Pre-Election Discussion 2549
With the US Presidential Election getting started tomorrow, this story is your official chance to discuss the issues of the election with other Slashdot readers. And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow.
An Honest Question (Score:4, Interesting)
*2 points for any one that can name who that quote is from.
Also moderators please save your mod points for the respondents of this question, instead of this question it self, besides there is no point in moding up or down an AC.
Voting for Badnarik (Score:5, Interesting)
A Thought (Score:5, Interesting)
Those who count the votes decide everything.
------------------(Joseph Stalin)
Re:Voting for Badnarik (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I agree with the Libertarians, but I would like to see their ideas get more consideration.
Re:Be patient... (Score:5, Interesting)
because the next president will appoint 3, possibly 4, supreme court justices. now, the court is pretty balanced with a good mix of conservative and liberal judges. the next president will have the power to either keep and disrupt the balance.
Re:Voting for Badnarik (Score:4, Interesting)
Baby steps...
* If the decision was in doubt, I'd certainly vote Kerry as Bush has proven to be the most hostile to the rights of U.S. citizens as any administration since Lincoln's.
Get out and vote and ask for paper over plastic (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if you live in a state that is clearly going to one candidate or another, your voice will help add to how strong your state's voice is.
Also don't forget all the local items, where your voice typically is much louder.
And finally, remember that you're not just voting for a candidate, but for all their support staff. For example, a vote for Bush is also a vote for Michael Powell, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove and all the other people that come along for the ride. Not to mention that the next president will likely select one or more supreme court justices.
I agree with *some* of the Libertarian ideas... (Score:5, Interesting)
Blowing up the UN within a week of taking office? How does that work with the strong property rights stance of the Libertarian party? "We're all for the government respecting your property, unless we don't like you, then we'll confiscate it and blow it up?" His plan isn't legal, let alone practical or within his authority as President
The Federal Income Tax is illegal? Strapping prisoners to their beds for a month so that their muscles atrophy? Has he read the constitution? Does he understand that the President doesn't wield this kind of power?
Based on his tendancy to advocate this kind of crap, my only conclusion is that Badnarik has even less respect for the whole of the constitution than the two major party's candidates.
Re:Bush and I'm not afraid to admit it. (Score:2, Interesting)
When we visited this past summer, we really had to hold our tongues to keep the famimly arguing to a minimum, but we both made it clear we are voting for Bush despite what her family thinks. I did get my brother in law to admit the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.
For those of you "plagued" by pro-Bush Christians (Score:5, Interesting)
Recommend the link if you would like (or don't mind) votes transferred from Bush to Peroutka (Constitution Party).
Re:Be patient... (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, because the reporters on TV can't ask good questions, all I know about this issue is that Kerry won't appoint anyone who says they are pro-life and Bush doesn't have a yes/no test but tries to pick Justices who interpret the Constitution strictly.
So basically, we don't know anything useful about what's almost definately the most important issue long term. Anyone have any useful links they can post?
Re:An Honest Question (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL, and I am sure that this is against some laws, but if you want the lesser of two evils, but feel you should vote for your canidate of choice, perhaps you can ask a friend in a non-swing state who has no interest in a third party canidate (but agrees with you on the lesser of two evils) to agree to vote for your third party canidate, and in exchange you can vote for the lesser of two evils. This way, the third party canidate still gets a vote, and you don't get attacked by a rabid mob for throwing away your vote in a swing state.
I would just like to finish this post by saying: IANAL and this is in no way advice that I feel anyone should follow, merely hypothetical ponderings on my part, which I am sharing with the slashdot community as I believe is my first amendment right.
Re:Who does OBL want in power? (Score:1, Interesting)
The US already has plans to shutter bases in Saudi Arabia. Kerry has already said he wants to pull US troops out of Iraq based on a timeline rather than milestones.
Kerry is also less likely to insist on real (Western) democratic forms of government in developing countries or those where the law is in flux. Bush has made it clear that the mission in Iraq is not just to oust a repressive dictatorship but to act as a lever for taking control of other countries from royal families or clerics and giving it to the people's directly elected representatives.
Kerry does not want the US to lead the world; he wants some "global test" on policies, which will likely be unduly influenced by European anti-Semitism and support for the terrorist groups that (contrary to their stated goals) work to undermine Palestinian statehood.
Finally, a Kerry victory will -- as has been covered by quite a few Western and Middle Eastern bloggers -- be seen as a retreat by the US, and a victory for forces of terror. The US will lose moral ground, and under Kerry it will cede even more moral ground; these putatively Islamic terrorists hope to fill that void and become more recognized.
All in all, I think it is clear that Osama bin Laden has more to gain from a Kerry victory than a Bush victory. If you listen to other translations of his recent tapes, there is a fairly strong suggestion that states that vote Kerry will be spared from bin Laden's wrath.
Drunken ass (Score:3, Interesting)
Who I'd really like to vote for is
Unless I repent and become a born again Christian teetottler for a few years, run a few failed businesses and marry a librarian! Then all I have to do to get off the hook is look contrite when I say I did some regrettable things when I was young but I'm better now. The press would surely let me slide with that kind of answer, right? Then I could hit the stump around the country talking about my "values". Of course they'll buy it! 'Cause I'm from a ranch in Texas! Well, actually I was born in New England and went to Yale, but damn it I picked up an accent along the way! They have to go for it right?
Maybe not. Who would believe a load of crap like that? I guess I'll have to vote for Kerry since I can't run.
Re:Voting for Badnarik (Score:1, Interesting)
You may not like the choices, they're never perfect, but this year the difference is so stark I can scarcely believe there is even any debate about it. You may not like Kerry, but he at least holds out a hope that we can pull something worthwhile out of the four years of damage Bush&Co. have done.
Re:This "story" is click bait (Score:1, Interesting)
30 minutes, 375+ comments (Score:1, Interesting)
Which war criminal do you prefer (Score:1, Interesting)
-- war criminal John "If It's Asian It Dies" Kerry, or
-- war criminal George "Kill Them All and Let God Sort Them Out" Bush.
Vote third party. ANY third party.
