Mitt Romney Answers Tech Questions 551
DesScorp sends a link to a TechCrunch interview in which GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney answers questions of interest to techies. Included are questions on H-1B visas, Internet taxation, venture capital taxation, alternative energy, and carbon emissions. Finally, we learn that Romney is a PC guy, and get a summary of what's on his iPod.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd prefer opinion poll leadership. (Score:4, Insightful)
At least we would get a democratic filter between McMobileDisneySoft and questions of war and peace. As it is, the corporate world drafts a Project for the New American Century and it gets implemented regardless of public opinion. Romney's answers gave no indication of any departure from that scheme. Instead all the worst of the Bush administration would go on at top speed: H1Bs slavery instead of real immigration help, "Open" markets that are bound by US Patent and Copyright ownership, corporate bail outs [technocrat.net] and other predatory policies designed to make the US "Powerful" instead of Free.
Wealth, influence and power come from freedom and justice not the other way around. Countries that waste their efforts on raw power end up like North Korea.
Re:America's best shot at having a secular preside (Score:4, Insightful)
Bah (Score:4, Insightful)
We were not able to cover net neutrality, the digital divide, mobile spectrum allocation issues, identity theft, China censorship or intellectual property issues on this call.
Wonder where he downloads his Beatles from? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:2, Insightful)
The Federal government has no right to define what I can or cannot do to my body, so long as I do not infringe on another citizen's rights. If a state defines something as legal for persons to do, then the federal government is not allowed to say otherwise. We have the U.S. Constitution to thank for that.
In addition, The FDA, while useful by nature, is unconstitutional as a federal entity (because they define what I am able to put in my body). They should set guidelines, but should NOT be the law. One should be able to legally acquire non FDA-approved foods and drugs and use them without repercussions.
Further, and more closely related to the topic: Medical marijuana is one of many pain-killers out there, Just like Cocaine is one of many local anesthetics. Hospitals all around this nation have cocaine on hand for this purpose. There are alternatives, but they keep cocaine available in case one of the other methods cannot be used or does not work. Why focus in on marijuana, when there are more dangerous (and abused) drugs already legal?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:3, Insightful)
He could have said that he did support medical marijuana, which is the only sane position to hold.
Oh boy, another one (Score:2, Insightful)
Woo! Go USA! Thousand year empire!
I hope you notice that candidates in other countries just don't talk in such belligerent terms about their nations position in the world.
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:5, Insightful)
We are in a representative republic and do not vote on issues, but rather people.
300 million people are not affected by this. That's absurd. I say fewer than one thousand people really have a legit need for medical marijuana, at least to the severe degree the example needs it. I agree his rights are violated.
Also, 300 million people do not pay their share of taxes, or even near their share, so you can't say this kid's money is being stolen, when he probably pays no federal income tax. You're just trying to goad and troll, I guess. I'm very sympathetic to this kid, but your lack pf perspective is very high.
Pot does ruin lives. It makes people paranoid and stupid and is linked to paranoid schizophrenia. It should not be legalized. Those who have severe medical problems that a doctor says mandate smoking pot have a right that the rest of us 300 million people do not have.
You think this issue compares with the war on terror? Whether you are pro-war or anti, thousands of people's lives hang in the balance. Thousands were killed on 9/11, and Saddam killed millions of people, while our effort has probably killed over 100k people. That's somewhat more important, right? You claim I dismiss "basic human rights" with no idea what basic human rights are. I wish banned smoking pot was the biggest problem in human rights in this country. While the war on drugs is very wasteful and destructive, it doesn't register at all when compared with the destructive potential of the bankruptcy of social security. Then the elderly may go without food and restorative medicine. Millions of people will actually suffer, as opposed to hundreds at most (I imagine in many cases, Romney is right and other drugs can take pot's place).
You're extremely judgmental. And compared to you, I do have it easy because I understand that other people can disagree with me and not be morally inferior. You live in a simplistic jingoistic world and must hate the vast majority of Americans (who would ban a lot of drugs and repeatedly support candidates that do). I don't have to hate them, even if I disagree with them and wish doctors could prescribe pot.
