Slashdot Log In
Mitt Romney Answers Tech Questions
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Jan 28, 2008 01:41 AM
from the good-start dept.
from the good-start dept.
DesScorp sends a link to a TechCrunch interview in which GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney answers questions of interest to techies. Included are questions on H-1B visas, Internet taxation, venture capital taxation, alternative energy, and carbon emissions. Finally, we learn that Romney is a PC guy, and get a summary of what's on his iPod.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What's on his iPod (Score:5, Funny)
that's not on his ipod (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not what's on his ipod. That's a question he really wants the answer to. Mitt Romney wants to know who let the dogs out, because Mitt Romney believes the dog(s) should be firmly locked on top of his station wagon, and covered in feces. [time.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who woulda thought he could hear NPR all the way from outside the car?
W
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no Romney fan (and that's saying something-- I live in MA), but come on-- this article seems to be mostly speculation. Where did Time get this information? Did they find the dog excrement themselves and then deduce the rest of the story? It's such an obvious smear piece (no pun intended) that I am skeptical. They couldn't even goad the MSPCA officer into saying much.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He even made a small windshield for the dog. It's not like he wanted to do it; he has 5 kids, and had no more room in the car.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:that's not on his ipod (Score:5, Insightful)
An early clue that someone may be a sociopath is mistreatment of animals. It points to a lack of empathy. How you treat a pet is a good indication of how you are likely to treat your brother, sister, mother, father, son, daughter or a stranger in the street.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
oh wait...
Re:What's on his iPod (Score:5, Funny)
A: His instructions.
Parent
Re:America's best shot at having a secular preside (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
I agree with the flamebait tag. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I agree with the flamebait tag. (Score:4, Informative)
He used European life expectancy tables to determine that, roughly every 19 years or so, half of the existing population would have died and been replenished by a new generation. His opinion was that every generation is equally as free to chose their own destiny as those that have come before.
Unfortunately, Jefferson was the ambassador to France at the time and he wasn't a participant in the second constiutional convention. He did, however, correspond regularly with Franklin (his predecessor in the Paris Embassy) and his intentions have been made clear in letters that today are held in the national archives.
I hate Huckabee as much as everyone else, I'm just saying, his crime is not that he wants to change the constitution. His crime is HOW he wants to change it.
Parent
Re:I agree with the flamebait tag. (Score:5, Informative)
Most people don't realize how young Thomas Jefferson was. He was just 33 when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. He was very good friends with Franklin, nearly 40 years his senior.
In fact, Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration and sent it to Franklin with a request that he suggest revisions such that his age and experience compel, or something along those lines.
He made a change of just a few syllables, but with an enormous magnitude far beyond his years. He read Jefferson's line, "We hold these truths to be scared and undeniable" and he was worried that the word "scared" might be misused in future generations to justify religious dogmas. (Most people fond of saying that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs look over the fact that most our founding fathers were agnostic.)
So he put a few slashes thru the words and penned in their place, perhaps the most succinctly written statement of purpose in all of human history: "We hold these truths to be self-evident." What seems like just a small change was, in reality, a massively different statement. It is undeniable that 2+2 = 4. It is undeniable that the opposite of True is False. But a select few truths in this world are Self-Evident. At that time, the list was even smaller: The world in which we live and that we are being.
After 7/4/1776, that list became: The world in which we live, that we are being, and that we are free and that all men are created equal.
Simple as it sounds, it's the first time anybody thought to actually write it down.
And herein ends the history lesson for today
Parent
Re:I agree with the flamebait tag. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:America's best shot at having a secular preside (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:America's best shot at having a secular preside (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand your confusion, but I'm afraid if we slide any further toward theocracy, those of us who are not believers are going to learn exactly what "freedom requires religion" means.
Parent
Re:America's best shot at having a secular preside (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like China, Russia, Cuba or Venezuela?
Some folks in the US prize economic and political self-determination over having things run by an 'enlightened' few. That's a principle of the Federal system, believe it or not. A little idealistic? Maybe. But that's how we roll.
Parent
Re:America's best shot at having a....Republic? (Score:3)
Hmm, I would not necessarily call them "enlightened", mostly demigogs or illuminatis.
As "Boss" Tweed said so many years ago, "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating."
Sounds like the current state of affairs to me.