Re:Be patient... (Score:5, Interesting)
Call me cynical, but if the next president appoints 3-4 supreme court justices, I don't think either one will attempt to "keep" the balance. Of course, if Kerry is elected, and the Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, he will have a much harder time getting his ideal candidates on the bench. In fact, I suspect that future nominations will make the Bork and Thomas nominations look tame.
General thoughts (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the advocation of signal dilution. In network security monitoring one doesn't always want every packet, they only want relevant packets. When polling a population one doesn't want every vote but rather only the votes from people who are making informed and intelligent decisions.
Why are we seeing a massive push for "just vote"? The popularly accepted reason is that more votes will give a fair assessment of the minds of the American public. Will more votes lead to better government? Absolutely not. Get Out the Vote initiatives, at the end of the day, do only one thing: they give the illusion of legitimacy to a government which has long since overstepped its legitimate bounds.
Imagine polling an entire nation with a question which the population has no real knowledge of or, at best, deliberately vague hearsay knowledge. With a completely random sampling of people who have little or no knowledge of a subject the outcome of the poll will be close to a 45% split with about 10% choosing an odd answer. In this sort of a system the population is not being educated nor is the decision of the poll going to positively influence their lives. The only real benefit is a guaranteed job for the group conducting the poll.
American politics is very similar to a random poll of useless trivia. There are no real issues which the president legitimately has Constitutional authority to decide on. Abortion? Not a Constitutional federal issue. Health care? Not a Constitutional federal issue. World security and peace? Not a Constitutional federal issue (any real military mind will laugh derisively at the prospect of declaring a war against a vaporous enemy or against a small handful of people). Terrorist attacks? Not even a real issue. Gay marriages? NOT EVEN CLOSE to a Constitutional federal issue. All of these issues, and more, and all the ones which the candidates have discussed, are DUMMY issues. They're illusory issues. They're distractions.
What, then, are the real issues? The real issues comprise these: What exactly is the legal, Constitutional role of the federal government? How much money are we paying the federal government and what exactly are we getting in return? Is the federal government a wise investment for what can sometimes be figured as close to 25% of the GDP? Do we really want to continue centralizing our government? What other nations have supported a supremely centralized government and survived more than a few hundred years before abuses and taxes led the population to revolt? Are we really comfortable placing our reputations, in the eyes of the world, in the hands of several dozen extraordinarily greedy, wealthy, and ruthless men? Is this a wise move if we truly want to establish world peace?
These real issues will never be discussed. They are not money making issues. They are not issues which involve contracts, business, Wall Street, investors, or headlines on the nightly news with featured public relations shots of high-profile government issues.
Please, America. If you are devoting your time and energy to methodically following the dummy issues, don't bother to vote. If you do vote, write in "Joe Nobody" to save yourself from demonstrating your clear misunderstanding of what true Freedom and Liberty are.
California Propositions (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway, here's how I feel on some of the California Propositions, I encourage everyone in CA to do your research and come to your own conclusions:
Proposition 61 -- More bonds, but "think of the children"... voting NO, CA needs to tear up its credit cards!!!
Proposition 62 -- this will make our "open primaries" even more open. In our system now, you can vote for any primary candidate you want regardless of party, but your vote won't count if you aren't a member of that party. Prop 60 would reverse that, and make the top 2 vote getters square off together in the final election, regardless of political affiliation. This is a tough issue -- it can lead to extremists getting on the ballot if several popular candidates run and split the vote. Both major parties are opposed to prop 60, but Arnold is for it -- props to Arnold for standing up to the Republicrats. I'll be voting for it.
Proposition 63 -- more taxes to pay for loony farms?? Not in my state. Voting NO.
Proposition 66 -- this proposition would change the "3 strikes" law so that the final "strike" would have to be a violent felony... no more throwing people away for life for stealing a pizza and such. There are too many people in prison, so I support this and am voting YES. Everyone who is anyone opposes this proposition, including Arnold, but I hope it passes somehow.
Proposition 67 -- Phone taxes to pay for 911 system. Voting NO, our 911 system is already fine as is, no need to tax us even more.
Proposition 68 / 70 -- Prop 68 would legalize pretty much any type of gaming in California anywhere, not just on Indian reservations. 68 is supported by race tracks and the like who hope to build Vegas-style casinos. Prop 70 would remove any restriction from Indian gaming only, and force them to pay only the state tax on their profits, something like 5%. I'm voting against 68 because I don't want to see casinos in my city, and I'm voting against 70 because it would rip off the state. Think about it, every business in the US pays like 30% of its profits to the feds, but prop 70 would allow the Indians to just pay 5% to the state with no federal tax. On top of that, gambling is usually taxed MORE than other things, look at the Nevada casinos for example. The Indian casinos SHOULD pay more than a tiny 5%, and they are willing to pay more -- Arnold has already negotiated with several tribes to pay around 25%!! Prop 70 would screw California over.
Proposition 71 -- Grants to pay for stem cell research. While I hate borrowing money, I think this may be a worthy cause. Look at Silicon Valley, all the tech companies in the US concentrated in one area in one state. What if we could do the same for Biotechnology?? Voting YES.
Proposition 72 -- Will require medium to large businesses to provide health insurance to workers. Voting NO, this will only lead to businesses leaving California and/or laying off workers!!!
Politics on slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
And most importantly to me, this is "News for Nerds". Too many of the political news posts have nothing to do with technology, IT, or nerd culture. If the politics section just covered things like the DMCA and CANSPAM act, it'd be different (even if it was still totally leftist).
It just feels like more and more slashdot is moving away from "News for Nerds" in the more general sense, and I don't like it. If I wanted regular news I'd go to a regular news site, not slashdot. And especially not a section of slashdot where "BUSH IS DUMB !" gets +5 insightful.
AC because no one will read this anyway and they'll just mark it -1 Troll.
Re:Ahem, not exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
That's nice, but we're not here to discuss you're beliefs on the Federal Income Tax. It is Badnarik's position that the constitution does not provide sufficient basis for a Federal Income Tax, which stands in stark defiance of the constitution as written and the intended ability of the Supreme Court as ultimate interpreter of it. It's one thing to run on a platform of repealing the 16th ammendmant as a means of scrapping the income tax, but I don't see how running on a platform of "The parts of the constitution I don't agree with I will ignore" is any better than the crap we're getting right now from the major parties.
