Why does nobody complain that every single ATM takes your picture.
To say "nobody" complains about ATMs taking pictuers is a bit hyperbolic, don't you think? But the biggest difference is that banks are private businesses while the USPS is a government agency. Plus, if you read EPIC's page on postal service privacy, you will realize that the postal service is required to provide anonymous mail services, whereas banks are not required to provide any type of services anonymously. (And, in fact, I would not want my bank to provide anonymous transactions -- can you imagine a bank PR guy standing up and saying, "Well, even though we had no idea who these people were, we let them take out money anyway.")
Yes, it was supposed to be johnkerry.com instead of just kerry.com
Please read the rest of my earlier post. Of course you don't see a "draft" here. It's the first step in a previously outlined process. (By the way, previous revisions of this plan included mandatory high school service -- you can find it on the Wayback Machine as others have already linked to.)
Well, I guess that assumes that Bush and Kerry are enemies. Which they aren't. They're allies who just have (slightly) different views on how best to screw over Americans.
You're an idiot, everyone has their own oppinion of exactly how things should be done. Sometimes *Gasp* you need to compromise!
So, not compromising makes me an idiot? Fine. I'm an idiot.
Kerry Trusted Bush not to make a mess of things, That was a terrible decision.
But because he made a mistake doesn't mean you should make the same mistake numb nuts!
So, because a negligent senator made the mistake of voting to give an imperial-minded president unilateral power to go to war, I'm a numb nuts because I'm not voting for either one.... I just don't see the logic.
Both canidates support the patriot act and it makes me sick, but I do (foolishly) believe that it will be weakoned under Democratic rule, because the "real" conservatives have been marginalized but the neo-cons and religious right.
While I disagree with your thoughts on the draft/national service, I gotta say, "Amen!" to this.
You can say that Kerry supported the war all you want. But you know damn well he wouldn't have made the same irrational decisions Bush had and created this mess we are in now.
No, I don't know that. Kerry voted for the war. Kerry intends to send more troops to Iraq. Kerry has no clear plan for pulling out of Iraq. As if that's not bad enough, Kerry also voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. Are those what you call "not making the same irrational decisions" as the incumbent?
why would you waste a vote. all you are doing is throwing away a precious vote. NO ONE will even notice your little meaningless vote for the LP. You are helping bush, period. and that is rediculously idiotic.
Don't be ridiculous. If one candidate has been shown to be reckless, destructive and absolutely uninterested in his own citizens, voting him out is not "voting for evil".
You're right that voting out Bones is not evil in and of itself. However, voting for Skull is evil, and it counteracts any good that voting Bones out might do.
Your vote is a tool that you have decided not to use, kind of like buying a Hummer to drive your kids to school. Sure it works, but you aren't using it to it's full potential.
I have used my tool to the best potential possible because I have used it with a clear conscience. As JQA said: "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
Just because you want the 3rd party to succeed doesn't mean that you have to ignore the fact that your incumbent president is a destructive nutjob and refuse to do anything about it. It's your vote; you can shoot yourself and your fellow citizens in the foot/feet with it if you like.
Yes, Bush is a nutjob. So is Kerry. I'm voting for someone who is not a nutjob. Foot shooting is not an option--if I get shot at all it will be by USA PATRIOT Act enforcers voted for by one nutjob and signed into law by another.
Unfortunately, the presidential election this season is essentially a referendum on the Bush administration's policy of preemptive war and encroachment of religion into all aspects of government. If you do not vote against these policies you are essentially voting for them.
A vote for Michael Badnarik is a vote against Bush. A vote for Michael Badnarik is also a vote against Kerry. (Note: It's also a vote against Nader, Cobb, and Peroutka.)
There is this time, however, something more at stake than making a statement about the political system by choosing a 'third-party' candidate.
Well, I disagree with your premise. Voting for a third party isn't "making a statement about the political system." It's saying that I agree with the tenets of the LP (I'm not a registered member, by the way, though I probably will be at some point in the near future).
I can understand why people feel the urge to vote for the "lesser of two evils." I felt it myself last election, when I ended up voting for Bush (in the heavily Democratic Commonwealth of Massachyoushits--I'm not in the heavily Democratic State of New York). See how much that helped us? I'd rather vote with a clean conscience this time and get rid of my heartburn.
