With US election so close, I'm preparing to ...
Displaying poll results.21416 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8478 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7298 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:5, Funny)
More like the Special Olympics of truth-telling
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, there were a few in the primaries that I really felt like I could trust and I really felt were in the race to try to do what they thought was best for the country - Specifically Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel. The rest strike me as typical politicians just trying to climb the ladder, look good, and wind up uber-powerful.
Unfortunately, all of the ones that I felt I could trust had policies that (IMO) strained the bounds of sanity.
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:5, Insightful)
Methinks there's some causation in that correlation. As in, politicians who tell the truth about what they think is best are shown to be lunatics. The politicians who don't sound like lunatics are the ones who have learned to lie.
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess believing in a balanced budget, smaller government, and currency that isn't printed out of thin air is now considered radical thinking.
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:5, Interesting)
It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise rational, technical people think that gold has some magical value to it that makes it inherently worthy for use as money. It's just a shiny metal, people! Rare, true, but not inherently valuable unless you're using it as anti-corrosion plating or other such things.
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:4, Insightful)
> It is entirely rational to believe gold has more value than thin air.
Possibly, depending upon context ( though I am not convinced ).
Air sustains human life and hence all human activity derives from its presence. Therefore it essentially has infinite value.
Gold is shiny and a good conductor. Take away all gold and what really happens?
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree.
If people really wanted "change" we would be choosing between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich now.
Instead we are choosing between same-old and same-old.
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:5, Funny)
Instead we are choosing between same-old and same-old.
I prefer to say that we get to choose between same-old and same-very-old.
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, all of the ones that I felt I could trust had policies that (IMO) strained the bounds of sanity.
What if you rephrased that to say, strained the bounds of my conditioning? Anyone born in the US since Lincoln has been conditioned to accept a strong Federal government as the norm. The feeling of "insanity" related to processing Ron Paul's agenda of a Constitutional government is potentially nothing more than political cognitive dissonance.
The other factor is that Ron Paul, et al were not just attacking the political establishment of a particular party, they were attacking the establishment of both dominant parties, they were attacking the foundation of the current system itself. This causes practically everyone to hate you, and the easiest way for everyone to attack someone is to call them a nut. I think this bears out rather well historically. (Not that being called a nut establishes sanity, but for someone who seems to be telling the truth, and is attacking the establishment, getting called a nut is pretty much par for the course)
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:5, Informative)
Obama is just as bad at the lying thing my friend.
1. I will take public funds for the election. - Nope. He broke that promise
2. I won't vote for the new FISA bill with the telcon. immunity. - Nope He did vote for it.
3. His stance on gun control? Hmm...he was a supporter of the DC gun ban, and has had a record of voting against gun owners rights, signed a petition early on while an IL. senator saying he was for a total handgun ban. - He now agrees with the Supreme Ct. decision to strike down the DC gun ban, and he isn't going to try to restrict people's gun rights.
Hmm....looks like both candidates lie, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually...he did. He originally signed a pledge to do public financing. Look here to see [youtube.com] where Tim Russert (RIP) quizzed him about it during the primaries and he was starting to waffle on it then.
The whole point of doing public financing only IS to keep money out of the deal. When no one gives (individuals or entities)...candidates are less inclined to be beholden to contributors. If the only contributors ARE the general public then maybe they'll answer more to everyone.
Frankly, one thing that made me really sick during all this...especially early in the primaries, was the news reports, rather than discuss the candidate stance on issues, or sometimes even standings in votes or polls, reported instead on how much MONEY each candidate raised. This just re-enforces upon us that $$ is what elects them...not the voters.
Hell, yes I say...limit the money, that way less money to spend on negative ads maybe, if limited ads maybe they will used limited funds to put more meaningful ads out as to the issues and their actual standings on them.
So, yes, I know of what I speak and know 'zit' too.
PS. You might want to learn what a 'Shift' button is...makes your writing look much nicer.
Campaign finance, stirring the pot, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
> Hell, yes I say...limit the money, that way less money to spend on negative ads maybe...
Nah, I'm totally against limiting money in a campaign. Money == speech and "Congress shall make no law...." means exactly what it says. Which is why I am against Mr. McCain. I want him to explain how McCain Feingold squares with the 1st Amendment and his Oath of Office. On the other hand Obama signed an agreement and when he realized he could raise a crapload (from what might be illegal sources....) he broke his word.
If Obama weren't clearly an even greater menace to the Republic than McCain the Oathbreaker on so many other issues I'd be sitting this election out. As it is I'm going to hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil. But I haven't contributed any money to McCain or the national party this year.
