My vote would go to the person that would do the least damage to our country, I think.
The damage has already been done, and we need somebody to FIX it. Picking one of the status-quo candidates certainly isn't going to fix things. Either you'll be screwed by a Democrat, or screwed by a Republican. Either way you're screwed.
Take the reigns of your own government: vote for somebody who has different ideas, somebody who actually addresses the real issues, somebody who will do something.
I'd suggest Nader. Read up on him at http://www.votenader.org He is the one with probably the longest history of public service, and was fundamental in creating agencies like the EPA, that we take for granted these days. He's fought the special interests that beseige our political system, and he knows how to win.
Some around these parts are partial to the Libertarian Browne. Also a decent choice (I favor Nader because he has a larger platform for social justice, amongst many other things).
Just anything other than the other two chips off the corporate block.
I have to respond to this. I think Nader's biggest beef is that we are allowing corporations free reign to capture the minds of young people. As soon as a child is physically able to watch TV they are barraged with corporate propaganda telling what to eat, drink, think, buy, nag their parents about, do, feel, etc. In some European companies advertising during childrens programming is outright banned. Yes there are some rules about advertising to children in this country, but they are largely ignored or circumvented. It's not so much that Nader wants to legislate morality, as it is that he just wants to tone down the propaganda (of whatever form), to keep children, the most captive of audiences, from being barraged day in and day out, whatever the advertising content.
This is even *further* exemplified by the outrageous policy of schools obtaining corporate funding by allowing these corporations to dictate that they forcing students to watch corporate advertising. If that is not perverse, what is? Public schools should be publicly financed and NO corporations should be allowed to propagandize students while their even *in school*.
Sex, drugs, and violence sell. Hey, that's great, I'm with that. But it *shouldn't* sell to small children who know nothing better, and *can't* choose to ignore, disregard, or turn it off. It *shouldn't* sell to our own students in our own classrooms.
*Yes* it is the parents responsibility to filter what their children experience. However, we are currently under such a seige of corporate propaganda coming from every single (*cough* publicly owned *cough*) medium, that corporations effectively have held us *hostage* because there is NO way to filter out this stuff without filtering out *everything*. Is the solution to filter out everything? No. The solution is to tell corporations, no, they don't have free reign to corporatize and propagandize during children's shows. They don't have free reign to advertise content which they've previously agreed is NOT for children, TO children. They don't have free reign to use OUR schools to consumerize our children under their corporate parentage.
Nader is not crying save the children. He is saying why are we putting up with *allowing* what we do, on our own property. Take the reigns of your own government.
QUESTION: Yes, hi, Governor. I'm very concerned about the morality of our country now. TV, movies, the music that our children are--are, you know, barraged with every day. And I want to know if there's anything that can be worked out with the--Hollywood or whoever to help get rid of some of this bad language and the--whatever, you know. It's just bringing the country down. And our children are very important to us. And we're concerned about their education at school. We should be concerned about their education at home, also.
These are your fellow Americans. Be afraid. Very afraid.
Asking a politician to legislate morality is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.
I think Brin is on the right track, but at the end he clamps down his conclusion to voting for Gore. Pyramids are bad, diamonds are good, Republicans are demons from hell, therefore be VERY SCARED, RUN and HIDE go vote for GORE. I don't buy it. Lesser evilism has resulted in these stupid chips off the old corporate block for candidates.
As a young woman said after the Madison Square Garden Nader super-rally, in response to the question of why she was voting for Nader:
"I am making a statement that I will no longer compromise"
We have been compromising way too long. Now is the time to take a stand and topple this exploitive and corrupt duopoly.
Don't like Nader? Fine. Vote Libertarian. Vote something other than the status quo, for your own sake. You're screwed either way if you vote for BushGore.
Personally I agree more with Nader's platform, history and experience, and am voting Green. Stop the mentality of lesser evilism. Grab the reigns of your *own* government.
Yeah, I realize it's already taxed, but if I heard correctly, gas prices are at something like a 30-year low. Pretty much anywhere else on earth (well, besides the middle east where they drink it instead of coffee), gas is much much more expensive. We've just grown up with the crutch of unlimited cheap energy. Wasting energy *should* be expensive, and maybe a little painful too;)
I watched the debates... both people sounded like politicians, neither sounded stupid.
Of what I could bear to what of the debates, both sound like politicians and BOTH sounded stupid. Bush with his childish chuckling and snorting. Goddamnit, shaddup...this is a debate...grown up stuff, you know? And Gore with his ponderous heavy monotonous droning. Damn, he should sell his speeches to the people that make those new-age forest sounds sleep-aids. Certainly would put everybody to sleep fast.
