Anyway, you do have a right to free speech so long as there is no "clear and present danger" attributed to your actions. To wit:
You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre or threaten people's lives. That constitutes a clear and present danger.
You CAN say "I wish CowboyNeal was dead". That does not constitute a clear an present danger. No where in that statement can any resonable person infer that you want to actually do such a thing.
Don't get me wrong. I agree 100%. Copyright should be limited (IMO 10yrs).
I just tire of "The Founding Fathers said X, so thats how we should do it". ie, the founding fathers counted slaves as 3/5 a person, so thats how we should do it.
Actually, [slaves should be treated as property] like it was in the beginning in the USA. Anyone that says otherwise is anti-founding fathers and thus anti-american.
I don't know if Australia has a ban on ex post facto laws in its Constitution (since it was once a British colony, I would bet money you do). One would assume they would apply here.
Middle-class, WASP soccer moms vote overwhelmingly Democratic. It has a lot to do them being pro-choice (although they do tend to have the "parent my kid for me" attitude towards the media).
The Democrats won a senate seat and the winner knew that 70% of his votes were first choice, 24% were second choice Green, and 6% were second choice Libertarian, he'd know that to shore up more votes, he'd better tack hard in a green direction.
I really don't see how that would happen. Here's a scenario:
4 people run for office, 1 Democrat, 1 Republican, 1 Green, 1 Constitution(ist?) -- I'll leave out the Libertarians because they tend to be equally appealing to liberals and conservatives, alike.
Assuming you are outside the mainstream (or have some unusual preferences) you will most likely rank your choices as GDRC or CRDG.
My point is that the Democrat knows that those who rank Green as their first preference, have no where else to turn for their 2nd vote. Similarly the Republican can forget about catering to the Constituion Party for the fact that those voters will certainly rank him 2nd. He doesn't have to court them because he already has their vote... just like our current system!
In fact, I think this would make things worse. The Democrats would move as far right as possible w/o going right of the Republicans (with the Republicans moving as far left as possible w/o going left of the Democrats).
In our current system, I can use my vote in an attempt to keep the Democrats in check by voting for the Greens or any other liberal party. Under IRV, I lose that power.
For instance, prisoners are supposed to be guaranteed athletic uniforms... If I had my way, NATO would agree on uniform standards for prisoners
Yes, I could just see that meeting -- a bureaucratic nightmare if I'd ever saw one:
US: Okay, these guys want some uniforms, what color should they be? UK: You mean "what colour should they be". France: Blue, White, and Red. US: Well... we'd like Red, White, and Blue....
I will agree that Ohio, as far as the population-at-large is concerned, is rather even, which is what makes it a swing state in this year's election. The partisanship of the elected officeholders is definitely skewed (like many states) to one side.
My point was that since Republicans run the state government, we should be extra cautious because they can use their power to influence the presidental elections... just as we should be mindful of swing states where Democrats are in control.
I'm not partisan, I'm an independent. I see both parties as equally bad.
The state does not have to have a majority of Republicans to have a Republican majority. Its called gerrymandering. Ohio is among Texas and Indiana as being among the most horridly gerrymandered states in nation. Take a look at how Columbus is split into 4 different districts in order to dillute the democratic vote. The State Legislature is just as bad in most areas.
It is my opinion that Blackwell is attempting to make sure that newly registered (read overwhelmingly democratic) voters will have their entire ballots thrown out. He knows on which side his bread is buttered. Since I can't prove that, I didn't want to assert it as being true.
Its about time someone put Blackwell in his place. IIRC, Blackwell is also for throwing out ballots that were cast in improper precincts.
Usually, if a voter came to the wrong precinct, they could just vote a provisional ballot and then have any levies that they weren't eligible to vote for be not counted. Now Blackwell wants the entire ballot to be thrown out. Not to mention he didn't accept voter registration forms that were correctly filled out, but weren't on the proper paper stock.
I'm not going to say this is partisanship on Blackwell's part, but let it be known that Ohio is run by the Republicans at every level of government.
Also take note of the "Make Wisconsin Blue" campaign at Mr. Badnarik's website.
