Very well put, imagine picking a car mechanic out of the yellow pages and saying "just do whatever you think you need to do and then tell me how much it costs". I have owned my share of crappy cars and I have never heard a mechanic say "this car isn't worth putting any more money into" they will stand by and let you spend $5,000 on a $1,000 car.
ZOMG! Don't let Lex Luthor get his hands on this technology! He will try to sell real estate on a crystal island after killing billions of people who had all the money to buy his real estate!
CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?
STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. What is wrong with you?
and
STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to... If that's your goal... I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show.
Sorry I love John Stewart but I side with Carlson on this point. The problem isn't the media, it's the people. People want to be entertained people don't want to watch political material unless it's funny or two people are at each other's throats. Stewart comments that Carlson's show is 'theater' well he's right it is! That's the only kind of political show that can stay on the air anymore! Nobody watches CSPAN for a reason, it's BORING! Presidential candidate have gone on Saturday night live, and late night Telivision. Comedy shows are arguably a much more powerful political force than hard news shows.
So Carlson is right to criticize Stewart. When it comes down to it Stewart had the opportunity and didn't ask Kerry the hard hitting questions that he seems to think everyone else should ask except for him. If the only shows that Kerry shows up for are the Daily show, late night, Saturday night live, and the tonight show then who should be asking the hard hitting questions?
Hard media is dead folks, it died a painful painful death in the early 80s. You can pretend that you care with your posts here but if they brought back a hard news show you wouldn't watch it and if Carlson listened to Stewart his show would be dead too. It's always easy to criticize others about something you yourself don't do.
My previous employer [large techonologically backwards insurance company] uses these all the time now. Personally I find it creepy. It seems like they mainly look for people who have very rigid opinions and then they don't hire them under the theory that they won't be easy to work with and won't be able to accept doing things someone else's way. I was in an analytical position and so it seemed like they tolerated much more sheepish, introverted non-social behavior for those position whereas the people who were in contact with the agents probably wouldn't be hired with that type of personality.
The scenario I illustrated is the logical extension of the direction that you and other ignorant but well-intentioned liberals want this country to go in. What you're saying is that no organization would be allowed to use the name or picture of a politician in an advertisement AND you're saying that the FCC should strictly monitor the newsmedia for bias.
Yet in spite of the fact that I so clearly illustrated it already you don't realize that big corporation can buy media outlets and runs non-news TV shows or talk shows with a political bias. David letterman is a more powerful political force than probably any other single news show.
You should be scared to live in a world where the government strictly enforces political dialoge. You should be scared to live in a world where you are not allowed to put up a yard sign to support your candidate (that would be using his name and outside the funding process).
Pretty much what you're endorsing is the worst idea ever and you don't realize how much it kills freedom in this country even after someone clearly spells it out for you.
Thanks for helping kill America, good job with that, and yea why don't you go attend that rally against Walmart after you get done shopping there.
1. Things are like they are now with regard to political ads.
or
2. Live in a world where no political ads were allowed at all except by the limited public funds available to the politcian? Of course in order for this to happen there would have to be a regulatory commision to ensure that other organizations were not lobying for one politican or another.
Non profit groups like Focus on the Family or NARAL pro choice would clearly not be allowed to advertise as they promote a political agenda.
Big oil companies might try to sneak in political messages such as claiming they've helped cleaned up parts of the state with help from the state government (this message would clearly be an endorsement of the party in power).
Of course big corporations own news outlets and when they're not allowed to directly advertise about something they could just buy a news outlet incorporate their messages into the programing.
So news/TV/radio would have to be strictly monitored for political material to prevent this.
Also David Letterman and Jay Leno would not be allowed to put candidates on their TV show unless maybe if they give each candidate equal time which is unlikely since there are usually over 300 or so people actively campaigning for president during any given election cycle and we would clearly not allow them to discriminate against smaller parties and independents this would only solidify the main party's strangle hold to power!
Next of course late night TV jokes about the candidates would have to be shut down as this could clearly be an endorsement if more jokes were made about one candidate than another.
All media would have to be stictly purged of all political content.
Political rallies and protest are another creative way to circumvent these enlightened campaign finance laws. This is a clear way to support your candidate outside the prescribed campaign finance system. All political rallies would also have to be crushed.
You know if guys like you ran your party you guys would be not be dying right now. Though I am 100% anti-Democrat I would still like and would vote for a Democrat who was honest, rational and reasonable over a republican who was irrational.
