Technically you are correct if you are talking about the federal government.
I was, I don't think such decisions should be made by the federal government
State government does have power over social issues. In fact, it was not considered a violation of the bill of rights for states to even have a state religion, as many of them had at the time.
And they should decide social issues, because those things are dealt with better on a local scale. A person from New York probably has very different views on social issues than one from Idaho.
You don't think the government should get involved when mothers and doctors kill children?
The federal government? Probably not. What is needed is a legal definitiion of life, just as we once had one for death. The legal defintion for death nowadays if I recall correctly is "the absolute and total loss of the individual's brain function that is irreversible.". An unborn child's brainwaves can be seen around week 4...
Should Terri Schaivo's husband also be allowed to kill her in order to be with his new honey?
No, and it's sickening that the AP story that came across the wire yesterday didn't even mention the inheratence he was going to get if she died, which is the reason her parents are fighting it.
Abortion is NOT a "social issue". Now, again, this is really a state issue.
Which is what I was getting at. The other nice part about it is if Abortion is left up to the states, I can move to a state where abortion is illegal and my tax dollars won't be going to planned parenthood.
Unfortunately, the courts thought it was a federal issue and made the decision for everybody.
It was based on a poor premise too, that a right to privacy somehow covers a right to kill...strange right?
The marriage thing, too -- it's the courts who are, in general making the executive branch have to deal with social and other issues outside of their jurisdiction, because the court keeps bringing it into their jurisdiction.
Exactly, because the supreme court is making law instead of interpreting it. It's obvious our founding fathers wanted two things, states rights, and congress to be the most powerful branch of the government. It's too bad we have lost both. All congress is good for nowadays is pork barrell spending to bribe people to vote for them in the next election. It's sad.
If governments want to establish a secular "union" status for benefits and tax purposes, fine. If government would just get out of the business of recognizing and establishing "marriages", we woudln't even be having this gay marriage debate.
But then you have the dwindling population problem. The US population is below replacement rate, and most "western" countries are experencing a large drop in population. As America's population drops, it breaks social security among other things. Shouldn't the government encourage Marriage, and most importantly children?
Personally I think the government should let whoever wants to marry, marry but they should encourage childbirth/adoption thorugh tax incentives. Getting out of the marriage business would be bad at this point though, because somewhere along the way the government will need to encourage child birth or face a baby bust if immigration slows down. (which it likely will...)
It is estimated that 1 to 3 million illegal immigrants a year cross the Mexican border into the United States. America has 230,000 troops abroad in 760 bases within 130 countries. Many of those countries do not want us there. We have American Troops defending the borders of many countries such as South Korea, why can we not defend our own borders, especially after 9/11? What would you do to prevent illegal immigration?
or the guy who is for globalization or the guy who is for globalization. Or you can vote between the guy who is for an interventionist American government playing globocop, or the guy who is for an interventionist American government playing globocop with the permission of the UN.
There really isn't much difference except on social issues.
Mr. President, Do you believe the government should decide who should marry who?
Even better yet, Mr President and Mr Kerry, should the government even be involved in social issues? The American Government was originally made to
1. Provide for a national defense
and
2. Regulate interstate trade
It hasn't even got #1 right yet, as we saw on September 11th. Shouldn't it focus on these issues before it worries about who anyone marries, if someone is getting an abortion, etc.
I'd like to ask both candidates:
1. Do you think it's right for China to have the "Most Favored Nation" status in foreign trade, even though they continually violate people's human rights.
and
2. Do you fair trade is fair to the American worker when people overseas can live on less than half the money Americans need to survive here, and companies overseas have no labor laws. Isn't "Fair Trade" as it is championed today just an excuse for US businesses to get cheap, powerless labor?
He might want to consider a ban on showing caskets of returning service personnel from Iraq, as that could upset impressionable television viewers.
He might want to consier worrying about illegal immigrants crossing his states borders. All of this worry about filesharing or if a child is playing a violent video game while 600,000 illegal immigrants come into the US a year, mostly into California. How hard is it for 10 to 20 terrorists to get in with that group of 600,000?
California and our government needs to get their priorities straight. Don't worry about what Video games kids are playing, that is a parents job. Instead, worry about securing the border, getting citizenship for the hard working Mexicans that want to come here to live the American dream and Kick out the Criminals, Terrorists, and other assorted thugs.
Which country has the higher life expectancy? Why that would be Canada.
That is because you don't have as many niggers, they drag all the averages down. It's not our fault we have to include our outdated farm equipment in our statistics now. Fucking liberals like you kanukistans make shit like this happen.