They both sounded like typical script-fed corporate clone dolts. And no, sorry, I can't believe that anyone who could say that the internet "turns hearts dark" has any technological clue in his ever loving brain.
What irks me the most is that any American would actually think this is stimulating "debate". It was more like each of them reading off pre-scripted responses to pre-filtered questions, and generally agreeing with each other.
I agree...when I search through sourceforge, I must see 15-20 projects in any category which all aim to do *essentially the same thing*. It's like the developers are somehow lost in their own world and don't realize just one click away is a project which is virtually identical to theirs. And most of them are in pre-alpha, planning, etc. stages - we won't see fruits from those projects for months if not years. Sure, I believe in that scratch your own itch thing, but hell, if somebody else has a better itch-scratcher, couldn't you just use and improve that one?
People are going to say "choice is great"...choice this, choice that. Choices are only great if they each can *do* something for you. 20 pre-alpha projects is not "choice". I think one of the great benefits of Free/Open Source Software is that somebody can *reuse* work that has already been done. But instead, everybody seems to be wanting to start from scratch for the glory of it. Sure, I see some reasons to do this (like Subversion, and that "just-good-nuff" quagmire called "cvs"), but in major catagories of applications, there are often tens (maybe hundreds) of different efforts which are only subtley different. That's just ridiculous.
Now, I speak as a user when I say I would rather have X *decent* choices than 10*X worthless choices. I speak as a developer when I say I'm sick of putting a year's worth of work into a project to get nowhere because everybody else is doing the same with their *own* pet project which does the same thing.
I posted a response about the Greens/Green Party USA and the Association of State Green Parties. The former is an older, more activist group. A nice resolution has been made, whereby the Greens will give the name "Green Party" to the Association of State Green Parties, leaving us with one real offical "Green Party", and will spin themselves off into a separate activism group. This will clear up any confusion about the candidates not holding the same positions as the Greens activism group, and will assuage any fears of the group that their agenda is being watered down (the platform you read is probably the activist group's platform - go read Nader's at his site http://www.votenader.org).
If I've made any mistakes, please any Greens out there feel free to correct me.
And by the way, Nader supports a voting system in which you can rate candidates, like you suggest.
Actually I heard that Green Party USA/Greens is spinning off into an independent activism group, and giving it's name to the Association of State Green Parties. So in the end we'll end up with an official "Green Party", and a separate activist group under a different name. I think this is a good idea and that these complement each other nicely. The official Green Party can be a bit more serious, and the activist group can do its thing without fear of having its agenda watered down.
The *best* place for a young person who wants to get active in politics is a burgeoning third party where their voice will really count. Not a status-quo party where they will just be used for their votes and pretty faces and discarded after the election.
I love this. Emulators are depriving programmers and companies of their god-given right to enforce archaic physical property laws on a medium which is fundamentally different in type, not only degree, thereby exacting a profit.
I find the mentality that profit is a right amusing. It seems to me that the one and *only* reason copyright and patents exist is for the good of society by removing disincentive to create and invent. Anything further than removing the disincentive to create and invent (because others might use your work) is too far. I *hardly* think even today's "piracy" that the RIAA/MPAA/whatever other industry, are foaming at the mouth over, is really going to disincentivize them from continuing to create and invent. It's gotten to the point that exclusive right to an idea or invention is not perceived as a beneficent grant of the hosting society conferred on a person, but a god-given right to exploit in perpetuity. Well, to those I say "tough". A society of scrooges soon falls apart.
than vote for a candidate who wants to take our trade practices back to 1930's isolationism rather than figure out ways to support the individual and worker in a global society...
Sorry, I just have to address this. This is a ridiculous claim. Buchanan is isolationist. Nader is not. Nader opposes what has been called "free trade" because it is actually a codeword for allowing multinational global corporations to exploit workers around the world. As he says, there is no "free" trade, amongst non-free nations. This cushy "free-trade" is what will endenture the populations of many third world countries into making goods to be exported back to America, for cents per hour. This wonderful "free-trade" is what will ramp up the exploitation of child labor. This great "free-trade" is what is destroying the environment, much of it in third world countries. And guess what? Both Gore and Bush support NAFTA/WTO "free trade". Did you think so many global corporations would have sunk so much money into both these candidates if they *really* thought their precious cheap foreign labor would be threatened? Free trade is not about "supporting the individual and worker in a global society". It is about *exploiting* the individual and worker in a global society.
Of all the parties, the Green party is *the* populist/worker's party. Green parties around the world have been fighting for labor rights long before this election. So to imply that the Greens are somehow against the individual and against labor is just patently false and completely ridiculous. Damn, some people even complain that the Green party is *too* labor-oriented/socialist.