Re:America's best shot at having a secular preside (Score:5, Informative)
94% to 79% - Willing to vote for an African American
92% to 72% - Willing to vote for a woman
72% to 38% - Willing to vote for a Morman
Parent
Re:America's best shot at having a secular preside (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:America's best shot at having a secular preside (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll grant you that the origin of the religion is pretty hokey, but is that really such a big difference between that and other major religions? Christianity involves a woman getting knocked-up by an angel, Hindu involves gods with multiple limbs and faces incorporating animal features, etc. Give it 2000 years and it won't seem much stranger than Christianity.
As an aside, I like those Mormon missionaries - I can always count on an American being around to talk to when I'm homesick and in a strange country. They tend to be glad to have an American to talk to as well.
Parent
Re:America's best shot at having a secular preside (Score:5, Informative)
About 200,000, actually.
You're talking about missionaries, not regular members of the church, and they are unpaid volunteers who pay all of their own travel and living expenses -- including buying their own suits.
And as for what the church does, it does quite a bit to help people who need assistance, but doesn't advertise the fact. There was a time about 10-15 years ago where the LDS church began issuing press releases about some of the larger welfare projects, but accusations of self-aggrandizement made that short-lived. Now, some highlights are on the church web sites for those who care to look (I notice on lds.org.uk that the church apparently did quite a bit to help with some flooding last fall in Sheffield).
Some numbers for you: the church welfare program collects about $50M per *month* in charitable donations and distributes about $60M per month to needy people around the world. They can distribute more than they collect because much of the food they distribute is grown on church-owned farms worked by volunteers and packaged in church-owned factories worked by volunteers. There is zero administrative overhead, because most of the administration is done by volunteers (many of whom are full-time "welfare missionaries") and the small paid staff is funded from other sources. I know people who are not Mormon but donate to the LDS Church because it's one of the most effective charities in existence.
This, of course, is in addition to all the church does for members, who tend to live longer, happier lives than average and be more educated and wealthier than average. Then there's also the whole issue of salvation which is the real point, but probably of less interest to you.
Parent
Wishy-Washy on H1B's (Score:4, Interesting)
A more relevant question would be: "Are you for more stringent verification by employers of alleged skills shortages before H1B's are brought in?"
BS (Score:4, Interesting)
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pot, kettle... (Score:5, Funny)
Bah (Score:4, Insightful)
We were not able to cover net neutrality, the digital divide, mobile spectrum allocation issues, identity theft, China censorship or intellectual property issues on this call.
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
On another note, his idea of alternate and sustainable energy seems to be coal liquefaction and "maybe even" nuclear. Forward thinking guy much?
Wonder where he downloads his Beatles from? (Score:4, Insightful)
Could it be? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
In other news, (Score:4, Funny)
Obama's Tech Platform (Score:3, Interesting)
Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans.
Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.
Obama supports updating surveillance laws and ensuring that law enforcement investigations and intelligence-gathering relating to U.S. citizens are done only under the rule of law.
Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities.
He certainly cares not for national sovereignty (Score:3, Interesting)
No thank you, we have enough as it is from environmentalists wanting to batter the Midwest into compliance. Now if he were to ditch Mankiw the Ivy, and put in someone who has an actual idea of re-establishing our national sovereignty (yes, that means pulling hostile country SWF money in line as well) where Reagan killed it in the 1980s.
Another Fan Of Outsourcing/H1B (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think most people would have a problem with that if he were a decent human being, but he's not. [youtube.com] So, when he loses, whether it's in the primaries or in the general election, he's got a ready-made excuse for failure.
-jcr
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it's sensible to pick one issue and judge everyone who disagrees with you a monster. Of course, I also don't have that kid's disease so it's easy for me to feel this way. Still, single issue voters miss the boat these days. Who is your candidate that meets your standard? I can find something inhuman about them if I really wanna.
Parent
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Those who say, "I do not wish to or need to exercise this right, therefore we should persecute those who do exercise it."
2. Those who say, "I do not wish to or need to exercise this right, therefore it is not important."
3. Those who say, "I do not wish to or need to exercise this right, but it is a right and therefore must be guaranteed."
Apparently you are in group #2, and your apathy makes it easy for you to completely disregard the liberties and lives of your fellow human beings. Would you change your mind if your survival depended on medicinal marijuana? Regardless, I envy your apathy; some of us don't have it so easy.The criminalization of drugs in this country affects roughly 300 million people - a bit more than "very few" in my book. 300 million Americans are being deprived of basic human rights, and their money is being stolen to fund this oppression.