Question for the Obama supporters I ask every political thread and never get an answer to:
Mr. Obama is promising to change the world. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Name one concrete accomplishment of Senator Obama in his career. Most people seeking POTUS can point to at least one major accomplishment that recommends them to such high office. So somebody should be able to point to something Mr. Obama is done that indicates he is capable of great things. Btw, getting elected to the Senate doesn't count. Not only are there 99 others currently sitting and hundreds more retired who can make that claim, Obama beat Alan Keyes after getting the divorce records of his more serious primary and general election opponents leaked. Anyone here could beat Alan Keys.
McCain has obvious ones... some I would call infamous but 'great' things anyway. Kerry ran on his war record (when speaking to the general public) and his treason (adhering to enemies during time of actual war) when talking to his base. Al Gore was (and still is) the Green Pope, Inventor of the Internet. Etc. Bush the Younger... well at least he had some executive experience as a Gov of TX. besides being a drunken frat boy most of his early life. But then again W wasn't promising to lower the seas either.
Re:Campaign finance, stirring the pot, etc (Score:4, Insightful)
Having a Democrat in the Whitehouse will be a happy enough changing of the world for many of us.
Bill Clinton when he came to Ireland had people lining the streets of Limerick to see the US president. People clapped as his car went by. And we still had the same reservations back then about US cultural influence, neo-Imperialism and so on, but we found the man in charge a lot less arrogant.
If Bush had done the same thing, he wouldn't have been safe to even engage that little amount with people. And if he somehow had, people would have been lining the streets to at the least, egg his car. To be honest, I think McCain would garner much the same response. Even though I do consider him to be more upstanding and sincere (look at his comments about the US currently torturing terrorist suspects), he very much seems beholden to his party and the same old nonsense.
I have little doubt Obama will be a stereotypical enough US president, and will engage in action that many around the world disagree with. He will look out for US interests first. But I doubt he will just rudely brush off countries that are normally allies, or let people come out with nonsense like "old Europe".
I also think at the very least, he is not likely to further the inequity of the US system, and may at least do something to redress it (even if not a lot). By contrast McCain is very likely to just continue the crusade of helping the rich such that even the middle classes continue to be poorer in real terms.
Re:Campaign finance, stirring the pot, etc (Score:5, Interesting)
So somebody should be able to point to something Mr. Obama is done that indicates he is capable of great things
He beat the obvious choice, as well as several others, for the DNC nomination. I'm glad you weren't in charge of deciding whether Eli Manning was qualified to lead the Giants tot he SuperBowl.
Here's the thing - there is no position in the United States which prepares anyone to be president. Not a CEO, not a General, not a Governor. The issues at hand, the responsibility of the position, the day to day energy required is outside of all "normal" metrics. Oddly enough, a President has very little to do with regard to policies - except to receive facts and policy recommendations from others and choose the one which he feels is "best" for the country. In most cases, "best" for the country tends to be taken as "most closely aligns with his personal moral compass" and what he feels he can persuade both the citizens of the US to support and the countries of the world to accept. In other words, find someone who has beliefs which, as best as can be chosen in another human, match yours and who can articulate those values in a way which garners support from others. He is, I'm sad to say, just an organizer; a cheerleader. You don't even have to be exceptionally intelligent (Reagan, for example, is considered to be a good president, but was not an intellectual giant; Jimmy Carter, just the opposite). Hell, George Washington was not trained to lead a country, but the people wanted to follow him.
Obama has shown that he can get people to follow him. The last thing we need in a president is an ideologue. If you only see things in black and white nothing can be accomplished except gridlock (see the current congress). Obama has the ability to compromise when the value provided is greater than the value lost. I'd love to live in a society which does everything "right" - i.e. everything _my_ way. Unfortunately, I live with 350 million idiots in this country , and over 6 billion worldwide, who just don't understand that _I_ have the best ideas, and is they'd just do it all my way everything would work out. That attitude's not going to fly.
Find some one who the people will follow, and you'll find a leader. There are, really, few other qualifications. In these times, we also need to find someone who will be given a clean slate to work from by the rest of the world. Unlike McCain, Obama - I believe - will have a 4-8 month honeymoon period in which he will have a real opportunity to persuade foreign governments to stop hating us. Will it work? I dont' know, but I am certain that McCain would not be given the same luxury.
So there's your answer - he has proven that he can normal, middle of the road people to believe in him. That's the first job of a President.
Re:Obama's qualifications (Score:4, Funny)
> That, combined with his obvious charisma, could indeed be enough to change the world.
I dunno, last time a politician with nothing but charisma and boundless ambition seized power over a major nation during a time of economic distress things didn't turn out so well.
Not a Reagan fan?