And, yes, I also realize that opening up countries to the rest of the world through trade presents an opportunity for reform in those countries. But for the large part I think free trade, as it is formulated now, is not fair trade, and exists mostly for the good of large corporations.
Check out Nader's real stance on the issue at: http://votenader.org/issues/fairtrade.html
Here is a scary story with some things removed (I hope the original author doesn't mind that I post it here!):
Here is a story about my terrible experience voting in the primary
election, I am also sending this to the [local newspaper] and the [local newspaper]. As I send this I am on the phone with someone from the Board of
Elections, did something similar happen to anyone else?
Tuesday I went to the [voting place] to cast my green vote, I walked
over while it was thundering and lightning, tripped on a step coming in and
walked to a table where three people sat. They took my name and
asked what primary i was voting in. When I said "Green" the older woman
told me that I was stealing votes from other real candidates. I thought
she was kidding, and agreed with her, calling myself a trouble maker. She
walked to the voting booth grumbling about the green party the whole way,
then she got the booth ready and I climbed inside. When I tried to pull
the lever for my candidate it wouldn't budge and I said so from inside the
booth. Then she shot her arm in through the curtains and began fiddling
with the red lever, saying that this only happens when greens come to vote,
she was getting rather hostile. In the end I had to vote by emergency
ballot, and while I was filling out the paperwork she accused me of having
done something to the voting booth while I was inside, if I did she would
have known about it because she was inside with me! Anyway, when I asked
someone to be my witness (i needed someone's signature on the emergency
ballot envelope) she came to me and started yelling that I had to seal the
envelope first. I asked her to please stop screaming at me and she said
that I could report her. I'm sure there are rules out there that she was
breaking by bullying me about my choice in candidate, she certainly was
overstepping my boundary lines by yelling in my face, I just don't get why
she would wait until the last minute to do her two party campaigning.
That is exactly what happened to my girlfriend. I think it was the Bush or Lazio campaign (because of the tax questions). Actually the person on the phone was really rude, laughing at the response. Just wish I was there to answer.
Ditto. It's as if every American was born with the right to cheap non-renewable polluting energy. Gas is expensive? Tough. Watch me cry for you. Our gas prices are pretty damn low. If they can sin tax smoking they sure as hell can sin tax gas which produces a whole hell of a lot more pollutants than smoking. Nothing will change if you keep the status-quo the cheapest. Tax it, and subsidize clean/alternative energy. Make evil expensive not cheap (hard to do when evil runs the gov.).
It seems to me that more money should be taken from the people can more afford it, rather than taking the money away from people who can barely afford to clothe and feed themselves.
I'd rephrase that to "more money should be taken from the people that benefit from society more".
I'd mention that a flatish (percentage) tax already makes people with more money contribute the most (absolute) taxes.
I like to look at it holistically: Government provides an environment in which people can get a head in life and better themselves. Those who have benefitted from the society should pay more back than those who have not benefitted. Ok, perhaps the rich weren't just handed money by the government, but the government is what dictates the economic climate and laws. The government allows corporations and businesses to be created, etc. Those who get a large output from the system, should put something back into it.
Since the wealthy already pay a lot of taxes, I think the problem to be addressed is really what are we doing with all those billions of dollars? I think taxation is just a bogeyman that the parties use. The real problem is the system itself. There is *plenty* of money to go around. So where the hell is it going?
Ok, how much do you want to bet that the Democrat and Republican parties will not even deign to reply? If so, and if Nader truly demostrates that he "gets it" and has the best policies and ideas, all else being equal, how many of you will agree to change your vote?
(I'm not usually inclined to political stumping, but when you're the underdog you do what you can)
This is too good, I have to quote it here for anybody who is interested in the candidates' opinions on internet, and free-software/open-source issues:
In looking at the Internet, one might also ask what has the administration done to support the open-source movement, either through procurement policies (very little), funding for open-source software (not something the administration talks about) or protecting free software developers from software patents and anticompetitive practices targeted at the free-software movement?
In the area of corporate welfare, tax breaks and subsidies for big corporations, there is no end to what this administration will do for the e-commerce industry.
But when it comes to supporting an astonishing citizen movement that is protecting the Internet from Microsoft and other would-be monopolies and providing huge benefits to the economy, the administration is completely inarticulate.
During the government's antitrust investigation of Microsoft, Mr. Gore's daughter went to work for Microsoft. Could he at least respond to the repeated requests for the administration to talk about procurement and the free-software movement? Or find a way to use the federal acquisition regulations to fund the development of public-domain software?
And what can we expect from Mr. Gore on the issue of intellectual property rights? Right now the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is pushing as hard as it can for the public to accept patents on business methods.
