It's fine that you do not support either candidate. All I ask is that your support or non-support for any candidate be based on facts, not misrepresentations and assumptions.
The idea of getting Kerry, the #1 most liberal member of Congress, and Edwards, the #4 most liberal member of Congress away from the checkbook may not be an all bad situation
While Kerry and Edwards are clearly liberal, the numbers you cite are skewed because they are based only on the 108th Congress, when both Kerry and Edwards were on the campaign. They may also include procedural votes.
I can be sure that he'd never veto any spending as president, but taking away check writing privileges might not be an all bad idea!
You can see the future? Who wins the World Series? You're so busy looking into your crystal ball that you forgot the past: it was Clinton who was President when the budget was last balanced. Move away from your labels and into reality, please. Cheney frequently tries to hit Kerry for voting against defense spending in the 80s and 90s, but now he's a big spender? Which one is it? (FYI, Cheney was against the same spending Kerry was against in those time periods)
Also, Bush has not vetoed one single bill, spending or otherwise.
I'm not sure where you get your information, but you should use more sources.
Our political landscape is due for the same sort of shake-up and invigoration. The current Republican platform boils down to "We're less Socialist then the Democrats!" Kerry's platform through this whole campaign has not been to take a stand on the issues, as he changes his stands by the clock ticks. His stand has been, "Well, I'm not Bush!" To these platforms I scream, "That's not good enough!"
And no one heard you, because you're talking to nonexistant platforms. Try reading them for a change. I'm serious. Go read both platforms, and then come back here and see if you can repeat your assertions with any amount of intellectual honesty.
Can you see how much participation in the system may increase if people actually felt as if they had a choice, a choice that made a difference, and mattered?
If you don't think the choice between Kerry and Bush will make a difference, you're brain dead. You may not like the alternative to Bush, but it will make a huge difference, mark my words.
If we let a third person in the debate, why not just have a 400 person debate is a ludacrous leap. Maybe the top 4 contendors, or whatever.
What criteria do you use? If you use any criteria, how is it not as unfair as it is now? Exclusion is exclusion. At some point, people are going to have to be excluded to make it practical. Even if you exclude by ballot access, it is unfair. Just because a candidate is not on the ballot in a state does not mean that people cannot vote for them.
This isn't an argument for a continuance of 2 party debates. I just wanted to point out that the general argument of 'It's unfair' will always apply to somebody. If the "major 3rd parties" (Green, Libertarian) were allowed in the debates, we would have a new class of parties. The '4th parties' would be the Constitution Party, Reform Party, Natural Law, Socialists, etc.
If you're not voting for Kerry, then it is not your primary goal to remove Bush from office. There's no argument. Kerry is the only way to remove Bush from office. Support for anyone else is implicit support of Bush's administration. Again, this is just how the system works, and I agree it needs to be changed.
foreign policy - bush invaded afghanistan and iraq, kerry supported invading and iraq
Kerry supported giving the President power to persuade Iraq to give in to inspections, which was working until W blew it and went to war. Kerry did not support the war as it was executed by Bush.
gay marriage - both against it
True, but there's more to the story, as usual. Bush supports modifying the Constitution of the United States to specifically exclude a class of people from a right. This is unprecedented in the history of the nation, where amendments have generally been used to expand rights to classes of people previously uncovered. Kerry does not support gay marriage by name, but supports equal benefits for gay couples.
abortion - yep, i guess they're different here, although i had difficulty deciphering kerry response in the debate
It's because you clearly have a problem with issues more complex than (Black|White). Kerry is personally against abortion. However, Kerry understands that it is not the government's place to regulate how a woman will carry out her life. Bush does not understand this and wants to force women to carry to term children that are undesired. This is despite the fact that he claims to want to keep government out of our private lives.
patriot act - bush proposed it, kerry voted for it
Only one candidate wants the PATRIOT Act amended to fix the problems: Kerry. Bush wants the PATRIOT Act as enacted to be made permanent. See the difference?
Except it has a lot to do with it. Because of our system, a vote for a third party candidate in a state such as Pennsylvania would be much more helpful to either Bush or Kerry than to the candidate being voted for (I'm talking about winning elections here, not the public funding 5% limit).
So, for example, let's say one dislikes Bush, and prefers Badnarik. Their vote for Badnarik would be a closet endorsement of Bush. The only way to remove Bush from office in 2004 is to vote Kerry. This has nothing to do with anyone's opinion, it's simply how the system works in its current form. You don't have to play the game, but one must realize the full effects of their actions.
Most democrats weren't so happy about it last time.
