I do not understand how the articles that are considered for posting are being filtered. I would like to know the number of "pro-Bush" versus "pro-Kerry" submissions are actually accepted. Not a single "pro-Bush" subject even shows up on the list yet I know that they are being submitted. Like this one GOP beats Dems on tech-friendliness.
Given that Slashdot is such a techie heavy site you would think that something combining tech and politics would be appropriate yet articles like these never seem to be accepted.
oh well...I'm done ranting now and am willing to accept the Offtopicness of this posting.
I guess that means the right="evil/pig headed/stupid" and left="good/enlightened/smart".
All I ever here from the left is how stupid/racist/ignorant anyone is who does not agree with them and their opinions. It's just one ad-hominem attack after another.
Some things really are black and white. Moral relativism is more a sign of societal decay than enlightenment.
To say that Bush/Cheney have lied more than Clinton/Gore seems a little bit like sticking your head in the sand. They lied or covered up many, many things but then who cares about them, they are now in the history books and no longer matter.
I just hope that whoever wins on Tuesday wins by a landslide. I am tired of the incivility being expressed by both sides, I am tired of each side claiming partisanship everytime something does not go their way in a given state relating to voting fraud/law/etc...
I really do hope Bush wins but then if he doesn't I hope he is gracious in defeat.
I am tired of people saying "I hate so-and-so". I have very strong beliefs that Bush is a better candidate and would be better for our country but I do not "hate" Kerry.
It IS dangerous to the republic and the world because the right has a great tendency to tilt to extremism, demonize everyone they disagree with and is really, really fond of solving disputes by killing people.
I think this is the pot calling the kettle black. The left/liberal/progressive side also tends toward extremism, censorship and suppression of free speech.
They tend to demonize anything that does not fit their opinion of the way the world should be.
There is a large percentage of the population that feels that what they here from the major networks is filtered through the sieve of the liberal/progressive agenda.
They feel that they are not getting the whole truth and have to turn to alternative sources to here the whole truth of what is going on in the world. For example you never here a single story about the good that is being done in Irag (like the many public works projects that the US and its allies have started and completed). You never here the story of soldiers being invited into Iraqi homes for dinner bacause those citizens are happy to be free of Saddam and actually do consider the US and its allies as liberators.
What you do here is about the terrorists there attacking the soldiers, body counts and various other "bad news" because it either fits the agenda of the various mainstream information sources, it is more "sensational" or it is just easier to run these types of stories.
There really is a lot of good being done over there, more people have jobs over there than at any time in its history and more people have access to utilities such as electricity (when Saddam was in power he directed something like 70% of all electricity to Bagdad and left the rest of the country in the dark. The Iraqis now distribute electricity to all parts of country on a more regular basis than under Saddam. Again, you never here these types of stories run in the mainstream media and can only here them through alternative outlets.
Besides how is the expression of any political views damaging to the republic?
In my hometown (Dallas) there are currently *two* radio stations, with pretty significant market share, whose only purpose is to spread GOP propaganda, 24 hours a day.
Wouldn't you think that those two radio networks are carrying those particular shows because they have a large listening audience and therefore garners larger ad revenues for the stations. I don't believe that the station owners are in the business of losing money. If there was not a market out in this country for political talk shows then those shows would go out of business.
"The Washington Redskins have proved to be a time-tested election predictor. In the previous 15 elections, if the Washington Redskins have lost their last home game prior to the election, the incumbent party has lost the White House. When they have won, the incumbent has stayed in power."
I agree with you.
However, I would go a step further and state that whoever wins the other side should just concede to get everything done and over with. When the loser starts to complain it just sounds childish and petty. I remember being called a sore loser when I was a chile (and I was) but I grew out of it, so should everyone else.
If the count is close enough in a given state then a recount should be done for the "entire" state (I believe every state has their own laws governing this).
I hope my preferred candidate wins but if he loses and whines and cries foul as much as the losers did in 2000 I will be very very disappointed. I would rather seem him give a very nice concession speech and retire to his abode of choice and write his memoirs.
I agree with you that the government should not be in the business of making it extra profitable (via taxbreaks) for companies to move jobs out of the country and in fact believe that the government should act just the opposite by taxing companies for every job they ship out of the country.
Additionally I have the radical idea that the government should create a law that says if a company sends say 10% of its workforce out of the country then they should send 10% of its workforce at ALL levels. So they would have to send out 10% of their CxO's, Presidents, VPs, Directors, etc...
However I am curious as to what "tax loopholes" actually exist and when were they created and who voted for them.