We have patents on methods of Internet auctions, patents on one-click shopping, patents on methods of picking stocks, patents on methods of avoiding taxes on credit card transactions, patents on methods of political campaigning on the Internet, and even patents on Internet Web standards.
Mastercard has foolishly sued me, claiming their trademark rights can stop my use of parody in political ads, including using the word "priceless" itself.
There are lawsuits over hypertext links in Web pages. The Girl Scouts are told to pay royalties on campfire songs. Trade-secret laws are now a federal criminal offense. Students have been thrown in jail for refusing to turn patents over to giant corporations who fund university facilities.
I am opposed to patents on software, and opposed to patents on business methods. I believe that parody should be protected in copyright and trademark, that copyright enforcement should not override privacy rights, and that use of patents, trademarks and copyrights should be limited by fair use, and when necessary, compulsory licenses.
The public domain should be protected, and public figures need to speak out against the ever-escalated march of corporate lobbying for expanding intellectual property rights.
There is finally the issue of the privatization of law and policy making on the Internet, and the easy way that Mr. Gore has pushed for the elimination of democratic institutions. The creation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is at the center of the Clinton/Gore Internet strategy.
ICANN is a nonprofit organization that is largely controlled by corporate interests. The initial board for ICANN was largely picked by then-IBM executive Roger Cochetti. The majority of ICANN's board is controlled by a handful of structures that are controlled by corporate interests. The ICANN board and Clinton/Gore administration officials claim this is a feature, not a flaw.
What is ICANN, and what will it do? That is the interesting question. Right now ICANN is using its power to protect big corporate trademark interests. The next issue will be copyright, as ICANN considers corporate proposals to use the ICANN control over domain names and IP numbers, to become an ever-ambitious police for alleged intellectual property infringements. In the trademark areas, ICANN is already throwing concepts such as fair use or free speech out the window.
Mostly, however, it is an issue of corporate privatization. ICANN is a private government. It isn't the same as no government. It is a government where regular people either can't vote or will never be able to elect a majority (in the current election, ICANN will only permit five of its 19 board members to be elected by Internet users).
These are really only a few of the information society issues confronting citizens today. People can think about these issues, and ask themselves, will Vice President Gore stand up for their interests as citizens, consumers or owners of small businesses, or will he protect powerful corporate interests?
If you truly believe Mr. Gore is your friend and your advocate on these issues, then make him take a stand for users and consumers on these fast-emerging issues and (stop) fronting for autocratic interests over the Internet.
Damn! Microsoft bashing aside, he really knows what he's talking about. Contrast that with the exaggeration and self-congratulation of Gore and the obscenely ignorant "internet turns hearts dark" Bush. Is there anybody here who *isn't* convinced Nader is the best choice as far as internet/IP/software issues are concerned?
(BTW, I am pro-Nader, but didn't know anything about his internet/software stance until reading this article - which just made me like him even more!)
Well I usually mute the commercials...can't stand them. Unfortunately my girlfriend gets the jingles stuck in her head the the meme spreads. It's awful. It's like they own a portion of you're head. You can't even hum a friggen Beatles tune these days without being reminded of some damn computer or electronics company or car.
Well, first of all, about half of the population doesn't even vote. So I'd hardly call the other have a "mass majority".
Also, ask people walking down the street why they are voting for who they are voting for and you'll probably get all sorts of stupid reasons. Like those brain-dead survey groups: "Oh, he seemed nicer" "I like the environment n stuff" "He is for guns and I like guns" "He's 'tough on crime'"
Seems to me the "mass majority" of people have bought into the millions of dollars of marketing and hype and have no friggen idea why they're voting! Why do people buy the shoes or clothes they do? Image, that's why.
Seems to me that the confused Reform party should just split and throw in with either the Libertarian or Green party. The "Buchanan"-ish wing seems more Libertarian to me...and the "Hagelan"-sh I'm-a-brilliant-physicist-let's-save-the-environme nt wing seems closer to the Greens. The Constitution party could probably throw in with the Libertarians too.
Oh well, that's my biased opinion. I'm sure the Reform party wants the Libertarians and Greens to join *them*;)
What, you mean you got an average citizen, somebody who was in military service, who had a real day job, and actually snuck into office? Unheard of!
You know, representation used to be about every day citizens standing up and performing civil service. Now it is about career politicians blowing millions of dollars to brainwash you into thinking they are the only choice and that you shouldn't vote for another brand.
Sure, it's easy to make fun of him, but where has Ventura failed as a civil servant? Huh? Everytime I hear him he sounds rather competent and seems like he's doing a pretty damn good job. So stop bitching. He's certainly better than the run of the mill egomaniacal career politician.