Would you prefer the current policy of strapping them to electrical wires?
I'd prefer a President who was capable of respecting the constitution.
Are you kidding me? That's one of the primary themes of his campaign, the fact that politicians today (the President in particular) wield far more power than they should.
I fail to see why that justifies Badnarik's (apparent) belief that the executive should weild even more power than it does now, let alone why libertarians everywhere should flock to vote for a man whose platform contradicts not only basic libertarian ideals, but also the constitution itself.
Re:An Honest Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. I just read someone on a forum I post on saying this exact thing. Vote Kerry, then vote third party locally, where they can make a difference to your life.
I am circumspect about Kerry, but I know for sure that we need rid of Bush more than anything else, and I am not even American. I live in the UK, but it is so clear now that the outcome of this election is going to play such a large role in politics in the UK (thanks Blair, you fucking asshat) and the rest of the world!
... sadly, I think it's fixed ... (Score:1, Interesting)
After 2000, I realized that the GOP would do anything to win, and I beleive that they've spent four years refining their tactics. Where democrats have been accused of voter registration irregularities, they're all about registering people multiple times, or registering fictitious names/characters that will never show up at the polls. Where republicans have been accused of voter registration irregularities, they're all about tearing up or invalidating democratic registrations. Even if you're registered thirty-five times (as one guy in my state is), you can only vote once. If you're not registered at all, you can't vote at all. You decide which of the two parties is doing something that will actually affect the outcome of the election. You may not believe it now, with all the hype that's going on, but I'm predicting many court cases next year that involve voter suppression/disenfranchisement on the part of the GOP and their buddy-boy network. That's all I have to say on that topic.
On a lighter note, I seem to recall as a kid that the "red" states were democratic states, and the "blue" states were republican-held. It seems like the colors have been reversed this year. Has anyone else made a similar observation?
life after the oil crash (Score:1, Interesting)
it's 184 pages, and may help you for your vote.
Re:Be patient... (Score:1, Interesting)
I have heard it stated that it would be unlikely for any of them to resign their lifetime positions than for a liberal administration to be able to appoint a replacement.
The only decision George W. Bush would be making would be one to keep the court in balance.
Mini-"Ask Slashdot" (Score:3, Interesting)
The upcoming election is very heated, and supporters from both sides have had to deal with a much higher incidence of political yard sign vandalism than usual. In my case, I lost a sign four times before rigging up a simple alarm and catching the culprits in the act. What other "nerd" solutions have folks tried?
I'm purposefully not naming the candidate I support, and would encourage everyone else to do the same to avoid cheap "Well the problem is that the people who support $party are a bunch of jerks" Both parties are reporting problems, and it' s the technicial aspects I'm interested in.
(Also of note, while we suspected some of our college-aged neighbors, the actual culprit turned out to be a 10 year old who is a bit... umm... loosely parented...)
what do we do after the election? (Score:4, Interesting)
(yes, I really do believe that a sufficient number of people in this country are fanatical enough to do those things)
the point is this - no matter who wins (or appears to win, or is chosen), the country is still in a mess. our economy is a disaster with massive government deficits that drastically increase our effective tax rate (because so much of our taxes are spend on interest on the debt) and huge growing trade deficits. we're fighting an expensive, unwinnable war that has killed over a hundred thousand people so far, with no end in sight. by doing so we've turned most of the world against us, which will surely have repercussions in trade and other areas eventually. if we back out of this war the result could be a civil war in Iraq which might spread to other countries in the region.
during this election, a huge portion of our own citizens have demonstrated a startling inability to evaluate input and reason intelligently about it. we are a nation of addicts - to consumption of consumer goods, to petroleum, to carbohydrates, to meaningless stimulation of various kinds, to alcohol and drugs, to the idea that we're superior to other people. our mainstream press has become essentially useless at informing our choices as voters and citizens. our elected officials are almost universally corrupt - sacrificing our interests to those of wealthy benefactors, and our processes for electing them are highly vulnerable to manipulation through various means.
what, if anything, can we do about these problems?
Re:Politics on slashdot (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually, that's only a relative term, in UK or general European terms Kerry is right-wing, while Bush is far-right.
I'm feeling lazy at the moment, so I'll ask you (since you've ventured above the parapit): was there ever any serious left-wing party in the States? I don't mean communist, just run-of-the-mill left wingers.
TWW
Exactly - it is a troll honey pot. (Score:3, Interesting)
The way I see it... (Score:2, Interesting)
Option A - Bush: give a tax cut for hiring a welfare person.
Option B - Kerry: Tax the evil owners and give more money to welfare people...
Hmmm.....
Bush/Cheney website blocked for non-US addresses (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of the liberal blogs (like this one [bobharris.com]) have stated that www.georgewbush.com is blocked for non-US visitors. They get a simple "Access Denied".
If this is true, why would they do this? While I can certainly think of real reasons (like not wanting non-US traffic to get in the way of US traffic, or avoiding DOS attacks from abroad), there are also ex-pats and travelers who are eligible to vote who might want to access the site from overseas. GWB.com could do like Google and refer you to a local site when you're overseas (when in the Netherlands, google.com automatically redirects to google.nl).
To me, this seems to simply reinforce the image that they couldn't care less about the rest of the world. This attitude will come back to bite us, sooner or later.
Re:Voting for Badnarik (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Be patient... (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless of who wins the presidency tomorrow, the next vacancy(s?) on the supreme court will be vacant for a long time; perhaps as long as several years. I wouldn't be surprised to see an extended period of time with only 5 justices, should they leave the court at a rate of more than one every few years.
Witness how effectively the minority Democrats in the Senate have held up federal judge nominations; will they be any less vigorous for the supreme court? Or if Kerry wins, consider that the Republicans in the senate (with a majority) could be even more effective in holding back any supreme court nomination.
Elect Bush/Edwards 2004 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Please.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Amendment x will do which of the following:
a - change the wording of the state constitution regarding property tax
b - require me to sign over my firstborn child
c - change the wording of the state constitution regarding employment rules
If they can't get that right, they don't get to vote on that issue, move on to the next one.