Not trying to convince you of anything other than the fact that not everyone who chooses to take sides between the 'two evils' this time around are a bunch of sheep.
I never thought that everyone who voted one way or another is a sheep (though certainly a lot of them are -- and I'm sure the LP has its contingent of sheep as well -- though hopefully not as many as the other parties;O). I believe that a lot of thoughtful and intelligent people can come up with different conclusions. Just like we are here.
Being ELIGIBLE for something does not automatically mean you are QUALIFIED to do it.
You're splitting hairs. One definition of to qualify is, in fact, to be eligible to do something.
If the candidate's degree of Constitutional scholarship is the only quality that matters when chosing a President, then I submit that Lawrence Lessig is an infinately more qualified choice for President than Badnarik.
I think that constitutional scholarship is the most important trait to look for in a president. It certainly beats out experience in the corrupt and bloated system of politics we have today. (And, by the way, I might vote for Larry if he ran.)
There are probably over 100M US citizens who are eligible to hold the presidency, so by your argument ANY of them is qualified to do the job.
Yes. Mine, as well as the Constitution's.
Hell, *I* am over 35, have lived in the US all my life, and have never been charged with any crime more serious than driving 20mph over the speed limit. I'll wager a week's pay that my knowledge of the Constitution is at least as good as Badnarik's. Therefore, by your standards, I'm as qualified to be President as he is. Vote for Me!
Well, I've already cast my vote for this election, but if you tell me some more about what you believe, I might vote for you in four years.
In close elections such as this one, it's not so much voting *for* someone you like as it is voting *against* someone you dislike. I didn't vote for my candidate because I liked him -- I voted the way I did because I like his opponent even less.
I am sorry that you feel you have to throw away your principles because the race is close. Voting for evil is still evil.
Of course, Kerry doesn't say the word "draft." He calls it "national service," and it can be either civilian or military variety. It's not a new idea. The Democratic Leadership Council (of which Kerry is a member) proposed it back in 1988. A re-worked version [pdf] of the proposal was published last year by the Progressive Policy Institute (the think tank lapdog of the DLC). Kerry's published plan incorporates steps 1 and 2 of the DLC/PPI proposal by tying government-funded privileges, such as student loans, to service in the military, AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, etc. The third step, which undoubtedly will be passed once the first 2 are completed (and which won't be announced until Kerry is in office), will make national service mandatory using the current Selective Service system.
Right...voting for some one who essentially has no chance of winning will definately cause a meaningful change...you're joking right?
Yes. The more votes third parties get, the more exposure they will get, and eventually meaningful change will happen.
Just because republicans say Kerry supported the war doesn't make it true.
Thank you, Watson. Of course, since Kerry's own voting record says he voted for the war, I will trust that instead.
Yes, he did vote to give the president power to make the decision. But does this mean Kerry would have done the same thing and put us in a middle of a big mess?
If Kerry didn't want the president to go to war, then he shouldn't have voted to give the president unilateral power to make war. Kerry's argument that he voted "only for war as a last resort" is like saying he cut a branch off a tree, but he didn't make it fall to the ground.
And I hope you realize pretty much every congress member "supported the war" in Iraq, except for a few.
Good argument: "Everybody else did it too!" And so what if the GOP labeled people as "unpatriotic"? Do you really want somebody voting for an unnecessary war because they were taunted?!?!
(Before I get into it, I agree with what you say about the whole base of support. In this election, there are over 1,000 other LP candidates running for local, state, and national offices around the country.)
The only elected position Badnarik has held was Executive Vice-President of his dormitory at Indiana University. Whoop-de-fucking-do.
According to the Constitution, Badnarik meets all the qualifications necessary:
Must be a natural born citizen
Must have lived in the US for 14 years
Must be at least 35 years old
Must never have committed treason
Not having held office before has nothing to do with being a good president. Perhaps the reason nothing changes is because we keep electing people who are already acclimated to "the system." While Badnarik might lack political experience, he far exceeds both baBush and Kerry in constitutional scholarship. (I think you would agree that Bush doesn't know crap about the Constitution, and Kerry isn't much better, having voted for the PATRIOT Act.)
An individuals house could be a median for friends and family to download illegal files... Therefore that individual cannot be held responsible for anyone elses actions. Therefore, how can they sue a households owner for the childs copyright infringment.