Whether you side more with Democrats or Republicans you are screwed either way in this election. Both are moving so far into the middle that they are virtually clones except for a few cosmetic differences in opinion. I considered myself a "democrat" until Bradley lost the primaries. But regardless of our differences, you and I are BOTH being screwed.
So I urge you, vote Browne if you believe in the Libertarian ideas. If only to give the Republican party a kick in the ass and a wake up call. Many progressives will be doing the same with Nader. Democrats have also abandoned progressives.
This is the first election I can vote in, and I thought Bradley was a decent candidate until I found out about Nader. It is an utter crying shame and disappointment when I see kids my age, college kids, high school kids, fall into the two-party mentality trap, and choose a candidate like they are choosing a soda brand. It bewilders me when polls show Gore has a humongous amount of young people supporting him. I want to turn to those kids and say "wake up!". If you want to get active in politics, get active with a burgeoning party that respects you and that you can make a difference in. Don't get sucked in by the two parties that don't really give a damn about you and are only using you and throwing you away.
Yes, there are a lot of people that are unreasonably paranoid about government. I think for a large part, a lot of what we see as "conspiratorial" behavior is just ignorance or stupidity, or truly accidental shredding of documents, whatever. Sometimes these people are annoying, but you can easily ignore or marginalize them (like those self-proclaimed "anarchists" at most of the protests happening - there point was...?).
*However* I think history has given us *plenty* of reason to be paranoid and _highly_ skeptical. Here is my rationalization: If we are *too* paranoid the *worst* that happens is we waste a lot of energy shouting about nothing and annoying people. If we are not paranoid *enough*, if we are too complacent, the price is far greater...we can get f*cked in so many ways we can't imagine.
Given that cost/benefit equation, I'll endure paranoid protesters. Hey, think of them as performing a service. They are harrassing government so that it is harder to step out of line. Is that fair? That's your call. Let's just wait until 2020, or 2040, when they release what "really" happened to JFK;)
Yeah, and I wish that not everybody believed every single thing they read on web. Take this criticism with just as large a grain of salt as you have apparently taken the third parties' candidates' legitimacy in the first place.
realchange.org is the ONLY site on the web that I have found that has bad things to say about Nader (other sites just paraphrase this site). For the large part, this site seems to be out to just criticize and slander candidates because it feels like it, for the sake of criticism itself. Most of what is there about Nader is out of context, and I don't really put much credibility in it.
Please, be at least as skeptical of your sources of criticism than of the subjects of the criticisms.
In the grand scheme of things, yes, Nader is head and shoulders above most of the other candidates. And if that just means the other candidates are sleazier than you thought, well, so be it.
I dare you to find a SECOND source to qualify, put in context, and legitimize the statements on this site. If you do, come back then...if not you're just propaganting unsubstantiated criticism.
Slashdot Mirror
The damage has already been done, and we need somebody to FIX it. Picking one of the status-quo candidates certainly isn't going to fix things. Either you'll be screwed by a Democrat, or screwed by a Republican. Either way you're screwed.
Take the reigns of your own government: vote for somebody who has different ideas, somebody who actually addresses the real issues, somebody who will do something.
I'd suggest Nader. Read up on him at http://www.votenader.org He is the one with probably the longest history of public service, and was fundamental in creating agencies like the EPA, that we take for granted these days. He's fought the special interests that beseige our political system, and he knows how to win.
Some around these parts are partial to the Libertarian Browne. Also a decent choice (I favor Nader because he has a larger platform for social justice, amongst many other things).
Just anything other than the other two chips off the corporate block.
I have to respond to this. I think Nader's biggest beef is that we are allowing corporations free reign to capture the minds of young people. As soon as a child is physically able to watch TV they are barraged with corporate propaganda telling what to eat, drink, think, buy, nag their parents about, do, feel, etc. In some European companies advertising during childrens programming is outright banned. Yes there are some rules about advertising to children in this country, but they are largely ignored or circumvented. It's not so much that Nader wants to legislate morality, as it is that he just wants to tone down the propaganda (of whatever form), to keep children, the most captive of audiences, from being barraged day in and day out, whatever the advertising content.
This is even *further* exemplified by the outrageous policy of schools obtaining corporate funding by allowing these corporations to dictate that they forcing students to watch corporate advertising. If that is not perverse, what is? Public schools should be publicly financed and NO corporations should be allowed to propagandize students while their even *in school*.
Sex, drugs, and violence sell. Hey, that's great, I'm with that. But it *shouldn't* sell to small children who know nothing better, and *can't* choose to ignore, disregard, or turn it off. It *shouldn't* sell to our own students in our own classrooms.
