Now if I were RIM and a branch of the US government handed me down this ruling, I'd shut the whole system down in the US. I'm allowed to keep providing service to government account holders, but I can't keep my business account holders? No thanks. I'll just kill everything in the US until we get this straightened out. Up yours, government.
Disclaimer: I don't like the current IP/patent system any more than you do, and I'm aware and concerned with the gripes that you've got against the U.S...I've got plenty myself. That said, I don't know the details of the case, so I won't comment on it validity.
What portion of RIM's income comes from the U.S.? Do you suppose that it's enough to put them out of business (hopefully not the case) if they can't continue providing service here? Do you think that (as others have mentioned) this may actually be a good thing because it's going to hit so many managers where it hurts, and possibly force a change?
Yes, our patent system is out of control (and no, you can't blame George for this one...it was heading down this path long before he arrived). I was appalled when my company held mandatory IP training for all the engineers recently, and we were told about how we should be sending more stuff in for evaluation, and keeping detailed notebooks, etc. (like we don't have design documents...DOH!). However, until the laws change, you can expect nearly all companies here to act that way, just to cover their own collective arses.
RIM made a success in a market that should have belonged to a US firm. That's reason enough to kneecap them.
Nice consipiracy theory. I not saying that it doesn't happen...we've all got our bias. But, without any evidence of a lack of impartiality in this case, your comment is just speculation. U.S. courts don't have any serious track record of pro-U.S. bias when it comes to this kind of stuff. For every case you can pull up in favor, I can easily counter with one against.
Hi Doc. I can see that we've found a point of contention again.
You've made an attempt to link U.S. policy in Iraq, and disconnected virtual "faith based" reality to this issue. First of all, there's virtually no linkage to be made other than your discontent with the current administration (and believe me, I'm not all that content myself). If you can truely say that you would have made the same statements back during the Clinton years, I'll retract that. Secondly, to take a system that's not broken in any real sense of the word, and hand it over to the U.N. is risky and pointless. I'm honestly not too concerned with most of the E.U., but allowing countries like N.Korea, Iran, and Libya any control over something that has become a necessity for U.S commerce and defense would be unexcusably naive. What is to be gained by this move? Would countries like China be able to successfully make changes to block access to all the banned words/sites? It certainly won't gain the U.S. any respect or reputation points. I'd be very happy to get some of the "Old America" back (the political pendulum has swung a bit too far away from the center, and even the Senate is now pushing back), but those issues and this one are IMO disconnected in all but the minds of those that dispise Bush and/or the U.S.
I have to cringe when I hear my Canadian, Korean, and German friends and relatives (I've lived, worked, and have relatives in all of three nations) give me hell about some of our policies, and I look back on the days when we were respected, as the good old days. But, I view this as nothing more than, as the football term goes, piling on.
Peeve alert: starting sentences in the subject line and finishing them in the body is annoying. Just so you know.
And, so is whining about it on/. and forgetting to use proper punctuation. There are many things here to be bothered with, from 133lt speak, to gOoFy CaPitALiZaTIonS, to dupe posts & moderators that give points because they're fanboys of Apple/Google/Linux. So, if it really bothers you, I'd suggest that you head to the doctors office for a shot of antibiotics...wouldn't want a nasty ulcer now, would we?
A new study concludes that parents should parent their ****ing kids!
I understand your frustration, but this line of thinking is usually given by those who've never been a parent. There's simply now way to monitor your kid on a 24/7 basis. Example...my wife & I both work, and have a teenage daughter that gets home several hours before we do. Now hopefully, we've instilled good enough moral character in her that she's not going to burn the house down, or screw the neighbors son on our couch before we come home from work. That said, I'm glad for the technologies that allow me to monitor her internet & cellphone access, and control her TV viewing. Every teenager I've ever met had a desire to rebel against their parents to some degree, and there's not much the parent can do to stop it. Those of us who are parents are often happy to get help from wherever we can.
Software designed for re-use will likely never ship, or ship far later than software designed to do something.