Simply because Nader is a liar. There's no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats? Yeah, just like there's no difference between the Mets and the Yankees, Ralph.
No. The debates are not the election. While we can argue about the fairness of exclusion from the debates, exclusion from the debates is not exclusion from the election. There is nothing in election law that covers debates.
The problem with your solution comes in your last word, 'enforce'. Enforcement of your simple policy would require employees of the theatre to monitor all of the screens. I doubt the large theatres want to hire 20 more workers just to cut down on cell phones. In any case, theatre workers would have to create a disturbance above that of the ringing cell phone to remove the offending patron, who would most likely object. If the theatre was lax with enforcement, the policy would be ignored and rendered useless.
It would be great if your low-tech solution could work. However, we live in a 'me-first' society (at least in the US), and far too many people do not realize the disturbances they create for everyone else around them.
Third party candidates have to go through amazing hurdles just to get on the ballot.
Let's not blow this out of proportion. Collecting valid signatures is not a burden for a political candidate with any amount of public support. The current rules make it hard for no-names to get on the ballot, and that's a good thing. Just look at the California Recall election to see what happens when you have an unruly amount of people on the ballot.
Please don't let the simplicity of Afghanistan's elections fool you.
Instead of using TV (well there aren't many TVs from what I gather, but I am rather ignorant of Afghani culture) the elders etc promote the candidate.
When we turn on the TV, it's very likely that we see a representative of one of the candidates or their party. How is this different from 'the elders etc'?
You must be young. I haven't shown ID to buy booze in years.
I'm 23 now, and have to show my ID about 90% of the time. I live in a college area, so enforcement is a little more strict. Around here, retailers of alcohol and tobacco are supposed to ask for ID from anyone who appears to be younger than 27.
In many urban areas it is perfectly fine to not have one, as public transportation is good enough for getting around.
And what's great about public transit is that you can booze up and get to wherever you're going. Now.. how am I to buy booze without an ID? Oh right.. booze is optional too, I guess.
Soon, everything will be optional.. available only to those who submit their lives to the State and the Corporation. I hope you like it, but liking it is optional, too.:)
For a country of so much supposed freedom, why is a very common argument for any intrusion something like "if you don't like the requirement, you don't have to do the activity." That's freedom?
What's it going to take before you realize you're wrong?
Who, with a nice setup, expects that they'd be controlling the audio output with their cable remote?
Any normal person who has used a cable box in the last 15 years.
He could use the Bose remote to control the volume, yes. However, when you're flipping channels, you use the cable box remote. The volume control on that remote cannot control the Bose. It will usually control the volume output of the cable box (this is also usually an option and can be set to a fixed volume output.. it can also control the tv's volume on some systems).
So, he can get a super fancy learning customizable remote.. or he can pray that the cable box manuf. puts in (or enables) a variable audio out. I don't have much experience with digital audio, but my intuition would lead me to think that the former option is better. To control the volume of the digital stream, I would think that the cable box would have to decode/process/re-encode, which isn't something you want a cable box to do.
Incidentially, this isn't what the average user is thinking about when they hit volume +/- on the remote and it does nothing. What they're thinking is "Hmm.. this used to control the volume. Now I have to use 2 remotes? This is stupid."
Last time I checked, he rode a Russian craft. A craft that passed through all of the safety checks the Russian space program has in place. Yes, it comes down to a matter of trust. I, and many others, simply do not trust corporations. They have proven, over hundreds of years, that they are willing to sacrifice human lives for the bottom line. Unacceptable.
I'm sure that if they feel safe enough to carry passengers, they will feel safe enough to operate from a good airport elsewhere.
It's not a matter of the company feeling safe. We already know that corporations care not for people and will sacrifice them for profit. What matters is that the passengers feel safe. Would you ride up on a rocket that's only been inspected by people whose sole interest is your $200,000?
We're talking about space flight here, people. My guess would be that if doing business in the USA becomes too expensive or annoying, Mexico are right there over the border, closer to the equator and with plenty of land for launch facilities.
If you're a space tourist, are you going to go to a place where the company has set up shop with the direct purpose of avoiding safety regulations? Sounds stupid to me, unless you really believe that 'free market==god' bullshit spewed around here.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry. Bush knows it's hard work with these internets, but we'll get through it. It's hard work!
Nervous? Check out his 1994 debates. Didn't sound nervous there. Something's happened to the man.
It's fine that you do not support either candidate. All I ask is that your support or non-support for any candidate be based on facts, not misrepresentations and assumptions.