Re:This "story" is click bait (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Voting for Badnarik (Score:4, Interesting)
Luckily, local elected offices aren't misrepresented by the college (barring vote machine rigging), so third parties can gain a grassroots foothold when smaller offices are won by these alternatives.
What is stunning though is the hijacking of parties these days. Pat Buchanon hijacked the USA Green Party, taking their election funding, so that the only viable portion to escape became the Green Party of States. Now Schwarzenegger became a Republican governer, while acting liberal on social issues, so he can ride the GOP's financial resources, pay tribute to their candidates, while bucking their party position on issues. ("If you love America, you're a Republican. If you don't know what you are, you're a Republican," says the Gov at the Republican Convention. Why not add, 'If you know you're against Republicans, you're still Republican'?)
Collusion is the key. When two "opposing" sides blur too closely, checks and balances bteween the two are destroyed, disenfranchising the people (those who aren't payed politicans) they claim to represent. When the executive branch and the judicial branch come to agreeements that Freedom is a crime, and Crime is a freedom, that's when we really get screwed.
Before filling in the gaps, fill in the blanks (Score:3, Interesting)
- Iraq attacked Kuweit because of the enourmous amounds of ___ they were removing from under Iraq.
- The Texas ___ companies were quickly running out of ___ and needed to replenish that elsewhere.
- The only way to regain some of the billions lost due to the war in Iraq is by getting cheap ___.
- The only govenment building protected by US troops directly after the war was the ministry of ___.
- The Bin Laden family is friends with the Bush family because of ___.
- There are countless countries with terrible regimes, but they don't have any ___.
- The dictatorial regime in Kuweit was put back in office in return for ___.
And, to be fair:
- One (the?) reason that Europe was against the war was that the Sadam regime was asking for Euro's in return for its ___.
Now could some journalist find out where the ___ is going, for what price, and who is cashing in on it? I've not seen any reports on that either in Europe or on US television channels. I do know that you can make loads of money working for American oil companies in Iraq, so maybe that's a hint...
As European citizen I don't mind if you go vote for Bush, as long as you don't buy the load of bull that has been spread before, during and after the war.
Re:George Bush ignores the way of Christ (Score:5, Interesting)
link [wiseass.org]
I think it covers what you said in your reply almost word for word.
And kudos for you for standing up for what YOU believe in, not what they tell you to.
A brief "Why I'm Voting for Kerry" (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind, but just in case, here's my case for Why I'm Voting for Kerry [highprogrammer.com]. In the interests of keeping it brief and easy to skim it's mostly a bullet list of points.
If you want something longer, I think "100 Facts and 1 Opinion: The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration [thenation.com]" by Judd Legum at The Nation is quite a good summary. Again, it's an easy to skim list.
Re:Why I think Kerry is a worse choice than Bush (Score:2, Interesting)
1. The evidence indicated that Saddam still had WMD. Kerry himself came to that conclusion from the evidence. Regardless of the warrants behind the conclusion, Kerry came to the same one himself. You can't logcially fault Bush more than Kerry for this.
2. The Economist decided that Kerry was the better choice because it's time for change. Yet, you can't ignore the fact that they agreed more with what Bush wants to do, but they don't think he can get it done. This is based on Iraq, and refer to my other points about how everyone's being pessimistically myopic.
3. The tax policy. The Bush tax cuts actually made the system more progressive. Hard data here that's impossible to dispute: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5746&type= 1 Besides, the lower tax brackets don't pay much in taxes, so you can't give tax breaks to those who don't pay them. However, what the tax breaks did was to expand the bracket that paid no taxes. Also, when you give tax cuts to the rich, that money gets reinvested somehow. Whether it't in creating jobs, in the stock market, in government bonds, or even in the bank, it's still invested somehow. Unless the rich just sit on the stack of cash (and I mean literally, a physical stack of cash), it's being reinvested. So, Bush did all he reasonably could to try and help the economy.
4. I don't see the deficit itself as a problem. I see it as indicitive of too much government spending. Intrest rates on US loans are the lowest in the world b/c everyone knows the US won't default on its loans. The deficit isn't that bad. What is bad is too much government spending (from my perspective), and Kerry's promising to increase THAT! For example, check out the Citizens Against Government Waste's analysis of his health care proposal: http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&i
4. On the republican talking points, you did a good job of refuting absolutely nothing I said. You didn't dispute a single point I raised. Congratualtions on wasting
5. Hmm, in this case, how do you know that Saddam didn't have WMD's? However, on a more practical level, Saddam can produce records showing the destruction of his chemical weapons, which could then be verified. That's exactly what the UN wanted with the final report, and that's exactly what Saddam didn't produce. People who had seen Saddam's earlier report concluded that the second one was merely a recycled version of the first, and they left a bunch of holes. Bottom line, Saddam was supposed to detail his weapons programs, and he didn't. Furthermore, Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998, when Clinton was still in power. The UN pulled them out in 2003, before we invaded. Saddam kicking the weapons inspectors out in 1998 was a clear violation of UN resolutions and treaties ending the war. We did jack shit about it then.
Health Care (Score:1, Interesting)
While I was an independent consultant, I would pay $100-$125 for health care each month. Now its around $300
Can you guess who's pockets are lined by HMOs ?
Re:2 Questions (1 for Bush & 1 for Kerry) (Score:2, Interesting)
Please stop repeating this lie that litigation is the cause of escalating health care and pharmaceutical costs.
Liability rates for doctors are up not because of litigation, but because the stock market, where insurance companies invest premiums, tanked. Insurance companies want to make X amount of profit, and if they don't get it from the stock market, they get it from their captive customers.
Drug costs and vaccines availability has little to do with liability litigation either. Drug companies are hugely profitable as it is. Drug prices are high in the U.S. because every other country in the world limits drug prices, but the U.S. does not, so the drug companies make up for whatever losses they incur in other countries on the backs of U.S. consumers, who are prevented by law from getting cheaper pricing (be it from re-importation or negotiation by the federal government for Medicare patients).