Bravo! I'd love to hear how other software engineers balance their schedule (too short) and budget (too little), with the need to do it by the book? As an engineer, I'd love to get all the UML diagrams & ICDs & design documents just right, but that's often the last thing that management (and frequently the customer) cares about, and as such gets the short shrift on the schedule (when in my opinion, it would make the code time fly by).
More closely related to the topic at hand, I just attended a briefing on "Web Services". The model shown was virtually identical to the one we used for CORBA, with naming service registration and all...seems like the same stuff with a new buzzword (now us old C++ guys have to go learn Java...*cry*), and new security & performance concerns. If someone knows (and can explain clearly) why this is better, I'd like to be enlightened.
Damnit Doc, this is at least the third time I've found myself in agreement with one of your posts. Keep it up, and I'll have to take you off of my foes list.
I believe that this issue is something that both liberals and conservatives should be able to agree on. I'd love to hear a logical argument from anyone that disagrees with Doc's comment. I don't often agree with him, but would gladly defend his (or anyone elses) right to express his beliefs.
So, how much are we going to spend on a device that will in all probability never be used? If you know anything about risk management, you know that you don't throw a ton of cash at something unless there's actually a possibility of it happening. And the simple fact of the matter is that it will never happen again. Oh sure, some lone idiots will try, but they'll quickly be pummelled by the other passengers.
Now just for the sake of arguement, let's say that this gets implemented, and actually used someday. What is the likely sequence of events after the flight attendant pushes the panic button? Maybe the co-pilot checks out the situation?..maybe they set the hi-jack code on the transponder?..maybe the plane is intercepted and shot down? Nothing that wouldn't have happened without the newfangled wi-fi gadgets.
Now with my tinfoil hat on, I'm wondering who makes the proposed devices, and who in the TSA/FAA they're related to, or who owns stock in the company.
Honeywell is developing a device that will take over the controls from the pilot if the plane is heading for a restricted area. If your plane is being hijack, you will not crash into a building for sure.
Um...there are a hell of alot of skyscrapers that are not in restricted areas.
hypocrite bastard! Very nice. Could you please explain exactly why you believe I'm a hypocrite?...I am a bastard, so I can't complain about that one. What precisely is it that I said that pissed you off?...I only meant to make constructive critisism. If that offended you, then I apologize...no offense was intended.
no wonder you are marked as 'freak' Yes, we obviously disagree on numerous issues. But, I think you'd be surprised at how many we don't.
I'm very aware of your point, and am surprised that you were unable to realize that I was not in disagreement with what you were saying, but with the way in which you said it...so much for being inable " to extract the meaning of my post". The simple point that I was making, and it's most definately not "irrelevant", is that when you resort to name calling (definately flamebait, no matter who the target is), then you are not going to convince anyone but those that are already in agreement with you. If you want to truely make a difference, then you need to do it in a calm rational manner, unlike the frustrated (and you have every right to be), knee-jerk response below.
Your inability to extract the meaning of my post, be shocked, and do something about your damn country "only shows immaturity, and detracts from your otherwise logical arguement"
Dubyafucker... this is not a troll, this is not flamebait.
How exactly is it that calling Clinton, Bush, Gore, or any other official an obscenity, NOT flamebait? You're ablsolutely within your right to dislike them, and to freely say so, but there's nothing "insightful" or "interesting" in doing it. It only shows immaturity, and detracts from your otherwise logical arguement.
How does the current MS and big business catering, anti-choice, church peddling, gay intolerant, (and I'm sure other things that come to mind but will be construed as inflamatory)ing republican party make you feel? Do you feel grossly misrepresented or were some things (i'm guessing gun rights and SUV) worth the loss in your other values/rights?