Anyway good luck with your party your next shot at the Presidency is when O'bama has put in enough time. I just hope that the Republicans can clean up their act, boot the neo-cons and keep guys like Colin Powell.
Holy crap what a biased moderator to lable someone a troll for posting a fact! Maybe I can be labled a troll too by posting a news article written BY THE FRENCH that supports what you say?
Read the last section titled "Protection from the West"
http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn
"All the Western countries were supplying it with arms and funds. France was particularly zealous in this respect. Not content with selling Mirages and helicopters to Iraq, it even lent the regime Super Etendard aircraft in the middle of its war with Iran. Germany supplied Baghdad with a large part of the technology required for the production of chemical weapons. And in an unusual display of East-West military cooperation, German engineers enhanced the performance of the Scud aircraft which Iraq had obtained from the Soviet Union, increasing their range so that they could strike at Teheran and other distant Iranian cities.
Despite the enormous public outrage at the gas attack on Halabja, France, which is a depositary of the Geneva Convention of 1925, confined itself to an enigmatic communiqué condemning the use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world."
in regard to gasing his people:
"Only the Scandinavian countries, Australia and Canada, together with bodies like the European Parliament and the Socialist International, saved their honour by clearly condemning Iraq."
The US (Bush Sr.) was guilty too:
"In America, a resolution urging sanctions against Iraq was tabled by Senator Claiborne D. Pell and passed by both Houses of Congress. It was vetoed by President Bush. The White House even granted Baghdad a further loan of a billion dollars."
Bush cut taxes and lead our way out of a recession.
Bush enacted no child left behind that has improved our schools
Bush has taken a strong and decisive action that has brought the war on terror to the terrorist's (generally speaking) homeland.
Other middle-eastern countries know not to mess with us now.
Therefore the US is better off with Bush as president.
Please remember I am not the one who thinks this but simply rejecting other people's arguments and calling them stupid DOES NOT CONVINCE people that you are right.
>Drop me if you want. Hate me if you want. I >don't give a shit. Fuck all 'yall.
You are the guy that is killing the Democratic party. This is attitude of hatred that is so commonplace in that party. I find it so funny that you guys still don't see it. Do you know why Clinton won his second term? It was becaue Republicans hated him SO much that they couldn't even get out a coherant sentance they were frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog. Well that what you liberals have done to yourselves in this election. You are the hateful dogs who would rather loose elections and hate republicans, than to find out why moderate republicans disagree and then address those issues and politely ask for their vote.
To all of you bitter Democrats. The next time you think about cussing out your replublican friend instead try politely asking how the Dems can appeal to more people. I know this action is inconcievable to most Ds but until you can do that you will continue to loose elections.
This election should be the last red flag before the cliff for Democrats.
At some point the Democrat have to realize that there are a lot of people that disagree with them and most of them are not 'duped' by the media, they're not 'controled' by corporations, they're not mindless zombies, racist, or ignorant. They are normal, intelligent, considerate people that disagree with them. At some point the Democrats need to stop vilifying these people and politely ask them why they disagree and then actually try to convince them next time.
Democrats need to own this loss and they need to say "This is our fault. WE did not get our message to Americans, we were not sucessful at articulating our positions in a way that appealed to voters, and we fundamentally do not know how to appeal to slightly more than 50% of American voters." and then find a way to appeal to them. If they don't do this, if Democrats keep blaming corporations, the media, hurricans, a republican conspiracy etc. etc. they will keep loosing and loosing and loosing.
Please note that I did NOT vote for Bush. I am a Libertarian and I wanted Bush to loose. Most of the time I'm happy when Republicans win but I wanted Bush to loose mainly because of my dislike for Rumsfeld and his war and Bush's heavy spending.
Yea it's really disgusting how the all TV media is now 100% sensationalized. As far as I can tell all the (TV) media does anymore is try to invoke mass hysteria and it is largely sucessful. They never put the child kidnapping in context by stating that those kinds of crimes are actually down. We as geeks have to find a way to kill TV. Television is truely a parasite on our society it makes us fat, lazy, and stupid. The internet makes us fat, and lazy, but it at least makes us think and keeps us involved. We need to find invent something that make the TV obsolete. Bah stupid TV....