Which country has a lower rate of mortality for virtually all diseases? Why that would be Canada.
Again, the niggers. And if it weren't for American medicine, you would be trying to heal each other with maple leaves and living in igloos. Eat shit you fucking communist.
Maybe that's because the Democrats aren't trying to usurp the very democratic underpinnings that this nation was built upon.
Really? Like the democrats did by getting supreme court justices to impose laws and a social revolution the American people never wanted?
While there was partisanship when the Democrats were in power, they at least attempted to give the opposing party a voice, something that the modern GOP has demonstrated *repeatedly* they have no interest in doing.
Oh yeah, I saw the GOP protestors during the RNC jumping up and interrupting people's speechs and assaulting police officers. Oh wait, that was the DEMOCRATS who did that.
The GOP is the one that has basically abandoned the committee system in favor of a "Whatever Bush or Delay wants" system, where NO compromises are made, government is closed to public or opposing scrutiny, and graft, corruption, and wanton criminality occurs at unprecedented levels.
Have you been watching the X-Files again? Whatever Bush wants? Did I miss the part where the US switched to a flat tax, baby murder became illegal, Gay Weddings were banned, prayer was brought back into schools, etc etc. You are living in a dream world.
Try turning off "Cock" Hannity and opening your eyes. The GOP is trying to turn the US into a one-party state, totalitarian and theocratic, and that is a bad thing for YOU.
Total bullshit and rubbish. Why should he turn off Shawn Hannity? Why not turn off CNN,CBS, NBC, ABC, and put down the NY times? The only conservative news outlets are Fox News and AM radio. Everything else is dominated by liberals. But Fox News and AM radio is too much for you guys right? That is why you tried to get Conservative AM radio stations yanked off the air. Who are the intolerant ones? Who are the ones that are trying to silence alternative voices? The Democrats are.
Everyone in the United States should think very carefully about the past four years, and also remeber what the United States was like before the current administration.
How has your life changed so drastically under the Bush administration? Please tell me.
Once you've come to your conclustion, start telling everyone you know to vote Kerry
Why? What exactly would Kerry change or do so differently than Bush? I fail to see any large contrast from the campaign that Kerry has been running.
The reason the Democrats are losing ground to the Republicans is because the republicans are actually more tolerant of different views within the party. Both Schwarzenegger and Guliani are pro-abortion conservatives that spoke at the Republican National Convention. When was the last time a Democrat allowed a pro-life speaker at the DNC? Democrats are hardliners on their issues, while the Republican party is a big tent with many different views included. You don't have to agree with the whole Republican platform to be a Republican. If you don't agree with the whole platform of the democrats, they smear you with names like "racist, sexist, homophobic, etc"
Their problem in this election year is they picked the wrong guy, who is running the wrong campaign. Howard Dean would have done much better because he offers contrast to the president. Edwards would have been better because he would have focused on Jobs and domestic issues. Kerry spends most of his time talking about Vietnam. He needs to stop and attack Bush on the issues if he wants to win.
He's boring as fuck too. Unlike Edwards or Dean who are at least motivational when they speak
And for those who are worried about a one party America, don't. The second the Republican party can manage even 60 perecent of the vote consistantly, there will be a split between paleocons and neocons. See the American Conservative Magizine website if you don't believe me. There might even be a split before then.
That will affect the future of the country for the next 4 years?
So true, while the politicians (and their supports) could be talking about issues they differ on such as the war on terror, the economy, outsourcing, iraq, the patriot act, universal health care, social security, tax reform they keep going back to this mudslinging crap.
Of course, if they talk about the above issues, they might have to talk about issues they are close to each other on such as globalization, protectionism, interventionism in foreign policy, illegal immigration, big government vs small government etc. Which might make people wonder...how different are these two from each other and why don't we have any other choices?
Or they could talk about issues they care about but are avoiding because they don't want to turn off independants..such as the environment or abortion.
I would bet we will be fed this tripe all the way up to Nov 4th.
Considering how many average Americans vote out of raw emotion anyway, expecting them to intelligently dissect the issues is a little beyond their ability. Most of them can't even program the VCR.
I'm really sick of this bias twards Americans, even from our own people. Most of the people who vote in America ARE well educated. If you look at the demographics of who votes, and who does not there is clearly a correlation between those who are well educated and those who vote. Most people in a presidential race DO vote on issues, why else do you think they bother to go and vote? Despite the smear tactics in this election year, few people go out to vote just to vote against someone, they vote for a politician that supports policy they agree with. Disgusted voters are more likely to just stay home.