I've been wondering as I've watched John Kerry's commercials, what tax loophole is he talking about? Also, in what year was the loophole created and who voted for it?
This article from the Washington Times covers some of what prior poster was talking about Democrats file 9 suits in Florida especially near the end of the article when it talks about the 2000 election.
Wow, are you angry or upset? Maybe you are an atheist? Maybe you prefer it when the President of the US takes the time out to sit down and play nice with all of the Hollywood stars to keep them happy instead of kicking them out:-)
If we had a National ID card or used our Social Security cards as a means of proving residence and citizenship then yes we could do something like that. However, we do not have a National ID card (for good or ill) and it is "illegal" in this country to use our SSN's as a form identification.
So, even though we do not have as much anonymity in this country as we did in the past we still have quite a lot compared to other places. This anonymity has both its advantages and disadvantages.
What if I registered multiple times (say 10) using different names each time (and possibly differnt even made up addresses?
I could then go to 10 different precincts and vote using each of the different names I registered under. Since each of those names would be on the master list each of those votes would count.
I have come to the conclusion that a person should have to answer a single multiple choice question before being allowed to vote. And here is the question.
Please select all three (3) branches of government from below:
Executive (President)
Legislative (Congress)
Judical (Courts)
Intelligence (CIA)
I figure if you cannot get this right you shouldn't be voting.
That was a lie down in Florida, but why don't we make someone show some form of ID?
We have to show forms of ID for everything else why not when you vote?
In Arizona last year they were trying to pass a law that would require people to present proper identification before they were allowed to vote, but the governor of the state said that would "disenfranchise" (I'm really starting to hate that word its getting thrown around like candy) her constituents and that is was a basically a plot against her.
So what you are saying is stick to the "status quo". The only way any third party will ever be taken seriously is if it garners a non-trivial percentage of the popular vote.
Besides trying to change anything that you believe is important often calls for personal sacrifice. So if you truly believe that a viable third party is REALLY important to create a better country then you should be willing to make the sacrifice and vote for whomever you feel best represents your ideas.
Actually Ross Perot's Reform party had a chance of finally creating a viable alternative but when he split his own party in 1996 because he wanted to run again he forever destroyed their chances of being a legitimate party.
I believe that the vote trading is although not illegal it has a "wrong" feel to it.
If someone truly feels that they would prefer a particular candidate then just vote for them. Don't be such a wimp that you will not stand by your own convictions unless someone holds your hand and says it is ok.
No I have not lived outside of the US have you? But I have gone many places. If the US was such a crappy places then why does the US have the largest number of immigrants (legal) trying to gain citizenship than any other nation in the world.
Are you a Black Floridian?
No, are you?
Or one of the thousands of US troops in Iraq backdoor-drafted by a "stop-loss" order beyond your expected tour of duty?
I have 1 brother (Air Force), 2 nephews (Navy, Army) and 1 friends (Army) who is black that are over there thank you very much. So I believe I have a much better incite into what those people feel than you do, what do you think?
I'd have thought it was obvious that your democracy isn't working well enough to take these kinds of risks.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this comment. Can you name me one republic that actually works better?
No the United States is not perfect but I would prefer to live here to any place else in the world. We have more personal freedom than anywhere else.
I have a definite opinion about who I would prefer to see win the election but I also know that no matter who wins this election this will still be a land with more personal freedom than anywhere else
The Government and the DHS already uses a system like this. It was developed by a former client of mine Lexis Nexis called Risk Management Solutions.
This is used by various employers and government agencies (local, state and federal). This knowledge system could pull up reports indicating various aspects of your life including where you have lived, who your neighbors are/were, driving record, criminal records, Judgements/Liens/Bankruptcies, property ownership and much much more.
The system is limited in its search capability based on who the customer is (i.e. employers or potential employers) cannot access criminal records, driving records and such.
Additionally Lexis Nexis recently purchased a company called Seisint that gives them an even bigger stake in the profiling and data mining business as it relates to Risk Management.
What do you say to accusations that Ralph Nader was purposely not selected as the Green Party candidate because the party was afraid he would take to many votes away from Kerry?
In other words, what good is a party that does not try to maximize the number of votes it receives, why even bother at all?
I know that a company can save ~40% in salary just by moving there operations from either of the coasts to the Midwest or South. I can speak specifically about South-West Ohio where wages are at least 35% lower that the NE or the West. Plus you get the advantage of no language barriers or import/export costs.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not understand how the articles that are considered for posting are being filtered. I would like to know the number of "pro-Bush" versus "pro-Kerry" submissions are actually accepted. Not a single "pro-Bush" subject even shows up on the list yet I know that they are being submitted. Like this one GOP beats Dems on tech-friendliness.
