Slashdot Log In
Internet Co-inventor Vint Cerf Endorses Obama
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Oct 15, 2008 09:08 AM
from the time-to-play-that-game dept.
from the time-to-play-that-game dept.
SEAActionFund writes "Vint Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist who also happens to be credited with co-founding the Internet, submitted a video to our AVoteforScience YouTube challenge. In it he discusses the importance of net neutrality and endorses Barack Obama specifically because he supports net neutrality (John McCain does not.)
The AVoteForScience challenge calls upon scientists to upload videos to YouTube explaining who they are voting for and why. The first two videos were by Cerf and the 2008 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry Marty Chalfie. Any Slashdotters game for explaining who they are voting for and why?" Still waiting for one of the campaigns to ask for my endorsement, which is totally available to whichever campaign offers me the better cabinet seat.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Not like it matters much ... (Score:5, Insightful)
A staggering number of people in this country dont believe results that these scientists / engineers come up with, I don't think the (Quoting Palin) *ahem* 'Joe Six Packs' of this nation care.
This election is going to come down to what it always does, who has: 'who's the candidate I can see having a beer with'
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17316144 [npr.org]
Re:Not like it matters much ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Not like it matters much ... (Score:4, Funny)
I bet Obama is hilarious when he's drunk. People that speak very well sober are really funny when they start slurring their speech and their long sentences start breaking down as their train of thought wanders.
Now I really want to get Obama drunk... and then take him behind a middle school, and get him pregnant...
Did I just say that out loud?
Parent
Re:Not like it matters much ... (Score:4, Insightful)
here isn't a female alive who would sleep with that old fool.
Allow me to quote Henry Kissinger.
"Power is the ultimate aphrodesiac".
Disclaimer: I am not female.
Parent
Re:Not like it matters much ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The "Beer caucus" is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in relation to choosing a president. I remember reading an article about who'd be the better man to have a beer with, Bush or Al Gore (back in the 2000 elections) and everyone agreed Bush was the better, more charismatic man.
Fat lot of good that did you.
Parent
Re:Not like it matters much ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientists are not voting Republican. Among serious contenders with a chance, that pretty much leaves the Democrats. Scientists have never been so united in opposition to a party. [sefora.org] Science should be apolitical, but it can't be this election.
The reasons are easy. Republicans have no respect for and little understanding of science. Science is all about the truth. Let me emphasize that-- truth. We have our Scientific Method, dedicated wholly to asking all the questions we can think of, leaving no stone uncovered, and getting the best, most accurate answers we can. But these jokers haven't hesitated to throw science under the bus and whip up obviously wrong, flawed, and outright lying studies time and time again to support positions they had already unreasoningly decided they like. As Colbert said, they make facts based on decisions. They have exploited public misunderstandings of what science is to push their agendas another few steps, and haven't troubled themselves about the costs of the public confusion they've created. So we hear people saying that science is just another religion, and they say that like they really believe it. We have the wretched, unfair catch phrase "flip-flop" which was supposed to describe a person who doesn't stick to their principles, but has instead been perverted to smear anyone who changes their approach thanks to new information. Bush Administration regard for science is extremely backhanded-- the fact that they trot out manure and bother to dress it up as science shows that they do recognize that science has a good reputation. They don't seem to get that this abuse of science is detrimental to that very reputation they're trying to use. The Republican Party, once the party of fiscal responsibility and prudence, has degenerated to this. To being an unholy alliance between liars with industrial agendas and liars with religious agendas. They're united only in the lying. They use the same dishonest techniques to push their very different agendas. Remember, Exxon wanted scientists to say Global Warming wasn't real, was just a big liberal conspiracy. "Doubt is our product". Social conservatives absolutely love "evidence" of liberal conspiracies, and are willing and ready to run with that idea anytime, and also take a leaf from that playbook and commission studies to answer such leading questions as "Is abortion detrimental to women's health?" Don't forget that lying Bush administration flunky, George Deutsch, who dared to censor scientific research. Everyone has heard how the administration cooked the evidence on Iraq, but there's far more abuse than that. Cheney bears most of the responsibility for the Klamath River Fish Kill. We're suffering myriad health problems that could be directly attributed to pollution, but we don't know as much as we should because research in those areas has been strongly discouraged. And we can only speculate on what medical advances we could be benefiting from right now if only stem cell research hadn't been suppressed. McCain seemed like he might break away from this terrible direction and take the Republican Party towards a more honest stance, but his pick of a social conservative global warming skeptic for running mate shows that he's given that up. I'd like the Republicans to be a reasonable choice again some day, but it won't be today, not by a country mile.