Because the relationship between ISP and paying customer is not the same as the relationship between a kid and his or her parent(s). Parents are legally responsible for their children, while ISPs are not (and should not be) responsible for what their customers do with a product (in this case, bandwidth).
It's the same argument as a lot of other things: Should the maker of a hammer be responsible for a customer who beats his wife over the head with it? Should car manufacturers be responsible for drunk drivers? Should gun makers be held responsible for a postal worker's rampage? Of course not.
Does the patent process currently have a public comment phase? That is, are patent applications publicly available, and do (or should) assessors take those comments into account?
Project Gutenburg has 11,531 titles as of now, in text format.
No, PG may have 11,531 titles, but they're not all in text format. Like any other library, they have a variety of audio books, movies, and music.
So, they're obviously ripping off PG's trademarked name (unless they have permission, as a couple people have speculated)
It's not speculation. Michael Hart, who owns the PG trademark, has given the World Ebook Library permission to use "Project Gutenberg II" and the projectgutenberg.info domain name as a front.
Many of the other books you see (above the 10+ that are from PG) come from sites like Blackmask.
Slashdot Mirror
No, according to two recent cases, you do not have a right to public anonymity. Cf. Hiibel v.Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada and Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kelly (the second of which specifically points to the case of wearing masks in public).
To say "nobody" complains about ATMs taking pictuers is a bit hyperbolic, don't you think? But the biggest difference is that banks are private businesses while the USPS is a government agency. Plus, if you read EPIC's page on postal service privacy, you will realize that the postal service is required to provide anonymous mail services, whereas banks are not required to provide any type of services anonymously. (And, in fact, I would not want my bank to provide anonymous transactions -- can you imagine a bank PR guy standing up and saying, "Well, even though we had no idea who these people were, we let them take out money anyway.")
Yes, it was supposed to be johnkerry.com instead of just kerry.com Please read the rest of my earlier post. Of course you don't see a "draft" here. It's the first step in a previously outlined process. (By the way, previous revisions of this plan included mandatory high school service -- you can find it on the Wayback Machine as others have already linked to.)
Well, I guess that assumes that Bush and Kerry are enemies. Which they aren't. They're allies who just have (slightly) different views on how best to screw over Americans.
So, not compromising makes me an idiot? Fine. I'm an idiot.
So, because a negligent senator made the mistake of voting to give an imperial-minded president unilateral power to go to war, I'm a numb nuts because I'm not voting for either one.... I just don't see the logic.
While I disagree with your thoughts on the draft/national service, I gotta say, "Amen!" to this.
You've totally ignored the points I made about Badnarik's eligibility and qualifications for a stupid argument on semantics.
And for the record, here are several definitions of "qualify":
And vice versa, eligible:
Each term uses the other in its definition.
No, I don't know that. Kerry voted for the war. Kerry intends to send more troops to Iraq. Kerry has no clear plan for pulling out of Iraq. As if that's not bad enough, Kerry also voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. Are those what you call "not making the same irrational decisions" as the incumbent?
*yawn*
You're right that voting out Bones is not evil in and of itself. However, voting for Skull is evil, and it counteracts any good that voting Bones out might do.
I have used my tool to the best potential possible because I have used it with a clear conscience. As JQA said: "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
Yes, Bush is a nutjob. So is Kerry. I'm voting for someone who is not a nutjob. Foot shooting is not an option--if I get shot at all it will be by USA PATRIOT Act enforcers voted for by one nutjob and signed into law by another.
A vote for Michael Badnarik is a vote against Bush. A vote for Michael Badnarik is also a vote against Kerry. (Note: It's also a vote against Nader, Cobb, and Peroutka.)
Well, I disagree with your premise. Voting for a third party isn't "making a statement about the political system." It's saying that I agree with the tenets of the LP (I'm not a registered member, by the way, though I probably will be at some point in the near future).
I can understand why people feel the urge to vote for the "lesser of two evils." I felt it myself last election, when I ended up voting for Bush (in the heavily Democratic Commonwealth of Massachyoushits--I'm not in the heavily Democratic State of New York). See how much that helped us? I'd rather vote with a clean conscience this time and get rid of my heartburn.
I never thought that everyone who voted one way or another is a sheep (though certainly a lot of them are -- and I'm sure the LP has its contingent of sheep as well -- though hopefully not as many as the other parties ;O). I believe that a lot of thoughtful and intelligent people can come up with different conclusions. Just like we are here.