And considering the fact that the winner will get to pick 3 supreme court justices (hence setting the tone for laws in our country for the next 20 years),
Yeah that was one of the 'big' media stories yesterday and people have been throwing it around for the past year or two on and off. There is no guaranteethat the next president will get to pick 3 supreme court justices, and even if Bush wins I'm sure the democrats will try to block him if they have enough seats to do so. The Republicans aren't above such things either.
It would be nice if people actually took notice that the Supreme court has been making the laws for the past 20 years rather than congress. I think your point about Americans not being able to intelligently disect the issues is off base, but I think it would be fair to say most Americans who do manage to vote in a presidential election on issues don't realize what is going on in the rest of their government.
it's no wonder this has degraded into a schoolyard brawl.
After the way the 2000 elecetion ended, this one could be no other way despite the unifying effects of 9/11.
My Karma was trashed because of politics. A few years ago I said something to draw someone's ire and I was karma bombed. My karma was reduced to the point where I couldn't post anymore.
There are a group of leftists who karma bomb people who post any views from the right, I'm going through it right now with the "overrated" bs to anything I post. It's sad that these people can't engage in debate and have to resort to childlike tactics when someone doesn't agree with them.
I am a Goldwater Conservative, not a neoconservative. I definitely side more with paleoconservatives than neoconservatives on domestic policy, but neoconservatives on modern foreign policy (my isolationist views changed, as with many people, following 9/11).
Nice to hear that Slashdot does have some variety on the Right.
I think everyone (at least on the right) looks at foreign policy differently since 9/11
We have an editor I'd term a libertarian, and he seems to identify more with them than the other parties. He's a bona fide disciple of Adam Smith.
Sounds like a pretty good mix, I would have never though it since slashdot does seems slanted left.
A one sentence-post espousing an unpopular viewpoint, yes, is basically a troll or flamebait. A paragraph or so explaining why the author has that viewpoint and some of the facts/reasoning behind it shouldn't be.
Who considers what is popular or unpopular? While you may think a one sentence post espousing abortion rights is "popular" I may think of it as flamebait.
Hopefully mods can lay off modding by party/ideology. What may seem popular to you might not be popular at all.
A little bit more on popular opinion and politics...Even if something IS popular opinion that doesn't mean it's right. Popular opinion in the US on 9/12/04 was probably that we should "nuke the middle east" that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Popular opinion in the US south pre-civil war might have been that slavery was ok. Popular/Unpopular has nothing to do with right and wrong, and shouldn't be considered in moderation.
What's funny to me is that people think we DON'T have a diverse specturm of political ideologies.:-)
I'm sure you have a bunch of democrats varying in their leftist positions and a neoconservative or two...Do you have a varity of viewpoints from the right though? Do you have a Libertarian? How about a Paleoconservative? Just as the viewpoints of Clinton, Kerry, and Nader all contrast, so do the viewpoints of Rudy Guliani, Geroge Bush, and Pat Buchanan. I hope the right is represented as well as the left on slashdot.
Why is it that slashdot is getting involved in politics? shouldn't slashdot be focusing on matters of tech, stuff thats important to nerds? STUFF THAT MATTERS? who cares about politics? lets discuss the latest thing that could be made into a beowulf cluster or debate on what would happen if we were in soviet russia or even ways of making PROFIT!
Slashdot has become much more political in since 9/11, especially in the last year. I'm glad that there will be a politics section for me to post in, and maybe it will keep some of the political flamewarriors out of the techie topics.
Just think a chance to talk on your cell phone and be inattentive IN A WHOLE NEW DIMENSION!
We can joke around about it, but it's not really funny when you consider how many people are killed or injured by sheer carelessness. It's not only cell phones, how many people have gotten "road head", or how many times have you seen a women turning around and screaming at her kids while driving. I would venture that most people who have SUV's can't even drive them properly, and that a properly flying a plane is beyond at least 50% of the population.
I wouldn't mind seeing it if the requirements to get a licence is strict. A flying car/bus that could take me to work would be nice, since it takes me about 2 hours to commute 18 miles from my house right now.
Explain how this is possible. Are you implying that George Bush reacts so poorly to verbal criticism or adversity that he would be paralyzed and unable to perform his duties? (On the other hand, given his reaction when told of the unfolding 9-11 events, you MAY have a point there.)
*sigh* I notice you didn't touch the Clinton comment. What is wrong, do you think it only goes one way? Clinton read polls and cared more about how he looked "politically" than Bush does. I don't doubt that EITHER of them could be influenced and paralyzed by the media. I would bet that Clinton was during the Lewinsky scandal.