Well, though I'm not a MS fan, I do tend to lean toward being pro-business (my parents owned a small one). I'm not in favor of the administaration taking on the abortion issue, and believe that it should be removed from both parties platforms, and made a national referendum...let's get it over with because nobody's ever going to convince anyone else to change their minds on this topic. Other than the pro-abortion stand, I'm not sure what you mean about church-peddling...though I'm well aware of the influence that the religious leaders have gained, and I feel strongly that they shouldn't have it. As for "gay intolerant", I'm guessing that you're talking about the issue of gay marriage. Not being directly affected by this issue, I can only attempt to empathasize with both sides to understand the problem. Gays obviously want the same rights as married people...I understand that, and for the most part(there are many details that would need to be worked out...child custody for one) don't have a problem with that. I do understand that many on the opposing side don't want it to be called marriage though, because that term has religious implications, and has always meant a bond between a male and female...I don't have a problem with that either. So, in short, I think that some kind of domestic partner relationship that is equal to marriage (but not called that) needs to be worked out.
As for being grossly misrepresented, I've learned that to get anything done in Washington requires compromise. You'll never get everything you want, so you have to pick and chose what's most important to you.
What is it that keeps you going back to the Republican party for more?
Between conservatives and liberals, I'll most certainly agree with you. I'll even give you the point when it comes to elected officials in the Republican and Democratic parties, on the extremely rare occasion you can drag them away from constant repetition of "talking point" catch phrases. Between Democrats and Republican citizens, no. The whole idea of just taking your vote and throwing it into "whoever those guys say I should vote for" is bad, but in the US it's even worse. You're only an inch or two away from only having one party with two names as it is. I just don't understand what Americans find so difficult about checking out a candidates position, how their actual voting record aligns with that stated platform, then voting on issues rather than group affiliation.
It sounds like your opinions don't fit into either of the two major parties - so why not vote for a third party candidiate? It doesn't really matter which one; at this point voting third party really just means "I want there to be a third party."
Because I'm a realist. I wish that we had a viable third party in this country, but that's not going to happen for the forseeable future. And, until there's a chance for it, I'd like my vote to actually count for something.
I'm honestly curious, though - what's your view of the current administration? I've heard the last two elections have been very bleak for old-style conservatives, and that many of them dislike the neo-cons as much as they dislike capital-L Liberals. (I certainly know the current administration is pretty bad at the parts of traditional conservatism *I* support...)
I was a rather big fan of George Sr. However, I've never been one of W. I think that apple fell far from the tree. But, like him or not, we have to deal with him for the next few years. I know that his father felt very strongly about loyalty, and that's why he was so quiet during his VP years. I believe that W. feels the same, but has let that go to the point that he's done too many favors for his buddies, and not enough of what's right for the country.
Honestly, I'm much more of a (here come more enemies) McCain type. I see him as one of the very few honest polititians around. I don't go with him on 100% of the issues, but honesty makes up for a hell of alot.
I'm in partial agreement with you. The electronic voting systems are a mess. However, I don't believe that there's any conspiracy with govt. to rig any election. And, I don't believe that boycotting it would help...but I'd love to be proven wrong.
Hmmm...who exactly did I bash? And, how exactly am I a bigot? Let's see, I grew up poor in Detroit. Worked for/with blacks, latinos and gays. I was a single parent for nearly seven years, with a half Asian daughter. Sure, that doesn't exempt me from it, but I'd honestly like to hear how you read the bigotry into my comments?
Fanatics are the ones who claim their position is the "reasonable" one while arrogantly trampling anything else. Reasonable people actually talk about the issues without the need to "piss off everybody."
Wow...we're actually in complete agreement. The positions I stated are not black and white. We could easily go into a long conversation about any of them, and actually would most likely find common ground.
Yes, I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative. And I do find myself in disagreement with the administration on issues such as this. Looking back to the surplus, I would have been much happier if we had paid down the debt. However, you couldn't have predicted 9/11, Iraq, and now Katrina...though we should always have enough financial reserves to work through any of these kind of disasters.
I'm not a fan of the Alaskan bridge, or any other kind of political pork/payback. Tell me what do you think about the Big Dig, or Whitewater?.