For either liberals or libertarian conservatives to get their voice heard, their "lesser of 2 evils" party is going to have to lose a few elections before some real change is implemented.
In my case, if it takes the Democrats losing 4 straight presidental elections and having the Republicans control congress for the next 16 years in order for them to get the message, then thats what it will take.
Those conservatives among you can't stand Bush will have to risk letting the Democrats win a few as well.
In the long term, things will get better.
Re:Why are Nader voters and his party so cluess?
on
The Hidden Swing State?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
The chance that Ralph Nader will be elected president is exactly 0. In spending his political capital running for an office he can not posibly win he is insuring a minimal return on investment.
If that is the case, then you should always vote for whoever you think will win. That is the best return on investment ever. Your guy always wins!!! Woo-hoo! You're a winner!
Of course, those of us who are more concerned with voting for someone who shares our views rather than being part of the "winning team" will be voting for Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, etc.
The Constitution says that the electors shall be appointed in any way the state sees fit.
Of course, I don't think Florida has any laws on the books that say what will happen if all the votes are lost.
It is quite possible that the state legislature will simply appoint its electors according to an emergency bill.
Re:Are Nader Voters mindless morons?
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
In my state (Ohio), Nader is currently off the ballot, pending litigation.
The funny thing is that I'll (as well as my friends who wish to vote Nader) will simply write him in.
Anyone who has given enough thought to their vote to consider voting for Nader won't fail to vote for him simply because his name isn't on the ballot.
Re:Every political story on Slashdot has a Dem. sl
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
Taxes
I recall Kerry saying during the 3rd debate he wanted to lower the corporate tax rate to 5%. To wit:
That's not smart. I don't want American workers subsidizing the loss of their own job. And when I'm president, we're going to shut that loophole in a nanosecond and we're going to use that money to lower corporate tax rates in America for all corporations, 5 percent.
At that point, I was absolutely stunned. If that isn't the biggest giveaway to corporate america I've ever heard. Hell, many Fortune 500 companies get tax rebates. This is insane!
Abortion
Not a hot-button issue for me... sorry.
Foreign Policy
Granted... Kerry is more of an internationalist. I respect that.
Health Care
Kerry's plan is overly wasteful as it still allows for public financing of private insurers. The only way to go is Universal Single-Payer health care. I refuse to budge on that issue.
Iraq
No substantive difference. Kerry said he would have done the exact same thing except he would have allowed the inspectors to finish and used a larger coalition.
Make no mistake, Kerry is better than Bush. Kerry is just not "better enough" to warrant me voting for him.
Re:Every political story on Slashdot has a Dem. sl
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
Indeed. Our party did tell Nader to take a hike at the convention...which is why I'm no longer a Green.
Indeed, how is it different from clicking submit when I complete this post?
The/. servers store my username, preference settings, etc. I only have to login the one time to my account so I can single-click the submit button to post my statement.
Just because Stewart rags on Kerry, it doesn't mean that he doesn't support him. His job is to rag on these guys, and even then, I don't think he gets to write all his own material.
Of course, I'm a Nader supporter and I like to make jokes about him from time to time as well.
I am one of those "straight-edge" types (I stay away from everything but caffeine and anti-biotics) and I have friends, like yours, who have problems with drugs and alcohol. Let me say that I understand your feelings.
Unfortunately increasing the penalty for posessing drugs does not decrease the amount of people using drugs. It does make people feel like they are doing something about the problem though. It has been proven time and time again that throwing drug addicts in jail does not do anything to reduce drug use.
If you want people to stop using drugs, you have to find out what lead them to make the decision to use them in the first place. Counseling and comphrehensive treatment and detox are the ways to go to bring about full recovery. And if you think there is some social formula to get everyone off drugs... sorry it won't happen. There will simply be "wastes-of-oxygen" born every so often.
I know you're not some neo-fascist that wants to execute everyone who doesn't believe what you believe. I know you just want to help. The best way to help is to treat drug addiction like the disease it is.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no clue who modded this up ...
Anyway, you do have a right to free speech so long as there is no "clear and present danger" attributed to your actions. To wit:
You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre or threaten people's lives. That constitutes a clear and present danger.