Vaccine makers aren't abundant because the demand is not there (despite the hysteria you see now), and stuff like the flu vaccines must change every year and you cannot re-deploy unsold inventory, so it's not profitable (or at least not as profitable as they'd like).
In recent testimony to Congress on health care reform, one of the flu vaccine companies gave 30+ pages of testimony about what the federal government can do to help them stay in the vaccine business. The worlds "tort", "lawsuit" and "litigation" appear *ZERO* times. They want the government to do more to increase demand (i.e. guarantee them a profit in a very unpredictable marketplace) and to reduce requirements, aka costs, for testing for safety and efficacy (yeah, we really want that given what happened this year at Chiron with the flu vaccine).
Arizona (Score:5, Interesting)
For the record, I work in financial software, and most of our employees are software engineers or have advanced degrees in Economics. The office was universally for Bush in 2000 and against in 2004.
It's the economy. There is no issue more pressing.
As someone commented earlier around the watercooler, we'll have plenty of time to discuss gay-marriage and stem-cell research when we're a third-world nation.
-Hope
Re:Kerry Victory (Score:3, Interesting)
Questioning the identities of thousands of Ohio voters is a far cry from a crackhead signing up a hundred fake people, and you know it. The crackhead example wasn't an offical Democratic party trick, but your identity questioning scheme was orchestrated by Ohio Republicans. That's also an important difference.
So, don't get all high and mighty with me, you ignorant election LOSER.
Re:Voting for the "Lesser of 2 Evils" (Score:4, Interesting)
I normally agree with this totally, as I refuse to contribute to a mandate for someone I don't agree with, regardless of how much I hate the other guy. However, this time around I've gone to the effort of voting as an overseas absentee. Kerry's a prick, but I feel I have a responsibility to the rest of the planet to vote against Monkey Boy Cretin while he still has access to "Nooculer Weapons". IMHO, this election's an exception.
Fortunately, I live outside the American Continental Mind-control Zone, and so still retain freedom of thought.
One positive thing I can say about Bush's leadership is he's brought us all together in a common cause: conservatives, liberals and libertarians all want him gone.
The real questions is Wednesday. (Score:3, Interesting)
From what I have seen, this site is about 80/20 in favor of removing Bush and maybe 60/40 in favor of Kerry, at best. OK, so let's assume Bush wins, or at least is declared winner in time for January 20th. What are you going to do?
The usual post-60's liberal "progressive" answer is ... well, nothing. Is that what you are planning? Come on now, at least 40% of the country is actively against Bush. What would happen if 5 million people showed up on the Mall for the inaguration ceremony? To protest, to stop it, to prevent Bush from taking office? Are there no liberal progressives out there with any stomach for what they believe in? Or, is this all a fantasy Internet game where everyone goes home after the election with "well, we tried." and forgets about it until Hillary runs in 2008?
Come on, this country has gotten entirely too boring. If Kerry wins I am sure we are going to see some excitement - because Kerry will take a poll before deciding which side of the bed to get out of in the morning and will "defend" against terrorism by saying we would put them on trial if only we could catch them. Absolute prescription for some interesting times.
On the other hand, if Bush wins I will be truely saddened to see all the liberal progressive whiners crawling back into their holes to wait for the next election where "they can make a difference."
Re:I agree with *some* of the Libertarian ideas... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, wait, that's right - you didn't want "nutcases".
Re:An Honest Question (Score:4, Interesting)
Clearly neither candidate is quite what you want, but I think you underestimate the difference between Bush and Kerry on your issues. Bush wants all of the Patriot act to be permanent and wants Patriot act 2. Kerry says there are problems with the patriot act and wants to roll back at least parts of it. As for corporate handouts I don't think you can get much more business-slanted than Bush. I am not aware of Kerry's position on campaign finance, but Bush and the Republicans have the closer business ties and more to lose from such changes. Taxes - Ok, Kerry wants to roll back Bush's tax cuts on those making over $200,000. However this is really linked to the next issue - spending. At least Kerry want to try to balance the bloody budget. The top graph here [kowaldesign.com] shows Bush's exploding deficit and the bottom graph shows his out of control spending. As for foreign intervention, I think it's clear Kerry is far more reserved than Bush's cowboy unilateral activism. I'm not sure on issues of economic regulation, but Bush is an absolute crusader on social/moral issues along with his pal Ashcroft. Bush is playing to his religious evangelical base, and he has been appointing the most radical social/moral conservative judges he can find. Of all my problems with Bush, I am most horrified by the prospect of him appointing up to three Supreme Court justices. Note that any Supremes Kerry appoints would have to be centrist judges with impecible records, as he needs to get them approved by a Republican controlled Senate.
I absolutely support election reform, and I definitely think we need to shift the government in a libertarian direction (though I don't support radical parts of their platform), but in the mean time I hope you consider Votepair.org. Get that 3rd party vote registered AND boot out the worse-of-two-evils.
-
Re:I agree with *some* of the Libertarian ideas... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Well said (Score:5, Interesting)
It is important to have a good forum where inteligent people can discuss and debate their views.
It frustrates me greatly when someone says "oh, we shouldn't talk about politics...". For those of us in the US, why the hell shouldn't we talk politics?
I don't believe that the first quote really could ever mean "don't talk about politics." You missed the point, totally. The parent poster said that it's important that you don't get stupid when you talk about politics.
Your blustering is a good example of stupid political discussion. Everyone knows why we should talk politics, but everyone should know that it should be discussed intelligently. There should be acceptance of all viewpoints. There should not be the mud slinging that occurs in the media. The discussion should revolve around actual political concepts, not news postings, he-said-she-said stuff, people dying, or any of that, since that only serves to raise an emotional and typically irrational response.
Instead of talking about 1,000 troops dying in the middle east and asia, the discussion should be foriegn policy. Instead of homosexual marriage / union, there should be a discussion of civil rights and separation of church and state. It's more important that we resolve what we want to happen, then finding a way to make that happen. This can really only be approached on a conceptual basis, not by hollow posturing on how much a certain detail sucks, or by yelling and screaming about how more brain-dead one candidate is over the other.
Here are a few suggestions for good conversation:
There's a whole lot more topics to talk about, but those are general enough to get something started. They also manage to fall outside the bounds of partisan thinking, which should invite intelligent thought instead of red-faced finger waving.