It's not a "good thing" for the class of Americans who can afford decent health care. You make a significant overgeneralization
No, you make a signifcant overgeneralization. You make it sound like poor people are dying on the street from lack of health care. The US has Universal health care. ANYONE can walk in to a hospital off the street and get heath care if anything serious is wrong with them and the hospital MUST take them and MUST give them the same treatment and it comes out of the American taxpayers wallet.
Everyone might not have universal health care, but where in the constitution does it say that? You have the right to life, liberty and to see the doctor if you have the flu?
And what happens to the health care system once the government takes over? In places like Canada it the average time it takes is 2 weeks to see a doctor. How motivated will the nurses and doctors be to take care of you? Ever been to motor vehicles in the US? That is what you can expect if the US government takes over health care. It's been proven time in and time out, taking away choice and handing an industry over to government never works as well as letting the free market decide things.
, however, when you say people from other countries...; in actuality it's RICH people from other countries who come here for treatment, in part because we have generally good health care available to those (like them) who can afford it, but more to the point, our American health care is less clogged-up (i.e. less waiting) for those who can afford it BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD IT
No, they come here simply because it's the best health care. It's not about the "wait time"...If you are going to have a major operation would you wait an extra week for a good doctor or take any old shmuck who has the next opening?
People who have to pay for their health related services take up 50% less resources than people who are insured however there is little to no effect on their overall health (this is from a study done at Harvard. Look it up, it was done by Newhouse).
It's your duty to, it's your job and responsability to cry foul. Living in the US you get all these great rights and responsabilities, but they aren't a gift. You have a job to do in exchange for them.
Yes, it is your duty to cry foul, if something foul is indeed being done. However crying foul to the point where the government is crippled from fulfilling it's main duties (national defense, and regulation of interstate commerce) for your own personal gain is NOT Patriotic.
A good example of this is the American media. They LOVE a good story they can attack a president on. When Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama Bin Laden the media screamed "Wag the dog, Wag the dog!" and the American people followed like sheep. Now, with Iraq the American media spews shit about no WMD, even though Iraq was planning terrorist strikes against America
and the people follow along once again, calling Bush a nazi even though like Clinton, he is trying to protect them against an unseen monster.
So how many people have to die before people open up their eyes? Did Clinton step down his effort to catch Bin Laden because of the Media and "American Patriots" who were assuming the worst about him? Will Bush be afraid to use force the next time America is threatened?
Questioning your government to the point of them becoming ineffective because the media "told you so" isn't patriotic, it's being led like a sheep to your own slaughter.
For all you know there are countries out there just giving stuff away for free, like HEALTHCARE!
That isn't such a good deal, people from other countries constantly come to the US for healthcare. Not to mention, many of the european countries are going to have to cut back on socialist programs like universal health care in 20-25 years because there will be way more people retired than working.
Yeah if you think the US has gone downhill, or if there's just one thing or two that another country does better, it isn't the US government that's been slackin' IT'S YOU!
You are right about this, go out and VOTE people. If you don't like the current political parties, find one that appeals to you or make your own and VOTE. While you may think that a third party vote is "throwing your vote away" a third party only needs about 5% to get federal campaign funds for the next election.
I wouldnt say that any of those reasons is why I dont like Java. My reason is the enforced OO that has a tendancy to drive me up the wall. The fact that everything must be an object and used properly. Is irritating if you are trying to do a smaller program that doesnt need the OO.
Java is an OO language. I think that is one of the reasons it's seen as "uncool" by the script kiddie crowd, it's too complicated for them so they stick to their procedural roots. It's easier to say "OMG WTF HARAR JAVA IZ SLOW" then to actually learn to code a differnet way.
Writing small programs in Java where you don't need much OO isn't hard, I just wrote a program the other day that read in a comma delimited flat file, manipulated the data and then pushed the data into oracle. I didn't need to abstract anything or go into any heavy OOP to do that, or even write any new classes. People just have these myths based on 1995 Java about what Java can and can't do in 2004.
Java is an application programming platform. You cannot do cool things like device drivers and games, etc (until recently - but Java gaming is coming in a big way).
Huh? There are a lot of games written in Java. Java gaming is here. A huge part of the mobile phone gaming industry is based on Java, plus a lot of games on the internet. There have been full scale MMO's written in Java.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically you are correct if you are talking about the federal government.
I was, I don't think such decisions should be made by the federal government
State government does have power over social issues. In fact, it was not considered a violation of the bill of rights for states to even have a state religion, as many of them had at the time.
And they should decide social issues, because those things are dealt with better on a local scale. A person from New York probably has very different views on social issues than one from Idaho.