No this is a horrible idea I think! Wherever the government spends its money you will always find strings attached. If government fund these projects then eventually they will decide that it 'owns' the the code and that it gets to decide who can use them. You think Microsoft is bad? MS doesn't currently have the athority to perform a dawn raid on your house and arrest pirates like the government can. Bad bad bad stay away! Everything the government does easily and quickly become politicised, they beauty of open source is the fact that it is not funded by a large entrenched and powerful institution.
Oh wow Gee so you guys would organize against them huh? So then when they try to legalize gay marriage would would show up with 10 time their numbers to keep them from doing so. And when they try to legalize pot you would do the same, and the same for reducing police missconduct I'm sure. Yeah sounds like you know what you're talking about. Maybe you should understand what these people believe before decide to rally against them on everything. You will quickly find yourself advocating on the other side of these so called 'socially progressive' issues.
Just to clarify about highway funds. Please note even if a state doesn't follow the arm twisting from the Federal government about passing laws regarding speed limit, drinking age, and drunk driving bloos level you should realise that:
EVEN IF A STATE DOESN'T PASS THESE LAWS THEY STILL GET AROUND 90% OF THE HIGHWAY ALLOCATION THEY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN OTHERWISE
Still this amount is significant enough to 'pursuade' state to pass laws that the Feds ask for. Personally I think this is extortion and we should arrest any Senate or House rep. that votes for such an amomination to our government system.
I support the Federal government intervention in local affairs ONLY when people rights are being violated. So yes State's laws can be trampled when the purpose of those laws are to take freedom away from people. That is what happend in the Civil War people were literally slaves and the state governments were no better than Aristocracies IMO. Since the FSP is a peaceful approach to INCREASING people's freedom the Federal Government SHOULD have no business stepping in. Also the Civil war was a war for secession neither of which the FSP wants to have.
The FSP is not trying to make an anarchy it's just trying to increase freedom as much as possible. There are alot of ways to pay for vital government services such as user fees and the like but the point isn't to run the state into the ground. If a minimum tax is necissary then they will probably keep one until they can find a way to get rid of it.
srvivn21 I am a member of the FSP and I am very excited and commited to this project dispite the fact that I AM a heterosexual white male not interested in poly amorous relations, or recreational drug use. In fact I've never used drugs and I don't even drink. Here is big surprise I also don't own a gun, NOR HAVE I EVER EVEN FIRED ONE. Oh and I'm not even a religious extremist or anything. For so many people politics are about only stuff that applies to them. Like locking up and killing jews in Germany people were like "hey I'm not a jew". But for me and alot of people it's about principle like it's wrong to imprison jews, or put you in jail for things that don't hurt anyone. So yeah I think we have a really broad base of support going for us here. I'd think alot of people on slashdot would be interested especially because we are actually NOT crazy. We don't want an armed rebilion against the government or anything we just want make a place where there is more freedom. Even if the changes are slow and even if we only get some of what we want.
Slashdot Mirror
Very well put, imagine picking a car mechanic out of the yellow pages and saying "just do whatever you think you need to do and then tell me how much it costs". I have owned my share of crappy cars and I have never heard a mechanic say "this car isn't worth putting any more money into" they will stand by and let you spend $5,000 on a $1,000 car.
ZOMG! Don't let Lex Luthor get his hands on this technology! He will try to sell real estate on a crystal island after killing billions of people who had all the money to buy his real estate!
My previous employer [large techonologically backwards insurance company] uses these all the time now. Personally I find it creepy. It seems like they mainly look for people who have very rigid opinions and then they don't hire them under the theory that they won't be easy to work with and won't be able to accept doing things someone else's way. I was in an analytical position and so it seemed like they tolerated much more sheepish, introverted non-social behavior for those position whereas the people who were in contact with the agents probably wouldn't be hired with that type of personality.
The scenario I illustrated is the logical extension of the direction that you and other ignorant but well-intentioned liberals want this country to go in. What you're saying is that no organization would be allowed to use the name or picture of a politician in an advertisement AND you're saying that the FCC should strictly monitor the newsmedia for bias.
Yet in spite of the fact that I so clearly illustrated it already you don't realize that big corporation can buy media outlets and runs non-news TV shows or talk shows with a political bias. David letterman is a more powerful political force than probably any other single news show.
You should be scared to live in a world where the government strictly enforces political dialoge. You should be scared to live in a world where you are not allowed to put up a yard sign to support your candidate (that would be using his name and outside the funding process).