*Yes* it is the parents responsibility to filter what their children experience. However, we are currently under such a seige of corporate propaganda coming from every single (*cough* publicly owned *cough*) medium, that corporations effectively have held us *hostage* because there is NO way to filter out this stuff without filtering out *everything*. Is the solution to filter out everything? No. The solution is to tell corporations, no, they don't have free reign to corporatize and propagandize during children's shows. They don't have free reign to advertise content which they've previously agreed is NOT for children, TO children. They don't have free reign to use OUR schools to consumerize our children under their corporate parentage.
Nader is not crying save the children. He is saying why are we putting up with *allowing* what we do, on our own property. Take the reigns of your own government.
Asking a politician to legislate morality is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.
I think Brin is on the right track, but at the end he clamps down his conclusion to voting for Gore. Pyramids are bad, diamonds are good, Republicans are demons from hell, therefore be VERY SCARED, RUN and HIDE go vote for GORE. I don't buy it. Lesser evilism has resulted in these stupid chips off the old corporate block for candidates.
As a young woman said after the Madison Square Garden Nader super-rally, in response to the question of why she was voting for Nader:
"I am making a statement that I will no longer compromise"
We have been compromising way too long. Now is the time to take a stand and topple this exploitive and corrupt duopoly.
Don't like Nader? Fine. Vote Libertarian. Vote something other than the status quo, for your own sake. You're screwed either way if you vote for BushGore.
Personally I agree more with Nader's platform, history and experience, and am voting Green. Stop the mentality of lesser evilism. Grab the reigns of your *own* government.
Yeah, I realize it's already taxed, but if I heard correctly, gas prices are at something like a 30-year low. Pretty much anywhere else on earth (well, besides the middle east where they drink it instead of coffee), gas is much much more expensive. We've just grown up with the crutch of unlimited cheap energy. Wasting energy *should* be expensive, and maybe a little painful too ;)
Of what I could bear to what of the debates, both sound like politicians and BOTH sounded stupid. Bush with his childish chuckling and snorting. Goddamnit, shaddup...this is a debate...grown up stuff, you know? And Gore with his ponderous heavy monotonous droning. Damn, he should sell his speeches to the people that make those new-age forest sounds sleep-aids. Certainly would put everybody to sleep fast.
They both sounded like typical script-fed corporate clone dolts. And no, sorry, I can't believe that anyone who could say that the internet "turns hearts dark" has any technological clue in his ever loving brain.
What irks me the most is that any American would actually think this is stimulating "debate". It was more like each of them reading off pre-scripted responses to pre-filtered questions, and generally agreeing with each other.
Damn...so we will be able to just bring up our favorite image viewer and print off reams of cpus? That rocks!
I agree...when I search through sourceforge, I must see 15-20 projects in any category which all aim to do *essentially the same thing*. It's like the developers are somehow lost in their own world and don't realize just one click away is a project which is virtually identical to theirs. And most of them are in pre-alpha, planning, etc. stages - we won't see fruits from those projects for months if not years. Sure, I believe in that scratch your own itch thing, but hell, if somebody else has a better itch-scratcher, couldn't you just use and improve that one?
People are going to say "choice is great"...choice this, choice that. Choices are only great if they each can *do* something for you. 20 pre-alpha projects is not "choice". I think one of the great benefits of Free/Open Source Software is that somebody can *reuse* work that has already been done. But instead, everybody seems to be wanting to start from scratch for the glory of it. Sure, I see some reasons to do this (like Subversion, and that "just-good-nuff" quagmire called "cvs"), but in major catagories of applications, there are often tens (maybe hundreds) of different efforts which are only subtley different. That's just ridiculous.
Now, I speak as a user when I say I would rather have X *decent* choices than 10*X worthless choices. I speak as a developer when I say I'm sick of putting a year's worth of work into a project to get nowhere because everybody else is doing the same with their *own* pet project which does the same thing.
Hey: "Come together, right now!..."
I posted a response about the Greens/Green Party USA and the Association of State Green Parties. The former is an older, more activist group. A nice resolution has been made, whereby the Greens will give the name "Green Party" to the Association of State Green Parties, leaving us with one real offical "Green Party", and will spin themselves off into a separate activism group. This will clear up any confusion about the candidates not holding the same positions as the Greens activism group, and will assuage any fears of the group that their agenda is being watered down (the platform you read is probably the activist group's platform - go read Nader's at his site http://www.votenader.org).
If I've made any mistakes, please any Greens out there feel free to correct me.
And by the way, Nader supports a voting system in which you can rate candidates, like you suggest.
