Bush Website Blocked Outside N. America 1797
acey72 writes "The BBC News are
reporting that George W Bush's re-election website (don't bother if you aren't in the USA) is blocked to people accessing it from outside the USA. Netcraft spotted the change on Monday, and have a report on the matter. Oh well, at least John Kerry's site still works for us outlanders." At least some Canadians can access the Bush campaign site, but Europeans cannot (without going through a U.S. proxy).
At least the .org's still accessible! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At least the .org's still accessible! (Score:4, Interesting)
So's the
Seems that Dubya's put on a bit of weight, too.
Re:At least the .org's still accessible! (Score:4, Funny)
Handy-dandy Google cache and Archive.org links (Score:5, Informative)
Dead Letter Office (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems like some of the Bush campaign staffers have accidentally sent emails to colleagues at name@georgewbush.ORG instead of the correct name@georgewbush.COM. Fortunately, the georgewbush.org mailserver had a "catch-all" mailbox in place, and you can read the contents of this "Dead Letter Office [georgewbush.org]". There are some gems in there, like memos intended for Karl Rove, a weekly report from "Pennsylvania Evangelical Outreach", and even apparent evidence of illegal suppression of black votes (check out Caging1.xls).
Interesting ... very interesting.
Re:Dead Letter Office (Score:4, Insightful)
An illustration of how everyone wants ".com", no matter how appropriate. I could joke about how politicians are for sale and thus should be in .com, but really, it's just dumbing down the whole naming system. Another I've noticed is "moneyfactory.com" for the mint; which I believe is rather definitely part of the government and thus should be a .gov. By all means, get the .com too (it's only $10) before it gets squatted by a porn site, but set it to redirect to the real .org site.
But I realise this has as much hope as Linux being called "GNU/Linux", or media differentiating between hackers and crackers.
www.govorgcom.net (Score:4, Funny)
The funniest instance I've found of this phenomenon is the website for the Denver, Colorado city government.
Instead of the no-brainer www.denver.gov they use www.denvergov.com and www.denvergov.org.
No, really.
Re:www.govorgcom.net (Score:5, Informative)
That's because there are special naming requirements [gpo.gov] for cities that use the
Re:At least the .org's still accessible! (Score:5, Insightful)
at least it claims that Bush's foreign policy is based on:
------
The strategy has three pillars:
- We will defend the peace by opposing and preventing violence by terrorists and outlaw regimes.
- We will preserve the peace by fostering an era of good relations among the world's great powers.
- And we will extend the peace by seeking to extend the benefits of freedom and prosperity across the globe."
-----
Hello??? Have I been living in the same universe as these guys??? All three pillars involve "peace"? What happened to preemptive war, the axis of evil, not caring what the rest of world think, etc. etc.
I guess the site must have been hijacked by some crazy flip-flopping communists democrat freaks
Re:At least the .org's still accessible! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At least the .org's still accessible! (Score:4, Informative)
Gee I wonder why this is biting us in the ass?
Re:At least the .org's still accessible! (Score:4, Interesting)
No, but you sure can blame Bush for the failed coup in Venezuela on April 11th, 2002 [guardian.co.uk]. The motive seems to have been the same [forbes.com] as the one in Iran [iranchamber.com].
Re:War is Peace (Score:5, Funny)
He is displaying his ignorance of the book by misquoting it, thereby displaying his strength.
Re:oh my beloved american friends (NO SARCASM HERE (Score:5, Informative)
That last one really get me. How can you even watch Fox News and come up with that?
Oh yeah, there's an interview [kcrw.com] at the end of "To the Point" with the director, Steve Kull.
Re:YES! (Score:5, Informative)
NBC News [msn.com]
And that guy Bin Laden. It turns out that Bush isn't really that concerned about him.
LA Times story on Yahoo [yahoo.com]
That's how you get tough on terrorism, Bush-style.
Re:YES! Oh wait.... NO! (Score:5, Interesting)
A) Late term abortion isn't promoted by anyone except for the reason of the mother's health. There aren't any abortion advocates really trying to argue about things after the third trimester. This issue is a total red herring, and it's intended effect is to make the entire issue of abortion about killing babies as opposed to flushing a non-viable bundle of cells.
"The CDC estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.5 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2003)."
