dude, if you would have actually read the article you would have noticed the link to this article in the NYTimes which gives a brief history of buckyballs.
--
lukas
I'm glad that you have figured out exactly what I believe. I do not advocate bigger government or claim to be a socialist. I do believe in protecting the environment, or what's left of it. I also believe in programs that advocate social justice. I believe that people should be able to get affordable healthcare, and if the government has to help out with that, so be it. I don't want government controlling every little detail of my life and I am not quite sure where you got that idea from.
I never thought I would hear GWBush referred to as the lesser of two evils. I don't agree with Gore's plan to track usage at the ISP level but that in no way makes him a worse choice then Bush. And if you talk about morality, Bush is all for legislating morality. He said outright in the debate last night that he was all for government funding of faith-based programs. I wonder which faith he was talking about.
You are talking about voting for a man with a running mate who worked for an oil exploration and drilling company. When Cheney left that job to run for veep, his severance package was $34million. Guess what Bush wants to do as his energy policy - do exploratory drilling in the Alaskan wilderness.
In the upcoming four years, the next president will appoint at least 3 new Supreme Court justices. Bush and his hardline veep candidate wouldn't be picking justices with the interests of free speech in mind. They would pick justices that could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade and other landmark decisions. Imagine what would happen if a law was passed similar to the CDA. Now imagaine a supreme court that would uphold that law. This is what you get if you elect Bush Cheney.
If you are inclined to vote for Harry Browne, you should also be prepared to accept some of the other things he would do:
Sell of all federal lands (national forests, etc.), exluding a few national parks, to the highest bidder
Provide absolutely no federal funding for education, including loans for higher education
Dismantle most federal government programs, including the FTC which means dropping the Microsoft case and allowing monopolies like the Time Warner/AOL behemoth to form
Dismantle medicare and medicaid and assure those that depend on those services for their healthcare that it will be provided by "charity"
Ending welfare again assuring those that depend on this program that they will get by with "charity"
You can read all of this on his web site -- harrybrowne2000.com. I like his views on the first amendment, but I just don't relish the idea of all our national lands being sold of to big corporations who will exploit them to their own advantage.
H.R.4577 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 -- Title VI - Children's Internet Protection.
If all you slashdotters really do believe in the freedom of speech and do not want the federal government censoring our libraries, then do something about it.
When you vote for Browne you are rejecting the mainstream big-government parties, and if enough people do that they will eventually take notice.
Your assertion that people will eventually take notice is not necessarily true. In the presidential campaign of 1992, H. Ross Perot recieved 18.91% of the popular vote. People may have noticed, but did the system really change? In 1996 Perot only received 8.4% of the popular vote with Nader receiving a mere 0.7%. See uselectionatlas.org for more election stats.
The current system does need an overhaul. I am of the opinion that we should get rid of the electoral college and open the elections to more than just the two parties. But just because a third-party candidate gets a good sized chunk of votes does not mean that the system will change. It would be much more effective to elect third-party candidates to congress, both at the national and at the state level. As lawmakers they would have more power affect real change.
A third party doesn't have to win; it just has to do well enough to scare the Establishment.
All this talk about third party candidates and how they don't need to win, just get enough votes to scare the establishments has me wondering:
How many of you have ever called your representative in congress and talked to them about the issues that are important to you??
Things aren't going to change because a third-party candidate gets a lot of votes for president. Ross Perot got a lot of votes and things haven't gotten any better for the third-party candidates. To really affect any changes in the current establishment, we need to elect third-party candidates to offices in congress and in our state legislatures. And if there are important issues being voted on, we need to call our representatives in congress, because who knows, they just might listen.
Gore 2000 - because I am scared of a country run by George W.
While it is true that scientists are still in disagreement about the causes and effects of global warming and wether or not the planet is really heating up, that does not mean that we should trust Bush's record on the environment.
Bush's record on the environment in Texas has been atrocious
Well yeah, of course, Gore has been Vice President for the last eight years. But the internet was created long before that. Gore was in the United States Congress during the years that the networks that were the precursors to the internet were being created.
I'm not saying that one man created the internet, but he certainly used his influence to help with it's growth and development.
Slashdot Mirror
dude, if you would have actually read the article you would have noticed the link to this article in the NYTimes which gives a brief history of buckyballs.
