That really depends on what matters to you, I guess. If the issues that concern you are having a more limited federal government, ending the War on Drugs, getting the federal government OUT of the bedroom, and out of people's personal relationships, eliminating the IRS, getting RID of the evil Patriot Act, or any of the other issues where the Libertarian party differs STRONGLY from the Republicans and Democrats (who mostly agree on most of those issues, then either candidate really is as similar as lethal injection vs. the electric chair. Either party wins, and you end up right where you started, politically dead in the water, and if any of those things are making your life hell right now, you might be wishing you were dead if a Republican or Democrat wins.
Perhaps the Libertarian Party will just have to get the means together to start up a small island country somewhere to prove to ordinary citizens that its government paradigm works and prospers. Either that, or people may have to start paying a little more attention in American History class.
CNN is covering a story about people lining up for flu shots, yet a search of their entire site turns up NO articles for Badnarik whatsoever. Not about the arrests nor about anything else. His name is not mentioned anywhere in the literature, not once. Now, considering he is on the ballot in 48 states plus DC, and considering 2 Presidential candidates just got arrested last night..... that's a pretty freakish amount of censorship. But people would much rather read about lines forming for flu shots in one city, wouldn't they?
I submit that George W. Bush is the "spoiler" in this election year, as without his candidacy, Michael Badnarik would be sure to get most of the conservative vote. His limited-government politics are what a true Republican platform is supposed to stand for. It is a pity that the Republican platform has allowed itself to wander so far from its calling in the first place, or we wouldn't need a third party to represent this country's political conservatives in teh first place.
I would agree, if that is what they had done, but as far as I read the story, they didn't use a Spam-o-matic mailing list; rather, she was a customer of theirs who had provided her e-mail address as a contact address.
As I said, if I were they, I probably wouldn't have sent mail to anyone who had asked not to be contacted by e-mail, but I don't think theirs was a criminal offense, either.
I would not support a business, legitimate or not, targetting random users via a purchased mailing list.
I wish I could stop people from sending me unsolicited snail, too.
But I'd rather not see government get involved in electronic communications any more than they already are. I'd rather hear about spammers being rounded up and summarily beaten with large blunt objects.
Reading this made me feel angry. Really angry. Angry enough to speak when I'm usually silent.
Don't get me wrong -- I hate spam. Really. A lot. I have so much of it I can't even use my mail. I think it IS criminal. But I also hate whining and kvetching and time wasted going after the people who aren't the real culprits.
Where do we draw the lines? Who are the real bad guys? Why are we suing a real company with a real product and real customers who probably shouldn't have sent out an unsolicited mail, but are far from being the real bad guys? You know who I am talking about. The 23o3p4ko@bluggaspucca.com guy who keeps trying to sell me sexual potency enhancers I don't need. why didn't we go after HIM?
It is a fine line to walk. What constitutes unsolicited mail? What if I click on the "mail me my password" button and put in another user name somewhere? Is the website going to be guilty of sending unsolicited mail because the real user didn't request it? What if I reply to someone via email whose email address is posted with his comment? What if someone writes back to me? Should I sue him too?
I don't like people who fight for a cause just to be fighting for a cause. Especially if I even THINK they might be doing it just to get money. Those people are on my $hitlist right along with the real spammers.
We need to set anti-spam legal precedences, but we need to set them CAREFULLY, or we will lose our freedom right along with the spam.
That's all I have time to write. I'm late for my court date of me vs. the major manufacturers of naugahyde. Poor little naugas. They need protection too.
---
General you are listening to a MACHINE. Do the world a favour and don't act like one.
Slashdot Mirror
That really depends on what matters to you, I guess. If the issues that concern you are having a more limited federal government, ending the War on Drugs, getting the federal government OUT of the bedroom, and out of people's personal relationships, eliminating the IRS, getting RID of the evil Patriot Act, or any of the other issues where the Libertarian party differs STRONGLY from the Republicans and Democrats (who mostly agree on most of those issues, then either candidate really is as similar as lethal injection vs. the electric chair. Either party wins, and you end up right where you started, politically dead in the water, and if any of those things are making your life hell right now, you might be wishing you were dead if a Republican or Democrat wins.
Perhaps the Libertarian Party will just have to get the means together to start up a small island country somewhere to prove to ordinary citizens that its government paradigm works and prospers. Either that, or people may have to start paying a little more attention in American History class.
How come Nader is shown in the CNN polls and not Badnarik, when Badnarik is on the ballot in more states?
CNN is covering a story about people lining up for flu shots, yet a search of their entire site turns up NO articles for Badnarik whatsoever. Not about the arrests nor about anything else. His name is not mentioned anywhere in the literature, not once. Now, considering he is on the ballot in 48 states plus DC, and considering 2 Presidential candidates just got arrested last night..... that's a pretty freakish amount of censorship. But people would much rather read about lines forming for flu shots in one city, wouldn't they?
I submit that George W. Bush is the "spoiler" in this election year, as without his candidacy, Michael Badnarik would be sure to get most of the conservative vote. His limited-government politics are what a true Republican platform is supposed to stand for. It is a pity that the Republican platform has allowed itself to wander so far from its calling in the first place, or we wouldn't need a third party to represent this country's political conservatives in teh first place.
I would agree, if that is what they had done, but as far as I read the story, they didn't use a Spam-o-matic mailing list; rather, she was a customer of theirs who had provided her e-mail address as a contact address.
As I said, if I were they, I probably wouldn't have sent mail to anyone who had asked not to be contacted by e-mail, but I don't think theirs was a criminal offense, either.
I would not support a business, legitimate or not, targetting random users via a purchased mailing list.
I wish I could stop people from sending me unsolicited snail, too.
But I'd rather not see government get involved in electronic communications any more than they already are. I'd rather hear about spammers being rounded up and summarily beaten with large blunt objects.
Reading this made me feel angry. Really angry. Angry enough to speak when I'm usually silent.
Don't get me wrong -- I hate spam. Really. A lot. I have so much of it I can't even use my mail. I think it IS criminal. But I also hate whining and kvetching and time wasted going after the people who aren't the real culprits.
Where do we draw the lines? Who are the real bad guys? Why are we suing a real company with a real product and real customers who probably shouldn't have sent out an unsolicited mail, but are far from being the real bad guys? You know who I am talking about. The 23o3p4ko@bluggaspucca.com guy who keeps trying to sell me sexual potency enhancers I don't need. why didn't we go after HIM?
It is a fine line to walk. What constitutes unsolicited mail? What if I click on the "mail me my password" button and put in another user name somewhere? Is the website going to be guilty of sending unsolicited mail because the real user didn't request it? What if I reply to someone via email whose email address is posted with his comment? What if someone writes back to me? Should I sue him too?
I don't like people who fight for a cause just to be fighting for a cause. Especially if I even THINK they might be doing it just to get money. Those people are on my $hitlist right along with the real spammers.
We need to set anti-spam legal precedences, but we need to set them CAREFULLY, or we will lose our freedom right along with the spam.
That's all I have time to write. I'm late for my court date of me vs. the major manufacturers of naugahyde. Poor little naugas. They need protection too.
---
General you are listening to a MACHINE. Do the world a favour and don't act like one.