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm...well, how about getting out of fucking wiggle room? How about just actually telling the truth, tell exactly what they think and support and let the sticks fall where they may?
Frankly...I'd respect that. We the people SHOULD expect that and no less. Yet, we just let them wiggle, and pander to whomever they happen to be speaking to at the time.
You know...I wish to hell the two candidates were Kucinich and Paul. I mean, yes, they are at polar opposites...farther out there than either Obama or McCain, but, hell, even with the one I would not vote for, I truly respect him MUCH more than any of the other candidates because they tell you what they think, they don't back off or need wiggle room.
Why does the general populace settle for wiggling, spineless politicians that don't tell you really anything to nail them down on what they stand for?
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:5, Informative)
Because almost every politician that has done that historically has lost (or lost re-election). People say they want the honest candidate. But when it comes down to it, they never vote for them.
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:4, Funny)
Serious question here: Why do you care how Europe looks at us?
I've always thought that we were the anti-Europe, the last hope of mankind - something worth dying for. Do you wish we were like them?
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't just Europe. The list of countries that would look at America in a better light includes virtually every nation on Earth, including our enemies.
Remember the whole fight for 'hearts and minds'? This would be an enormous leap in the right direction in that war. If fewer people hate America then there will be fewer people available for Al Qaeda to recruit to attack us and fewer people to defend them. It will also make it harder for them to claim that America is run by bankers and Jews when the leader is an African American with the name 'Obama'. If we have stronger ties with European nations we will have greater leverage on Iran and Russia and will have an easier time getting help from them in Afghanistan. It will also probably have a positive effect on the strength of the US dollar (which is still substantially weaker than it was 8 years ago).
If Russia didn't have such an enormous amount of natural resource wealth they would have long been in the sewer due to the enormous amount of political isolation they find themselves in. We cannot afford to isolate ourselves to the degree Russia has and must make amends with our traditional allies.
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:4, Informative)
If you want to watch two Presidential candidates who won't lie check out C-Span2 [c-span.org] tonight at 9PM EST. Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader are debating tonight sponsored by Free and Equal. [freeandequal.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ralph Nader?? Never lies?? I guess it's an opinion if only presenting the facts that [reason.com] suit him [e-thepeople.org] is either lying or misrepresenting.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When they open their mouth.
Come now, that's only a partial answer. They can still write lies with their mouths closed.
Re:How do you tell when a politician is lying? (Score:4, Funny)
When they open their mouth.
Come now, that's only a partial answer. They can still write lies with their mouths closed.
Politicians don't write anything. Their speech writers do.
Missing option: (Score:4, Insightful)
Move to Canada.
Re:Missing option: (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you get it? If you die in Canada, you die in real life [xkcd.com]
Libertarian (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Libertarian (Score:5, Funny)
Well, by that logic, most americans are socialist. Why are you so anti-american, comrade?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, by that logic, most americans are socialist.
Not socialist so much as pragmatist. They like individual rights and freedom, except when those freedoms inconvenience them. Then they're fine with ditching all principles in order to get what they want. Obama, McCain, and even Bob Barr epitomize pragmatism.
"The ends don't justify the means... unless we want them to!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They like individual rights and freedom, except when those freedoms inconvenience them. Then they're fine with ditching all principles in order to get what they want.
Sounds like a very rational strategy for the organism who wants to survive.
Re:Libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like a very rational strategy for the organism who wants to survive.
There is nothing rational about only considering the present without reference to the future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you know what you did wrong?
You didn't justify the respect in which their socialism was incorrect. All governance is socialist to some degree, and history has shown that a lack of government is quickly replaced by governments of the worst kind.
The tricky problem of governance in general is finding the balance between the ideal of freedom and the inevitability of troublemakers.
Casting aside all ideas that promote society over some individuals is boneheaded as even a free market benefits from stability an
Re:Libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
Look up "theft" (Score:3, Insightful)
an effective way for those who are successful to contribute back
Everyone is free to "contribute back" in any way they like. Apparently you'd be surprised at the enormous amount the "rich" tend to "contribute back" _without_ government compulsion.
The problem with socialism is the "any way they like" is replaced by "whatever way and amount politicians decide" - tantamount to theft, and destructive of other paths of contribution.
Funny how Obama talks about "spreading the wealth", but he himself gives practical
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed they are, and guess what the government social programs are there to cover what private charity wasn't doing.
Something are actually good to have government do, despite you having been convinced that all tax is evil, in practice, universal education, health care, welfare, and unemployment insurance have been huge boons to entire countries, raising the standard of living for all members of the country both rich and poor.