(Feel free to argue the bias of the source, I'll find another: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/ab
STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT, but propaganda-wise it's a goldmine. Your graphic description is just an emotional ploy, totally unrelated to the actual facts of the debate. However, this seems to be a successful trend with the current administration, so I can't fault you for jumping on the rhetorical bandwagon.
Let's face it, the fundamental issue is when someone becomes a person. Since there is a fair percentage of us who don't buy the bible's explanation, and some others who don't buy the doctor's explanation ('cause you know, they're only doctors), we have to discuss it in the middle. The plan that the anti-abortion team has is to get anything they can into law that talks about the life of the fetus near the edge of the current grey area so that they have a beachhead to argue from. Same argument as killing a pregnant mother counting as a double murder. Certainly not supported by current abortion law, but they figure if they can sneak it into criminal law they can work it around eventually.
Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.
B) Ok, the Kerry thing has to be just trolling but I'll bite.
First, no one can deny that the situation in Iraq after the invasion is totally borked, most especially the total lack of international support.
Second, no one can deny that John Kerry's military service, whatever it is, is orders of magnitude more real than George Bush's, whatever it is. The guy actually carried a gun and shot people he could see. I'm pretty certain that gives a person important perspective on the concept of war.
The current administration is so full of chickenhawks they had to build a database to hold them. http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?use
C) Here's the most important thing you're missing. Iraq and abortion aren't that important issues in my mind. A president who consistently lies to the American public about important issues (jizz in the oval office being a not-important issue, for instance), and who surrounds himself with people who do the same, is not qualified for the job. People support Kerry not because he's pro-abortion but because he seems like less of a liar than the current guy.
Hey, this is my first angry slashdot post! Now where's my ribbon?
dea9
Re:YES! Oh wait.... NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, so what's so different about the fetus's personhood 1 day before the third trimester?
I don't think grossing people out is necessary in the abortion debate. I just don't get how there can be such a disconnect for people between something in the womb and something that just came out if it. Even if it's a stinkin' embryo, thousands of years of observation STRONGLY suggests that, left unharmed, it's going to become a human being. If somebody has an abortion, simple logic dictates that they effectively prevented a human from existing, even if they don't think its a human at that point.
I was totally incensed this past April or whenever when CNN had the Pro Choice march on. All these woman would come up to speak about the virtue of a Woman's Right to Choose(tm) and then they bring up their daughters and tell them how they're doing all this for THEM!!!! If given the microphone for a moment, most of them just said something along the lines of "go pro-choice!", I was waiting for one to say, "I'm glad mommy didn't abort me!".
Seriously, it's a self-defeating argument- they're trying to protect their daughters, yet some of those potential daughters won't be around to enjoy that protection.
Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.
As long as it's legal, I'd have to say it should be okay until they move out
Re:YES! Oh wait.... NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not viable, even with serious equipment.
Now the intersting thing is that "serious equipment" is a moving target. But the basic argument is that it can't develop outside the womb if it were, for instance, born that prematurely.
I think this is the definition of viability for fetuses, but I'm getting a little murky on the terms. Of course that's a grey area too, which is why doctor's have to consult with women to determine that a fetus is not viable before a regular abortion takes place. Please disagree with this if I'm wrong.
However, I do agree with your point that it is the snuffing out of a potential human life. It just doesn't bother me, what with the overpopulation and AIDS killing a zillion people a day.
Shit, starving people all over the world who have kids are basically sentencing a certain percentage of them to death. Where's the outrage about that? At least abortion is a well reasoned choice, where you take responsibility for your own action when it matters: before you make a mistake that leads to years of easy-to-measure human suffering.
To really clear the air, I'd even let you say life began with conception, and that abortion was actually killing a real live person. I just wouldn't call it murder, with all the punishment attached. If we're gonna have penicillin, clearly a human invented way of choosing which people to keep alive, I can't see the moral dilemma in choosing which people to prevent from being alive. The same could be said about distribution of food and medicine on a world wide scale. The Catholics are at least consistent on this one, they're pro-life for everything.
Interesting point about the not-aborted daughters, but I totally disagree. Certainly some of those girls are happy and have an excellent life and relationship with their mothers because they were born at the right time. How many too-young unwed mothers produce children that will go with them to political rallys? So I think their sentiment does make sense, choosing to end a pregnancy through abortion allows you to provide the best life for your eventual child.
"I had a dream the other night that all the babies prevented by the pill came back.
They were pissed."