That's why scientists don't seem to have credibility. I sadly suspect "Joe 6 Pack" isn't going to be in the least impressed by the endorsements of scientists. How is Joe supposed to tell which science is real, and which is a pack of self-serving lies that shouldn't be called science? And why should he care? Thanks to this vicious campaign of misuse and abuse, he has serious doubts about the relevance and trustworthiness of science itself, which in any case, he just doesn't understand. He gets no help in understanding science, quite the opposite. No help from those liars with agendas who want to use Joe's confusion and anything else readily usable to manipulate Joe's opinions.
Parent
def (Score:5, Interesting)
Obama (Score:4, Interesting)
"Still waiting for one of the campaigns to ask for my endorsement, which is totally available to whichever campaign offers me the better cabinet seat." My, you sure do like the spoils system, huh?
Anyway, I'm voting for Obama - he doesn't believe in charging women to get rape exams; he is pro-choice; he is for net neutrality; he didn't pick his running mate based on tits and ovaries (And I don't mean McCain picked Palin because she has nice ones. I mean he picked her because she just HAS tits and ovaries); he doesn't support abstinence only education; his economic plan makes more sense to me.
Also, all these people who are like "OMG his name is Barack Hussein Obama, he's a terrorist!" really should go read about a) the muslim religion b) why he has that name.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Not wanting to start anything but I'm just curious who should be paying for the rape exams if not the people who are actually using them?
Okay, so... The state is using them, so the state should pay for them. It is criminal evidence, not a medical procedure. We don't make murder victim's estates pay for gathering murder evidence, either. It's in the general good to prosecute criminals, and it's been accepted that evidence gathering is the responsibility of the police and paid for by the state. Why rape should be any different is beyond me.
Parent
Re:Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Obama (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
this one has some merit, though Palin's precise role is unclear...
Palin had been the mayor of Wasilla for four years at the time, and a local paper reported that the Wasilla police chief, Charlie Fannon, defended the practice, saying he had billed women and their insurance companies for these tests rather than placing a "burden" on taxpayers.
I'd say that SOMEONE made the victims pay. Palin herself, personally, obviously didn't hand someone the bills. The police chief that she hired didn't personally do it either, I'm sure. Policy is still policy. You can delegate authority, but not responsibility.
Parent
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
"who should be paying for the rape exams if not the people who are actually using them? [...] Why should that be the general taxpayer?"
I got 5 mod points, but I can't help but replying instead of using the points.
The mere fact that people that like you exist in the same world as me scares the living shit out of me. Whatever happened to having even the slightest touch of basic human compassion? Is the financial bottom line really THAT important to you, that you cannot fathom spending a few bucks on a fellow human being? Why should the tax payers pay for rape exams you ask? Because it's the fucking decent fucking thing to do, that's why!
GAWD! If I ever wished there was a way to stab someone in the face over the internet, now is the time. I hope you die from something painful.
Parent
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
classic how your version of compassion only applies to certain situations.
Yes. I lack compassion for those who completely lack it themselves. If possible I would wish upon them, and only them, the world that they wish for, so they could see the cruelty of their ways without others suffering for it. Then maybe they would gain some compassion for others, and thus be deserving of some.
I don't see how this is hypocritical at all. I have compassion for the victim of rape. I have no compassion for someone who lacks compassion for the victim of rape.
Parent
Re:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm ambivalent towards dogs. I think any dog that attacks a person (yes, without justification) twice should be put down and their owner charged with assault. Far better to put the dog down the first time, or at least keep it penned such that it can NEVER happen again.
I'm tolerant towards other humans. I think people who can't see the value of stopping criminals who probably won't target them (not too many rapists targeting males, and the odds are the OP was male) deserve to be called down in public, and I, too, hope they suffer something tragic and very personal in the (very faint) hope that they gain enlightenment.