That's just my $.02
the litigation lie (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If everyone votes, republicans lose (Score:2, Interesting)
Otherwise, your claim of equivalence amounts to FoxNews "fair and balanced" hot air.
"Sure the Republicans have a concerted effort in place to systematically disenfranchise thousands of voters in all battleground states, but the dems are doing questionable things too! Like what? I'll tell you like what, like getting people registered and then getting them to vote, that's what! It's an outrage!"
whatever...
Re:This "story" is click bait (Score:2, Interesting)
The courts, which are composed of unelected members, are usurping powers that were never granted to them and in doing so degrading our Constitutional system. Moreover, liberal judges and activist lawyers are mostly to blame for this. Judges should interpret and clarify the laws on the books, not write new ones. That is the job for the representatives of the people. Every issue you mention above, except the civil liberties one, is a legislative issue, not a judicial one. That is why we need conservative judges. They understand the place of the judiciary. This is the best possible reason to vote Bush tomorrow.
Re:Be patient... (Score:4, Interesting)
Which Saddam was trying to do... The France/Iraq oil agreements were denominated in euros.
It's also worth noting that the oil market switching from dollars to euros would tend to push other markets from dollars to euros. If that happened, we would lose our trade deficit (the trade deficit is based on our ability to buy foreign goods with dollars because we have the de facto world currency; if we stop having the de facto world currency, then there is no reason for people to accept dollars for their goods). Further, we might have to run a trade surplus, since people would tend to want to switch their old dollars for the new world currency.
Some might argue that it would be good to run a surplus: jobs all around! What they are missing is that the goods we could trade are not the ones in industries where people are out of work. Further, we would have less goods to distribute, so our wages would fall (causing additional layoffs in service industries like retail).
Re:Get rid of Bush, please. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This "story" is click bait (Score:3, Interesting)
North Korea is openly hostile, and actually HAS missiles that can hit the US. Why didn't we invade North Korea first?
Someone had to do what the UN FAILED TO DO for 11 plus years. It only took a handful of terrorists to kill thousands of US citizens. If you have a whole country, with the backing of it's government, doing that.....
And... there is no evidence that Iraq ever funded terrorist attacks on US soil or interests. If you want to go after a country that is training terrorists try Paksitan, as that is what the Madrasas near the Afghan border are doing. And, where do you think Osama Bin Laden is holed up right now, and Musharaf won't let us go in and get him. Not that Bush is making that a priority.
We were not out to "make him pay". We were out to make him play. Play by the rules which the UN set up. How freaking simple was it to allow inspectors to go around and look for weapons? And this guys didn't let them do it. Insane.
He kicked the UN out for a number of years. I mean, where do you draw the line guy? You have a guy, with a history of missle attacks, invasions, gassing his people, not following UN resolutions, and being allowed to continue basically giving the bird to the UN.
Ummm... We didn't make him play. He no longer holds power and is a prisoner. That sounds like making him pay.
How freaking simple was it to allow inspectors to go around and look for weapons? And this guys didn't let them do it. Insane.
Excellent question. I always thought this was incredibly stupid. I am guessing two possible reasons: 1) His scientists actually were lying to him that they had real weapons programs and potential weapons, therefore he was trying to keep the UN from finding imaginary WMDs. 2) He knew there were no WMDs, but stupidly thought that if the US thought he had them, we would not invade.
He kicked the UN out for a number of years. I mean, where do you draw the line guy? You have a guy, with a history of missle attacks, invasions, gassing his people, not following UN resolutions, and being allowed to continue basically giving the bird to the UN.
Yes, he has a history of missle attacks, which he got invaded for already. Gassing his own people, why the hell do we care about that now, we didn't do anything about it when it happened. So, the only relevant reason is ignoring UN resolutions and giving the Bird to the UN. Last, I checked the US give sthe brd to the UN all the time, so let's not count that one.
Iraq was not a real threat, nor was he going to become a real threat anytime soon. Shoot the ease of invasion proved that Iraq was not a threat now, and the investigation after showed the were not an imminent threat either. So, who cares, maintain the stranglehold on him from the last 11 years. If we find any actual progress towards becoming a threat, then invade. He will probably be dead before Iraq becomes a credible threat.
The real problem is Hussein wasn't deposed afer the 1991 invasion. While there were good reasons for not marching on Baghdad, they are just as relevant when applied to the current invasion. The mistake was allowing Saddam to fly helicopter gunships after that, and put down the Shiite uprising with the helicopters after encouraging the Shiites to rise up was pretty stupid. His military was in disarray after Kuwait, without the air support Saddam would have been deposed.
Re:The real questions is Wednesday. (Score:3, Interesting)
Secession [californiasecession.org]
Here's What I Know About Kerry (Score:4, Interesting)
Until 3 years ago, I was a lifelong resident of Massachusetts. Kerry was my senator for 16 years. I cannot remember a single thing he did for the residents of Massachusetts. In fact, my memories of Kerry are exclusively linked to one or another of his political campaigns.
I cannot tell you what Kerry stands for or what he is against. I cannot tell you if he has any sincerely-held beliefs at all. I do believe he feels very strongly about being elected and reelected to political positions.
I voted for Bush in the last election. Now I have the misfortune of living in swing-state Ohio where I am inundated with political ads. It is SO BAD that I could not even have a family party this past weekend without having it interrupted by someone out politicking door-to-door. I could not believe my ears when I took a recent business trip to New York City and heard a commercial by the Ohio Democratic Party soliciting contributions so it could run more ads in Ohio, specifically Cleveland! That is simply outrageous.
I hate a lot of things that have happened in this country since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. Although I hate the attacks themselves, it annoys me that anyone who sufered or died in that attack is proclaimed as a "hero." The people who were killed were VICTIMS of MURDERERS. Heros (like the firefighters and police that day) are people who make a choice to act. Most of the victims never had an opportunity to choose. If the mis-labeling were the extent of things, I would be silent now. However, many have changed the label from victim to hero and then used the memory of "heroes" for their own ends. THAT IRKS THE HELL OUT OF ME.