I wasn't for entering into the Iraq war in the first place, and in fact, had a long arguement with my father over it. My hope was that the govt. had enough (classified) information to be sure of what they were doing...obvioiusly, they didn't. However, now that we're there, I believe that we must do the work to stabilze the country...even if it takes years.
My list of for/against items wasn't meant to be black & white. But for the sake of brevity, I didn't go into details about each issue. For example, take the abortion issue. I believe that this should be removed from the platforms of both parties, and made a national referendum...get it over with. The main issues here is, when do you believe that life begins...birth...conception...somewhere in between? And, with so many viewpoints, and no chance of ever changing anyones opinion on the topic, we need to take a stand as a country.
Yes, it's quite possible that I'll hurt my own interests, but the same goes for anyone who doesn't buy into there parties complete platform.
With that list, what exactly do you agree with them on?
Let's see...
I believe in fiscal conservatism. Background...I grew up relatively poor, and I worked my way though school & did nearly five years in the military to help pay for it. So, it might not surprise you that I think most others should be able to do the same (though I'm well aware that not everyone can).
I believe that the existing gun laws are enough (not a fan of the NRA here, but we just need to enforce the existing laws, not make knee-jerk laws whenever there's an incident).
I believe in peoples right to pray, and think that those who would remove every last reference to God out of the govevernment are being short sighted. How long have we had that motto? I just don't believe that anyone has the right to push any diety on anyone else.
I believe in a strong national defense. I'm a Cold War veteran, and I believe that the across the board budget cuts made for the "Peace Dividend" are largely to blame for many of the problems with this countries intelligence agencies. Sure you can cut back many areas, but if you cut intelligence, you're just asking for another Pearl Harbor/911.
I believe in charity, via donations and community service, and have taught my daughter to do regular service. Believe it or not, the Democrats don't have a stranglehold on this concept.
I believe that teachers and students should be held to a minimal standard. If you can't fend for yourself, you shouldn't be getting a high school diploma. And, students that have problems shouldn't simply be passed on to the next grade.
Yes, I'm well aware of the swing in the Republican party. That doesn't mean that I can't work to change it. There's a very large, less outspoken, majority of Republicans that don't follow him. The task at hand is to wrangle control back toward the center.
Surely, you don't believe that the Democratic party hasn't changed over the years. Is there nothing that you dislike about your chosen partys platform?
And by the way, I'm interested in hearing an answer to the AC's question from you, since you're not one of those McJesus conservatives: what *would* it take for a conservative to vote non-republican? I don't think I can imagine a single scenario.
I can imagine plenty. It would depend upon who was running, and what the most important issues were. I don't believe in straight party line voting. And, if someone is running for office, with a track record of only voting party line, they're much less likely to get my vote. If an extreme right winger were running, it's very unlikely that they would get my vote, but honestly, it would depend upon who the opposition was. I'd also much rather elect someone who had a track record of honesty...even if I disagree with them on some issues, at least I'd be able to respect them, and know what they're up to. I don't like the political hacks on either side...the ones who take every opportunity to slam the opposing party...they always lose points in my book.
So, when you ask, "what would it take", well, I have, and I know other republicans have, crossed that line on occasion.
You're not a conservative anyway. Every one of those qualities you listed are liberal, except for the fact that you always vote Republican. Since I can't chalk that up to conservative stupidity, it must just be plain old stupidity.
Since when was gun-toting, SUV-driving liberal? If you read closely, I listed a total of two items that are not traditionally conservative...pro-choice and anti-church. In order to make my grandparent post shorter than a thesis, I didn't go into the details of each topic, but let me be clear, I'm not hardline on those issues either. And, I'd be happy to discuss/debate with you or anyone else on these or any other topic if you could only restrain yourself from being ("it must just be plain old stupidity.") insulting.
Slashdot Mirror
Now if I were RIM and a branch of the US government handed me down this ruling, I'd shut the whole system down in the US. I'm allowed to keep providing service to government account holders, but I can't keep my business account holders? No thanks. I'll just kill everything in the US until we get this straightened out. Up yours, government.