The U.S. systems don't work particularly well because you've done them right, partl
Re:Look up "theft" (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with "any way they like" is it's very rarely in a concerted coordinated way that improves the general condition of the country. Rather, it's usually, "Well, my father died of cancer, so I'm giving 50 million to cancer research." There's nothing wrong with that, but simply counting on people to magically give back in exactly the right ways, in exactly the right amounts, to really improve EVERYTHING that needs to be improved in an appropriate way is nothing better than an exercise in naive fantasy.
I have nothing but respect for the rich well-meaning philanthropists out there, but it's absurd to assume their uncoordinated giving is somehow going to come together to take care of everything. There needs to be a coordinating body that decides where money needs to go, and in what proportions. That body is usually the government. There's nothing "destructive of other paths of contribution" involved at all. Nobody is STOPPING you from contributing however you like, but wealth is a construct of the society you live in, and has no meaning outside of it. Outside of society you have no more wealth than what you can secure by force, and that's it, which for most wealthy people in society is essentially very little. As such, your society, through your government which allows it to operate, has every right to dictate how that wealth is distributed.
In other words, you live by society, you play by its rules, and sometimes those rules involve giving some of your work back into the society that has allowed you to prosper. Don't like that, go live in one of the failed states currently experiencing anarchy and a total breakdown of social structure and see how long you last. (Hint: Not long.)
In other words, charity is great, but it's essentially arbitrary and usually very tightly focused. Also, "spreading the wealth" has nothing whatsoever to do with charity, and refers to the disproportionate distribution of wealth in our economy, which charity does essentially nothing to alleviate because of the nature of the dispropotion (with vastly more wealth in the top 1% than everywhere else, charity does nothing to address this situation).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are confusing government with society, wealth with money. Society exists apart from government, but government cannot survive without a society to feed upon.
And certainly a hundred dollar bill is useless in the wild against a hungry lion, but a Ruger Mini-14 is quite helpful. The first is a means of exchange and the latter is wealth.
And 'wealth is a construct of the society you live in'? Really? I suspect you meant money, but I'll argue based on what's written; I suppose then we can all just sit on
Re:Libertarian (Score:5, Interesting)
I stumbled across an essay [bastiat.org] entitled "The Law" written in 1850 by Frederic Bastiat. I only made it through the first half (he descends into a lot of quotation after that, and the formating is positively awful) but it's a good overview of law, justice, and their relationship. One theme of the essay is that socialism is unjust:
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.
Here's another problem with socialism: subsidies.
Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few â" whether farmers, manufacturers, ship owners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.
All those special interest groups we complain about incessantly wouldn't be hanging onto the system if they couldn't get payouts from it. But I think the first point is the best: you can't really claim to give a shit about helping others if you're forced to do it. Mix in the ineptitude of government and central planning, and you have a recipe for disaster. An illustration: in part of this episode [google.com] of 20/20, they show neighborhoods in New Orleans that are still not rebuilt because they're dealing with government. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of new homes already completed due to the efforts of volunteers through Habitat for Humanity, and other organizations who received help from celebrities (one guy says "Brad Pitt has done more for this community than the entire US gov't"). I wonder how many more rich people would willingly give more money (with no overhead) to help out others if they weren't already squeezed hard by taxes that go to inefficient social programs.
Re:Libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Sure there's waste and inefficiency in the public sector, but that's a price we pay for having the services that we can't do without. Incidentally, countries with socialised healthcare systems spend less per capita on healthcare than in the US - the paperwork passing between health insurance companies leads to more red tape than would exist were it a public sector operation.
The private sector does a great job in many areas of life, but in any civilised society, we all throw a bit of money into the pot and use it to provide essential services in the cases where the private sector can't.
Here's what kills me about the taxophobia that seems to prevail in America. They react with horror when people talk about lifting taxes and spending the money on something useful. Yet the same people all use roads, they'd be the first to complain if the police weren't fighting or preventing crime, and if their houses went on fire they call the local FD.
Roads are funded by taxation and are free at the point of use. Is the interstate highway system 'socialism?'
The police are funded by taxation and are free at the point of use. Is the police department 'socialism?'
The firemen are funded by taxation and provided as a free service at the point of use for the common good. Is the fire department 'socialism?'
I was going to add that healthcare is provided free of charge to the user but funded by taxation, but that isn't true in America where millions of people just don't have the health coverage that most people in the industrialised world consider to be a fundamental human right. But apparently that's OK as long as their society isn't polluted by any silly 'socialist' ideas (omitting the police, fire, and roads that nobody wants to talk about).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Libertarian (Score:4, Insightful)
In theory, you do not need forceful taxation to have socialism. Just like libertarians believe that, in a libertarian economy, most people will make strictly rational decisions, and therefore the economy as a whole will function properly (and furthermore, private charity will be enough to prevent the collapse of the poorer classes), so also anarchist socialists believe that most people will freely share between themselves, forming voluntarily communes without any violence.
