student's attendance, discipline, immigration status,
None of these things have anything to do with intelligence or learning. What about looking at a kids work? Where does the quality of their work count for anything? You see school is dumb, currently it focuses more on teaching discipline, good attendence, and obedience more than anything else.
This is why the current schools are failing, none of this helps a kid learn how to think. Its all useless. Why should the smartest kid in school fail because they had poor attendence or because they were late?
School sucks and this database wont help it, predicting drop out is just another way of choosing who will put pressured by teachers to drop out, because teachers dont care generally, they will look at this database and see you were late all the time or have poor attendence and instantly label you stupid, and or a drop out, without even looking at your work.
You don't pay much attention to politics, do you. When the Democrat party controlled the House, businesses gave a majority of their money to them. When the Republicans took over, the majority of money went to them. Businesses give to incumbents in greater amounts than to challengers.
Businesses dont matter. Howard Dean is proving this.
You might have taken the time to look at the individual contributors link in each report. Howard Dean had 10k supporters which is impressive but GW Bush had 20k supporters.
The base which George Bush gets his money from is alot smaller, sure people who make over $100,000 a year donate to George Bush, but Howard Dean has the support of the middle class. The middle class is larger than the upper class and always will be larger, there is a limit to how much a person can contribute, its $2000, so the competition is based on how many people in total contribute $2000 to you. Bush is generating his money from a small number of donors while Howard Dean may have millions of donors, so Howard Dean has potential to surpass Bush in funding.
Both candidacies spent ~$4M according to the reports so don't give me any bull about Dean spending $0 to raise money. Candidates go out, impress potential contributors, and a check is written. That's how it's done everywhere in these united states. Travel, venue fees, salaries for workers, rent, electricity, everything costs money but from the finance campaign perspective it's all a cost of raising funds.
Dean did not spend 4 million to raise money, that was spent to advertise himself, to travel, etc. Dean raised his money over the internet, that doesnt cost him a penny. However to win states you have to advertise and this costs money.
Bush spent $3M on those kind of activities and a bit under $1M in check writing to promising candidates. Dean spend ~$4M just on his own expenses. That makes the Bush campaign a better fundraiser in $$$, a broader base (more grass roots), a more efficient fundraiser (expenditure per $ raised is way lower), and a more generous candidate who is more likely to get others of his party elected.
Bush doesnt have to compete with 4-5 other Republicans to win a state like Dean does.
Don't get me wrong, the rest of the Democrats are pretty weak compared to Dean but against Bush? Dean still comes out a distant second place.
Right now in 2003, I agree with you Dean would come in second place, A year from now however, thats a long time and if Bush doesnt straighten up, hes not going to win. Let Dean get a few million supporters, and raise 100 million dollars or so, Bush wont stand a chance if we are still having troops die in Iraq, havent found the WMDs, and are suffering through a weak economy.
We could upgrade our trains and use maglev technology, would require our gov spend a few billion dollars to build the tracks but its possible.
Real-life experience in politics at the national level. Until I got utterly disgusted with it. Dean's strategy is nothing new, and has never worked before. Ask President McCain, Anderson, or McCarthy. Except you can't, as they were never elected despite their "Hey, I'm a new outsider with fresh ideas" shtick. Read some history: there's nothing new under the sun. .
Thats because until Dean came along, politicians NEEDED the support from the established right/left special interest groups. McCain was better than Bush in every way, more people agreed with McCain, the problem with McCain is he couldnt raise as much money as Bush because he didnt have the support from the special interest groups, he was an independent hiding behind the Republican label, everyone on the Right and Left knew it, so neither the Right or Left liked him.
Now, if McCain raised more money than George Bush I have no doubt that McCain would have beaten Bush, its all about how much money you raise, not where you get that money from.
Dean has raised more money than all the other Democrats, hes going to be nominated, and once he is, its Dean vs Bush. To the people, they wont have much of a choice, it will be a choice of choosing the lesser of the two Evils. Most people are not members of a special interest group and most people dont like either of these guys, so people will be forced to just pick one.