Disclaimer: I don't like the current IP/patent system any more than you do, and I'm aware and concerned with the gripes that you've got against the U.S...I've got plenty myself. That said, I don't know the details of the case, so I won't comment on it validity.
What portion of RIM's income comes from the U.S.? Do you suppose that it's enough to put them out of business (hopefully not the case) if they can't continue providing service here? Do you think that (as others have mentioned) this may actually be a good thing because it's going to hit so many managers where it hurts, and possibly force a change?
Yes, our patent system is out of control (and no, you can't blame George for this one...it was heading down this path long before he arrived). I was appalled when my company held mandatory IP training for all the engineers recently, and we were told about how we should be sending more stuff in for evaluation, and keeping detailed notebooks, etc. (like we don't have design documents...DOH!). However, until the laws change, you can expect nearly all companies here to act that way, just to cover their own collective arses.
RIM made a success in a market that should have belonged to a US firm. That's reason enough to kneecap them.
Nice consipiracy theory. I not saying that it doesn't happen...we've all got our bias. But, without any evidence of a lack of impartiality in this case, your comment is just speculation. U.S. courts don't have any serious track record of pro-U.S. bias when it comes to this kind of stuff. For every case you can pull up in favor, I can easily counter with one against.
Hi Doc. I can see that we've found a point of contention again.
You've made an attempt to link U.S. policy in Iraq, and disconnected virtual "faith based" reality to this issue. First of all, there's virtually no linkage to be made other than your discontent with the current administration (and believe me, I'm not all that content myself). If you can truely say that you would have made the same statements back during the Clinton years, I'll retract that. Secondly, to take a system that's not broken in any real sense of the word, and hand it over to the U.N. is risky and pointless. I'm honestly not too concerned with most of the E.U., but allowing countries like N.Korea, Iran, and Libya any control over something that has become a necessity for U.S commerce and defense would be unexcusably naive. What is to be gained by this move? Would countries like China be able to successfully make changes to block access to all the banned words/sites? It certainly won't gain the U.S. any respect or reputation points. I'd be very happy to get some of the "Old America" back (the political pendulum has swung a bit too far away from the center, and even the Senate is now pushing back), but those issues and this one are IMO disconnected in all but the minds of those that dispise Bush and/or the U.S.
I have to cringe when I hear my Canadian, Korean, and German friends and relatives (I've lived, worked, and have relatives in all of three nations) give me hell about some of our policies, and I look back on the days when we were respected, as the good old days. But, I view this as nothing more than, as the football term goes, piling on.
Respectfully,
DCW
Peeve alert: starting sentences in the subject line and finishing them in the body is annoying. Just so you know.
/. and forgetting to use proper punctuation. There are many things here to be bothered with, from 133lt speak, to gOoFy CaPitALiZaTIonS, to dupe posts & moderators that give points because they're fanboys of Apple/Google/Linux. So, if it really bothers you, I'd suggest that you head to the doctors office for a shot of antibiotics...wouldn't want a nasty ulcer now, would we?
And, so is whining about it on
A new study concludes that parents should parent their ****ing kids!
I understand your frustration, but this line of thinking is usually given by those who've never been a parent. There's simply now way to monitor your kid on a 24/7 basis. Example...my wife & I both work, and have a teenage daughter that gets home several hours before we do. Now hopefully, we've instilled good enough moral character in her that she's not going to burn the house down, or screw the neighbors son on our couch before we come home from work. That said, I'm glad for the technologies that allow me to monitor her internet & cellphone access, and control her TV viewing. Every teenager I've ever met had a desire to rebel against their parents to some degree, and there's not much the parent can do to stop it. Those of us who are parents are often happy to get help from wherever we can.
Software designed for re-use will likely never ship, or ship far later than software designed to do something.