Parent
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree! Where is my smaller government candidate? I don't think those actually exist anymore. I'll probably just end up writing in Ron Paul, not because I believe in everything he says and wants to do, but he's the only one who has shown he as ANY clue about the current financial mess we're in.
Parent
Re:Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
This country was *founded* by people who could be characterized as terrorists and radicals. Really, I have no problem with radicals. The terrorism thing, yeah, I do have a bit of a problem with the guy in question - but I don't believe in guilt by association. That's like saying because I hang out with a guy who was thought to be a serial killer, I must be bad...
Parent
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is his association with Bill Ayers a unapoligetic terrorist.
And the head of McCain's transition team used to lobby for Saddam Hussien. Playing the "associations" game is asinine, because there isn't a person on this planet that can't be connected to an unsavory person in one or two steps.
Parent
Re:Obama (Score:5, Informative)
One of McCain's close friends is G Gordon Liddy (documented a bit on Wikipedia), who McCain claims to admire. This is after Liddy masterminded Watergate, planned assassinations of anti-Republican politicians for Nixon, the firebombing of political enemies, and advocated the murder of federal agents. The association between McCain and Liddy is much closer than the one between Obama and Ayers, includes Liddy fund raising for McCain, and Liddy is much worse of a terrorist than Ayers ever was.
Parent
Re:Obama (Score:4, Informative)
One of McCain's close friends is G Gordon Liddy (documented a bit on Wikipedia), who McCain claims to admire.
Which, the parts marked "[citation needed]" or the part marked "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims."?
Ayers not only doesn't feel any remorse about bombing federal buildings, he published memoirs about it! And Obama didn't just go on his radio show, Obama actively worked with him in politics!
Libby didn't try and kill people. Ayers did. Trying to equate the two is beyond ridiculous.
Well, AC, if you look at the Wikipedia article under "Relationship with Senator John McCain" there are two citations, one of which is a quotation from McCain himself. Neither "citation needed" nor "unverified claims" appears there. Maybe you were thinking of someone else named "Libby," but I was discussing Liddy.
Obama condemned Ayers' actions, and his "active work" with him in politics was working in a charity organization partially funded by McCain's some of McCain's political allies (notice that McCain doesn't attack the charity, since he and Obama both support it). Let's just let the well cited Wiki article speak for me here:
"The two met "at a luncheon meeting about school reform."[41] Obama was named to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Project Board of Directors to oversee the distribution of grants in Chicago. Later in 1995, Ayers hosted "a coffee" for "Mr. Obama's first run for office."[42] The two served on the board of a community anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 2000 and 2002, during which time the board met twelve times.[42] In April 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate.[41] Since 2002, there has been little linking Obama and Ayers.[42]"
Obama was involved in various good causes in his neighborhood and Ayers was involved in one of them. Obama didn't ever give Ayers anything, didn't put him on the board of this organization, and never said anything about his terrorist past other than condemning it.
Liddy did specifically try to murder people, though indirectly. He wanted other people to do it for him. Just because his personal physical presence was limited (as far as we know) to breaking and entering in order to win a presidential election and extend a war in Vietnam doesn't mean that his detailed plans for murder and drawn up for Nixon and given to the public at large after the Waco nonsense in the 90s didn't have a bigger negative effect on people's lives than Ayers' non-lethal (but absolutely evil, and they easily could have been lethal) insane attacks.
Ayers is a grass roots whacko, while Liddy was (and still is) backed by corrupt politicians. They both did terrible things, and Obama has condemned Ayers while McCain said he's proud of Liddy. Note the citation in that Wiki article. I agree with the Obama campaign, however, in that I don't believe McCain's "association" with Liddy is relevant to the election. I only bring it up to show that the pot is calling the kettle black.
Parent
Barr (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm voting for Barr because neither one of the Republicrat candidates represent my views.
It is my belief that representing you views is the only reason you should vote for any candidate, but the voting population has been gamed for so long they are like Pavlov's dog.