(looks around innocently) I did?
(sly grin) Ah, yes, I did! -- teehee...
You're splitting hairs. One definition of to qualify is, in fact, to be eligible to do something.
I think that constitutional scholarship is the most important trait to look for in a president. It certainly beats out experience in the corrupt and bloated system of politics we have today. (And, by the way, I might vote for Larry if he ran.)
Yes. Mine, as well as the Constitution's.
Well, I've already cast my vote for this election, but if you tell me some more about what you believe, I might vote for you in four years.
I am sorry that you feel you have to throw away your principles because the race is close. Voting for evil is still evil.
Of course, Kerry doesn't say the word "draft." He calls it "national service," and it can be either civilian or military variety. It's not a new idea. The Democratic Leadership Council (of which Kerry is a member) proposed it back in 1988. A re-worked version [pdf] of the proposal was published last year by the Progressive Policy Institute (the think tank lapdog of the DLC). Kerry's published plan incorporates steps 1 and 2 of the DLC/PPI proposal by tying government-funded privileges, such as student loans, to service in the military, AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, etc. The third step, which undoubtedly will be passed once the first 2 are completed (and which won't be announced until Kerry is in office), will make national service mandatory using the current Selective Service system.
Yes. The more votes third parties get, the more exposure they will get, and eventually meaningful change will happen.
Thank you, Watson. Of course, since Kerry's own voting record says he voted for the war, I will trust that instead.
If Kerry didn't want the president to go to war, then he shouldn't have voted to give the president unilateral power to make war. Kerry's argument that he voted "only for war as a last resort" is like saying he cut a branch off a tree, but he didn't make it fall to the ground.
Good argument: "Everybody else did it too!" And so what if the GOP labeled people as "unpatriotic"? Do you really want somebody voting for an unnecessary war because they were taunted?!?!
(Before I get into it, I agree with what you say about the whole base of support. In this election, there are over 1,000 other LP candidates running for local, state, and national offices around the country.)
According to the Constitution, Badnarik meets all the qualifications necessary:
Not having held office before has nothing to do with being a good president. Perhaps the reason nothing changes is because we keep electing people who are already acclimated to "the system." While Badnarik might lack political experience, he far exceeds both baBush and Kerry in constitutional scholarship. (I think you would agree that Bush doesn't know crap about the Constitution, and Kerry isn't much better, having voted for the PATRIOT Act.)
Wouldn't you find change away from Bush's foreign and human rights policies meaningful?
Yes, indeed, which is why Badnarik is the only logical choice. Kerry certainly isn't a logical choice because:
So, again, for meaningful change, the only choice is Badnarik.
For meaningful change, the only choice is Michael Badnarik!
Contact/feedback pages:
FoxNews: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77538,00.html/ ?contact d irectory.html l r m.shtml
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3303518/
Newsweek: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4925877/site/newsweek
NY Times: http://nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoserv
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/service/help/abccontact.htm
CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_fo
BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3281777.stm
Associated Press: http://www.ap.org/pages/contact/contact.htmlc tUs
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/-helpSection.jhtml;p=conta
C-SPAN lists the third party debates as one of today's "events": http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan. csp?command=dprogram&record=181858431
Because the relationship between ISP and paying customer is not the same as the relationship between a kid and his or her parent(s). Parents are legally responsible for their children, while ISPs are not (and should not be) responsible for what their customers do with a product (in this case, bandwidth).
It's the same argument as a lot of other things: Should the maker of a hammer be responsible for a customer who beats his wife over the head with it? Should car manufacturers be responsible for drunk drivers? Should gun makers be held responsible for a postal worker's rampage? Of course not.
Does the patent process currently have a public comment phase? That is, are patent applications publicly available, and do (or should) assessors take those comments into account?
That's great stuff, and looks like it would work for what I want. Is the backend code open source? Curtis.
No, PG may have 11,531 titles, but they're not all in text format. Like any other library, they have a variety of audio books, movies, and music.
It's not speculation. Michael Hart, who owns the PG trademark, has given the World Ebook Library permission to use "Project Gutenberg II" and the projectgutenberg.info domain name as a front.
Many of the other books you see (above the 10+ that are from PG) come from sites like Blackmask.