--
lukas
I'm glad that you have figured out exactly what I believe. I do not advocate bigger government or claim to be a socialist. I do believe in protecting the environment, or what's left of it. I also believe in programs that advocate social justice. I believe that people should be able to get affordable healthcare, and if the government has to help out with that, so be it. I don't want government controlling every little detail of my life and I am not quite sure where you got that idea from.
I never thought I would hear GWBush referred to as the lesser of two evils. I don't agree with Gore's plan to track usage at the ISP level but that in no way makes him a worse choice then Bush. And if you talk about morality, Bush is all for legislating morality. He said outright in the debate last night that he was all for government funding of faith-based programs. I wonder which faith he was talking about.
You are talking about voting for a man with a running mate who worked for an oil exploration and drilling company. When Cheney left that job to run for veep, his severance package was $34million. Guess what Bush wants to do as his energy policy - do exploratory drilling in the Alaskan wilderness.
In the upcoming four years, the next president will appoint at least 3 new Supreme Court justices. Bush and his hardline veep candidate wouldn't be picking justices with the interests of free speech in mind. They would pick justices that could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade and other landmark decisions. Imagine what would happen if a law was passed similar to the CDA. Now imagaine a supreme court that would uphold that law. This is what you get if you elect Bush Cheney.
my $.02 on why you should vote Al Gore
- Sell of all federal lands (national forests, etc.), exluding a few national parks, to the highest bidder
- Provide absolutely no federal funding for education, including loans for higher education
- Dismantle most federal government programs, including the FTC which means dropping the Microsoft case and allowing monopolies like the Time Warner/AOL behemoth to form
- Dismantle medicare and medicaid and assure those that depend on those services for their healthcare that it will be provided by "charity"
- Ending welfare again assuring those that depend on this program that they will get by with "charity"
You can read all of this on his web site -- harrybrowne2000.com. I like his views on the first amendment, but I just don't relish the idea of all our national lands being sold of to big corporations who will exploit them to their own advantage.That's why I say vote al gore 2000
okay, so the link I posted was only a temp link from the thomas search engine. If you would like to read Title VI of the bill, you can read it at:
http://www.enteract.com/~leklund/title6.html
Sorry for the confusion.
lukas
be sure to include the bill information:
H.R.4577 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 -- Title VI - Children's Internet Protection.
The text of Title VI is here
lukas
- Step 1 - Find out who your representative is in the House of Representatives
- Step 2 - call them, write them, email them -- whatever it takes to let them know that you are against censorware in our libraries.
If you send an email, includes links to censorware.org and the winner's of the foil the filter contest.--
lukas
When you vote for Browne you are rejecting the mainstream big-government parties, and if enough people do that they will eventually take notice.
Your assertion that people will eventually take notice is not necessarily true. In the presidential campaign of 1992, H. Ross Perot recieved 18.91% of the popular vote. People may have noticed, but did the system really change? In 1996 Perot only received 8.4% of the popular vote with Nader receiving a mere 0.7%. See uselectionatlas.org for more election stats.
The current system does need an overhaul. I am of the opinion that we should get rid of the electoral college and open the elections to more than just the two parties. But just because a third-party candidate gets a good sized chunk of votes does not mean that the system will change. It would be much more effective to elect third-party candidates to congress, both at the national and at the state level. As lawmakers they would have more power affect real change.
Gore 2000
A third party doesn't have to win; it just has to do well enough to scare the Establishment.
All this talk about third party candidates and how they don't need to win, just get enough votes to scare the establishments has me wondering:
How many of you have ever called your representative in congress and talked to them about the issues that are important to you??
Things aren't going to change because a third-party candidate gets a lot of votes for president. Ross Perot got a lot of votes and things haven't gotten any better for the third-party candidates. To really affect any changes in the current establishment, we need to elect third-party candidates to offices in congress and in our state legislatures. And if there are important issues being voted on, we need to call our representatives in congress, because who knows, they just might listen.
Gore 2000 - because I am scared of a country run by George W.
While it is true that scientists are still in disagreement about the causes and effects of global warming and wether or not the planet is really heating up, that does not mean that we should trust Bush's record on the environment.
Bush's record on the environment in Texas has been atrocious
Bush's 'real' environmental record in texas
more of Bush on environment
GORE is not Congress.
Well yeah, of course, Gore has been Vice President for the last eight years. But the internet was created long before that. Gore was in the United States Congress during the years that the networks that were the precursors to the internet were being created.
I'm not saying that one man created the internet, but he certainly used his influence to help with it's growth and development.
why bush scares me
more reasons bush scares me