Of course, both are equally deluded, and both pictures of the world are equally utopian.
Re:Libertarian (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't, because most people are naturally motivated to be productive members of society. They do it for self esteem, and to increase their esteem in the eyes of others. The leeches are going to find ways to be leeches no matter what the system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How are you being punished if you're making more money at the end of the week if you worked harder? And when you're making millions, how are you being punished if the government is taking millions from you? You're still making MILLIONS. And what's stopping you from going after making billions? The government keeps more as a percent of your total but you're still making a larger dollar amount.
I never understood the "punishing the successful" argument against taxes, that's not what a progressive tax policy do
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's as much mine as it is yours. And I'm afraid that YOUR idea of what this country should be died out a century ago. Most people define "Legitimate purposes of government" much more broadly than you do, and we have a democratic system that will put that definition into practice. You of course have the right to go on fighting for what you believe in, but you're in the minority these days.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because of marginal utility. I value my first hour of work cheaply. My 50th hour of work is dear. To get an 80th hour of work out of me you would need to offer me a great deal.
So a tax system that taxes excessive earnings bumps into that. I want to be compensated more for working 80 hours than for working 40, but a 50% tax means I'll get less money (per hour) for working the extra hours. So I might as well go fishing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I want to be compensated more for working 80 hours than for working 40, but a 50% tax means I'll get less money (per hour) for working the extra hours. So I might as well go fishing.
Good. Go fishing. Let someone else work those last ten hours. Or 40. You won't feel the undue burden of taxation, they'll get to eat, and your taxes won't have to buy his dinner.
Re:Libertarian (Score:5, Informative)
Modern economic research shows that most people are far more motivated by notions of fairness and reciprocity than by self interest. Look up the ultimatum game, or google 'fairness reciprocity economic research'. People only act unfairly when they see others around them doing so, in order not to be taken advantage of. So our system actually creates the selfish attitude it claims is our basic nature, by rewarding selfishness and greed.
Also, look up the Mondragon Collective for an example of a huge, industrialized and successful cooperative society. Finally, the free market is not incompatible with socialism, as all first world western socialist countries have a free market, and even rich people.
Re:Libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a libertarian and I've come to the conclusion that in presidential elections, voting for a 3rd party ends up having the same effect as voting for your least favorite of the two main candidates.
Either McCain or Obama will win. The best thing for me to do is vote for the candidate who is closest to libertarian values.
>Both are quasi-socialist, and in favor of major government spending, but at least Obama wants to spend money on health care and energy independence. McCain wants to use my money for a pointless war. Advantage=Obama
>Obama is for net neutrality, McCain opposes it. Advantage=Obama
>Obama is more libertarian on civil liberties...except for gun control. If I'm forced to choose, between 9 amendments and 1 amendment from the bill of rights being respected, I'll have to go with the guy who is strong on the 9. Push (slight advantage to Obama)
All you Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Nader supporters are just supporting McCain my voting for someone rather than Obama. More than anything, this election is about sending Neo-Conservatism a permanent pink slip.
Libertarians for Obama
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You might want to strike this one off the list.
From everything I've heard Obama saying of late...his plan to get the troops out are pretty much exactly the same as what McCain says...that it will be a withdrawal at levels only that are safe, according to the generals over there.
The endin
Re:Libertarian (Score:4, Informative)
When has he said that?
Note that many of the evil "socialist" western countries that have dreaded universal health care manage to do it without nationalizing the health industry, and private insurance companies continue to exist. These systems are all cheaper than ours--usually by quite a bit. Some countries have even figured out how to provide universal care without those evil waiting lists, and without destroying their drug and research industries.
The only thing I've seen Obama propose are tax credits for the poor to go toward purchasing insurance, a government alternative (optional, in other words) to private insurance, and strict government mandates of what must be included in "basic" private insurance plans. This is a big step in the direction of some of the most successful and efficient health systems in the world.
My only concern is that by not going all the way the new system might have flaws not present in the fully-formed systems of some of these other countries, and might fail for that reason. It'll take us a long damn time to try again if that happens. It'd be sad to be stuck with this embarrassingly-bad system much longer.
Re:Libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been a member of the Libertarian party for over 20 years, but I'm not voting for Barr. After watching the convention this year, I was left feeling that I'd just seen my party stolen and turned into "Republican Jr."
I have to say, most of the libertarians I've heard talk seem to be people who took the first two weeks of an introductory economics course, and were so astonished by the grandeur and simplicity of free-market theory that they quit the course and never learned anything else ever again.