You CAN say "I wish CowboyNeal was dead". That does not constitute a clear an present danger. No where in that statement can any resonable person infer that you want to actually do such a thing.
Don't get me wrong. I agree 100%. Copyright should be limited (IMO 10yrs).
I just tire of "The Founding Fathers said X, so thats how we should do it". ie, the founding fathers counted slaves as 3/5 a person, so thats how we should do it.
Bad logic, sir.
Actually, [slaves should be treated as property] like it was in the beginning in the USA. Anyone that says otherwise is anti-founding fathers and thus anti-american.
Hmm...
I don't know if Australia has a ban on ex post facto laws in its Constitution (since it was once a British colony, I would bet money you do). One would assume they would apply here.
Whoa, you got it all wrong, my good friend.
...
Middle-class, WASP soccer moms vote overwhelmingly Democratic. It has a lot to do them being pro-choice (although they do tend to have the "parent my kid for me" attitude towards the media).
I wish I had a link
The Democrats won a senate seat and the winner knew that 70% of his votes were first choice, 24% were second choice Green, and 6% were second choice Libertarian, he'd know that to shore up more votes, he'd better tack hard in a green direction.
... just like our current system!
I really don't see how that would happen. Here's a scenario:
4 people run for office, 1 Democrat, 1 Republican, 1 Green, 1 Constitution(ist?) -- I'll leave out the Libertarians because they tend to be equally appealing to liberals and conservatives, alike.
Assuming you are outside the mainstream (or have some unusual preferences) you will most likely rank your choices as GDRC or CRDG.
My point is that the Democrat knows that those who rank Green as their first preference, have no where else to turn for their 2nd vote. Similarly the Republican can forget about catering to the Constituion Party for the fact that those voters will certainly rank him 2nd. He doesn't have to court them because he already has their vote
In fact, I think this would make things worse. The Democrats would move as far right as possible w/o going right of the Republicans (with the Republicans moving as far left as possible w/o going left of the Democrats).
In our current system, I can use my vote in an attempt to keep the Democrats in check by voting for the Greens or any other liberal party. Under IRV, I lose that power.
For instance, prisoners are supposed to be guaranteed athletic uniforms ... If I had my way, NATO would agree on uniform standards for prisoners
... we'd like Red, White, and Blue. ...
Yes, I could just see that meeting -- a bureaucratic nightmare if I'd ever saw one:
US: Okay, these guys want some uniforms, what color should they be?
UK: You mean "what colour should they be".
France: Blue, White, and Red.
US: Well
You see where this is going.
I will agree that Ohio, as far as the population-at-large is concerned, is rather even, which is what makes it a swing state in this year's election. The partisanship of the elected officeholders is definitely skewed (like many states) to one side.
... just as we should be mindful of swing states where Democrats are in control.
My point was that since Republicans run the state government, we should be extra cautious because they can use their power to influence the presidental elections
Ohio Revised Code stipulates that "idiots" shall not be qualified electors.
I don't know what IQ range "idiot" is in, but all the same, we have laws on the books to that effect.
I'm not partisan, I'm an independent. I see both parties as equally bad.
The state does not have to have a majority of Republicans to have a Republican majority. Its called gerrymandering. Ohio is among Texas and Indiana as being among the most horridly gerrymandered states in nation. Take a look at how Columbus is split into 4 different districts in order to dillute the democratic vote. The State Legislature is just as bad in most areas.
It is my opinion that Blackwell is attempting to make sure that newly registered (read overwhelmingly democratic) voters will have their entire ballots thrown out. He knows on which side his bread is buttered. Since I can't prove that, I didn't want to assert it as being true.
The sad thing is that Blackwell purportely has the inside track for the GOP nomination for Governor in 2006.
Is he trying to impress the leadership with some dirty tricks?
Its about time someone put Blackwell in his place. IIRC, Blackwell is also for throwing out ballots that were cast in improper precincts.
Usually, if a voter came to the wrong precinct, they could just vote a provisional ballot and then have any levies that they weren't eligible to vote for be not counted. Now Blackwell wants the entire ballot to be thrown out. Not to mention he didn't accept voter registration forms that were correctly filled out, but weren't on the proper paper stock.