I'm an engineer. I've learned, the hard way, that it's NEVER as easy as it looks, and the "small stuff" always comes back to bite you in the ass.
Why not make people buy new Cars? Increased spending is exactly what this economy needs.
Your failure to fully analyze the effects of your "simple solution" is typical of college students, I did it myself at your age. But I ask you a final question: how much will a hydro-powered car cost, and how will the working poor be able to afford it ? You know, the people who currently drive 500-dollar beaters because it's all they can afford, to get to their minimum-wage jobs ?
I'm poor, most poor people spend more on their cars than they spend on anytihng else. Go to a poor neighborhood, you'll see more spent on rims and stereos than the actual car. People love to waste their money on new tihngs.
And if you think both parties are evil, then why are you supporting a Democrat, rather than a Green, or a Socialist Worker's candidate ?
Because I'm realistic, I know that a vote for a Green or Socialist is actually a vote for Bush, so I'm going to choose Dean, mainly because Dean out of all the Democrats is the most hated by his own party, and is not a part of the establishment.
Anyone is better than Bush and I plan to vote for any human who runs against him, I'd even vote for Arnold, I'd vote for Al Sharpton, I dont really care, as bad as these people are, very few people are as bad as Bush.
Its just like with the California recall, most people dont care who comes after Davis, Davis did such a terrible job and pissed so many people off that they'd vote for Arnold before voting for him.
This is what Bush has done, he has very few allies which are actual people, his only allies are businessmen, and the religious zealots, both of which have only a few states which they control, maybe Utah, Taxas, Florida, and the south will vote for Bush but the rest of this country will go with Dean, Gore, anyone who ends up running against Bush.
The Green party who voted for Nader will now vote for Dean, the libertarians will now vote for Dean, the far left will definately vote for Dean, the only people who would pick Bush over Dean are the religious right. The conservative right may be forced to vote for Dean or else be stuck with Bush for another 4 years of spending spree.
Dean is a serious threat The Weekly Standard
Read, the conservaties view Dean as a threat, I dont know where you get the un-electable crap.
You also make the unwarranted assumption that everyone will want, and will buy, a new hybrid or hydro-car, in a relatively short period of time. 10 years is by far too short a changeover period: I'd think 30 years is more reasonable. After all, people are still driving 1960's-vintage cars out there as classics, and I still see plenty of 1970's-vintage cars on the roads.
We were attacked by TERRORISTS because we use ridiculous forms of energy which supported them. Why cant Bush blame this on the terrorists? He can make up these masterful speeches about Bin Laden and Saddam being on the same team and having nuclear weapons, let him have his same speech writers write some new lines to get people to stop using gas in their cars.
And, recall that quite a few people cannot afford a new vehicle: a quick transition such as you propose would severely impact the lower end of the economic spectrum. By the standards that you appear to espouse as a general case, this is a rather large-turnabout. Somebody convert to to Pat Buchanan last night ???? (g)
I'm a college student, there are millions of me who dont even have their first car. Another excuse.
Pat Buchanan ? No I didnt convert to Republican, I'm independent and always will be. Both parties are evil in my opinion, I vote for the person who benefits me at the time. If I were a religious millionaire I'd vote for Bush.
As a challenger, President Bush raised $193M. The report is here. I don't have any doubt that he will raise far more than that this time around.
Why would he raise more this time around? Sure he might raise alittle bit more but as far as how many common men support him, alot less.
What should worry Democrats is the transfers of money out to other committees. Almost a quarter of President Bush's $3M in expenses are such transfers. That means that President Bush is spending less to raise funds and sending money down ballot which will result in some marginal races tipping Republican. I would guess that a lot of money is going to go that route and Democrats are going to have a tough time because of it.
Howard Dean spent $0 to raise millions via the net. So whats this stuff about the democrats this and that, this is about Bush vs Dean.