You don't think the government should get involved when mothers and doctors kill children?
The federal government? Probably not. What is needed is a legal definitiion of life, just as we once had one for death. The legal defintion for death nowadays if I recall correctly is "the absolute and total loss of the individual's brain function that is irreversible.". An unborn child's brainwaves can be seen around week 4...
Should Terri Schaivo's husband also be allowed to kill her in order to be with his new honey?
No, and it's sickening that the AP story that came across the wire yesterday didn't even mention the inheratence he was going to get if she died, which is the reason her parents are fighting it.
Abortion is NOT a "social issue". Now, again, this is really a state issue.
Which is what I was getting at. The other nice part about it is if Abortion is left up to the states, I can move to a state where abortion is illegal and my tax dollars won't be going to planned parenthood.
Unfortunately, the courts thought it was a federal issue and made the decision for everybody.
It was based on a poor premise too, that a right to privacy somehow covers a right to kill...strange right?
The marriage thing, too -- it's the courts who are, in general making the executive branch have to deal with social and other issues outside of their jurisdiction, because the court keeps bringing it into their jurisdiction.
Exactly, because the supreme court is making law instead of interpreting it. It's obvious our founding fathers wanted two things, states rights, and congress to be the most powerful branch of the government. It's too bad we have lost both. All congress is good for nowadays is pork barrell spending to bribe people to vote for them in the next election. It's sad.
If governments want to establish a secular "union" status for benefits and tax purposes, fine. If government would just get out of the business of recognizing and establishing "marriages", we woudln't even be having this gay marriage debate.
But then you have the dwindling population problem. The US population is below replacement rate, and most "western" countries are experencing a large drop in population. As America's population drops, it breaks social security among other things. Shouldn't the government encourage Marriage, and most importantly children?
Personally I think the government should let whoever wants to marry, marry but they should encourage childbirth/adoption thorugh tax incentives. Getting out of the marriage business would be bad at this point though, because somewhere along the way the government will need to encourage child birth or face a baby bust if immigration slows down. (which it likely will...)
It is estimated that 1 to 3 million illegal immigrants a year cross the Mexican border into the United States. America has 230,000 troops abroad in 760 bases within 130 countries. Many of those countries do not want us there. We have American Troops defending the borders of many countries such as South Korea, why can we not defend our own borders, especially after 9/11? What would you do to prevent illegal immigration?
Do you care that over 10,000 Iraqi citizens have been slaughtered in the name of US foreign policy?
No, I don't. If it saves the life of one American then it's worth it.
or the guy who is for globalization or the guy who is for globalization. Or you can vote between the guy who is for an interventionist American government playing globocop, or the guy who is for an interventionist American government playing globocop with the permission of the UN.
There really isn't much difference except on social issues.
Mr. President, Do you believe the government should decide who should marry who?
Even better yet, Mr President and Mr Kerry, should the government even be involved in social issues? The American Government was originally made to
1. Provide for a national defense
and
2. Regulate interstate trade
It hasn't even got #1 right yet, as we saw on September 11th. Shouldn't it focus on these issues before it worries about who anyone marries, if someone is getting an abortion, etc.
I'd like to ask both candidates: 1. Do you think it's right for China to have the "Most Favored Nation" status in foreign trade, even though they continually violate people's human rights. and 2. Do you fair trade is fair to the American worker when people overseas can live on less than half the money Americans need to survive here, and companies overseas have no labor laws. Isn't "Fair Trade" as it is championed today just an excuse for US businesses to get cheap, powerless labor?
He might want to consider a ban on showing caskets of returning service personnel from Iraq, as that could upset impressionable television viewers.
He might want to consier worrying about illegal immigrants crossing his states borders. All of this worry about filesharing or if a child is playing a violent video game while 600,000 illegal immigrants come into the US a year, mostly into California. How hard is it for 10 to 20 terrorists to get in with that group of 600,000?
California and our government needs to get their priorities straight. Don't worry about what Video games kids are playing, that is a parents job. Instead, worry about securing the border, getting citizenship for the hard working Mexicans that want to come here to live the American dream and Kick out the Criminals, Terrorists, and other assorted thugs.
Which country has the higher life expectancy? Why that would be Canada.
That is because you don't have as many niggers, they drag all the averages down. It's not our fault we have to include our outdated farm equipment in our statistics now. Fucking liberals like you kanukistans make shit like this happen.
Which country has a lower rate of mortality for virtually all diseases? Why that would be Canada.
Again, the niggers. And if it weren't for American medicine, you would be trying to heal each other with maple leaves and living in igloos. Eat shit you fucking communist.