- Steven Wright
dea9: Visualize your mailing lists to actually SEE trolls! [marumushi.com]
Re:YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
This "insightful" comment is the reason I distrust Republicans and won't vote for Bush. Too many seem to equate reasonable dissent and constructive criticism with treason.
Every time I ask self-proclaimed democrats why they support abortion, they say they believe in a womans right to choose...
There are many here in the US without the hubris to proclaim that they know the mind of God and who do not wish to force their religous beliefs down the throats of others. Abortion is a difficult personal choice that only a woman and her own conscience can make. I find it particularly disturbing that the religious zelots on the right would outlaw late term abortions with no provision for protecting the life of the mother. By doing so, they will surely kill some women whose pregnancy has developed serious life threatening complications. It must truly feel rightous to have such moral clarity that you know that the fetus's life is always more important than the mother's.
Re:YES! (Score:5, Informative)
They do not drill a hole in the baby's skull. They insert a pair of scissors, then open it to enlarge the hole. [nrlc.org]
I hope this will teach you not to swallow wingnut propaganda in the future!
Re:YES! (Score:5, Informative)
I look at Bush & Cheney and see the epitome of the 'good-ol-boy' network. Back door deals, friends of Enron, Halliburton, & Suadi Arabia.
I find it hard to ignore that the 2 times we've been at war with Iraq, it's been with a Bush in office. The cost is still rising, another 70 billion just been asked for. With this kind of money, we could have searched every inch of Afganistan twice.
As far as taxes go, I have NEVER had a problem paying my taxes when the economy is great, and my paychecks roll in. There are more taxes to COLLECT when more people are working and spending.
Bush should have kept my $300 check. It pales in comparison to the bonus check we get on good years. The year I got a $300 check from Bush, not only did I get no bonus, we had to fire 100 people. It could have been me.
I'm not going to be able to change your mind. So I'll just point out again that I think people see what they want to see. I know during the debates, I sure did. Talked to some Republicans the next day who loved Bush's performance. !!?
WWJT (Score:5, Funny)
Although some "Christians" might argue the following logic:
God allowed Jesus to be tortured.
God = Jesus.
Therefore, Jesus allowed Jesus to be tortured.
Golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Jesus says: Do unto others as I (God) would do unto (others) Jesus.
Therefore, Torture others, coz Jesus says it's okay.
When leaders in the Pentagon and Justice Department failed to take the high road and walked away from the Geneva Convention at Abu Gharib and Guantanemo Bay, they began walking the morally dubious path.
Bush's moral certainty excuses immoral activity. Some could compare it to bin Laden's moral certainty that calls for innocent slaughter. Committing crimes in the name of God doesn't make it less wrong.
Re:WWJT (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW grandparent [slashdot.org] is mad funny.
Re:WWJT (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm, Try reading this [cnn.com] or this [christianembassy.com].
Re:sorry, bro (Score:4, Insightful)
Trolling is when you post something false in feigned ignorance. Posting truths that are inconvenient to the VRWC is patriotic dissent.
Re:Yes, you are sorry, Bro (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. invasion led directly to such chaos that all of this stuff was able to be trucked out. As you say, moving this stuff requires a massive effort. It's amazing the amount of incompetence and understaffing that had to be going on that this could happen. Even with full knowledge of the exact location and inventory of all sensitive materials before the invasion had even begun, they still couldn't keep the bad guys from hauling off truck after truck full of stuff. Hell, in the case of the WMD manufacturing, they even dismantled and took off with the buildings!
Before the invasion: a very bad guy had lots of conventional explosives, and was wishing for WMDs but probably wouldn't have been able to get them unless the sanctions were lifted (per the inspection group). He was an egomaniacal dictator, hated in the region, and jealously guarded what he had. It is not apparent that he would have sold his stuff to others. He was a bad guy, but was not a direct or apparently indirect threat to the U.S.
After the invasion: it's almost certain that a large chunk of the stuff we went to war so that Saddam wouldn't sell it to the terrorists is, well, in the hands of the terrorists.
I personally believe that this is NOT the fault of the troops, who did the best they could; it was the fault of the administration only seeing what they wanted to see, ignoring intelligence, estimates and requests they didn't like, and George W. "we're not going to have any casualties" Bush trying to do the job on the cheap because he thought he could get away with it.
Thus, as a direct result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there are now hundreds of tons of high explosives, plus entire buildings full of specialized WMD manufacturing machinery and tools in the hands of we know not who.