No doubt both candidates will pick up more strength, President Bush isn't going full out in fundraising right now and Governor Dean would pick up additional supporters from the rest of the Democrat field as they drop out (if he keeps up his strength).
Bush went full force when he raised about a month ago, he spent every day week after week raising money, he raised about 30 million dollars in a few weeks.
Governor Dean would pick up additional supporters from the rest of the Democrat field as they drop out (if he keeps up his strength).
Yeah but what you dont seem to understand is Dean is going for grass roots support, Dean is generating money from normal people on the internet. Bush generates his money from rich CEOs and others. The difference is this, theres more of us than there are of them, meaning theres more people who arent rich than people who are. One person can only contribute $2000, most of George Bush's supporters generate $2000 all in one night, which is good for Bush because he raises money quickly, but overall Dean can raise more money because Dean can continue to tap about 1-2 million donors over and over again until they all reach around $2000.
If Dean can manage to get a few million supporters he could raise hundreds of millions of dollars overnight, I dont think Bush can raise this kinda month because Bush just doesnt have as big of a pool to draw contributions from. Special Interest groups only take you so far, at some point the people do begin to matter.
Bill didnt write Basic by himself, someone else did but I guess he did a great job taking credit for other peoples work like he did for MSDOS and Windows
Well, Dean only has 200,000 supporters, he raised $500,000 in a few days and only about 8000 of those 200,000 supporteres donated.
What happens when Dean has 2 million supporters, and 1 million of them donate $100, how much money is that?
Yes Dean can keep up and outraise bush, but it will require Dean to actually have a few million supporters, consider the elections are about a year away, I think he can easily get a few million supporters and if 3 million people donate $50, Dean will out raise Bush with $150 million dollars in a few days instead of half a million.
Bill never did anything of value, he stole other peoples ideas all his life and got rich off them.
Name one original idea Bill Gates came up with, just one.
For me its not thought/feeling, or the lyrics, its the arrangement and composing.
I see, so I guess because Sony cant sell CDs anymore now they want to make machines which learn from successful musicians and generate music I guess so they can fire the musician and sell the new machine product to consumers.
I guess musicians should prepare to be replaced by the machines.
Whether or not one sees it as "evil" depends greatly on one's opinion as to whether equal rewards for unequal work, imposed by force, is evil.
So you are saying Capitalism is evil? Bill Gates, the RIAA, etc, they dont really do any work, but the get all the rewards.
You do all the work, Bill Gates takes the rewards and the credit then lays you off for an Indian.
Follow the constitution, there is no need for a national military, use local militias.
What if Idaho, Deleware, or Montana has nothing to contribute?
The currently have nothing to contribute now but they are here and supported.
War? Thats why we have local militias, the UN, and so on and so forth, in the situation of a war the president should get representitives from each state to act as advisers to help him with decision making, also the leader of the militias from each state should meet in a central office to discuss with the President military strategy and so on and so forth.
The President along with advisers he chooses will sort it out.
Without the federal government we have a libertarian country =)
Not that I care because I'm a socialist, and I dont like government unless it provides services.
What stops government from spending some money and having this built? It would take maybe 5 years, but thats not a long time. I think we begin to move from oil right now and start with hybrid cars, then work our way to full hydogenfuel cell, I think we can break our oil dependencies by 2008 if we spend the money to build the infastructure.
Do you think Gas stations were all built overnight?
Especially when off to visit Grandma in Podunk, USA, with the wife, kids, and the MiniHydroVan ???? Unless you can get a fuel cell that runs on a liquid monopropellant that's room-temperature stable, plus or minus 50 degrees Celsius, the entire current fueling infrastructure will have to be updated. Likewise, even more so with the maintenance infrastructure
Well theres another option, we can use the current infastructure and just bring tanks with new fuel to them, this would allow us to switch within 5 years, but we still need to get people to buy the cars, this is why we need to start with hybrids, and then maybe 10 years from now we wont be using oil at all.
It can be done if we want to do it, it wont be easy but alot of things arent easy, its certainly easier and cheaper to do this than to rebuild IRAQ.