Bravo! I'd love to hear how other software engineers balance their schedule (too short) and budget (too little), with the need to do it by the book? As an engineer, I'd love to get all the UML diagrams & ICDs & design documents just right, but that's often the last thing that management (and frequently the customer) cares about, and as such gets the short shrift on the schedule (when in my opinion, it would make the code time fly by).
More closely related to the topic at hand, I just attended a briefing on "Web Services". The model shown was virtually identical to the one we used for CORBA, with naming service registration and all...seems like the same stuff with a new buzzword (now us old C++ guys have to go learn Java...*cry*), and new security & performance concerns. If someone knows (and can explain clearly) why this is better, I'd like to be enlightened.
They're confident that nothing good will be introduced in October , November or December?
Ever notice that for most companies, the fiscal year ends in September?
It's obvious to me that the three previous replies to your post have sugarcoated it a bit. The grandparent was a joke...turn in your geek card now.
Damnit Doc, this is at least the third time I've found myself in agreement with one of your posts. Keep it up, and I'll have to take you off of my foes list.
I believe that this issue is something that both liberals and conservatives should be able to agree on. I'd love to hear a logical argument from anyone that disagrees with Doc's comment. I don't often agree with him, but would gladly defend his (or anyone elses) right to express his beliefs.
Disclaimer: I did not RTFA
So, how much are we going to spend on a device that will in all probability never be used? If you know anything about risk management, you know that you don't throw a ton of cash at something unless there's actually a possibility of it happening. And the simple fact of the matter is that it will never happen again. Oh sure, some lone idiots will try, but they'll quickly be pummelled by the other passengers.
Now just for the sake of arguement, let's say that this gets implemented, and actually used someday. What is the likely sequence of events after the flight attendant pushes the panic button? Maybe the co-pilot checks out the situation?..maybe they set the hi-jack code on the transponder?..maybe the plane is intercepted and shot down? Nothing that wouldn't have happened without the newfangled wi-fi gadgets.
Now with my tinfoil hat on, I'm wondering who makes the proposed devices, and who in the TSA/FAA they're related to, or who owns stock in the company.
Honeywell is developing a device that will take over the controls from the pilot if the plane is heading for a restricted area. If your plane is being hijack, you will not crash into a building for sure.
Um...there are a hell of alot of skyscrapers that are not in restricted areas.
calm and rational.
ya, you're all about the calm and rational.
hypocrite bastard!
Very nice. Could you please explain exactly why you believe I'm a hypocrite?...I am a bastard, so I can't complain about that one. What precisely is it that I said that pissed you off?...I only meant to make constructive critisism. If that offended you, then I apologize...no offense was intended.
no wonder you are marked as 'freak'
Yes, we obviously disagree on numerous issues. But, I think you'd be surprised at how many we don't.
I'm very aware of your point, and am surprised that you were unable to realize that I was not in disagreement with what you were saying, but with the way in which you said it...so much for being inable " to extract the meaning of my post". The simple point that I was making, and it's most definately not "irrelevant", is that when you resort to name calling (definately flamebait, no matter who the target is), then you are not going to convince anyone but those that are already in agreement with you. If you want to truely make a difference, then you need to do it in a calm rational manner, unlike the frustrated (and you have every right to be), knee-jerk response below.
Your inability to extract the meaning of my post, be shocked, and do something about your damn country "only shows immaturity, and detracts from your otherwise logical arguement"
Dubyafucker ...
this is not a troll, this is not flamebait.
How exactly is it that calling Clinton, Bush, Gore, or any other official an obscenity, NOT flamebait? You're ablsolutely within your right to dislike them, and to freely say so, but there's nothing "insightful" or "interesting" in doing it. It only shows immaturity, and detracts from your otherwise logical arguement.
How does the current MS and big business catering, anti-choice, church peddling, gay intolerant, (and I'm sure other things that come to mind but will be construed as inflamatory)ing republican party make you feel? Do you feel grossly misrepresented or were some things (i'm guessing gun rights and SUV) worth the loss in your other values/rights?