What are those ends? Mostly monetary gain. Also, there is a fair share of power-brokering. How many pieces of legislation (especially pork-barrel appropriations bills) now are promoted as necessary for national security? In the meantime, federal spending is up, costs are up, unemployment is up, freedoms are down.
When Bush signs legislation that erodes fundamental Constitutional Rights like the PATRIOT Act, I get irked as well. Irked to the point of even calling my Congressional Representatives and letting my opinions be known. Sometimes I even wish there was someone else running things who would stop this erosion. Unfortunately, the John Kerry I am used to is not that person.
I think Kerry would make things even worse by increasing federal spending more and raising taxes. Any amount of dislike I have for an incumbent is usually not enough for me to vote for an opponent. Kerry simply has never shown me any reason to be FOR him. At least I know what Bush is likely to do and when it comes to those things I care about, I feel like there is a better alternative in expressing my sentiments about those issues rather than replacing Bush with someone I consider to be a wild card.
Kerry had almost 20 years to show me something. I doubt I would find that something if he had 4 more years in Washington.
Re:Pretty simple criteria (Score:3, Interesting)
PS. Log in you cowardly fuck.
Counting the Votes (Score:3, Interesting)
In 1988, I (would have) voted for Michael Dukakis. Instead, of course, George Bush Sr. won that election. But we were all pretty much willing to get on with life and live with Bush as our president, agree or not, because we believed in the fundamental fairness of the election that put Bush in power.
In 2000, a significant portion of the electorate though that the election was "stolen." It has resulted in four years of bitter political division, the likes of which haven't been seen since Vietnam.
I could accept the winner this year -- Bush or Kerry -- if I thought that the electoral process that selects the winner exhibits fundamental principles of fairness. Even if my candidate loses, it wouldn't be nearly so big a deal for me as some, if I thought that, within the framework of the fucked-up rules we have for this in the States, the winner had won fairly.
I don't think that will be the case. I believe I know who the winner will be; I believe it was decided months ago; I believe that we will see massive complaints of voter (read minority) indimidation and fraud; I believe that the courts will be used to enforce this rigging; and I believe that the next election won't be any better, no matter who inherits the Bush political machine.
I'm also reasonably confident that the next president will be Dennis Hastert, because both the Republicans and Democrats will keep the process so tied up in litigation that January 20 will come and go without a clear victor declared; Bush's and Cheney's terms will expire, and with no qualified person to take over, we'll be left with the constitutional stand-in -- the Speaker of the House. (In the unlikely event the House flips to the Democrats, the next president will be Nancy Pelosi, but the chances of that are something akin to George Bush saying going to Iraq was a mistake.)
Re:Not all intelligent discourse needs to be civil (Score:5, Interesting)
Thought experiment. A device for the artificial insemination of an egg has been set up. This device has been setup to perform its function in one hour. The effectiveness of the device is complete: allowing the device to run unhindered will bring about the inevitable result that a human egg is fertilized and embryo is created. Using the bizarro rules of logic that infect your reality, what is the status of the device as its timer ticks towards zero? Is it an "unborn person"? Does the inevitability constructed result in personhood of any form? What are the moral implications of a person stopping the device before the timer expires?
What have you to say about your "abortion == murder" argument?
Re:2 Questions (1 for Bush & 1 for Kerry) (Score:4, Interesting)
What are the chances that 2 trial lawyers (who's biggest contributors are the trial lawyers associations) giving us the litigation reforms so crucial to getting escalating health care and pharm costs under control for the long term viability of our economy?
Answer:
It's not about litigation reforms.
FACTS:
Frivolous Lawsuits account for less that 1% of medical malpractice insurance hikes.
States which have imposed damage caps have seen their rates skyrocket even faster.
The root issue is health care costs are going up at a rate roughly 6 times that of inflation. There are many, many factors besides medical malpractice lawsuits.
Factors:
1) IP Law is an item which is routinely abused by big pharmaceutical companies in order to maintain and extend monopolies to sqeeze out higher profits. They bitch and moan about not having enough money to pay the R&D costs for "what could be the cure for cancer" (still no cure for cancer), but on average, their advertising budgets are 3x the R&D budged. Question: If you're sick, and dying, and need a certain drug to live, does a commercial influence your decision?
2) The AMA has been completely negligent in pulling licenses of bad doctors (which is what drives up the medical malpractice insurance).
3) Drug companies, insurance companies, and hospital chains have been allowed to merge and consolidate far beyond any reasonable level that fosters healthy competition in a free market.
4) The fragmentation of health plans (not companies) in this nation combined with the consolidation of the drug industry creates an environment where the bargaining power is in the hands of the drug companies. They can basically set whatever price they choose. You want to live? Pay up.
If you believe the problem is frivolous lawsuits, you've drunk the kool aide. The ONLY thing that will get health care and pharm costs under control is Single Payer Health Care. Litigation Reform doesn't play on that map.
PNAC (Score:2, Interesting)
Project for the New American Century [newamericancentury.org]
Look at the "Statement of Principles", and then look at the names at the bottom of the page. This site has several major members of the Bush administration.
My opinion:
What bugs me about PNAC is the focus on "moral clarity". This group is out to divide the world into "team players" and "enemies". While it can be effective at rallying support against a presence, it does nothing for our world image.
"Moral clarity" is culturally defined. This administration is very clearly out to change the world based on it's own world view. It is an extremely dangerous and agressive stance to take, and can create as many enemies as it neutralizes them.
It's this kind of language which indicates the definition of our two party system along religious lines. Morality and religion are such polarizing issues. They push people into voting for someone based on issues that will effect public policy indirectly, at best.
Anyhow, back to PNAC, and it's effects. If the Bush administration frees up significant resources and stablizes Iraq, mark my words, the millitary effort is far from over. This is going to cost the world dearly over the long term.
Re:Analysis of discussion so far (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is the best kind of parody. ;-)
I do have my moments. :-D
Re:SwiftVets (Score:3, Interesting)
New Georgia Encyclopedia [georgiaencyclopedia.org] (emphasis mine)
Carter was a better president than he gets credit for in conversation statistics. Not one of the best, for sure. But not terrible by any standards. It is probably his mediocrity that make it so hard to pinpoint many serious good OR bad things about Carter's presidency.....