First you say that you don't need a federal gov't, and then you say that you need a president to take charge of military issues.
A presidentt is not a government. Hes one man.
If your only sovereign is at the local level, you have a lot of countries, not states. If you have competing states and yet have a federal government, then what's the purpose of that government except to regulate interaction between the states and between the country and other countries... and if you have that, then how do the states ensure they have adequate representation at that federal level except through Congress and the Senate?
Exactly.
Currently Federal government serves no purpose but to tax all the states which compete.
Click my sig or go here Dean For America
As you see, hundreds of thousands of Americans donated around $50 to Howard Dean. Thats the only reason Howard Dean is currently winning the primaries, he has the support of the people, I mean he has ALOT of support, far more than Bush, so if fundraising is done properly, Dean should be able to get as much money as Bush with about a million or so supporters.
Currently Dean is at 212,000 supporters, this is more than enough to put him in the lead of all his Democrats who pander to special interests.
As for Dean being un-electable, let's look at his core constituency: the Hard Left. American Presidential Politics is based on uniting your core faction with as much of the uncommitted Center as you can.
The hard left supports Gephardt, Sharpton, and Gram, not Howard Dean(Dean supports the NRA, low spending, etc etc)
The hard left doesnt like Deans fiscal policy, if you think Dean is hard left name one Democrat who is more moderate than him, just one. Who?
Stop reading conservative and liberal news, and research Dean based on his vermont record, if you think hes a far left liberal after you see his record in vermont, then you have every right to post this. But from what I know Dean did a better job being a conservative in Vermont than Bush did in Texas.
Bush's core vote is somewhere between 30 and 40% of the voting populace. Dean's is MAYBE 10%. His outsider message has been seen before. Eugene McCarthy. John Andersen. H.Ross Perot John McCain. NONE have been elected to the Presidency. Add to that his home voter base in Vermont, a hardly-significant electoral state, and I forecast a maximum of 20% of the votes in the Democratic Convention. And, as the cherry on top, please recall that Dean doesn't own the Hard Left: he shares it with the Greens, and they'll support Nader again, the way things look. .
Bush has 30-40% of the voting populace? What is Bush left or right? He pisses off both sides so why would either side pick him over Dean? Dean may be new, but theres nothing wrong with Dean, Dean appeals to both sides, he supports alot of conservative ideas on economics which I dont always agree with, like limiting spending,cutting taxes, etc but his plan for universal healthcare would require no additional spending, he plans to simply use money already being used for other things that Bush wants to use the money for to pay for this. But if its really a problem, since you dont mind us being in a deficit when under Bush, why not let Dean borrow money and use that money to fund Universal Healthcare?
Y'know, I LOVE idealists. But Dean WON'T balance the budget, his Universal Health Care proposal guarantees that. He CAN'T cut the Defense Budget too far, way too much pork in there for all the Congresscritters. It's not gonna happen.
Did you actually READ his plan? Its actually not that expensive. It will cost maybe 100 billion or so.
My guess at who actually has a shot and who doesn't ? Dead in the water: Gephardt, Edwards (who, in fact, may not even get re-elected to the Senate in 2 more years. .
No one wants Hilary to run but the Hard Right. The Hard Right fears Dean the most because hes the onl y one in the list who can beat Bush. Remember Dean doesnt have to get over 50% of the votes, he just has to get a higher percentage than Bush, and this should be easy because I dont know anyone on the Hard Right or Hard Left who want Bush for another 4 years. The only ones who want Bush for another 4 years are the Religious Right, so Bush has about the same chance of winning as Dean considering his whole conservative base now knows hes not a real conservative, its the Religious Right vs the "Far Left" and I think the far left outnumber the Religious Right.
My guess at who actually has a shot and who doesn't ? Dead in the water: Gephardt, Edwards (who, in fact, may not even get re-elected to the Senate in 2 more years. .