Well, though I'm not a MS fan, I do tend to lean toward being pro-business (my parents owned a small one). I'm not in favor of the administaration taking on the abortion issue, and believe that it should be removed from both parties platforms, and made a national referendum...let's get it over with because nobody's ever going to convince anyone else to change their minds on this topic. Other than the pro-abortion stand, I'm not sure what you mean about church-peddling...though I'm well aware of the influence that the religious leaders have gained, and I feel strongly that they shouldn't have it. As for "gay intolerant", I'm guessing that you're talking about the issue of gay marriage. Not being directly affected by this issue, I can only attempt to empathasize with both sides to understand the problem. Gays obviously want the same rights as married people...I understand that, and for the most part(there are many details that would need to be worked out...child custody for one) don't have a problem with that. I do understand that many on the opposing side don't want it to be called marriage though, because that term has religious implications, and has always meant a bond between a male and female...I don't have a problem with that either. So, in short, I think that some kind of domestic partner relationship that is equal to marriage (but not called that) needs to be worked out.
As for being grossly misrepresented, I've learned that to get anything done in Washington requires compromise. You'll never get everything you want, so you have to pick and chose what's most important to you.
What is it that keeps you going back to the Republican party for more?
Please see my new responses to the above posts.
Between conservatives and liberals, I'll most certainly agree with you. I'll even give you the point when it comes to elected officials in the Republican and Democratic parties, on the extremely rare occasion you can drag them away from constant repetition of "talking point" catch phrases. Between Democrats and Republican citizens, no. The whole idea of just taking your vote and throwing it into "whoever those guys say I should vote for" is bad, but in the US it's even worse. You're only an inch or two away from only having one party with two names as it is. I just don't understand what Americans find so difficult about checking out a candidates position, how their actual voting record aligns with that stated platform, then voting on issues rather than group affiliation.
Bravo...well said!
It sounds like your opinions don't fit into either of the two major parties - so why not vote for a third party candidiate? It doesn't really matter which one; at this point voting third party really just means "I want there to be a third party."
Because I'm a realist. I wish that we had a viable third party in this country, but that's not going to happen for the forseeable future. And, until there's a chance for it, I'd like my vote to actually count for something.
I'm honestly curious, though - what's your view of the current administration? I've heard the last two elections have been very bleak for old-style conservatives, and that many of them dislike the neo-cons as much as they dislike capital-L Liberals. (I certainly know the current administration is pretty bad at the parts of traditional conservatism *I* support...)
I was a rather big fan of George Sr. However, I've never been one of W. I think that apple fell far from the tree. But, like him or not, we have to deal with him for the next few years. I know that his father felt very strongly about loyalty, and that's why he was so quiet during his VP years. I believe that W. feels the same, but has let that go to the point that he's done too many favors for his buddies, and not enough of what's right for the country.
Honestly, I'm much more of a (here come more enemies) McCain type. I see him as one of the very few honest polititians around. I don't go with him on 100% of the issues, but honesty makes up for a hell of alot.
I'm in partial agreement with you. The electronic voting systems are a mess. However, I don't believe that there's any conspiracy with govt. to rig any election. And, I don't believe that boycotting it would help...but I'd love to be proven wrong.
Hmmm...who exactly did I bash? And, how exactly am I a bigot? Let's see, I grew up poor in Detroit. Worked for/with blacks, latinos and gays. I was a single parent for nearly seven years, with a half Asian daughter. Sure, that doesn't exempt me from it, but I'd honestly like to hear how you read the bigotry into my comments?
Fanatics are the ones who claim their position is the "reasonable" one while arrogantly trampling anything else. Reasonable people actually talk about the issues without the need to "piss off everybody."
Wow...we're actually in complete agreement. The positions I stated are not black and white. We could easily go into a long conversation about any of them, and actually would most likely find common ground.
Yes, I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative. And I do find myself in disagreement with the administration on issues such as this. Looking back to the surplus, I would have been much happier if we had paid down the debt. However, you couldn't have predicted 9/11, Iraq, and now Katrina...though we should always have enough financial reserves to work through any of these kind of disasters.