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:4, Insightful)
And I don't understand the relevance of the war on drugs to anything discussed here. The wheelchair ambush kid was not asking Mitt to cancel the war on drugs, he was asking Mitt to permit the medical use of marijuana. And I don't think Hillary, Barack, Mccain, Rudy, or Huckabee would end the war on drugs either. It's a moot point.
and probably not a significant drain on the economy compared with social security, the war on terror, or katrina relief. No issue exists in a vacuum. This kid is not a reason to legalize pot for everyone's use, and doing so would probably be a major drain on the economy. Potheads are less productive in normal jobs, much more prone to schizophrenia with its attendant expenses, and etc etc. The war on drugs is wayyyyyy too aggressive in dealing with mere users of drugs who only harm themselves, but is that the issue being discussed Mr. Strawman?
Democracy isn't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Who is conducting these polls? Who is collecting the numbers to call? Who does the calling? Who gets to design the questions?
2) Do we really want people who are too lazy to get off the couch every 2 years and vote to have that much of a say in government?
3) How are we to know if the people polled are of eligible voting age? Or that they are even permitted by law to vote (they could be convicted felons, incompetent, etc.)? Or even citizens of the U.S.?
4) How much public policy do we want to actually entrust in the hands of a highly opinionated but entirely ignorant populace? Should foreign affairs with Burkina Faso be a subject of polling? Or how about complex economic matters? Again, who decides on what issues we poll on? Does the public's knowledge - or complete lack thereof - play a role in what we ask? How do we determine public knowledge? I can't go a day without hearing a Ron Paul supporter, for example, inventing from whole cloth some magical constitutional requirement for this or that. (All while inexplicably shouting "THE CONSTITUTION!")
5) As to questions of "war and peace", do keep in mind that public opinion polls tend to support war at the moment - and it's not all because the evil corporations you demonize so much are responsible for it, either.
6) Countries need to depend on each other in the long-run: how will this work if a country is commanded at its core by a very, very fickle public?
Clearly, the present republican form of government suffers from all of the above to lesser degrees.
As to the rest of your fascinating arguments, *YAWN*. If you honestly believe - as you clearly imply - that the U.S. is heading down the path to becoming like North Korea, then you either lack knowledge of the U.S., North Korea, or both - or you choose to engage in the same sort of hyperbolic, poorly-reasoned thinking that steers me away from rule by public opinion poll in the first place.
As for wealth and power coming from freedom, I couldn't agree more. I'm an American. My wife and I both come from lower-class to very lower-class backgrounds. My mom (single divorced parent, 4 kids) was a frequently unemployed elementary school teacher. My wife's father has held a variety of odd jobs. We both worked hard, and we're both now in law school. Within a few years - practically upon graduation - our combined income will be well over six times what either of our parents brings home right now. There are very, very few places in the world where a person can make that kind of socioeconomic jump in one generation without criminal/political connections. America is one of those places.
If you're unhappy where you're at, here's a tip - work harder and work smarter. Whining will get you nowhere.
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:5, Insightful)
Moderator: go fuck yourself, please. You're what's wrong with this society where both political factions think the other is 100% inhuman.
You should use your moderator points to determine if comments are interesting, etc. Not to upvote crap you agree with in the most childish digg-style possible. By validating the parent poster's simplistic and stupid attacks, you're fueling the fire.
Mitt Romney isn't being attacked for his view on drugs: he's being attacked for being a republican. Everyone knows it. Hillary's view on the War on Drugs is identical. Obama actually talks about ramping up the War on Drugs. But they aren't republicans so they aren't subject to the same level of attack.
Romney is showing some awareness of technology that people like Bush "uses the google" fundamentally lack. It's refreshing. Idiot trolls crawl out of the woodwork to attack Romney's entire moral system for reasons utterly irrelevant, I call them on being single-issue-selfish.