Feel safer?
Re:Yes, you are sorry, Bro (Score:5, Informative)
Syria is another arabic country, a good place to sell stuff if you need some cash to make an escape with.
Re:Yes, you are sorry, Bro (Score:5, Insightful)
Human rights violation ? Ok, the US violates the human rights too [hrw.org] with the Guantanamo camp. W should invade the US too.
The 350 tons of explosives didn't disappeared under the UN's nose but under the US's nose. They disappeared in April 2003. Check it now [cnn.com].
You are too stupid to admit that there are simply no WMDs in Irak despite that even GWB himself and his administration admitted this fact. I believe you are definitely lost.
Re:Ugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, let me get this straight. You vote Republican because when Democrats see something seriously wrong, they challenge it? It's better than sitting idly while your freedoms, liberties, and livelihood is challenged.
They proved that with the 2000 election.
Gore won that election, even in Florida. I was a Republican, but crossed over to the Democratic party after watching the Republican party steal the presidency. Bush is president only by title. Even this election, several republicans funded by the GOP have been caught [google.com] disposing of tens of thousands of valid democrat voter registrations in swing states, and rarely vice versa, probably a fraction of the total fraud going on.
Don't hate me because I think John Kerry is a douche bag
But I'm voting for him anyway [johnkerryi...anyway.com]
Re:oh my beloved american friends (NO SARCASM HERE (Score:5, Informative)
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
Perhaps you could have phrased your question better?
Re:oh my beloved american friends (NO SARCASM HERE (Score:5, Informative)
Well, American and foreign prisioners are being held at Guantanamo bay without charge or trial. The press are being granted only very limited access to the goings-on there. And one of the persuasion methods being employed there is to prevent detainees from practicing their normal religious duties.
Re:At least the .org's still accessible! (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's not. The USA faces practically zero terrorism. 9/11 was a spike, and we've caused at least 20x the damage to innocent civilians in our fight against terrorism. Americans have a better chance of having a new disease named after them than dying in a terrorist attack.
Bush wants Americans to be afraid, so he can push his agenda and use that fear to get reelected. Bush has many killed more Americans than have all the terrorists combined, through fear and budgetting, and even more foreigners in the name of preventing another 9/11. Americans will vote for Bush because they believe his lies.
We didn't catch many of the terrorists behind 9/11 because Bush allowed them to leave by plane the next day to Saudi Arabia, when all other planes in the country were grounded. Among them were several members of the bin Laden family. Authorized by the president himself. The bin Ladens gave the Bush family $1.4 billion before the 2000 election. If we caught the terrorists, there could be no war on terror, no war for the control of middle east oil production, which is the greatest concern of the Bush family.
Perfectly demonstrates (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perfectly demonstrates (Score:5, Insightful)
You got modded troll, but I think it's a fair comment. The man's invaded Iraq, invaded Afghanistan, and at length talked about the importance of alliance support.
Why shouldn't the rest of the world see what's on his website? If Iraq's important enough for him to invade, it's important enough for him to spend a few extra $$$ for the people of Iraq (and the RoW) to see what his re-election policies are.
The other thing that shits me about this is that it is setting a nasty precedent for the web - and this is a high profile site. I'd hate to see a whole lot of other sites all around the world taking this approach to blocking foreign access. It would ruin the 'net.
Re:Perfectly demonstrates (Score:5, Informative)
Your sig is incorrect, sir. Here is the full quote, not truncated by the Associated Press [turkishpress.com]:
So, you see, Iran's government simply considers America "the Great Satan" no matter who wins on November 2. I suggest you change your sig so you look less misinformed in the future.
Works from Canada... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Works from Canada... (Score:5, Funny)
I believe the official term is "America Junior" (credit to H.S.)
Re:Works from Canada... (Score:5, Funny)
Non-US Simulation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Non-US Simulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non-US Simulation (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, it is possible that their sys admin is incredibly incompetent, and thinks he's doing this to prevent DOS attacks.
Re:Non-US Simulation (Score:5, Interesting)
It makes me wonder, how are they doing it and if they got all the IP blocks for non-us countries, or if they just went by "blocking APNIC and RIPE blocks"
Re:Non-US Simulation (Score:5, Informative)
At last (Score:5, Funny)
Forum abuse perhaps? (Score:5, Interesting)
Either way BFD. Political websites are almost entirely content or truth free. Why bother reading them?