Actually I heard that Green Party USA/Greens is spinning off into an independent activism group, and giving it's name to the Association of State Green Parties. So in the end we'll end up with an official "Green Party", and a separate activist group under a different name. I think this is a good idea and that these complement each other nicely. The official Green Party can be a bit more serious, and the activist group can do its thing without fear of having its agenda watered down.
The *best* place for a young person who wants to get active in politics is a burgeoning third party where their voice will really count. Not a status-quo party where they will just be used for their votes and pretty faces and discarded after the election.
"depriving programmers and companies of revenue"
I love this. Emulators are depriving programmers and companies of their god-given right to enforce archaic physical property laws on a medium which is fundamentally different in type, not only degree, thereby exacting a profit.
I find the mentality that profit is a right amusing. It seems to me that the one and *only* reason copyright and patents exist is for the good of society by removing disincentive to create and invent. Anything further than removing the disincentive to create and invent (because others might use your work) is too far. I *hardly* think even today's "piracy" that the RIAA/MPAA/whatever other industry, are foaming at the mouth over, is really going to disincentivize them from continuing to create and invent. It's gotten to the point that exclusive right to an idea or invention is not perceived as a beneficent grant of the hosting society conferred on a person, but a god-given right to exploit in perpetuity. Well, to those I say "tough". A society of scrooges soon falls apart.
Sorry, I just have to address this. This is a ridiculous claim. Buchanan is isolationist. Nader is not. Nader opposes what has been called "free trade" because it is actually a codeword for allowing multinational global corporations to exploit workers around the world. As he says, there is no "free" trade, amongst non-free nations. This cushy "free-trade" is what will endenture the populations of many third world countries into making goods to be exported back to America, for cents per hour. This wonderful "free-trade" is what will ramp up the exploitation of child labor. This great "free-trade" is what is destroying the environment, much of it in third world countries. And guess what? Both Gore and Bush support NAFTA/WTO "free trade". Did you think so many global corporations would have sunk so much money into both these candidates if they *really* thought their precious cheap foreign labor would be threatened? Free trade is not about "supporting the individual and worker in a global society". It is about *exploiting* the individual and worker in a global society.
Of all the parties, the Green party is *the* populist/worker's party. Green parties around the world have been fighting for labor rights long before this election. So to imply that the Greens are somehow against the individual and against labor is just patently false and completely ridiculous. Damn, some people even complain that the Green party is *too* labor-oriented/socialist.
And, yes, I also realize that opening up countries to the rest of the world through trade presents an opportunity for reform in those countries. But for the large part I think free trade, as it is formulated now, is not fair trade, and exists mostly for the good of large corporations.
Check out Nader's real stance on the issue at: http://votenader.org/issues/fairtrade.html
That is exactly what happened to my girlfriend. I think it was the Bush or Lazio campaign (because of the tax questions). Actually the person on the phone was really rude, laughing at the response. Just wish I was there to answer.
Ditto. It's as if every American was born with the right to cheap non-renewable polluting energy. Gas is expensive? Tough. Watch me cry for you. Our gas prices are pretty damn low. If they can sin tax smoking they sure as hell can sin tax gas which produces a whole hell of a lot more pollutants than smoking. Nothing will change if you keep the status-quo the cheapest. Tax it, and subsidize clean/alternative energy. Make evil expensive not cheap (hard to do when evil runs the gov.).
I'd rephrase that to "more money should be taken from the people that benefit from society more".
I'd mention that a flatish (percentage) tax already makes people with more money contribute the most (absolute) taxes.
I like to look at it holistically: Government provides an environment in which people can get a head in life and better themselves. Those who have benefitted from the society should pay more back than those who have not benefitted. Ok, perhaps the rich weren't just handed money by the government, but the government is what dictates the economic climate and laws. The government allows corporations and businesses to be created, etc. Those who get a large output from the system, should put something back into it.
Since the wealthy already pay a lot of taxes, I think the problem to be addressed is really what are we doing with all those billions of dollars? I think taxation is just a bogeyman that the parties use. The real problem is the system itself. There is *plenty* of money to go around. So where the hell is it going?
Ok, how much do you want to bet that the Democrat and Republican parties will not even deign to reply? If so, and if Nader truly demostrates that he "gets it" and has the best policies and ideas, all else being equal, how many of you will agree to change your vote?
(I'm not usually inclined to political stumping, but when you're the underdog you do what you can)
Damn! Microsoft bashing aside, he really knows what he's talking about. Contrast that with the exaggeration and self-congratulation of Gore and the obscenely ignorant "internet turns hearts dark" Bush. Is there anybody here who *isn't* convinced Nader is the best choice as far as internet/IP/software issues are concerned?
(BTW, I am pro-Nader, but didn't know anything about his internet/software stance until reading this article - which just made me like him even more!)