Re:Barr (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a lot of people here on slashdot would like to vot for a third party. It's just that if we act sincerely, we end up more fucked than if we act strategically. Nader got, what, half a million votes? If those votes had gone to Gore and then Kerry, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bushy shitness. Sure, those people might have liked Nader better, but instead of their candidate, or even the next best candidate in their view, we get ... dubya.
Parent
Re:Barr (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, those people might have liked Nader better, but instead of their candidate, or even the next best candidate in their view, we get ... dubya.
True.
I don't vote on the american elections, however their results affect the entire world.
So I would also like to remind slashdoters that the entire world is hoping that we don't end up with an american president who believes that the earth is 6000 years old and who believes that living a few hundred miles away from siberia gives you foreign policy experience.
(Because seriously, McCain is not going to last more than two years... Not with the pressures of being president!)
Parent
Re:Barr (Score:4, Insightful)
There are plenty of other reasons why Gore lost. Blaming voting for a third party candidate is pretty short-sided. Why not blame the media for not giving enough TV time to Pat Buchanan who would have taken votes away from Bush?
Bush ran on a completely different platform than what he actually did while in office. How do you know that Gore wouldn't have done the same thing?
If Bush would have implemented a lot of what he talked about when he campaigned we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. However, you can say that about almost every President elected in the last century.
To stay on topic, if you think you're going to get real net neutrality with Joe Biden as VP you're absolutely nuts!
Parent
Re:Barr (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a lot of people here on slashdot would like to vot for a third party. It's just that if we act sincerely, we end up more fucked than if we act strategically. Nader got, what, half a million votes? If those votes had gone to Gore and then Kerry, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bushy shitness. Sure, those people might have liked Nader better, but instead of their candidate, or even the next best candidate in their view, we get ... dubya.
Yeah, and I was one of those Nader voters in a swing state, saying "there's no difference between the candidates", and then spent the next eight years saying "Dear Universe, I'm sorry, stop showing me how wrong I was I learned my lesson!" I see the value of strategic votes, and if I was still in a swing state in 04 I would have voted for Kerry even though I thought he was a colossal douche. I wasn't, so I voted for Badnarik because screw the two-party system and the electoral college that enforces it by making my vote useless. Because believe me, I'm with you 100% that feeling able to meaningfully vote third part would be fantastic, and not being able to is a huge detriment to our country.
That said, this time, I'm voting for Obama because I actually want him to be President. I like his ideas, I like him, I think he will do a good job, and I think he will bring about change. Nice, reasonable, positive change. Not the ideal perfect change that I want, not by a longshot, no sir. But you know what? Another lesson I learned is that these super-idealistic never-compromise candidates and their followers who basically want to tear down the system and rebuild it from scratch are fools who won't accomplish anything. The only people of that type who get things done are essentially revolutionaries, not elected political officials, and well I'm hoping that we aren't going to need a revolution, cus they aren't fun.
Do you think President Nader would be able to stop globalization and corporatism? Do you think President Paul would be able to tear down all government intrusion into life and business? No! Because there is no possible President you could elect on November 4th who wouldn't have to deal with our current political system, and neither of those candidates would be able to change the inertia or deal with the compromises that would have to be made to convince those 500-some-odd politicians to go along. So out of all the candidates, who do I best believe will be able to work with that system in order to enact positive change, even bearing as it would the screwed up dysfunctional hallmarks of that system? Barack Obama. Right now, to me, "change I can believe in" means "change that actually has a chance of being accomplished".
And I still see this as an aspect of the same optimism that led me to vote Nader in 2000. Because I also believe that reasonable, achievable change can lead to more reasonable, achievable change, and a better country overall. So that's me.
Parent
Re:Barr (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but if Nader supporters had voted Democrat instead, you would have had years of a Democrat president without any signal that you wanted more Naderesque policies. I understand that you would prefer a Democrat to Bush, but you also sent a painful message to that party about what kind of government you want. They're now on notice that they need to offer you a more "progressive" platform unless they want to take the risk of losing Yet Again.
It's a tradeoff to evaluate, not necessarily a no-brainer. Should progressives "settle" for Democrats; should conservatives "settle" for Republicans? Or should people work toward getting what they actually want? Voting for the republicrats possibly minimizes damage, but also leaves no hope for the future. Both approaches are "strategic" but have different strategic objectives.