I'm not even a republican, and I'm getting sick of this crap. Every election year I have to listen to trolls validate each other's existence while hating huge segments of society. For whatever reason (likely Bush's fumbling presidency), Slashdot leans left, so Romney's embracing of technology is seen as an invitation to attack.
Well mods, if you really want to, go ahead and moderate down every single thing I have ever said. Because I disagree with you. Call me a troll for issuing obvious and relatively polite self-defense. slashdot can be another digg.com.
Re:that's not on his ipod (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no Romney fan (and that's saying something-- I live in MA), but come on-- this article seems to be mostly speculation. Where did Time get this information? Did they find the dog excrement themselves and then deduce the rest of the story? It's such an obvious smear piece (no pun intended) that I am skeptical. They couldn't even goad the MSPCA officer into saying much.
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:1, Insightful)
The above post is directly on-topic, discussing Mitt Romney's political positions in a thread about him, and comparing Mitt to other candidates. But it's voted offtopic.
Moderating is not about who you disagree with. You may feel some kind of glee at censoring speech you don't like, but America is getting sick of the liberal fascism. I'm a liberal and I'm getting very tired of it. It makes you look like a bunch of kids. I can only imagine how different the world would be if Bush had been protested by intelligent and civil and fair people, instead of a horde of psychopaths who think pot being illegal harms hundreds of millions of Americans. I can only imagine what would have happened with the abuses in guantanamo if the protestors didn't deny the truth about 9/11 and that Bush probably wasn't lying about WMDs so much as our intelligence services have sucked since the 50s.
If you're trying to irritate me, to some extent you're succeeding. I want real change and progress and care a lot about human rights, but my civil and fair attempts to discuss this stuff is totally overwhelmed by the idiots who think Republicans are evil, there is no reason to support a war on drugs, and every other issue must be exaggerated to the point of unbelievability.
Drugs are a problem. Real people out there have good reasons for supporting the war on drugs. You're going to have to try to reason with these people if you want their votes. Most voters, with the exception of the Ron Paul supporters who also are white supremacists, are good people, with good values.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:that's not on his ipod (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:3, Insightful)
You site a figure of drug arrests, but the example above was for someone who is in a wheelchair and weighs 80 pounds and no doubt has a medical reason to use pot and no other alternative. Don't you realize that you are making a dishonest rebuttal? We're talking about two different things! The gp said that Mitt was inhumanly unethical for not supporting pot for a very narrow class of people. That has nothing to do with recreational use or the huge arrest numbers.
So maybe you should work on your reading comprehension (which, no disrespect intended, is almost surely harmed by your overuse of marijuana). I only argued that there are many legitimate reasons to support the war on drugs, and pot has ruined many lives. I don't think it matters because pot mainly ruins the lives of idiots who overuse the drug.
There are many legitimate reasons for outlawing any substance. We can ban shoes from North Korea, even for recreational use. Fact is, laws are made by the elected. They are legitimate solely on that basis, and not on my or your personal views. I agree the War on Drugs needs to let pot users do their thing out of efficiency, but unlike you, I'm honest enough to admit that those who favor this effort do have some legitimate moral concerns to rely on. They, like Mitt, are not inhuman violators of human rights. They just disagree on a tough issue.
And yeah, it's fact, pot is linked to schizophrenia. Pot is a hallucinogen (this is widely misunderstood) and affect some people very negatively, though most people just harm themselves slightly. I like how you just rule this truth out by fiat, as though you were God or something.
Re:America's best shot at having a secular preside (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like China, Russia, Cuba or Venezuela?
Some folks in the US prize economic and political self-determination over having things run by an 'enlightened' few. That's a principle of the Federal system, believe it or not. A little idealistic? Maybe. But that's how we roll.
Another Fan Of Outsourcing/H1B (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the flamebait tag. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:that's not on his ipod (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I agree with the flamebait tag. (Score:1, Insightful)
As an agnostic, one of the worst political possibilities I can think of is voting for someone who publicly proclaims his religion.