While this is certainly fewer people than are affected by our economy and our war-centered foreign policy, I find your dismissal of 300 million souls as "very few people" disturbing.
Parent
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:5, Insightful)
We are in a representative republic and do not vote on issues, but rather people.
300 million people are not affected by this. That's absurd. I say fewer than one thousand people really have a legit need for medical marijuana, at least to the severe degree the example needs it. I agree his rights are violated.
Also, 300 million people do not pay their share of taxes, or even near their share, so you can't say this kid's money is being stolen, when he probably pays no federal income tax. You're just trying to goad and troll, I guess. I'm very sympathetic to this kid, but your lack pf perspective is very high.
Pot does ruin lives. It makes people paranoid and stupid and is linked to paranoid schizophrenia. It should not be legalized. Those who have severe medical problems that a doctor says mandate smoking pot have a right that the rest of us 300 million people do not have.
You think this issue compares with the war on terror? Whether you are pro-war or anti, thousands of people's lives hang in the balance. Thousands were killed on 9/11, and Saddam killed millions of people, while our effort has probably killed over 100k people. That's somewhat more important, right? You claim I dismiss "basic human rights" with no idea what basic human rights are. I wish banned smoking pot was the biggest problem in human rights in this country. While the war on drugs is very wasteful and destructive, it doesn't register at all when compared with the destructive potential of the bankruptcy of social security. Then the elderly may go without food and restorative medicine. Millions of people will actually suffer, as opposed to hundreds at most (I imagine in many cases, Romney is right and other drugs can take pot's place).
You're extremely judgmental. And compared to you, I do have it easy because I understand that other people can disagree with me and not be morally inferior. You live in a simplistic jingoistic world and must hate the vast majority of Americans (who would ban a lot of drugs and repeatedly support candidates that do). I don't have to hate them, even if I disagree with them and wish doctors could prescribe pot.
Parent
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:5, Insightful)
Moderator: go fuck yourself, please. You're what's wrong with this society where both political factions think the other is 100% inhuman.
You should use your moderator points to determine if comments are interesting, etc. Not to upvote crap you agree with in the most childish digg-style possible. By validating the parent poster's simplistic and stupid attacks, you're fueling the fire.
Mitt Romney isn't being attacked for his view on drugs: he's being attacked for being a republican. Everyone knows it. Hillary's view on the War on Drugs is identical. Obama actually talks about ramping up the War on Drugs. But they aren't republicans so they aren't subject to the same level of attack.
Romney is showing some awareness of technology that people like Bush "uses the google" fundamentally lack. It's refreshing. Idiot trolls crawl out of the woodwork to attack Romney's entire moral system for reasons utterly irrelevant, I call them on being single-issue-selfish.
I'm not even a republican, and I'm getting sick of this crap. Every election year I have to listen to trolls validate each other's existence while hating huge segments of society. For whatever reason (likely Bush's fumbling presidency), Slashdot leans left, so Romney's embracing of technology is seen as an invitation to attack.
Well mods, if you really want to, go ahead and moderate down every single thing I have ever said. Because I disagree with you. Call me a troll for issuing obvious and relatively polite self-defense. slashdot can be another digg.com.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You site a figure of drug arrests, but the example above was for someone who is in a wheelchair and weighs 80 pounds and no doubt has a medical reason to use pot and no other alternative. Don't you realize that you are making a dishonest rebuttal? We're talking about two different things! The gp said that Mitt was inhumanly unethical for not supporting pot for a very narrow class of pe
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:4, Insightful)
And I don't understand the relevance of the war on drugs to anything discussed here. The wheelchair ambush kid was not asking Mitt to cancel the war on drugs, he was asking Mitt to permit the medical use of marijuana. And I don't think Hillary, Barack, Mccain, Rudy, or Huckabee would end the war on drugs either. It's a moot point.
and probably not a significant drain on the economy compared with social security, the war on terror, or katrina relief. No issue exists in a vacuum. This kid is not a reason to legalize pot for everyone's use, and doing so would probably be a major drain on the economy. Potheads are less productive in normal jobs, much more prone to schizophrenia with its attendant expenses, and etc etc. The war on drugs is wayyyyyy too aggressive in dealing with mere users of drugs who only harm themselves, but is that the issue being discussed Mr. Strawman?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He could have said that he did support medical marijuana, which is the only sane position to hold.