Maybe that's because the Democrats aren't trying to usurp the very democratic underpinnings that this nation was built upon.
Really? Like the democrats did by getting supreme court justices to impose laws and a social revolution the American people never wanted?
While there was partisanship when the Democrats were in power, they at least attempted to give the opposing party a voice, something that the modern GOP has demonstrated *repeatedly* they have no interest in doing.
Oh yeah, I saw the GOP protestors during the RNC jumping up and interrupting people's speechs and assaulting police officers. Oh wait, that was the DEMOCRATS who did that.
The GOP is the one that has basically abandoned the committee system in favor of a "Whatever Bush or Delay wants" system, where NO compromises are made, government is closed to public or opposing scrutiny, and graft, corruption, and wanton criminality occurs at unprecedented levels.
Have you been watching the X-Files again? Whatever Bush wants? Did I miss the part where the US switched to a flat tax, baby murder became illegal, Gay Weddings were banned, prayer was brought back into schools, etc etc. You are living in a dream world.
Try turning off "Cock" Hannity and opening your eyes. The GOP is trying to turn the US into a one-party state, totalitarian and theocratic, and that is a bad thing for YOU.
Total bullshit and rubbish. Why should he turn off Shawn Hannity? Why not turn off CNN,CBS, NBC, ABC, and put down the NY times? The only conservative news outlets are Fox News and AM radio. Everything else is dominated by liberals. But Fox News and AM radio is too much for you guys right? That is why you tried to get Conservative AM radio stations yanked off the air. Who are the intolerant ones? Who are the ones that are trying to silence alternative voices? The Democrats are.
Everyone in the United States should think very carefully about the past four years, and also remeber what the United States was like before the current administration.
How has your life changed so drastically under the Bush administration? Please tell me.
Once you've come to your conclustion, start telling everyone you know to vote Kerry
Why? What exactly would Kerry change or do so differently than Bush? I fail to see any large contrast from the campaign that Kerry has been running.
The reason the Democrats are losing ground to the Republicans is because the republicans are actually more tolerant of different views within the party. Both Schwarzenegger and Guliani are pro-abortion conservatives that spoke at the Republican National Convention. When was the last time a Democrat allowed a pro-life speaker at the DNC? Democrats are hardliners on their issues, while the Republican party is a big tent with many different views included. You don't have to agree with the whole Republican platform to be a Republican. If you don't agree with the whole platform of the democrats, they smear you with names like "racist, sexist, homophobic, etc"
Their problem in this election year is they picked the wrong guy, who is running the wrong campaign. Howard Dean would have done much better because he offers contrast to the president. Edwards would have been better because he would have focused on Jobs and domestic issues. Kerry spends most of his time talking about Vietnam. He needs to stop and attack Bush on the issues if he wants to win. He's boring as fuck too. Unlike Edwards or Dean who are at least motivational when they speak
And for those who are worried about a one party America, don't. The second the Republican party can manage even 60 perecent of the vote consistantly, there will be a split between paleocons and neocons. See the American Conservative Magizine website if you don't believe me. There might even be a split before then.
That will affect the future of the country for the next 4 years?
So true, while the politicians (and their supports) could be talking about issues they differ on such as the war on terror, the economy, outsourcing, iraq, the patriot act, universal health care, social security, tax reform they keep going back to this mudslinging crap.
Of course, if they talk about the above issues, they might have to talk about issues they are close to each other on such as globalization, protectionism, interventionism in foreign policy, illegal immigration, big government vs small government etc. Which might make people wonder...how different are these two from each other and why don't we have any other choices?
Or they could talk about issues they care about but are avoiding because they don't want to turn off independants..such as the environment or abortion.
I would bet we will be fed this tripe all the way up to Nov 4th.
Considering how many average Americans vote out of raw emotion anyway, expecting them to intelligently dissect the issues is a little beyond their ability. Most of them can't even program the VCR.
I'm really sick of this bias twards Americans, even from our own people. Most of the people who vote in America ARE well educated. If you look at the demographics of who votes, and who does not there is clearly a correlation between those who are well educated and those who vote. Most people in a presidential race DO vote on issues, why else do you think they bother to go and vote? Despite the smear tactics in this election year, few people go out to vote just to vote against someone, they vote for a politician that supports policy they agree with. Disgusted voters are more likely to just stay home.
And considering the fact that the winner will get to pick 3 supreme court justices (hence setting the tone for laws in our country for the next 20 years),
Yeah that was one of the 'big' media stories yesterday and people have been throwing it around for the past year or two on and off. There is no guaranteethat the next president will get to pick 3 supreme court justices, and even if Bush wins I'm sure the democrats will try to block him if they have enough seats to do so. The Republicans aren't above such things either.