I'm not a fan of the Alaskan bridge, or any other kind of political pork/payback. Tell me what do you think about the Big Dig, or Whitewater?.
I wasn't for entering into the Iraq war in the first place, and in fact, had a long arguement with my father over it. My hope was that the govt. had enough (classified) information to be sure of what they were doing...obvioiusly, they didn't. However, now that we're there, I believe that we must do the work to stabilze the country...even if it takes years.
My list of for/against items wasn't meant to be black & white. But for the sake of brevity, I didn't go into details about each issue. For example, take the abortion issue. I believe that this should be removed from the platforms of both parties, and made a national referendum...get it over with. The main issues here is, when do you believe that life begins...birth...conception...somewhere in between? And, with so many viewpoints, and no chance of ever changing anyones opinion on the topic, we need to take a stand as a country.
Yes, it's quite possible that I'll hurt my own interests, but the same goes for anyone who doesn't buy into there parties complete platform.
With that list, what exactly do you agree with them on?
Let's see...
I believe in fiscal conservatism. Background...I grew up relatively poor, and I worked my way though school & did nearly five years in the military to help pay for it. So, it might not surprise you that I think most others should be able to do the same (though I'm well aware that not everyone can).
I believe that the existing gun laws are enough (not a fan of the NRA here, but we just need to enforce the existing laws, not make knee-jerk laws whenever there's an incident).
I believe in peoples right to pray, and think that those who would remove every last reference to God out of the govevernment are being short sighted. How long have we had that motto? I just don't believe that anyone has the right to push any diety on anyone else.
I believe in a strong national defense. I'm a Cold War veteran, and I believe that the across the board budget cuts made for the "Peace Dividend" are largely to blame for many of the problems with this countries intelligence agencies. Sure you can cut back many areas, but if you cut intelligence, you're just asking for another Pearl Harbor/911.
I believe in charity, via donations and community service, and have taught my daughter to do regular service. Believe it or not, the Democrats don't have a stranglehold on this concept.
I believe that teachers and students should be held to a minimal standard. If you can't fend for yourself, you shouldn't be getting a high school diploma. And, students that have problems shouldn't simply be passed on to the next grade.
How's that for starters?
Yes, I'm well aware of the swing in the Republican party. That doesn't mean that I can't work to change it. There's a very large, less outspoken, majority of Republicans that don't follow him. The task at hand is to wrangle control back toward the center.
Surely, you don't believe that the Democratic party hasn't changed over the years. Is there nothing that you dislike about your chosen partys platform?
And by the way, I'm interested in hearing an answer to the AC's question from you, since you're not one of those McJesus conservatives: what *would* it take for a conservative to vote non-republican? I don't think I can imagine a single scenario.
I can imagine plenty. It would depend upon who was running, and what the most important issues were. I don't believe in straight party line voting. And, if someone is running for office, with a track record of only voting party line, they're much less likely to get my vote. If an extreme right winger were running, it's very unlikely that they would get my vote, but honestly, it would depend upon who the opposition was. I'd also much rather elect someone who had a track record of honesty...even if I disagree with them on some issues, at least I'd be able to respect them, and know what they're up to. I don't like the political hacks on either side...the ones who take every opportunity to slam the opposing party...they always lose points in my book.
So, when you ask, "what would it take", well, I have, and I know other republicans have, crossed that line on occasion.
You're not a conservative anyway. Every one of those qualities you listed are liberal, except for the fact that you always vote Republican. Since I can't chalk that up to conservative stupidity, it must just be plain old stupidity.
Since when was gun-toting, SUV-driving liberal? If you read closely, I listed a total of two items that are not traditionally conservative...pro-choice and anti-church. In order to make my grandparent post shorter than a thesis, I didn't go into the details of each topic, but let me be clear, I'm not hardline on those issues either. And, I'd be happy to discuss/debate with you or anyone else on these or any other topic if you could only restrain yourself from being ("it must just be plain old stupidity.") insulting.