Pretty much what you're endorsing is the worst idea ever and you don't realize how much it kills freedom in this country even after someone clearly spells it out for you.
Thanks for helping kill America, good job with that, and yea why don't you go attend that rally against Walmart after you get done shopping there.
Would you rather live in a world where.
1. Things are like they are now with regard to political ads.
or
2. Live in a world where no political ads were allowed at all except by the limited public funds available to the politcian? Of course in order for this to happen there would have to be a regulatory commision to ensure that other organizations were not lobying for one politican or another.
Non profit groups like Focus on the Family or NARAL pro choice would clearly not be allowed to advertise as they promote a political agenda.
Big oil companies might try to sneak in political messages such as claiming they've helped cleaned up parts of the state with help from the state government (this message would clearly be an endorsement of the party in power).
Of course big corporations own news outlets and when they're not allowed to directly advertise about something they could just buy a news outlet incorporate their messages into the programing.
So news/TV/radio would have to be strictly monitored for political material to prevent this.
Also David Letterman and Jay Leno would not be allowed to put candidates on their TV show unless maybe if they give each candidate equal time which is unlikely since there are usually over 300 or so people actively campaigning for president during any given election cycle and we would clearly not allow them to discriminate against smaller parties and independents this would only solidify the main party's strangle hold to power!
Next of course late night TV jokes about the candidates would have to be shut down as this could clearly be an endorsement if more jokes were made about one candidate than another.
All media would have to be stictly purged of all political content.
Political rallies and protest are another creative way to circumvent these enlightened campaign finance laws. This is a clear way to support your candidate outside the prescribed campaign finance system. All political rallies would also have to be crushed.
-Raging Bob
You know if guys like you ran your party you guys would be not be dying right now. Though I am 100% anti-Democrat I would still like and would vote for a Democrat who was honest, rational and reasonable over a republican who was irrational.
Anyway good luck with your party your next shot at the Presidency is when O'bama has put in enough time. I just hope that the Republicans can clean up their act, boot the neo-cons and keep guys like Colin Powell.
Holy crap what a biased moderator to lable someone a troll for posting a fact! Maybe I can be labled a troll too by posting a news article written BY THE FRENCH that supports what you say?
Read the last section titled "Protection from the West"
http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn
"All the Western countries were supplying it with arms and funds. France was particularly zealous in this respect. Not content with selling Mirages and helicopters to Iraq, it even lent the regime Super Etendard aircraft in the middle of its war with Iran. Germany supplied Baghdad with a large part of the technology required for the production of chemical weapons. And in an unusual display of East-West military cooperation, German engineers enhanced the performance of the Scud aircraft which Iraq had obtained from the Soviet Union, increasing their range so that they could strike at Teheran and other distant Iranian cities.
Despite the enormous public outrage at the gas attack on Halabja, France, which is a depositary of the Geneva Convention of 1925, confined itself to an enigmatic communiqué condemning the use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world."
in regard to gasing his people:
"Only the Scandinavian countries, Australia and Canada, together with bodies like the European Parliament and the Socialist International, saved their honour by clearly condemning Iraq."
The US (Bush Sr.) was guilty too:
"In America, a resolution urging sanctions against Iraq was tabled by Senator Claiborne D. Pell and passed by both Houses of Congress. It was vetoed by President Bush. The White House even granted Baghdad a further loan of a billion dollars."
Yup I'm a troll...
-RB
Yea sure but the Republican could easily say:
Bush cut taxes and lead our way out of a recession.
Bush enacted no child left behind that has improved our schools
Bush has taken a strong and decisive action that has brought the war on terror to the terrorist's (generally speaking) homeland.
Other middle-eastern countries know not to mess with us now.
Therefore the US is better off with Bush as president.
Please remember I am not the one who thinks this but simply rejecting other people's arguments and calling them stupid DOES NOT CONVINCE people that you are right.
-RB
>Drop me if you want. Hate me if you want. I >don't give a shit. Fuck all 'yall. You are the guy that is killing the Democratic party. This is attitude of hatred that is so commonplace in that party. I find it so funny that you guys still don't see it. Do you know why Clinton won his second term? It was becaue Republicans hated him SO much that they couldn't even get out a coherant sentance they were frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog. Well that what you liberals have done to yourselves in this election. You are the hateful dogs who would rather loose elections and hate republicans, than to find out why moderate republicans disagree and then address those issues and politely ask for their vote. To all of you bitter Democrats. The next time you think about cussing out your replublican friend instead try politely asking how the Dems can appeal to more people. I know this action is inconcievable to most Ds but until you can do that you will continue to loose elections.