I'm not going to say this is partisanship on Blackwell's part, but let it be known that Ohio is run by the Republicans at every level of government.
Also take note of the "Make Wisconsin Blue" campaign at Mr. Badnarik's website.
For either liberals or libertarian conservatives to get their voice heard, their "lesser of 2 evils" party is going to have to lose a few elections before some real change is implemented.
In my case, if it takes the Democrats losing 4 straight presidental elections and having the Republicans control congress for the next 16 years in order for them to get the message, then thats what it will take.
Those conservatives among you can't stand Bush will have to risk letting the Democrats win a few as well.
In the long term, things will get better.
The chance that Ralph Nader will be elected president is exactly 0. In spending his political capital running for an office he can not posibly win he is insuring a minimal return on investment.
If that is the case, then you should always vote for whoever you think will win. That is the best return on investment ever. Your guy always wins!!! Woo-hoo! You're a winner!
Of course, those of us who are more concerned with voting for someone who shares our views rather than being part of the "winning team" will be voting for Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, etc.
Cheney has been on record saying that he has no interest in running for president.
The Constitution says that the electors shall be appointed in any way the state sees fit.
Of course, I don't think Florida has any laws on the books that say what will happen if all the votes are lost.
It is quite possible that the state legislature will simply appoint its electors according to an emergency bill.
In my state (Ohio), Nader is currently off the ballot, pending litigation.
The funny thing is that I'll (as well as my friends who wish to vote Nader) will simply write him in.
Anyone who has given enough thought to their vote to consider voting for Nader won't fail to vote for him simply because his name isn't on the ballot.
I recall Kerry saying during the 3rd debate he wanted to lower the corporate tax rate to 5%. To wit:
At that point, I was absolutely stunned. If that isn't the biggest giveaway to corporate america I've ever heard. Hell, many Fortune 500 companies get tax rebates. This is insane!
Abortion
Not a hot-button issue for me
Foreign Policy
Granted
Health Care
Kerry's plan is overly wasteful as it still allows for public financing of private insurers. The only way to go is Universal Single-Payer health care. I refuse to budge on that issue.
Iraq
No substantive difference. Kerry said he would have done the exact same thing except he would have allowed the inspectors to finish and used a larger coalition.
Make no mistake, Kerry is better than Bush. Kerry is just not "better enough" to warrant me voting for him.
Indeed. Our party did tell Nader to take a hike at the convention...which is why I'm no longer a Green.
Indeed, how is it different from clicking submit when I complete this post?
/. servers store my username, preference settings, etc. I only have to login the one time to my account so I can single-click the submit button to post my statement.
The
Interesting, but you must realize:
Devising a 2-click shopping mechanism is simply the 1-click mechanism two times. Now you're in violation twice.
Just because Stewart rags on Kerry, it doesn't mean that he doesn't support him. His job is to rag on these guys, and even then, I don't think he gets to write all his own material.
Of course, I'm a Nader supporter and I like to make jokes about him from time to time as well.
Actually the left-right spectrum is defunct. Take a look at Political Compass to get a good look at a better way of doing it.
(If you take the quiz, it seems to be biased toward the left economic perspective)
The networks are ignoring the 3rd party candidates because the voters are too.
Because the networks are ignoring the 3rd party candidates.
I am one of those "straight-edge" types (I stay away from everything but caffeine and anti-biotics) and I have friends, like yours, who have problems with drugs and alcohol. Let me say that I understand your feelings.
... sorry it won't happen. There will simply be "wastes-of-oxygen" born every so often.
Unfortunately increasing the penalty for posessing drugs does not decrease the amount of people using drugs. It does make people feel like they are doing something about the problem though. It has been proven time and time again that throwing drug addicts in jail does not do anything to reduce drug use.
If you want people to stop using drugs, you have to find out what lead them to make the decision to use them in the first place. Counseling and comphrehensive treatment and detox are the ways to go to bring about full recovery. And if you think there is some social formula to get everyone off drugs
I know you're not some neo-fascist that wants to execute everyone who doesn't believe what you believe. I know you just want to help. The best way to help is to treat drug addiction like the disease it is.