I mean, there really is a lot to say for free market economics. But, good god, couldn't you learn a little bit more about how a complicated economic system with millions of individual agents in it works than just the fact that a free market is Pareto efficient?
The One Issue (Score:4, Insightful)
The truth, sadly, is that most voters pick one item of importance and then vote on that.
I must admit that I am one of these.
For me the issue is simply science. Obama just seems more pro-science - and pro-intelligence - in general, and so my vote is made thusly.
What's your one issue which decides your vote?
Or are you unlike myself in that you have deep and varied reasons for your choices?
Re:The One Issue (Score:5, Informative)
the issue is simply science
I mentioned that before in my journal entry on the McCain Brain Drain [slashdot.org], as he has already promised to freeze the science funding agency budgets [sciencemag.org] for next year if he were to be elected.
Which would pretty well be a career-killer for me (in this country) since I will be completing my PhD during the next presidential administration. And there are plenty of other scientists who will have freshly minted PhD's at that time as well that will also be competing for grant money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which would pretty well be a career-killer for me (in this country) since I will be completing my PhD during the next presidential administration. And there are plenty of other scientists who will have freshly minted PhD's at that time as well that will also be competing for grant money.
Well, we certainly don't want grants cut. I mean after all, if it weren't for government grants, we wouldn't have light bulbs, telephones or radios. Oh wait, I guess we would.
Re:The One Issue (Score:4, Insightful)
light bulbs, telephones or radios. Oh wait, I guess we would.
What we wouldn't have is people to invent them.
If there is no money available to start research, then researchers will go someplace else where there is. Sure plenty of us would do it for free if we could, but you can't run a research lab on hopes and dreams - you need money to pay the bills and pay the people.
If all you want is the products of commercial invention, then thats fine. Just don't use the hospitals, ever, because most medical techniques that we value so highly began with basic science research.
Even work at MIT and Harvard (see the Broad Institute) is funded in part by federal grants.
Re:The One Issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop using the government as a crutch and acheive on your own.
The days of individual inventors and scientists making great breakthroughs on their own are over. Research now involves teams of scientists, often from more than one discipline. No scientist on their own is paid enough to employ a lab of people and equipment, even if they were to (try to) subsist only on Ramen noodles. And then when you add in the added costs of utilities, communications, and equipment maintenance, you are in the budget range that simply is not feasible for a small lab.
What is stopping you from innovating and selling/patenting your ideas on the free market?
Ideas from scientists are patented and sold on the free market. Usually the patent royalties are used to offset the cost that the research institution pays to keep said scientist on staff.
The fact of the matter is, though, that patent royalties are not enough to pay the bills. And the time involved between research towards a patent and granting of said patent is on the order of years - who pays the bills in the interim? If you use a patent as your cost of entry for scientists, you'll see your pool of scientists start running dry pretty quick.
So government money is required for the advancement of science?
In short, yes.
Basic science research requires large amounts of funding for the reasons outlined above and more. Corporations aren't generally interested in funding it - though they certainly do profit from it (see the pharmaceutical industry).
And if the US government won't fund it, then other nations' governments will. And then they will reap the rewards, and the US will fall further behind.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I voted for "Watch, from a distance" since I live about 12000 kms away in Australia, and since I'm not an American, I won't be voting for anyone.
Anyway, I agree with the parent. It's sad that many (not necessarily most) voters pick a candidate on one issue only. Someone once said that people pick a candidate for one "good policy" that they passionately believe in and completely ignore that many other bad policies that they have. It's sad, but unfortunately it's true. It is not an "only in America" thing. It
Taxes (Score:3, Insightful)
My issue is taxes. I can't understand why you'd want to raise taxes on ANYONE given the way the economy is right now, especially on those who make $250k / year (read: those who own small businesses which provide tens of millions of jobs in this country, not "Joe the Plumber" himself but real small business owners with real employees right now). Meddling with the SS contribution cap is another troubling issue (even more worrysome, as the small employer matches what their employees pays and pays double for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you unable to find Obama's birth certificate?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, he's quite simply a huge moron, convinced that the idiots who think like he does must be telling the truth.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The question isn't whether he was born, it's where he was born. Birth certificates would be somewhat redundant if they existed only to inform the world that you had, in fact, been born.
Re:The One Issue (Score:4, Informative)
interesting list ... Re:The One Issue (Score:5, Informative)
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
I'm not sure why those are important. Do his grades somehow matter, or are you trying to claim that he somehow faked his academic career?
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
He earned a BA at Columbia. How many schools require liberal arts students to write undergraduate theses? More so, how many required it when he was there?
Do you have some reason to believe that he was required to write one?