Re:America's best shot at having a secular preside (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand your confusion, but I'm afraid if we slide any further toward theocracy, those of us who are not believers are going to learn exactly what "freedom requires religion" means.
Mitt downloaded music? (Score:3, Insightful)
So he downloads music, but he doesn't mention paying for it. Is he a dirty, rotten music pirate? Perhaps the RIAA should sue him to find out!
Just kidding, of course, though I'd love to see one of the Presidential candidates wind up somehow accidentally involved in a RIAA lawsuit just to see the RIAA squirm.
Flamebait is a fairly accurate moderation. (Score:2, Insightful)
You refer to the war. But there are two wars, the war on terror and the war on drugs. I'm unable to work out which your talking about.
"One affects hundreds of millions of people, the other affects very few people"
Another vague expression, both wars affect millions, as does marijuana.
Finally, you end your post with what i can only call trollbait
"Who is your candidate that meets your standard? I can find something inhuman about them if I really wanna."
You've willingly or otherwise, started fishing for a response which will inherently lead to negative feedback. Thats the definition of trolling.
I'll also add about this post of yours...
"Romney's embracing of technology is seen as an invitation to attack"
No, its just that a discussion of a politician, for whatever reason, is reason to gossip, because it seems gossip is human nature.
If you want official information about a politician, go to some informative website. Not very many people care about researching what a politician stands for and don't find it interesting. Gossip can go everywhere else however
You can rebuke this post and its author all you want, but keep in mind this post is to point out why you got troll, and preferably, to stop mods voting up your original post out of sympathy.
Re:I agree with the flamebait tag. (Score:1, Insightful)
So you'll be voting for . . .?
Re:America's best shot at having a secular preside (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just an inefficient bonding ritual, rather like walk-a-thons. It would be far more efficient for them to go out working their normal jobs on overtime during the time they would have spent farming. Considering that Mormons are, statistically speaking, richer than the general population, the overtime pay could pay for the wages of 3 or 4 full-time agricultural workers.
These workers would not only be more efficient, but they would raise far more food.
But sorry, the Volunteers wouldn't feel as good about themselves.
Re:Not flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
Life is not about efficiency.
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:3, Insightful)
He justified attacking Iraq solely based on the fact that Iraq definitely had weapons of mass destruction and that they had decisive evidence. But they also couldn't show anyone the evidence because it was a "secret".
And all of their facts turned out to be incorrect, and you want to shift the blame away from his decision (And it was his alone, not congresses) to the intelligence agencies, which until Bush got his hands on them, stated that Iraq wasn't likely to be a threat.
The result leading to a huge smear on the international reputation of America, fallout with friendly nations, the souring national debt, and looming economic crisis
Right... Well if you want to let your leader off the hook for the biggest fuck up both nationally and globally in easily the last 20 years, that either makes you a bigger man then i am or irresponsible.
Now heres two quotes of yours, from two different posts in this same thread.
Heres the link that i think works at it up nicely
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/11/27/011749.php [blogcritics.org]
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-connected-to-white.html [blogspot.com]
Reading through it, the only thing the articles are able to prove, is that there are white supremacists who support Paul, but that it appears to be a one way relationship. So i consider the issue to be irrelevant.
Now i'm going to do some conjecturing here.
You said, "Idiot trolls crawl out of the woodwork to attack Romney's entire moral system for reasons utterly irrelevant, I call them on being single-issue-selfish."
If that applies to Romney, does that not also apply to Ron Paul?
If thats the case, can you explain why you yourself, by your own standards, is not an "Idiot Troll" that is "single-issue-selfish".
To the moderators, the later half might be a a flamebait in nature, but the fact remains that he inserted bogus, unrelated, and off-topic information in his post, but it still needs correcting. The "single-issue-selfish" is just me pointing out an obvious contradiction in his earlier post about stupid condemning people's morals for irrelevant matters.