I'd prefer opinion poll leadership. (Score:4, Insightful)
At least we would get a democratic filter between McMobileDisneySoft and questions of war and peace. As it is, the corporate world drafts a Project for the New American Century and it gets implemented regardless of public opinion. Romney's answers gave no indication of any departure from that scheme. Instead all the worst of the Bush administration would go on at top speed: H1Bs slavery instead of real immigration help, "Open" markets that are bound by US Patent and Copyright ownership, corporate bail outs [technocrat.net] and other predatory policies designed to make the US "Powerful" instead of Free.
Wealth, influence and power come from freedom and justice not the other way around. Countries that waste their efforts on raw power end up like North Korea.
Parent
Democracy isn't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Who is conducting these polls? Who is collecting the numbers to call? Who does the calling? Who gets to design the questions?
2) Do we really want people who are too lazy to get off the couch every 2 years and vote to have that much of a say in government?
3) How are we to know if the people polled are of eligible voting age? Or that they are even permitted by law to vote (they could be convicted felons, incompetent, etc.)? Or even citizens of the U.S.?
4) How much public policy do we want to actually entrust in the hands of a highly opinionated but entirely ignorant populace? Should foreign affairs with Burkina Faso be a subject of polling? Or how about complex economic matters? Again, who decides on what issues we poll on? Does the public's knowledge - or complete lack thereof - play a role in what we ask? How do we determine public knowledge? I can't go a day without hearing a Ron Paul supporter, for example, inventing from whole cloth some magical constitutional requirement for this or that. (All while inexplicably shouting "THE CONSTITUTION!")
5) As to questions of "war and peace", do keep in mind that public opinion polls tend to support war at the moment - and it's not all because the evil corporations you demonize so much are responsible for it, either.
6) Countries need to depend on each other in the long-run: how will this work if a country is commanded at its core by a very, very fickle public?
Clearly, the present republican form of government suffers from all of the above to lesser degrees.
As to the rest of your fascinating arguments, *YAWN*. If you honestly believe - as you clearly imply - that the U.S. is heading down the path to becoming like North Korea, then you either lack knowledge of the U.S., North Korea, or both - or you choose to engage in the same sort of hyperbolic, poorly-reasoned thinking that steers me away from rule by public opinion poll in the first place.
As for wealth and power coming from freedom, I couldn't agree more. I'm an American. My wife and I both come from lower-class to very lower-class backgrounds. My mom (single divorced parent, 4 kids) was a frequently unemployed elementary school teacher. My wife's father has held a variety of odd jobs. We both worked hard, and we're both now in law school. Within a few years - practically upon graduation - our combined income will be well over six times what either of our parents brings home right now. There are very, very few places in the world where a person can make that kind of socioeconomic jump in one generation without criminal/political connections. America is one of those places.
If you're unhappy where you're at, here's a tip - work harder and work smarter. Whining will get you nowhere.
Parent
Re:Democracy isn't perfect, but... (Score:4, Funny)
If you're unhappy where you're at, here's a tip - work harder and work smarter. Whining will get you nowhere."
So, what's the link with freedom then? Your 'power and wealth' are not from freedom, is what you're saying here, it's from hard and smart work.
A chinese person could make the same jump in income easily (probably much easier, as his/her parents are still being paid by communist norms while he might pursue a career in a market driven field) but I wouldn't call China a haven of freedom.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention principles, or the constitution...
-jcr
Re:Romney 101 (Score:4, Funny)
Look at someone like Ron Paul. What if you don't agree with Ron Paul about something? Bad news...
Mitt Romney, though, is the true candidate of hope. He likely agrees with you. He might not now, but he probably has at some point in the past and might again in the future.
In this political season where the candidates are talking about change, the change involves growing the size and roll of government (which isn't change at all). The REAL candidate of change is Mitt Romney. Sure, he'll expand government too, but his positions change often. And change is change.
Vote change. Vote Mitt Romney!
Parent
Re:Doubt it (Score:5, Informative)
Parent