The idea of getting Kerry, the #1 most liberal member of Congress, and Edwards, the #4 most liberal member of Congress away from the checkbook may not be an all bad situation
While Kerry and Edwards are clearly liberal, the numbers you cite are skewed because they are based only on the 108th Congress, when both Kerry and Edwards were on the campaign. They may also include procedural votes.
I can be sure that he'd never veto any spending as president, but taking away check writing privileges might not be an all bad idea!
You can see the future? Who wins the World Series? You're so busy looking into your crystal ball that you forgot the past: it was Clinton who was President when the budget was last balanced. Move away from your labels and into reality, please. Cheney frequently tries to hit Kerry for voting against defense spending in the 80s and 90s, but now he's a big spender? Which one is it? (FYI, Cheney was against the same spending Kerry was against in those time periods)
Also, Bush has not vetoed one single bill, spending or otherwise.
I'm not sure where you get your information, but you should use more sources.
Our political landscape is due for the same sort of shake-up and invigoration. The current Republican platform boils down to "We're less Socialist then the Democrats!" Kerry's platform through this whole campaign has not been to take a stand on the issues, as he changes his stands by the clock ticks. His stand has been, "Well, I'm not Bush!" To these platforms I scream, "That's not good enough!"
And no one heard you, because you're talking to nonexistant platforms. Try reading them for a change. I'm serious. Go read both platforms, and then come back here and see if you can repeat your assertions with any amount of intellectual honesty.
Can you see how much participation in the system may increase if people actually felt as if they had a choice, a choice that made a difference, and mattered?
If you don't think the choice between Kerry and Bush will make a difference, you're brain dead. You may not like the alternative to Bush, but it will make a huge difference, mark my words.
If we let a third person in the debate, why not just have a 400 person debate is a ludacrous leap. Maybe the top 4 contendors, or whatever.
What criteria do you use? If you use any criteria, how is it not as unfair as it is now? Exclusion is exclusion. At some point, people are going to have to be excluded to make it practical. Even if you exclude by ballot access, it is unfair. Just because a candidate is not on the ballot in a state does not mean that people cannot vote for them.
This isn't an argument for a continuance of 2 party debates. I just wanted to point out that the general argument of 'It's unfair' will always apply to somebody. If the "major 3rd parties" (Green, Libertarian) were allowed in the debates, we would have a new class of parties. The '4th parties' would be the Constitution Party, Reform Party, Natural Law, Socialists, etc.
If you're not voting for Kerry, then it is not your primary goal to remove Bush from office. There's no argument. Kerry is the only way to remove Bush from office. Support for anyone else is implicit support of Bush's administration. Again, this is just how the system works, and I agree it needs to be changed.
foreign policy - bush invaded afghanistan and iraq, kerry supported invading and iraq
Kerry supported giving the President power to persuade Iraq to give in to inspections, which was working until W blew it and went to war. Kerry did not support the war as it was executed by Bush.
gay marriage - both against it
True, but there's more to the story, as usual. Bush supports modifying the Constitution of the United States to specifically exclude a class of people from a right. This is unprecedented in the history of the nation, where amendments have generally been used to expand rights to classes of people previously uncovered. Kerry does not support gay marriage by name, but supports equal benefits for gay couples.
abortion - yep, i guess they're different here, although i had difficulty deciphering kerry response in the debate
It's because you clearly have a problem with issues more complex than (Black|White). Kerry is personally against abortion. However, Kerry understands that it is not the government's place to regulate how a woman will carry out her life. Bush does not understand this and wants to force women to carry to term children that are undesired. This is despite the fact that he claims to want to keep government out of our private lives.
patriot act - bush proposed it, kerry voted for it
Only one candidate wants the PATRIOT Act amended to fix the problems: Kerry. Bush wants the PATRIOT Act as enacted to be made permanent. See the difference?
Statistics has nothing to do with it.
Except it has a lot to do with it. Because of our system, a vote for a third party candidate in a state such as Pennsylvania would be much more helpful to either Bush or Kerry than to the candidate being voted for (I'm talking about winning elections here, not the public funding 5% limit).
So, for example, let's say one dislikes Bush, and prefers Badnarik. Their vote for Badnarik would be a closet endorsement of Bush. The only way to remove Bush from office in 2004 is to vote Kerry. This has nothing to do with anyone's opinion, it's simply how the system works in its current form. You don't have to play the game, but one must realize the full effects of their actions.
Most democrats weren't so happy about it last time.
Simply because Nader is a liar. There's no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats? Yeah, just like there's no difference between the Mets and the Yankees, Ralph.