Given that Slashdot is such a techie heavy site you would think that something combining tech and politics would be appropriate yet articles like these never seem to be accepted.
oh well...I'm done ranting now and am willing to accept the Offtopicness of this posting.
I guess that means the right="evil/pig headed/stupid" and left="good/enlightened/smart".
All I ever here from the left is how stupid/racist/ignorant anyone is who does not agree with them and their opinions. It's just one ad-hominem attack after another.
Some things really are black and white. Moral relativism is more a sign of societal decay than enlightenment.
To say that Bush/Cheney have lied more than Clinton/Gore seems a little bit like sticking your head in the sand. They lied or covered up many, many things but then who cares about them, they are now in the history books and no longer matter.
I just hope that whoever wins on Tuesday wins by a landslide. I am tired of the incivility being expressed by both sides, I am tired of each side claiming partisanship everytime something does not go their way in a given state relating to voting fraud/law/etc...
I really do hope Bush wins but then if he doesn't I hope he is gracious in defeat.
I am tired of people saying "I hate so-and-so". I have very strong beliefs that Bush is a better candidate and would be better for our country but I do not "hate" Kerry.
It IS dangerous to the republic and the world because the right has a great tendency to tilt to extremism, demonize everyone they disagree with and is really, really fond of solving disputes by killing people.
I think this is the pot calling the kettle black. The left/liberal/progressive side also tends toward extremism, censorship and suppression of free speech.
They tend to demonize anything that does not fit their opinion of the way the world should be.
Just my C$0.03...
Is this do to inflation?
There is a large percentage of the population that feels that what they here from the major networks is filtered through the sieve of the liberal/progressive agenda.
They feel that they are not getting the whole truth and have to turn to alternative sources to here the whole truth of what is going on in the world. For example you never here a single story about the good that is being done in Irag (like the many public works projects that the US and its allies have started and completed). You never here the story of soldiers being invited into Iraqi homes for dinner bacause those citizens are happy to be free of Saddam and actually do consider the US and its allies as liberators.
What you do here is about the terrorists there attacking the soldiers, body counts and various other "bad news" because it either fits the agenda of the various mainstream information sources, it is more "sensational" or it is just easier to run these types of stories.
There really is a lot of good being done over there, more people have jobs over there than at any time in its history and more people have access to utilities such as electricity (when Saddam was in power he directed something like 70% of all electricity to Bagdad and left the rest of the country in the dark. The Iraqis now distribute electricity to all parts of country on a more regular basis than under Saddam. Again, you never here these types of stories run in the mainstream media and can only here them through alternative outlets.
Besides how is the expression of any political views damaging to the republic?
In my hometown (Dallas) there are currently *two* radio stations, with pretty significant market share, whose only purpose is to spread GOP propaganda, 24 hours a day.
Wouldn't you think that those two radio networks are carrying those particular shows because they have a large listening audience and therefore garners larger ad revenues for the stations. I don't believe that the station owners are in the business of losing money. If there was not a market out in this country for political talk shows then those shows would go out of business.
"The Washington Redskins have proved to be a time-tested election predictor. In the previous 15 elections, if the Washington Redskins have lost their last home game prior to the election, the incumbent party has lost the White House. When they have won, the incumbent has stayed in power."
More information here.
I agree but one can always dream.
I agree with you. However, I would go a step further and state that whoever wins the other side should just concede to get everything done and over with. When the loser starts to complain it just sounds childish and petty. I remember being called a sore loser when I was a chile (and I was) but I grew out of it, so should everyone else. If the count is close enough in a given state then a recount should be done for the "entire" state (I believe every state has their own laws governing this). I hope my preferred candidate wins but if he loses and whines and cries foul as much as the losers did in 2000 I will be very very disappointed. I would rather seem him give a very nice concession speech and retire to his abode of choice and write his memoirs.
I agree with you that the government should not be in the business of making it extra profitable (via taxbreaks) for companies to move jobs out of the country and in fact believe that the government should act just the opposite by taxing companies for every job they ship out of the country.
Additionally I have the radical idea that the government should create a law that says if a company sends say 10% of its workforce out of the country then they should send 10% of its workforce at ALL levels. So they would have to send out 10% of their CxO's, Presidents, VPs, Directors, etc...