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
See response to 1 and 2
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
Obama turned 18 during the time period between Proclamation 4360 (which ended Selective Service) and Proclamation 4771 (which reinstated it). With the large number of males who then had to register in 1980 (when Obama was then 19) it could be quite difficult to find his record of registration - if it even still exists for his years from 1980 - 1987 [when he turned 26]).
6. Medical records -- Not released
How about these [latimes.com]? They took me all of 30 seconds to find on google.
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
Have you tried contacting the Illinois State Senate?
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
Granted, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that would be protected by Attorney-Client Privilege.
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released 10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
That was already dealt with [factcheck.org].
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None 12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
So if none exist then what are you asking for?
13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'
First, are there any government offices that track such things? I rather doubt it, since that would treat into the realm of separation of church and state. You would get that from a church, which would make it hard to be "official", wouldn't it?
And besides, depending on who is criticizing Obama at the moment, he may be any of (Muislim/Christian/Atheist/Satan-Worshipper).
14. Your Illinois State Senate records--'not available'
See number 7. The State Senate should have those as part of the permanent record. If they are missing then you can take it up with them. Why would Obama even keep those records with himself?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The gun rights thing I'm with you on (assuming you support the right to bear arms).
But I believe we differ on health care.
In my opinion it seems to make sense that if everyone has the right to own a gun, everyone should have the right to hospital care.
that's a half-half-joke btw ;)
again, this election is a complex situation for the thinking person, and so since our voting system seems to have no problem simpifying things down to two 'valid' candidates then I answer in kind by simplifying my requirements to
Stockpile vs McCain (Score:5, Funny)
I really hope this is not an accurate index of american voters. If more people are planning on stockpiling ammo than will be voting for McCain, that's a lot of bullets.
Going to sit this one out. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah I know...I'll get much flak for this, but I'm not voting. It's between a douche and a giant turd. (Southpark reference)
Yeah sure I can vote 3rd party, but seriously...We know they are not going to win. I have a better chance of convincing people to vote 3rd party by talking to people about other parties than just voting for them.
I just can't bring myself to vote for the lesser of two evils. We need to get rid of the whole 2 party system.
Re:Going to sit this one out. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Going to sit this one out. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah sure I can vote 3rd party, but seriously...We know they are not going to win. I just can't bring myself to vote for the lesser of two evils. We need to get rid of the whole 2 party system.
So, you don't like the 2 party system, but you won't vote 3rd party because they won't win? Don't you see the flaw in logic there? Most 3rd parties have to jump through some expensive/time consuming hoops that the D's & R's don't. The more votes 3rd party candidates get in an election increases the likelihood that they get major party stats so they don't have to jump through those hoops. Your attitude is self-defeating.
Combination of the three (Score:5, Funny)
Change the system (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's exactly what I'm doing, but with Nebraska and McCain.
We need to be told the truth ... (Score:3, Funny)
Will slashdot release the source code of the polling software so that it can be independently scrutinised ?
Vote for THE Independent Candidate (Score:4, Funny)
Malcolm Reynolds for President.
"I aim to misbehave".
You can't stop the signal.
Missing Option: Bill & Opus (Score:4, Interesting)
Those of us old enough to remember would gladly pick Bill & Opus.
Actually, in this case I'd still vote for Obama; he has shown the ability to gather support from a broad base - and that, imho, is the first job of the President of the US. He may not _do_ anything except make us feel good about what we want to become. If you're a conservative, don't think of him as some scary socialist who has blinded your gullible friends with a smile and a rousing speech. Think of him as the left's version of Ronald Reagan. (Now you can feel how scared all of us democrats were in the 80s)
-
Notes on the author:
Social - moderate (people need safety nets; those who make more, should pay more to the general good - and I'm probably in the latter camp,btw)
Fiscal - conservative (I hate the debt. I hate the deficit. I want my $500B/yr in interest payments back)
Environmental - liberal (If the left spends my money, I can always make more; if the right messes up the planet, no amount of money will put it back right)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's well known that reality has a liberal bias!
At least, when you only surround yourself with liberals it does...
Re:Harumph! (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds, perhaps unintentionally, like the incredibly peculiar neo-con "we make our own reality" approach that has led to such splendid successes such as Iraq, where we removed a dictator with weapons of mass destruction who was behind 9/11 and were welcomed with flowers and where now there is a peaceful flourishing democracy.
Most of reality doesn't care who you surround yourself with.
Re:Harumph! (Score:5, Funny)
Reality has a conservative bias!
Conservation of energy, momentum, etc...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are being sarcastic, but there is a point to this: What on earth possessed the GOP to willingly become the chosen party of the irrational?