Well I usually mute the commercials...can't stand them. Unfortunately my girlfriend gets the jingles stuck in her head the the meme spreads. It's awful. It's like they own a portion of you're head. You can't even hum a friggen Beatles tune these days without being reminded of some damn computer or electronics company or car.
Check out: www.adbusters.org
Well, first of all, about half of the population doesn't even vote. So I'd hardly call the other have a "mass majority".
Also, ask people walking down the street why they are voting for who they are voting for and you'll probably get all sorts of stupid reasons. Like those brain-dead survey groups: "Oh, he seemed nicer" "I like the environment n stuff" "He is for guns and I like guns" "He's 'tough on crime'"
Seems to me the "mass majority" of people have bought into the millions of dollars of marketing and hype and have no friggen idea why they're voting! Why do people buy the shoes or clothes they do? Image, that's why.
Seems to me that the confused Reform party should just split and throw in with either the Libertarian or Green party. The "Buchanan"-ish wing seems more Libertarian to me...and the "Hagelan"-sh I'm-a-brilliant-physicist-let's-save-the-environme nt wing seems closer to the Greens. The Constitution party could probably throw in with the Libertarians too.
;)
Oh well, that's my biased opinion. I'm sure the Reform party wants the Libertarians and Greens to join *them*
What, you mean you got an average citizen, somebody who was in military service, who had a real day job, and actually snuck into office? Unheard of!
You know, representation used to be about every day citizens standing up and performing civil service. Now it is about career politicians blowing millions of dollars to brainwash you into thinking they are the only choice and that you shouldn't vote for another brand.
Sure, it's easy to make fun of him, but where has Ventura failed as a civil servant? Huh? Everytime I hear him he sounds rather competent and seems like he's doing a pretty damn good job. So stop bitching. He's certainly better than the run of the mill egomaniacal career politician.
Whether you side more with Democrats or Republicans you are screwed either way in this election. Both are moving so far into the middle that they are virtually clones except for a few cosmetic differences in opinion. I considered myself a "democrat" until Bradley lost the primaries. But regardless of our differences, you and I are BOTH being screwed.
So I urge you, vote Browne if you believe in the Libertarian ideas. If only to give the Republican party a kick in the ass and a wake up call. Many progressives will be doing the same with Nader. Democrats have also abandoned progressives.
This is the first election I can vote in, and I thought Bradley was a decent candidate until I found out about Nader. It is an utter crying shame and disappointment when I see kids my age, college kids, high school kids, fall into the two-party mentality trap, and choose a candidate like they are choosing a soda brand. It bewilders me when polls show Gore has a humongous amount of young people supporting him. I want to turn to those kids and say "wake up!". If you want to get active in politics, get active with a burgeoning party that respects you and that you can make a difference in. Don't get sucked in by the two parties that don't really give a damn about you and are only using you and throwing you away.
My little opinion on this:
;)
Yes, there are a lot of people that are unreasonably paranoid about government. I think for a large part, a lot of what we see as "conspiratorial" behavior is just ignorance or stupidity, or truly accidental shredding of documents, whatever. Sometimes these people are annoying, but you can easily ignore or marginalize them (like those self-proclaimed "anarchists" at most of the protests happening - there point was...?).
*However* I think history has given us *plenty* of reason to be paranoid and _highly_ skeptical. Here is my rationalization: If we are *too* paranoid the *worst* that happens is we waste a lot of energy shouting about nothing and annoying people. If we are not paranoid *enough*, if we are too complacent, the price is far greater...we can get f*cked in so many ways we can't imagine.
Given that cost/benefit equation, I'll endure paranoid protesters. Hey, think of them as performing a service. They are harrassing government so that it is harder to step out of line. Is that fair? That's your call. Let's just wait until 2020, or 2040, when they release what "really" happened to JFK
Yeah, and I wish that not everybody believed every single thing they read on web. Take this criticism with just as large a grain of salt as you have apparently taken the third parties' candidates' legitimacy in the first place.
realchange.org is the ONLY site on the web that I have found that has bad things to say about Nader (other sites just paraphrase this site). For the large part, this site seems to be out to just criticize and slander candidates because it feels like it, for the sake of criticism itself. Most of what is there about Nader is out of context, and I don't really put much credibility in it.
Please, be at least as skeptical of your sources of criticism than of the subjects of the criticisms.
In the grand scheme of things, yes, Nader is head and shoulders above most of the other candidates. And if that just means the other candidates are sleazier than you thought, well, so be it.
I dare you to find a SECOND source to qualify, put in context, and legitimize the statements on this site. If you do, come back then...if not you're just propaganting unsubstantiated criticism.