However I am curious as to what "tax loopholes" actually exist and when were they created and who voted for them.
I've been wondering as I've watched John Kerry's commercials, what tax loophole is he talking about? Also, in what year was the loophole created and who voted for it?
Just wondering...
This article from the Washington Times covers some of what prior poster was talking about Democrats file 9 suits in Florida especially near the end of the article when it talks about the 2000 election.
Wow, are you angry or upset? Maybe you are an atheist? Maybe you prefer it when the President of the US takes the time out to sit down and play nice with all of the Hollywood stars to keep them happy instead of kicking them out :-)
If we had a National ID card or used our Social Security cards as a means of proving residence and citizenship then yes we could do something like that. However, we do not have a National ID card (for good or ill) and it is "illegal" in this country to use our SSN's as a form identification.
So, even though we do not have as much anonymity in this country as we did in the past we still have quite a lot compared to other places. This anonymity has both its advantages and disadvantages.
What if I registered multiple times (say 10) using different names each time (and possibly differnt even made up addresses?
I could then go to 10 different precincts and vote using each of the different names I registered under. Since each of those names would be on the master list each of those votes would count.
I have come to the conclusion that a person should have to answer a single multiple choice question before being allowed to vote. And here is the question.
Please select all three (3) branches of government from below:
I figure if you cannot get this right you shouldn't be voting.
That was a lie down in Florida, but why don't we make someone show some form of ID? We have to show forms of ID for everything else why not when you vote? In Arizona last year they were trying to pass a law that would require people to present proper identification before they were allowed to vote, but the governor of the state said that would "disenfranchise" (I'm really starting to hate that word its getting thrown around like candy) her constituents and that is was a basically a plot against her.
The prior post said "if you do not have your voter card".
So what you are saying is stick to the "status quo". The only way any third party will ever be taken seriously is if it garners a non-trivial percentage of the popular vote.
Besides trying to change anything that you believe is important often calls for personal sacrifice. So if you truly believe that a viable third party is REALLY important to create a better country then you should be willing to make the sacrifice and vote for whomever you feel best represents your ideas.
Actually Ross Perot's Reform party had a chance of finally creating a viable alternative but when he split his own party in 1996 because he wanted to run again he forever destroyed their chances of being a legitimate party.
You may not like the Electoral college but it is the law of the land ( US Constitution Article II Section 1). It has worked for over 200 years.
I believe that the vote trading is although not illegal it has a "wrong" feel to it.
If someone truly feels that they would prefer a particular candidate then just vote for them. Don't be such a wimp that you will not stand by your own convictions unless someone holds your hand and says it is ok.
Have you ever lived anywhere else than in the US?
No I have not lived outside of the US have you? But I have gone many places. If the US was such a crappy places then why does the US have the largest number of immigrants (legal) trying to gain citizenship than any other nation in the world.
Are you a Black Floridian?
No, are you?
Or one of the thousands of US troops in Iraq backdoor-drafted by a "stop-loss" order beyond your expected tour of duty?
I have 1 brother (Air Force), 2 nephews (Navy, Army) and 1 friends (Army) who is black that are over there thank you very much. So I believe I have a much better incite into what those people feel than you do, what do you think?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this comment. Can you name me one republic that actually works better?
No the United States is not perfect but I would prefer to live here to any place else in the world. We have more personal freedom than anywhere else.
I have a definite opinion about who I would prefer to see win the election but I also know that no matter who wins this election this will still be a land with more personal freedom than anywhere else
The Government and the DHS already uses a system like this. It was developed by a former client of mine Lexis Nexis called Risk Management Solutions.
This is used by various employers and government agencies (local, state and federal). This knowledge system could pull up reports indicating various aspects of your life including where you have lived, who your neighbors are/were, driving record, criminal records, Judgements/Liens/Bankruptcies, property ownership and much much more.
The system is limited in its search capability based on who the customer is (i.e. employers or potential employers) cannot access criminal records, driving records and such.
Additionally Lexis Nexis recently purchased a company called Seisint that gives them an even bigger stake in the profiling and data mining business as it relates to Risk Management.
What do you say to accusations that Ralph Nader was purposely not selected as the Green Party candidate because the party was afraid he would take to many votes away from Kerry? In other words, what good is a party that does not try to maximize the number of votes it receives, why even bother at all?
I know that a company can save ~40% in salary just by moving there operations from either of the coasts to the Midwest or South. I can speak specifically about South-West Ohio where wages are at least 35% lower that the NE or the West. Plus you get the advantage of no language barriers or import/export costs.