Re:Forum abuse perhaps? (Score:4, Insightful)
Any webmaster can block connections from any IPs he doesn't want connecting, I don't see how georgewbush.com should be any different.
Re:Forum abuse perhaps? (Score:5, Funny)
Not Surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
Stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
Proxy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Proxy (Score:4, Informative)
(Replying to self - what a faux pas)
Fine. (Score:5, Funny)
What's George W. Bush's IP? Anyone know?
Re:Fine. (Score:5, Funny)
why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
"You are not authorized..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Diplomatic Oversight (Score:5, Funny)
I bet (Score:5, Funny)
nyud.net:8090 works (Score:5, Informative)
I'm blocked too, and I live in the US.. (Score:5, Informative)
Not that I'd vote for Bush. Or Kerry. May they both Rot in Peace.
This one works (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the hackers will never think of using this one https://georgewbush.com/ [georgewbush.com]
Re:This one works (Score:4, Funny)
Out of the three video steaming formats, which of them allow you to put them on repeat? ;-)
I've got a whole lab of hosts sitting here doing very little for the next wee while...
Yawn (Score:3, Insightful)
There are already enough anti-Bush people that will take ANY change as some sort of big fuck-the-world gesture from the Bush camp. And of course despite that fact that nobody knows for sure WHY this has been implemented there will 1000 conspiracy theories posted, and dozens of pro-Kerry propaganda garbage as well.
Until there is enough information to actually discuss the topic with facts I'm not really interested...
Kinda backfired didn't it? (Score:3, Funny)
Sadly, a link was then posted to Slashdot, increasing costs and traffic.
haha ... (Score:4, Funny)
Kerry uses LAMP [netcraft.com] and has been on Akamai for sometime now
We already know which IT dept has won
Sunny Dubey
Re:haha ... (Score:4, Informative)
Results are here.
http://elvis.netmar.com/~will/electionsites/
Note that this is a couple of months old.
For a list of open proxies ... (Score:3, Informative)
Not blocking IP, only DNS name (Score:5, Informative)
So http://65.172.163.222 works fine abroad.
Silly ISP.
Blocked right here in Indianapolis! (Score:4, Interesting)
Origin server still works (Score:5, Interesting)
When setting up a site on Akamai you have to set the origin (I've done many of these!).
This still works, ripe for a DDOS... origin.georgewbush.com [georgewbush.com]
They also restrict who gets to hear him speak (Score:4, Interesting)
So this web site nonsense is probably more of the same. "Non Americans? Who needs 'em!"
Bit of a snub to americans living overseas. (Score:4, Interesting)
Typical Bush behavior (Score:5, Funny)
US Citizens outside of the US (Score:5, Interesting)
More votes for the opponents, I guess . . .
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Blaming this on the capabilities of the provider is not an excuse.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are weary of the outside world trying to influence your politics, then bloody well stop trying to affect other peoples politics. I mean seriously, was that a troll? You can't invade other countries and then turn around and say "Why the hell are the rest of the world interested in our politics?"
But I forgot, the UN didn't agree with the US, so the UN is automatically irrelevant. Better go veto another Israel policy eh...
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that there is nothing "wrong" with this (other than the collateral overseas abenstee voter damage), it does point out something about this presidents beliefs:
What the rest of the world thinks does not matter.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:4, Insightful)
Are we to believe that people in the Bush campaign aren't rich enough to foot the bill for the last week of a site that's been up in one form or another since 1999? While anyone can find a mirror or archive, it's the thought that counts. It's just another example of how, generally speaking, Bush doesn't care about the worlds population unles it suits his agenda. He doesn't read papers or watch the news because he doesn't like what they say. When the world community disagrees with he, he just ignores them and does it his own way, mocking the other countires the whole time, until he shows back up on their doorstep, hat in hand, pleading for help. It sounds like this man lives in his own world.