I understand that a party might want to appeal to religious people, but being religious is (despite Dawkins) not necessarily the same as being completely irrational. The Republican Party appears to have gladly, even eagerly, embraced the creationists, the climate change deniers, and a bunch of conspiracy theorists and assorted lunatics. Today the general rule seems to
Re:Harumph! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't seem like a missing option to me. Did you miss
Watch from a distance.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't worry, you're not alone. You can expect due to Diebold's fantastic voting machines, many americans who thought they voted, will also not be voting on Nov 4th.
Re:missing option (Score:5, Funny)
and thanks to the folks at Acorn, many Americans who thought they were dead or thought they didn't exist will be voting on Nov 4th.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's either 'Watch, from a distance', or 'Stockpile ammo', depending on whether your country happens to be on the Americans' hit list right now.
Re:missing option (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ammo (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think we're capable of revolting. Revolution is hard and messy. Americans right now are too soft to want to turn their lives upside down. It would take several intelligent, sane, and very charismatic leaders to cause it to happen, and then the media would ignore them or turn them into criminals.
Things would need to get much worse before we would revolt.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Military revolt could be interesting... Most of us are tired of the never-ending deployments, politicans using us as pawns, low pay. There are plenty of charismatic leaders, and we have all the best training and weapons. :)
After the revolution I think I'll ask to be the Mayor of Malibu.
Marf.
Re:Ammo (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, this election is one liberal (McCain) vs a uberLiberal, Obama. I'll let yall decide if you want to call him Socialist or not. I'm conservative, so I don't have a dog in the race this year.
I'm getting sick of hearing this whole "liberal" versus "conservative" crap without any kind of qualifying statements about what you actually mean. Communists would be conservative about a lot of things, and liberal about a whole load of other things. Same with fascists, free market socialists, capitalists, etc.... Cut out the bullshit and say what you believe in, don't express your beliefs in meaningless generalisms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is some scary thinking. If McCain is "liberal" in your world, I'd hate to see who you'd call conservative.
Mr "Maybe torture's OK after all" is a liberal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how a man who had been tortured himself was vigorously against it (and prepared to face down his own party over the issue) until his poll numbers began to slip.
You need to get out of Alabama and smell the coffee. America doesn't have a left wing to speak of. If it did, it would proudly call itself socialist, not try to disavow the idea. Most Europeans can't tell the difference between the two major American parties, because neither one has the guts to do something truly interesting.
Austria has near-Nazis. France has honest-to-god Communists. We've got two parties that each try to be more center-than-thou.
As for the Libertarians -- that ship sailed when we invented the Securities and Exchange Commission. Go back to reading Ayn Rand and don't bother us grownups.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You assume all libertarians are Ayn Rand worshipers at your peril. I consider myself mostly libertarian, and found her novels at best mildly interesting, though filled with flat stereotypes, and I actively dislike Objectivism.
Dismissing people you disagree with as children is not a grownup thing to do. Physician, heal thyself.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/voterInformation/whatsontheballot.aspx [state.oh.us]
Constitution Chuck Baldwin and Darrell L. Castle
Democratic Barack Obama and Joe Biden
Green Cynthia McKinney and Rosa A. Clemente
Independent Donald K. Allen and Christopher D. Borcik (WI)
Independent Jonathan Allen and Jeff Stath (WI)
Independent Richard A. Duncan and Ricky Johnson
Independent James R. Germalic and Martin Wishnatsky (WI)
Independent Alan L. Keyes and Brian Rohrbough (WI)
Independent Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez
Indepen
Re:Vote for a 3rd party (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you expect it to happen overnight? Also, do you really think that everyone that voted for Nader would have voted for a Democrat (You would be wrong).
One of the problems is that people expect change to happen suddenly, and with third party candidates that isn't the case.
You also have to understand that by voting for your best candidate (not your best chance candidate), you are communicating what issues are important to you. When you voted for Nader, the issues he championed were picked up on by those that want to capture the Nader vote. I'm certain you have seen the concerted push for 'green' proposals by this elections crop of candidates. That didn't just happen by chance.
So keep up with the third party candidates, and also work hard to move them into your local elections. Reform has to start at the bottom, and no president will change that until the base is demanding it.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
People listen... The House and the Senate are where things are voted on. Lets start placing the blame where it belongs for the last 8 years. The Republicans are responsible for the first 4 years and the Democrats are responsible for the last 4 years.
Actually, the Democrats took over control of the Congress in the 2006 elections (actually taking control starting in 2007), so your numbers should be six years and 1.5 years, not 4 and 4.
Up until the Democrats took back congress, George W. Bush didn't veto, or even complain about, a single spending bill. The spending bills passed from 2000 to 2006 were the highest deficit spending bills in history.