It would be nice if people actually took notice that the Supreme court has been making the laws for the past 20 years rather than congress. I think your point about Americans not being able to intelligently disect the issues is off base, but I think it would be fair to say most Americans who do manage to vote in a presidential election on issues don't realize what is going on in the rest of their government.
it's no wonder this has degraded into a schoolyard brawl.
After the way the 2000 elecetion ended, this one could be no other way despite the unifying effects of 9/11.
My Karma was trashed because of politics. A few years ago I said something to draw someone's ire and I was karma bombed. My karma was reduced to the point where I couldn't post anymore.
There are a group of leftists who karma bomb people who post any views from the right, I'm going through it right now with the "overrated" bs to anything I post. It's sad that these people can't engage in debate and have to resort to childlike tactics when someone doesn't agree with them.
I am a Goldwater Conservative, not a neoconservative. I definitely side more with paleoconservatives than neoconservatives on domestic policy, but neoconservatives on modern foreign policy (my isolationist views changed, as with many people, following 9/11).
Nice to hear that Slashdot does have some variety on the Right.
I think everyone (at least on the right) looks at foreign policy differently since 9/11
We have an editor I'd term a libertarian, and he seems to identify more with them than the other parties. He's a bona fide disciple of Adam Smith.
Sounds like a pretty good mix, I would have never though it since slashdot does seems slanted left.
A one sentence-post espousing an unpopular viewpoint, yes, is basically a troll or flamebait. A paragraph or so explaining why the author has that viewpoint and some of the facts/reasoning behind it shouldn't be.
Who considers what is popular or unpopular? While you may think a one sentence post espousing abortion rights is "popular" I may think of it as flamebait.
Hopefully mods can lay off modding by party/ideology. What may seem popular to you might not be popular at all.
A little bit more on popular opinion and politics...Even if something IS popular opinion that doesn't mean it's right. Popular opinion in the US on 9/12/04 was probably that we should "nuke the middle east" that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Popular opinion in the US south pre-civil war might have been that slavery was ok. Popular/Unpopular has nothing to do with right and wrong, and shouldn't be considered in moderation.
What's funny to me is that people think we DON'T have a diverse specturm of political ideologies. :-)
I'm sure you have a bunch of democrats varying in their leftist positions and a neoconservative or two...Do you have a varity of viewpoints from the right though? Do you have a Libertarian? How about a Paleoconservative? Just as the viewpoints of Clinton, Kerry, and Nader all contrast, so do the viewpoints of Rudy Guliani, Geroge Bush, and Pat Buchanan. I hope the right is represented as well as the left on slashdot.
Why is it that slashdot is getting involved in politics? shouldn't slashdot be focusing on matters of tech, stuff thats important to nerds? STUFF THAT MATTERS? who cares about politics? lets discuss the latest thing that could be made into a beowulf cluster or debate on what would happen if we were in soviet russia or even ways of making PROFIT!
Slashdot has become much more political in since 9/11, especially in the last year. I'm glad that there will be a politics section for me to post in, and maybe it will keep some of the political flamewarriors out of the techie topics.
Just think a chance to talk on your cell phone and be inattentive IN A WHOLE NEW DIMENSION!
We can joke around about it, but it's not really funny when you consider how many people are killed or injured by sheer carelessness. It's not only cell phones, how many people have gotten "road head", or how many times have you seen a women turning around and screaming at her kids while driving. I would venture that most people who have SUV's can't even drive them properly, and that a properly flying a plane is beyond at least 50% of the population.
I wouldn't mind seeing it if the requirements to get a licence is strict. A flying car/bus that could take me to work would be nice, since it takes me about 2 hours to commute 18 miles from my house right now.
Explain how this is possible. Are you implying that George Bush reacts so poorly to verbal criticism or adversity that he would be paralyzed and unable to perform his duties? (On the other hand, given his reaction when told of the unfolding 9-11 events, you MAY have a point there.)
*sigh* I notice you didn't touch the Clinton comment. What is wrong, do you think it only goes one way? Clinton read polls and cared more about how he looked "politically" than Bush does. I don't doubt that EITHER of them could be influenced and paralyzed by the media. I would bet that Clinton was during the Lewinsky scandal.
It's not a "good thing" for the class of Americans who can afford decent health care. You make a significant overgeneralization
No, you make a signifcant overgeneralization. You make it sound like poor people are dying on the street from lack of health care. The US has Universal health care. ANYONE can walk in to a hospital off the street and get heath care if anything serious is wrong with them and the hospital MUST take them and MUST give them the same treatment and it comes out of the American taxpayers wallet.