You know what I would love to see as the next
I bet most Americans couldn't even name any of the policies of the Libertarian or Green partys, the 2 largest 3rd party candidates. I find it hard to believe that so many people believe all they hype by the media and fail to realize that the Dems and Repubs are unable to represent the majority of the country. Is America so diverse that only two colors can fill in the map of our demographic? Imagine if all the disillusioned voters and non-voters banded together and voted for Nader, the person with the strongest standing on the presidental ballot with a major part of his campaign being to abolish the winner take all electoral system. Even if you don't agree with his policy to pardon all non-violent drug offenders, or make drugs a health and social issue nstead of continuing the failing criminal model, or even if you think his semi-isolationist internationl stance is crap, he and other 3rd party candidates are the only way electoral reform has a shot in hell of happening. The two major parties agree to refuse sharing their power, while America eats its own shit, continuing to believe that the lesser of two evils is an acceptabe mentality in a democracy.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's just me, but as an Ohioan I suspect a personal letter from someone in the UK would be vastly more interesting than the pure crap I'm getting from the campaigns in the mail and on TV. If someone (a real person, and not a political campaign or corporation or something) wants to share their opinion with me, I'd probably look at it. Why not? It's just as unlikely to sway my opinion as the rest of the stuff. Anyone who bases their decisions in an election on any one data point, particularly something they saw in an advertisement, isn't really doing their job as a citizen IMO.
But the angry reaction to the letter writing campaign strikes me as jingoistic and immature, at the least. Yes, the letters are unlikely to tell us anything we don't know, and we've got enough pure opinion pieces to wade through already. But if a sincere person (a citizen of our most important ally in Iraq, I might add) thinks it's worthwhile to send me a personal letter, I'm going to read the thing. It probably won't be of political interest but it might be interesting on a personal level.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:4, Insightful)
As to your belief that police don't owe anything to the policed, that's just what a police state would want you to think. In theory, the police are supposed to be under the control of our elected representatives, who are voted in and out of office by the policed. It sounds like you don't think police should be held responsible for abuse of authority or police brutality, and that strikes me as an insane attitude.
If America continues its economic slide, it could get overtaken by China and India. Then you're going to wish you'd been a little less eager to popularize the idea that a country should be able to do preemptively invade another country if the invading country feels that it's in the interests of "national security" to do so.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
The US was, and is, a nation that fostered terrorism in quite a number of countries around the world. Do you think that gives China the right to send in the helicopter gunships and take over?
Nobody liked Saddam, but more people are worried about the terrorist actions of the US than were worried about him.
Remember, double standards come home to roost. Unless you get a heap more humility and start acting to the standards of the civilised world, one day you are going to find out that type of behaviour hurts.
Don't whine about it then, you're not special and have no special rights. Learn the lesson now, before its too late.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought Americans were pretty keen on a concept called "free speech"?
Oh - hang on... What year is it again?
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Funny)
Oh - hang on... What year is it again?
We care about free speech only when it comes from us. Except for the DMCA. And the Patriot Act.
Damn, I should move.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Like you said: This is a political campaign site with political campaign propaganda.
You know that most of Europe and a few other countries for some reason or other backs Kerry, right (worldwide polls put Kerry at 70%, Bush at sub-20%, with only Korea and one other nation backing Bush)? And perhaps doesn't understand why Americans are so different?
Since the rest of the world is going to have to live with whoever's voted (mostly foreign policy issues), it's nice to be able to actually find out *why* Americans vote the way they do. I may not be able to vote in your election, but I sure am going to have to live with your decision. And reading the propaganda straight from the horse's mouth is the best reason to why Bush may be re-elected in.
(Note: I know that Kerry and Bush are equally bad choices (worse in some places than the other, better in other places... but really, it's a decision on two bad choices - or as we say in Canada, picking the least offensive) - yet for some reason or other, Kerry's more popular outside the US.
Bush's website will perhaps tell us why Americans are so divided to be split even on how they'll vote? And let us do the research. There may yet be something Bush does that no one outside the US knows and it's posted on his website. The international community has been wrong before - I don't know, maybe Bush is a really great guy - but at least it will help us find out why the preferences are so skewed.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Kerry is not necessarily popular. It's just that Bush is unpopular, and Kerry is the only alternative.
"ABB" reigns.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:4, Insightful)
Yours is one of the most informed and insightful comments on this topic that I have yet read. It asks a question that I will try to (perhaps imperfectly) answer.
The first mistake non-Americans make when analyzing American politics is the over emphasis of political parties and positions. The American system of government is one that emphasizes election of individuals rather than of parties or ideas. In America, politicians may claim membership in a (Republican, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, etc.) party, but they have no obligation to the party platform... nor do the voters expect them to. If you doubt this, look at Zell Miller (Democrat?) or John McCain (Republican?).