Parent
Growing up.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Single issue votes are incorrect. (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this actually work? (Score:3, Funny)
It's Exposure to One Side that Causes Me to Vote (Score:5, Interesting)
Call me stupid & naive for desiring a non-manipulative president but I've been nonplussed with the McCain campaign (and Fox News for that matter). Both candidates twisted each others words but I haven't been exposed to many negative ads against McCain. I wish I didn't have to vote for either of them, we'll still be at war four years from now regardless of who wins--it's probably just a matter of how many countries we'll be at war with.
Florida voter: (Score:5, Funny)
I really liked the last 8 years of Bush rule, so I'm going to vote for Nader again.
I'm waiting too ... (Score:5, Funny)
So am I. I mean, Sarah Palin claims to understand foreign policy because she can see Russia from Alaska. I've actually lived in a couple of other countries -- even one where (gasp!) they don't speak English. So I certainly should be Secretary of State -- or Ambassador to the UN, at the very least.
Or maybe I can be Secretary of Agriculture. After all, I know how to ride a horse, and I milked a cow once.
WHY SETTLE FOR THE LESSER EVIL? (Score:4, Funny)
i am voting for barack obama (Score:5, Insightful)
but that doesn't matter
what matters is i VOTE
anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster
there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, but here's probably the best one i can think of right now:
2,912,790 to 2,912,253 [state.fl.us]
it gave us the last 8 years of fail
in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever [state.fl.us]
next election, don't let the source of our failure be you
Re:i am voting for barack obama (Score:5, Insightful)
anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster
I don't want everyone to vote. I want everyone to be *informed*. And if that leads to voting, then fine. But if someone is not going to vote, then chances are they are not informed, and thus should stay home and leave the voting to people who actually know what they're voting for.
In other words, I respect the man who knows he isn't informed and thus stays home, more than I respect the uninformed man who votes out of guilt.
Parent
A vote for Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
I typically vote republican, and I was a delegate to the republican county convention here in Nevada this year, but I've decided to vote Obama this year.
Maybe the man hasn't been in politics long enough, but there isn't any real dirt on the man. He really is a good honest man with a loving family. Contrast that with McCain. When McCain returned from Vietnam, both he and his (former) wife were vastly different people. No one would have blamed him for calling it quits on their marriage. Instead of caring for his crippled wife, he choose to live a fast life chasing any blond tail he could get his hands on. John McCain's moral compass points too far off true north for my vote. He even choose a running mate who is oblivious to her ethical shortcomings.
When I look at party platforms, I don't agree with a lot of Democratic ideals, but when I look at the man running for president, I see a man who has values that reflect my own.
Re:Pundit (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think ANY field is "unrelated" to politics, you arn't paying attention.
Parent
Re:Pundit (Score:5, Insightful)
[...]Obama's political spectrum and priorities far outweigh any relation an internet engineer could bring to the table. Seriously, if the fact that this dude is endorsing Obama ends up swaying a voter, then I think it can only be qualified as laughable -- not newsworthy.
The great unwashed masses hardly vote rationally. Witness the "P.U.M.A"s who were for Clinton but now plan to vote McCain (a diametric opposite) simply because Clinton losing hurt their feelings.
Parent
Re:Pundit (Score:4, Informative)
I know one bitter Clinton supporter who claims she is going to vote for McCain. She can't come up with one valid reason why she is giving her support to Sarah Palin - who is the absolute polar opposite of her views. I just don't get it.
Parent
Re:Pundit (Score:4, Insightful)
Bingo. Anyone who will vote for somebody based on their skin color or gender (or any other criteria the person has zero control over) isn't using their brain.
That's assuming you feel there is an actual concrete difference between the candidates. You really can't judge based on what they say because neither actually says very much once you get past the marketing speak and both lie on a regular basis. You can't really judge by their records because every bill they vote on is really a bunch of separate bills bundled together.
Given the above, I could certainly understand a black person reasoning that having a strong and well educated black man as President might be more valuable as a role model for their kids than any minor policy differences that might exist, especially after Congress has their say.
Parent
Re:Pundit (Score:5, Insightful)
To be honest, it would be hard to find a better example of two fundamentally diametrically opposed female politicians as Clinton and Palin.