This election should be the last red flag before the cliff for Democrats.
At some point the Democrat have to realize that there are a lot of people that disagree with them and most of them are not 'duped' by the media, they're not 'controled' by corporations, they're not mindless zombies, racist, or ignorant. They are normal, intelligent, considerate people that disagree with them. At some point the Democrats need to stop vilifying these people and politely ask them why they disagree and then actually try to convince them next time.
Democrats need to own this loss and they need to say "This is our fault. WE did not get our message to Americans, we were not sucessful at articulating our positions in a way that appealed to voters, and we fundamentally do not know how to appeal to slightly more than 50% of American voters." and then find a way to appeal to them. If they don't do this, if Democrats keep blaming corporations, the media, hurricans, a republican conspiracy etc. etc. they will keep loosing and loosing and loosing.
Please note that I did NOT vote for Bush. I am a Libertarian and I wanted Bush to loose. Most of the time I'm happy when Republicans win but I wanted Bush to loose mainly because of my dislike for Rumsfeld and his war and Bush's heavy spending.
-RB
Yea it's really disgusting how the all TV media is now 100% sensationalized. As far as I can tell all the (TV) media does anymore is try to invoke mass hysteria and it is largely sucessful. They never put the child kidnapping in context by stating that those kinds of crimes are actually down. We as geeks have to find a way to kill TV. Television is truely a parasite on our society it makes us fat, lazy, and stupid. The internet makes us fat, and lazy, but it at least makes us think and keeps us involved. We need to find invent something that make the TV obsolete. Bah stupid TV....
http://www.informit.com/content/index.asp?product_ id={73B9911C-62FF-4FA5-8275-C0DB842BC4FF}
No this is a horrible idea I think! Wherever the government spends its money you will always find strings attached. If government fund these projects then eventually they will decide that it 'owns' the the code and that it gets to decide who can use them. You think Microsoft is bad? MS doesn't currently have the athority to perform a dawn raid on your house and arrest pirates like the government can. Bad bad bad stay away! Everything the government does easily and quickly become politicised, they beauty of open source is the fact that it is not funded by a large entrenched and powerful institution.
-RB
-Eddie
Oh wow Gee so you guys would organize against them huh? So then when they try to legalize gay marriage would would show up with 10 time their numbers to keep them from doing so. And when they try to legalize pot you would do the same, and the same for reducing police missconduct I'm sure. Yeah sounds like you know what you're talking about. Maybe you should understand what these people believe before decide to rally against them on everything. You will quickly find yourself advocating on the other side of these so called 'socially progressive' issues.
I support the Federal government intervention in local affairs ONLY when people rights are being violated. So yes State's laws can be trampled when the purpose of those laws are to take freedom away from people. That is what happend in the Civil War people were literally slaves and the state governments were no better than Aristocracies IMO. Since the FSP is a peaceful approach to INCREASING people's freedom the Federal Government SHOULD have no business stepping in. Also the Civil war was a war for secession neither of which the FSP wants to have.
The FSP is not trying to make an anarchy it's just trying to increase freedom as much as possible. There are alot of ways to pay for vital government services such as user fees and the like but the point isn't to run the state into the ground. If a minimum tax is necissary then they will probably keep one until they can find a way to get rid of it.
srvivn21 I am a member of the FSP and I am very excited and commited to this project dispite the fact that I AM a heterosexual white male not interested in poly amorous relations, or recreational drug use. In fact I've never used drugs and I don't even drink. Here is big surprise I also don't own a gun, NOR HAVE I EVER EVEN FIRED ONE. Oh and I'm not even a religious extremist or anything. For so many people politics are about only stuff that applies to them. Like locking up and killing jews in Germany people were like "hey I'm not a jew". But for me and alot of people it's about principle like it's wrong to imprison jews, or put you in jail for things that don't hurt anyone. So yeah I think we have a really broad base of support going for us here. I'd think alot of people on slashdot would be interested especially because we are actually NOT crazy. We don't want an armed rebilion against the government or anything we just want make a place where there is more freedom. Even if the changes are slow and even if we only get some of what we want.