Contrast this then with the rest of the world... In many (most?) other constitutional democracies, it is possible to vote for a PARTY in addition to a local representative. The local rep is beholden to his party and platform for advancement (the locals may elect him, but he can never become Prime Minister unless he does as he is told).
In those countries that are NOT democracies, PARTY is still important... In communist nations (China, Cuba, etc) an official owes EVERYTHING to the party and must do as they are told... and the same is basically true in the Dictatorships and Monarchies around the world. In SOVIET RUSSIA, the PARTY FINDS YOU! (Sorry, had to get that in.)
So the world reads the platforms of the Democratic and Republican Party, and of the two Candidates, and notices that the Democrats claim to be more receptive to the "needs" and "wishes" of the "world" and especially the "UN"... it's no surprise they find this preferable.
The "world", and especially the "UN" resents it when the US goes out and does things without being told. Bush has done this, and asserts the right of the US to do so again... Kerry has not. Go figure.
So why do Americans not see Bush and Kerry in the same light as "The World" does?
1) Americans really could care less what the rest of the world thinks about what it does. We spend plenty of time with our historical revisionism and tearing down our heroes and leaders and don't need any outside help, thank you! Moreover, Americans know that the "World" lacks the capability to do what we do, so we are naturally skeptical when that same "World" tries to tell us how we MUST use that ability.
The "World" may view America is Arrogant and Ill Informed, but Americans generally think the same of the "World".
2) Americans (or at least the famous group of "SWING VOTERS" that gets so much press) look more at personality and performance than at platform or party. And to complicate things for the foreign observers, we don't look for the same things every election...
Performance wise.... Bush doesn't have a perfect record (and "The World" thinks he has a poor record indeed), but Kerry has no record (Hasn't authored any legislation, has no "cause" except opposition to military action, but surprisingly, claims to support (in substance if not in form) current policy toward Iraq, at least last time I checked). So.... performance is moot to Americans.
That leaves personality... Kerry comes across as an upper-crust/elitist/knows what's best for you Snob. Bush comes across more as an "average joe"... opinionated, but not necessarily the smartest guy in the neighborhood, certainly not a know-it-all (Americanism for snob). Frankly, we like the Bush personality better, but not much better. Some of us are put off by his being opinionated, and many of us wish he "looked" smarter
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps it could have been treated as some sort of demonstration of democracy to internet-using citizens of the new Iraq and Afghanistan, an indication of the Right Manner of Doing Things?
Instead, there's just an error message with no explanation. Even a polite error message would have been an improvement...
The problem is (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
In a word, no. At least not in the USA.
During the campaign, both candidates try their best, with a straight face, to promise that everyone who votes for them will get to spend a night with the Swedish Bikini Team (or the equivalent male group, if they are so inclined) after the election. In addition to the free Lincoln Towncar, forgiveness of their mortgages and all taxes until the end of time.
Oh, and they'll make you immortal, too!
After the campaign is over, all that is forgotten (including the so-called Party Platform), and the winner gets on to the proper business of government - taking your money, and giving it to someone else.
Re:a few questions... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Last straw (Score:4, Informative)
That's funny, especially since Kerry enlisted in the Navy in 1966 and wasn't discharged until 1970. He spent four months in Vietnam, from 11/68 to 4/69 as part of that duty.
Here's a simplified timeline [motherjones.com] if you're interested in more.
Dishonarable Discharge (Score:5, Insightful)
And by all appearances wasn't HONORABLY discharged until President Carter's general amensty in 1977. Of course we can't be sure since Kerry still refuses to sign the release for his military records to be made public.
Re:Like Bob Dole once said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who Cares!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is an economic powerhouse, one that is tied with trillions of dollars of international trade and debt. What's bad for the US economy is bad for the world economy. If the US debt keeps going up, and the US has problems paying it, a whole lot of foreigners are out of a lot of money. If the US imposes tariffs on trade, it's not just American workers who suffer, but workers in countries that trade with the US suffer.
So from the point of view of a foreigner, it makes perfect sense to keep abreast of American politics. This is something many people due, because it has a direct impact on their lives. Even as an American, I make it a point to keep abreast of politics in Europe and Canada. These regions are important strategic allies, and important partners in trade. In the future, the EU also looks like it will become an important competitor economically. As a result, I would be foolish not to keep informed of their politics, because they have a direct impact on my country's economy.