Parent
Re:Pundit (Score:5, Insightful)
JaRule is likely endorsing whoever promises to legalize marijuana. Vint Cerf is likely endorsing the person that best represents his values. Since he is (presumably) a leader in technology and slashdot is a place for geeks, his opinion may well be relevant for the readers of this site.
Stick around for logical fallacies 101.
Parent
Re:Pundit (Score:5, Insightful)
JaRule is likely endorsing whoever promises to legalize marijuana. Vint Cerf is likely endorsing the person that best represents his values. Since he is (presumably) a leader in technology and slashdot is a place for geeks, his opinion may well be relevant for the readers of this site.Stick around for logical fallacies 101.
The problem is that this engineer's should be extolled for endorsing Obama based on the qualified reasoning and logic behind his endorsement, even if those reasons are strictly based on the internet and technology. Instead, he's being extolled for endorsing Obama based on the fact that he invented the internet. It makes for a catchy headline, but it's not logical at all.
Parent
Re:Pundit (Score:5, Insightful)
That suggests both are in fact supporting whoever best represents the values they hold most important.
There's only a few reasons to endorse someone:
- you agree with them
- you are being payed by them
- you disagree that strongly with their opponent
Parent
Re:hum? (Score:4, Informative)
It boils down to: can content carries make cost changes to providers or content.
For example (totally made up):
Comcast and AT&T really like Disney, Disney made a large 'Donation' to AT&T: In a net-newtral world, there is not a lot anyone can do, or notice, however *without* it: Comcast / AT&T can give priority to Disney / NBC content over say, NickJr.com.
It also allows them to charge Google big$ because 'oh my god, they use all our bandwidth answering search requests' The fallacy there (and what the lawmakers seems to be missing) is that Google *already pays* for a connection from their data centers to the Tubes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality [wikipedia.org] :)
for all the gory details
Parent
Re:Watch me get modded troll. (Score:5, Informative)
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3513.041
Actually looked up the code in Ohio here and right in the 1st paragraph it says:
Write-in votes shall not be counted for any candidate who has not filed a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate pursuant to this section.
This being true ... I don't understand why you got modded down to zero.
Parent
Re:No Offense to Obama... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a risk with either candidate.
However Obama seems to understand science and technology, and has advisers.
McCain and Palin are anti science.
Who do you think is going to understand that issue better?
Parent
Re:Marty Chalfie vote also for Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest problem with libertarians and other anti-tax people is that they feel they're ENTITLED to a quality of life above that of a lone subsistence farmer while simultaneously complaining when forced to support the society which makes such quality possible. Indeed, many rage against the government confiscating part of their income on the very Internet which was funded with those confiscated resources, completely ignoring the fact that they only have "income" because they live in an organized society that is kept running with that confiscated portion, and wondering why the general populace doesn't vote for them.
It comes down to having two mutually exclusive choices:
Most people consider the life and well-being of the majority of the citizens as well as the stability of the society to be more important than the right of the few to enjoy all the benefits of an organized society without paying any of the price. I know that that is shocking and stomach-turning to you, but try to understand that these people suffer from mental conditions called "empathy" and "thinking beyond your nose", so they really can't help it.
Tyranny of a few wealthy feudal lords isn't better, you know. Unless you happen to be one of them, of course. Do you perhaps fancy yourself John Galt ?
Parent
Re:Marty Chalfie vote also for Obama (Score:4, Informative)
The poor tend not to remain poor, and the highest earners tend to turn over quite a bit as well. And here's a hint: the poor who improve their standings are the ones who don't rely on forced redistribution of wealth through taxation.
Let's talk about the real world.
The poor in the US do tend to stay poor, and the rich stay fairly rich, in general. There isn't as much churn as you imply. In fact, 40% of the population controls less than 1% of the wealth. And here's a hint: that 40% works very hard, in general, simply to maintain shelter and food.
Just in case you intended to imply that working hard makes you financially successful: that's not supported by evidence. In fact, the evidence suggests that those that are well-off by birth tend to have a much higher financial success rate than those that are not well-off by birth.
However, it's rare a poor person can become financially-successful by sitting on their ass, either.
Parent