Re:that's not on his ipod (Score:5, Insightful)
An early clue that someone may be a sociopath is mistreatment of animals. It points to a lack of empathy. How you treat a pet is a good indication of how you are likely to treat your brother, sister, mother, father, son, daughter or a stranger in the street.
Re:BS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'd prefer opinion poll leadership. (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to have this strange idea that if you exercise any of your own judgement, then you must be a dictator. If there are open and free elections before, during and at the end of your time in office in which the public are fully informed of your character and your policies and therefore know that form time to time you will make decisions they do not agree with, but you think are better for the country, then you're not a dictator; you're an elected official exercising the powers granted by the constitution, with the permission of the public.
Sometimes the public are just wrong and it's better to have someone with intelligence and principles, rather than a robot who is a slave to polls.
Re:Not flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
The grandparent used the existence of the farm as proof of the charity's efficiency, as opposed to the recruitment gimmick that it actually is. I'm pointing out that it is not efficient, and that if helping people is their main priority, then they should go in another direction.
"If it is okay for people to sit on their ass and play X-Box, why is it wrong for a bunch of like-minded people to get together and help others out in their spare time. God forbid people have fun or feel good while helping others..."
If these people think that their cause is so important, then they should realize that people die because of their insistence on having fun. Having participated in a lot of these things myself(My school forced me to, now I resort to strict donations), it seems to me that most people look at this thing as an opportunity to have fun with friends, and gain some respect or community service hours from their community for "helping out". From my experience, most of them couldn't care less what is actually done with the money.
I guess it's fine that we managed to co-opt this narcissism toward charity, but it's not a personal virtue.
"Life is not about efficiency."
With all due respect, tell that to the people who starved to death because the LDS volunteers needed to "have fun" to contribute.
Re:Romney doesn't have a prayer...(pun intended) (Score:3, Insightful)
In 83% of auto accidents where a pedestrian was killed or injured, the pedestrian was in a crosswalk.
Avoid milk, crosswalks and pot and you'll live forever.
Re:America's best shot at having a secular preside (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a marketing gimmick at all -- there's no intent to "sell" the charity to anyone. The church doesn't solicit donations outside of its membership, though it does get them, nor does it use its charitable programs as a method for gaining membership, or good PR. It also does nothing to increase the dollar donations flowing in.
I think it's very funny that I've repeated in a microcosm here exactly what the church as a whole has experienced: When we keep our good works to ourselves, we are accused of doing nothing. When we explain what we do, and how well it works, we're accused of all sorts of manipulative skullduggery by people who refuse to believe that the real purpose is exactly what it's stated to be.
I should mention that this method of "enhancing" the effectiveness of charitable donations through volunteer administrative and manual labor is not a new thing; it's been a normal practice for 150 years, including during the years that the church was isolated in the mountain west with no one to market to.
Re:I agree with the flamebait tag. (Score:3, Insightful)
The word "Agnostic" is derived from Greek meaning "without knowledge." I'd say most self-described agnostics are not weak/lazy atheists as you imply, but simply reject the notion that there can be absolute certainty about the existance of god/gods/spirits/etc.
To be atheist is to actively disbelieve in God, which still requires some degree of faith. Occam's Razor vs. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." An atheist will say they *know* there is no such thing as God, an agnostic will say they don't know, may never know, and is okay with that. They're quite distinct outlooks.
Re:I agree with the flamebait tag. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Democratic race and the Republican race are undecided for different reasons. The Republicans are divided because all of the candidates are weak. None of the candidates can unite the various factions- the Republican Party establishment, small-government conservatives, evangelicals- the way George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan did. All the candidates have some serious issues: Romney is about as authentic as Pamela Anderson's breasts, McCain is too centrist for the far right (hell, the New York Times endorsed him!) and Giuliani... well, he's just a jerk.