No. The debates are not the election. While we can argue about the fairness of exclusion from the debates, exclusion from the debates is not exclusion from the election. There is nothing in election law that covers debates.
None. As usual, it's the assholes ruining it for the rest of us. Sorry.
The problem with your solution comes in your last word, 'enforce'. Enforcement of your simple policy would require employees of the theatre to monitor all of the screens. I doubt the large theatres want to hire 20 more workers just to cut down on cell phones. In any case, theatre workers would have to create a disturbance above that of the ringing cell phone to remove the offending patron, who would most likely object. If the theatre was lax with enforcement, the policy would be ignored and rendered useless.
It would be great if your low-tech solution could work. However, we live in a 'me-first' society (at least in the US), and far too many people do not realize the disturbances they create for everyone else around them.
Third party candidates have to go through amazing hurdles just to get on the ballot.
Let's not blow this out of proportion. Collecting valid signatures is not a burden for a political candidate with any amount of public support. The current rules make it hard for no-names to get on the ballot, and that's a good thing. Just look at the California Recall election to see what happens when you have an unruly amount of people on the ballot.
Or, 'Yeah, but it clearly broke down during the debate.'"
In his attempt to make a joke, McKinnon does admit that Bush was a stumbling idiot during the debates. Interesting.
Please don't let the simplicity of Afghanistan's elections fool you.
Instead of using TV (well there aren't many TVs from what I gather, but I am rather ignorant of Afghani culture) the elders etc promote the candidate.
When we turn on the TV, it's very likely that we see a representative of one of the candidates or their party. How is this different from 'the elders etc'?
You must be young. I haven't shown ID to buy booze in years.
I'm 23 now, and have to show my ID about 90% of the time. I live in a college area, so enforcement is a little more strict. Around here, retailers of alcohol and tobacco are supposed to ask for ID from anyone who appears to be younger than 27.
In many urban areas it is perfectly fine to not have one, as public transportation is good enough for getting around.
:)
And what's great about public transit is that you can booze up and get to wherever you're going. Now.. how am I to buy booze without an ID? Oh right.. booze is optional too, I guess.
Soon, everything will be optional.. available only to those who submit their lives to the State and the Corporation. I hope you like it, but liking it is optional, too.
My cable remote doesn't control audio equipment. However, I don't have an HD cable box.
For a country of so much supposed freedom, why is a very common argument for any intrusion something like "if you don't like the requirement, you don't have to do the activity." That's freedom?
What's it going to take before you realize you're wrong?
Living is not compulsory.
Who, with a nice setup, expects that they'd be controlling the audio output with their cable remote?
Any normal person who has used a cable box in the last 15 years.
He could use the Bose remote to control the volume, yes. However, when you're flipping channels, you use the cable box remote. The volume control on that remote cannot control the Bose. It will usually control the volume output of the cable box (this is also usually an option and can be set to a fixed volume output.. it can also control the tv's volume on some systems).
So, he can get a super fancy learning customizable remote.. or he can pray that the cable box manuf. puts in (or enables) a variable audio out. I don't have much experience with digital audio, but my intuition would lead me to think that the former option is better. To control the volume of the digital stream, I would think that the cable box would have to decode/process/re-encode, which isn't something you want a cable box to do.
Incidentially, this isn't what the average user is thinking about when they hit volume +/- on the remote and it does nothing. What they're thinking is "Hmm.. this used to control the volume. Now I have to use 2 remotes? This is stupid."
Last time I checked, he rode a Russian craft. A craft that passed through all of the safety checks the Russian space program has in place. Yes, it comes down to a matter of trust. I, and many others, simply do not trust corporations. They have proven, over hundreds of years, that they are willing to sacrifice human lives for the bottom line. Unacceptable.
I'm sure that if they feel safe enough to carry passengers, they will feel safe enough to operate from a good airport elsewhere.
It's not a matter of the company feeling safe. We already know that corporations care not for people and will sacrifice them for profit. What matters is that the passengers feel safe. Would you ride up on a rocket that's only been inspected by people whose sole interest is your $200,000?
I think you mean:
0) Find customers willing to go to space in a vehicle not covered by any safety regulations, aka the insane.
1) Don't launch from the USA
We're talking about space flight here, people. My guess would be that if doing business in the USA becomes too expensive or annoying, Mexico are right there over the border, closer to the equator and with plenty of land for launch facilities.
If you're a space tourist, are you going to go to a place where the company has set up shop with the direct purpose of avoiding safety regulations? Sounds stupid to me, unless you really believe that 'free market==god' bullshit spewed around here.