Everyone might not have universal health care, but where in the constitution does it say that? You have the right to life, liberty and to see the doctor if you have the flu?
And what happens to the health care system once the government takes over? In places like Canada it the average time it takes is 2 weeks to see a doctor. How motivated will the nurses and doctors be to take care of you? Ever been to motor vehicles in the US? That is what you can expect if the US government takes over health care. It's been proven time in and time out, taking away choice and handing an industry over to government never works as well as letting the free market decide things.
, however, when you say people from other countries...; in actuality it's RICH people from other countries who come here for treatment, in part because we have generally good health care available to those (like them) who can afford it, but more to the point, our American health care is less clogged-up (i.e. less waiting) for those who can afford it BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD IT
No, they come here simply because it's the best health care. It's not about the "wait time"...If you are going to have a major operation would you wait an extra week for a good doctor or take any old shmuck who has the next opening?
People who have to pay for their health related services take up 50% less resources than people who are insured however there is little to no effect on their overall health (this is from a study done at Harvard. Look it up, it was done by Newhouse).
It's your duty to, it's your job and responsability to cry foul. Living in the US you get all these great rights and responsabilities, but they aren't a gift. You have a job to do in exchange for them.
Yes, it is your duty to cry foul, if something foul is indeed being done. However crying foul to the point where the government is crippled from fulfilling it's main duties (national defense, and regulation of interstate commerce) for your own personal gain is NOT Patriotic.
A good example of this is the American media. They LOVE a good story they can attack a president on. When Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama Bin Laden the media screamed "Wag the dog, Wag the dog!" and the American people followed like sheep. Now, with Iraq the American media spews shit about no WMD, even though Iraq was planning terrorist strikes against America and the people follow along once again, calling Bush a nazi even though like Clinton, he is trying to protect them against an unseen monster.
So how many people have to die before people open up their eyes? Did Clinton step down his effort to catch Bin Laden because of the Media and "American Patriots" who were assuming the worst about him? Will Bush be afraid to use force the next time America is threatened?
Questioning your government to the point of them becoming ineffective because the media "told you so" isn't patriotic, it's being led like a sheep to your own slaughter.
For all you know there are countries out there just giving stuff away for free, like HEALTHCARE!
That isn't such a good deal, people from other countries constantly come to the US for healthcare. Not to mention, many of the european countries are going to have to cut back on socialist programs like universal health care in 20-25 years because there will be way more people retired than working.
Yeah if you think the US has gone downhill, or if there's just one thing or two that another country does better, it isn't the US government that's been slackin' IT'S YOU!
You are right about this, go out and VOTE people. If you don't like the current political parties, find one that appeals to you or make your own and VOTE. While you may think that a third party vote is "throwing your vote away" a third party only needs about 5% to get federal campaign funds for the next election.
I wouldnt say that any of those reasons is why I dont like Java. My reason is the enforced OO that has a tendancy to drive me up the wall. The fact that everything must be an object and used properly. Is irritating if you are trying to do a smaller program that doesnt need the OO.
Java is an OO language. I think that is one of the reasons it's seen as "uncool" by the script kiddie crowd, it's too complicated for them so they stick to their procedural roots. It's easier to say "OMG WTF HARAR JAVA IZ SLOW" then to actually learn to code a differnet way.
Writing small programs in Java where you don't need much OO isn't hard, I just wrote a program the other day that read in a comma delimited flat file, manipulated the data and then pushed the data into oracle. I didn't need to abstract anything or go into any heavy OOP to do that, or even write any new classes. People just have these myths based on 1995 Java about what Java can and can't do in 2004.
That's because you don't know me =:-)
;)
I am the lord, you are the priest. I believe you should be worshipping me. Oh, and lay off the little Java boys Mr Priest..I am watching you. k thx.
They go where the work is. Plently of Indian workers programming in .NET and other languages. Your just not tendering for them.
or maybe it's because one of Sun's co-founders is an Indian, and favors Indian workers. This isn't speculation on my part, see Sun's co-founder says Sun favors Indian workers
The quote was:
"At Sun, people from India are favored over almost anybody else."
If Bill Gates said something like this about American workers, he would be called racist. God, I love the American media.
Java is an application programming platform. You cannot do cool things like device drivers and games, etc (until recently - but Java gaming is coming in a big way).
Huh? There are a lot of games written in Java. Java gaming is here. A huge part of the mobile phone gaming industry is based on Java, plus a lot of games on the internet. There have been full scale MMO's written in Java.