A Democratic frontrunner has failed to emerge for the opposite reason: you have two strong, electable candidates with broad party support. Republicans can't make up their mind because they can't figure out who they dislike least, but Democrats can't make up their mind because they can't figure out who they like more. If Clinton takes the nomination, she'll pick up Obama's supporters, and if he wins the nomination, he'll pick up her supporters. Whether the nominee is Obama or Clinton, that person will have broad, strong support across the Democratic Party. As for electability, Obama generates more enthusiasm among Republicans than a lot of Republican candidates. And Clinton may piss off the right, but that's because she's Hillary Clinton, not because she's a woman.
Either way, the smart money is on a Democratic victory: eight years of disastrous mismanagement and a crop of uninspiring candidates have left the Republican party base unenthusiastic, which won't help turnout. Democrats are energized, which is going to help their turnout. But as they say, it's a bad idea to make predictions, especially about the future.
Re:He is not a "PC Guy" (Score:2, Insightful)
But seriously... putting "PC Guy" and "iPod" in the same sentence...
Re:that's not on his ipod (Score:3, Insightful)
An early clue that someone may be a sociopath is mistreatment of animals. It points to a lack of empathy. How you treat a pet is a good indication of how you are likely to treat your brother, sister, mother, father, son, daughter or a stranger in the street.
Fish. In. A. Barrel. (Score:3, Insightful)
The same founders who prosecuted the First [wikipedia.org] and Second [wikipedia.org] Barbary wars? You know, those guys, Jefferson and Madison? I seem to recall those two having something to do with the constitution...
The "current legal climate" you allude to has been the "current legal climate" for more than TWO CENTURIES of this county's history. I know, you didn't learn history in school and you feel blindsided by this, but these are not new legal concepts, and no one is using crazy lawyer talk to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. It's a shame that approximately 4% of the people in this country woke up one day and decided to read the constitution without paying any attention whatsoever to either the history of the document or how the Supreme Court has interpreted it. It is also supremely funny to see the same people practically demanding the courts step in to stop wars (as you do above) when the constitution does not grant them that power, nor does it even explicitly grant the court the power of judicial review, the underlying power you want the court to use to act in this manner. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
As for poll numbers, he has come in second in both Nevada and Louisiana. Those numbers speak for themselves.
Now this is where it goes from funny to sad. Wow. Paul got second place - (Wow, second! That matters so much in American elections!) where NO ONE BUT THE FRONT RUNNER BOTHERED TO CAMPAIGN. And in Nevada, he managed to take a whopping 14% - less than 1/3 of the front runner and only 1% ahead of McCain, who never bothered with the state to begin with! He picked up an astounding four - yes, count 'em, 4 - delegates - One NINTH of what any of the serious candidates has! Clearly, his campaign is a steamroller, filled with such power that it cannot be stopped! Oh, no, wait - he's dead in the water and hanging on to make himself feel important, as he hasn't a chance to win any appreciable and significant number of delegates come Super Tuesday. You're right on one matter, though: those numbers do speak for themselves, and they do not speak in favor of Ron Paul. A bunch of people voting over and over again on internet polls does not a viable candidate make.
Also, I love how you claim a vote for Paul is against common sense. The media has done well to brainwash those of you unable to perform independent analysis (and don't call me a conspiracy theorist - it takes but one google search to find heaps of evidence of media bias against Ron Paul).
"Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you're an idiot and you've been brainwashed by the vast media bias against this man." Oh, but it is to laugh. You're right - I've done no independent analysis. Just posted rebuttals to his main points. With sources. Nope, no research or thought here, no siree Bob. Oh, and conspiracy theorists totally don't believe things like The Man brainwashing the ignorant masses - because all reasonable people must believe what Ron Paul says, this means that everyone is either too stupid or too brainwashed to vote for him!
Here's a quick hint - it's not media bias. It's not that everyone but you can't figure out the grand gnosis of Ron Paul. It's not that you're the only ones defending the Constitution. It's that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and the vast majority of the population has more than enough reason to both disbelieve and disregard your arguments. Now, if you get warm fuzzies being a martyr for a wacko, then by all means do so.
He's the only Republican claiming
Re:I agree with the flamebait tag. (Score:2, Insightful)