From the previous story, "Writing Software Worldwide Proves Difficult", it said 23 of 56 people couldn't find the Pacific Ocean on a map, and yet we can find water on other planets. Looks like all the people who got A's in geography work at NASA.
I agree that neither side is doing a good job of presenting an honest view of what their party stands for - it's all "look at how bad they are!". That is why I'm frustrated by keeping dissenting voices out of either campaign rallies. Perhaps if Republicans (or Democrats) were better at listening, seriously, to opposing views instead of putting them down, then a bunch of crackers wouldn't feel the need to try the hair-brained attack they say they are going to do. It's pointless, meaningless and will accomplish nothing.
That's exactly my point. These aren't private meetings - the agenda is already set - they are talking about public policy - these are public servants - the decisions they make affect everyone. The problem is they assume anyone who disagrees with them is going to heckle them - I think that is wrong, I think a lot of people would like to ask Bush and Cheney some tough questions - not to heckle them, but to get answers about decisions they have made. Is that so wrong?
I'd say it's the Republicans who are afraid of open debate - all Bush's campaign events are carefully orchestrated to only allow the party faithful inside - heaven forbid that he have to deal with people who oppose his policies. At a campaign stop in Albuquerque that Cheney did, people weren't let in unless they signed a pledge of support for Bush. Who wants to limit free speech? Who wants to have an honest debate?
Slashdot Mirror
From the previous story, "Writing Software Worldwide Proves Difficult", it said 23 of 56 people couldn't find the Pacific Ocean on a map, and yet we can find water on other planets. Looks like all the people who got A's in geography work at NASA.
No, the problem wasn't that they read a map, the problem was that they read an AMERICAN map.
Can we all mod down the Newham Council for trolling?
I agree that neither side is doing a good job of presenting an honest view of what their party stands for - it's all "look at how bad they are!". That is why I'm frustrated by keeping dissenting voices out of either campaign rallies. Perhaps if Republicans (or Democrats) were better at listening, seriously, to opposing views instead of putting them down, then a bunch of crackers wouldn't feel the need to try the hair-brained attack they say they are going to do. It's pointless, meaningless and will accomplish nothing.
That's exactly my point. These aren't private meetings - the agenda is already set - they are talking about public policy - these are public servants - the decisions they make affect everyone. The problem is they assume anyone who disagrees with them is going to heckle them - I think that is wrong, I think a lot of people would like to ask Bush and Cheney some tough questions - not to heckle them, but to get answers about decisions they have made. Is that so wrong?
I'd say it's the Republicans who are afraid of open debate - all Bush's campaign events are carefully orchestrated to only allow the party faithful inside - heaven forbid that he have to deal with people who oppose his policies. At a campaign stop in Albuquerque that Cheney did, people weren't let in unless they signed a pledge of support for Bush. Who wants to limit free speech? Who wants to have an honest debate?