Re:2 Questions (1 for Bush & 1 for Kerry) (Score:2, Interesting)
Slim. And it's important.
Slim. And it's not important. Litigation is not the cause of escalating health care costs. Period. No debate. stupid politically-motivated studies aside [hhs.gov], the actual cost of litigation hovers around 1-5% of current health care costs. Oh, it's a burden. It's just not what's causing a 50% increase.
The cause of escalating health care costs is the fact that health care is a classic example of non-Adam-Smith economics. Traditional economic theories assume that there's a free market which has few network effects, external pressures, or entry costs. Health care has these in spades.
"Huh," you say? Network effects: not everyone can play. The network effects in healthcare are largely regional. If you have broken your back in Texas, you're going to go to a clinic near your home in Texas even if New York has better deals on broken back doctors. Hospitals tend to compete and form networks in a regional basis, as do HMOs and POS systems.
Entry costs: it costs a ton to make a hospital (for example), largely in initial costs you have to have in order to run the hospital at all, even if you don't see a dime in profits from them. Case in point: MRIs. MRIs are really expensive. The US has over fifty times as many MRIs as Canada does. But it has less than ten times the population. Why? Because every hospital in the US has to have an MRI to be competitive ("come to St. John's, we have an MRI!"), so we buy these mega-expensive things which then are terribly underutilized, hence the rise in things like full-body scans. Canada basically says that for something as rare as an MRI, you have to travel to the nearest medium-sized city to use one.
Another example. In a 200,000-person city in my state (Virginia) there's two hospitals. In another 200,000-person city there's a single hospital (a monopoly). Which is cheaper? The single hospital by far. Because with the two competing hospitals, they BOTH have to get emergency rooms, MRIs, cancer wards, cardiac centers, obstetrics wards, all the expensive stuff to compete with one another. So they've got twice as much entry cost stuff which is only used half as much. The savings, er, costs, get passed onto you. This is a counterintuitive result: people normally think competition is good. But when initial costs are astronomical, competition is bad. It's why government-run utilities have done so much better than the free-market utility debacles we're seeing in California etc.
External pressures. People don't buy health care rationally. We are exceptionally irrational about how we buy health care. Especially as our condition becomes more critical: "I'll pay anything for a few more mediocre months of life!" So a huge amount of money in our health care system goes into just the last few months of life: perhaps as much as 15%. It's nothing short of astounding. And we don't improve things much. It is this effect, combined with our inability to collectively bargain, that make us dead meat when it comes to dealing with the drug companies. These companies have massive, frankly criminal, profit margins because they know that there's no big organization that will step in and simply say to them, no, I will not buy your stupid $10,000-a-month drug. Similarly, malpractice insurance companies can basically charge anything they want because they know that the docs just pass the savings onto you -- the doc
Re:This "story" is click bait (Score:4, Interesting)
Government is trying to take freedom of religion away
Abortion is killing a human
I agree with these two issues. It seems as if the government is saying it is OK to worship Budda, Satan or anything else, however if you worship (the Christian) God it is somehow wrong and should not be allowed, especially in schools. Students should be allowed to worship or not worship whoever/whatever they choose.
I personally believe in _total_ freedom of religion in shcools. That means that a student is allowed to worship God, Budda, Satan, or no god at all. The government should keep their nose and opinion out of the matter.
The abortion issue is a tough one. I personally think that minors should be required to get their parents permission before an abortion (a minor is not allowed to get a tatoo, drink beer or smoke, yet they can kill a human child?). However, an adult should be allowed to choose. I am pro-life, yet believe in free choice. IMO, the choice to kill your unborn child is between you and God. I would never abort a child (I have two), yet it is not my position to tell anyone how to live.
The sad thing is that there are many "Christians" out there that think it is their purpose to inflict their morals on you and the rest of the world. I try to influence the community I live in in a moral way, yet I would never expect someone to live the way I do. As a programming geek and amatuer astronomer I am very scientifically oriented. However, I still have a very powerfull spiritual influencey of God.
I have probably gone on enough, however, I want to leave you with the thought of not lumping all Christians or people of religion into one group. Though I will agree with you that sadly the majority is probably how you describe them.
Don't forget GOP shenanigans in Philadelphia (Score:3, Interesting)
Much to the chagrin of the Republicans, their attempt was foiled and all those pesky brown people will be able exercise their constitutional right to vote in their usual polling places.
~Philly
Re:This "story" is click bait (Score:1, Interesting)
Christians have been moaning about the "Christian persecution" in America for a very long time, but look around you - you're the majority. That your overwhelming majority is becoming a moderate majority is not a death knell for your faith. In America, we tend to decide that the weaker churches need to be protected from intimidation, hate crime, etc. This does not mean that we don't like Christianity and it's bigger, more established churches. It just means that they, in view of the law, don't need the kind of protection that a more controversial religion - say, I dunno, Witchcraft - might need from those who are willing to silence it from the get-go.
I know that many people complain about religion being removed from schools, but I seem to remember them teaching us the Tower of Babel story as history. I had a science teacher who said that the Theory of Evolution was bad because Darwin was an atheist. And I only graduated High School 4 years ago! Is this good teaching? Maybe if the kids only need to be taught faith, but they also need to learn science and maths and the liberal arts. If faith precludes fact, then the public schools have a duty (and more importantly, an obligation as enforced by the election system, lawsuits, etc) to teach the facts, to teach them well. If they are good teachers, they will bring up the conflict with religion and allow the students to make the decision of faith. If they aren't, they will push one side or the other. But this BS about kids getting punished for being peacefully Christian in school is a myth. When the kids encourage the school to harass religious minorities, then the school will step in. Otherwise, I've found that they don't care.
On the other hand, children who have no association to a religion seem to fare worse than any other group. The teachers and the churches treat them like undecided voters. A coherent minority group - even a controversial one like Scientology or the Church of Satan - can get more support because they are defined. Kids whose parents let them make their own religious choices get the short end of the stick. It's hard to claim religious discrimination when nobody knows what you are. This creates a tremendous peer pressure load and generally ends up bad for everyone.