Thats why democracy should be LOCAL. There should be no federal government, just a bunch of local governments which operate by Democracy, then have each state vote and combine the votes of the entire country.
Example, if the south is racist, let minorities move to states which arent, and then through economic development and political discussion minorities can negotiate with the few rogue states which decide to be racist, of the rogue states continue to be racist, you can simply cease doing trade with them and force the racists to fend for themselves.
Theres no need for a cival war, you just dont trade with hostile states in the same way we dont trade with hostile countries like Iraq.
. Should civil rights be subject to mob rule? Remember that following 9/11, 80% of the US populace favored using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. Populations were also widely in favor of World War I, and we know how well that went for Europe.
But that statistic is skewed, the population should not even be voting on military issues, that should be left up to the president. The people however should vote for the president via popular vote, the whole point of having a president is so he can decide issues like this.
We do not however need congress, we dont need senate, and career politicians, we just need a President, Mayor, Governor, and things like that, and then we need people who communicate directly with these guys, advisers, who the governor or leader person chooses.
Senators should not outlast the President, the President should choose his senators, and we should choose the president.
So if we vote in a proper President, we will get a proper congress and senate.
Do you post for the approval of your peers? Are you too afraid to get into an arguement?
And no I didnt think the article was about cold fusion although I admit I couldnt read the article at first because it was slashdotted and someone on here mentioned cold fusion, I took advantage of their mention of cold fusion to talk about cold fusion the energy source because we know that you cannot have something like this without having infinite energy.
"Do what I've just done, but him on your foe list and set them a negative modifier."
Go right ahead, be my guest, but don't give orders to other people, not everyone comes here to agree with everyone else 100% of the time and never get into any debates.
The only reason really I come to a place like Slashdot is because I can post my opinion and get flamed by about 30 people.
Usually those flames turn into debates and sometimes I learn something new. Perhaps you should try it, I'd think without guys like me on the site this site wouldnt be popular, I mean if everyone were timid and just read the article and posted something like "YEAH!! THIS IS GOOD!" and the next person "I AGREE WITH YOU DUDE!", and then the next person "YAY! WE ALL AGREE!"
This site wouldnt have half as many people posting on it, however when that one guy posts something which makes everyone drop what they were doing and read it, and that post draws 30 responses, this is what slashdot is all about.
Alot of my posts do draw 30+ comments, and I usually get a rating of 4-5 on all my posts. I must be doing SOMETHING right.
Well at least you seem to "get' how slashdot works. Thats why we bboth get 4s and 5s in all our posts while this guy got a 1 or whatever.
If you never once post your opinion, always trying to seem like you arent a troll, no one will even READ your posts here. The only way to get your posts read is to state your opinion no matter how crazy, and to challenge the opinions of others you dont agree with.
I'm not even arguing with you about socialism, I want the socialist world to happen, I'm just saying people in this world are trying their best to prevent it from happening and you wont make it happen without a big fight. I mean even on the net the RIAA is trying to kill P2P because they want to CONTROL the internet, we have people offline who want to CONTROL other people and if everyones equal we no longer need the boss, the CEO, and the power that comes with having all this money is now gone.
Thats a dream, if what you say is correct, why arent we providing universal healthcare? We have the money. Why arent we working toward making certain things free? Why the hell arent we doing it online with P2P? Why is the government and RIAA trying to prevent your socialism from working even in the digital world?
Its simple, certain people are just too greedy to ever allow a socialist world to happen, why share everything when you can have everything and everyone else can have nothing?
Class warfare creates civil wars as well, and in a plutocracy, class warfare is eventually created.
Eventually the lower class will begin to despise the upper class, be it because of jealously, or because the upper class wants to continue to cut services and safetynets away from the lower class.
Believe me I know alot of people who absolutely HATE the rich, they hate the rich as much as some of you slashdot people hate the government.
anarchism cannot work, because individuals are not responsible, intelligent or mature enough to handle it. This is why we have wars, we are ignorant, if our species could handle power we would cease to have wars and wouldnt need to build nuclear weapons.