Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet United States

Bush Says Americans 'Ought to Have' Broadband and a Pony by 2007 1078

Posted by michael
from the make-mine-a-unicorn dept.
wrttnwrd writes "George Bush is calling for universal broadband by 2007. He doesn't say how, or who's going to pay for it, or who's going to build it, but hey, isn't almost good enough? (for all of you Boondocks readers out there)" First step to universal broadband: don't have your Justice Department argue against communities providing their own broadband service. And don't forget the pony!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bush Says Americans 'Ought to Have' Broadband and a Pony by 2007

Comments Filter:
  • SO? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:08PM (#8697442) Journal
    This is the same group of people that think it would be a 'good idea' to reclassify fastfood workers as manufacturers because they 'make things'.

    This, much like the Bush anti-terror policies are all about getting Bush a win in 2004. They are not about solving they problems at hand.
  • Bush will have broadband in everyone's home about the same time he lands humans on Mars.
  • Whoop-tee-doo. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kronovohr (145646) <(kronovohr) (at) (gmail.com)> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:10PM (#8697459) Homepage
    Is this anything like a certain other organization stating that everyone "ought to have" universal health care, without saying how, or who's going to pay for it, etc? This is a normal function of politicians, folks, nothing to see here.
  • by blankmange (571591) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:11PM (#8697469)
    that this is an election year, right? Unemployment and gas prices are up, we are still killing off our soldiers in the Middle East, we are trying to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages, we can't educate or feed our children....

    But hey, wouldn't universal broadband be kewl!!!!????

  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:11PM (#8697470)
    If we're going to have "Universial Service" for Internet access, we first need to determine what level of service is going to be considered the universial level.

    For example, lets consider phones... The USF for telephone service assures that everybody can get access to POTS. But, it's exactly Plain Old Telephone Service, a dialtone. Any advanced services are not included in the subsidized rates, so customers are on their own if they want Caller ID, Call Waiting, or Three Way Calling to work. Cellular customers have to pay into the USF fund because they are connecting to the phone network, but they get no subsidies out because cell service is most definitely above the universial level of service. However, this also means that cell network operators are not responsible for getting their networks extended into areas where they don't think it would be profitable to operate.

    The other key thing about phone service is that it only costs about $5 to get the hardware you need to fully enjoy all of the features of Plain Old Telephone Service. Sure, there are more expensive telephones are the market, but those all ofter additional features beyond what it takes to interface with the telephone network. It's not an unfair burden to expect somebody to be able to afford to buy their own phone hardware. But, just what is the minimum feature set of a computer to enjoy the Internet? Is Lynx a good enough browser, or do we have to assure that the subsidized level of service can deliver Mozilla?

    And, just what technical definition of "broadband" will the subsidized service use? Afterall, DSL and Cable Models come in various speeds of upload and download last-mile links, and how congested the network is after you get off the last mile is also variable and hard-to-quantify. The debate as to what would be defined as "Plain Old Broadband Internet Service" is far from settled.

    Bush is giving off a nice thought for an election year proposal... but it seems like this is so lacking in details it can't exactly be taken seriously yet.
  • no no (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the_2nd_coming (444906) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:11PM (#8697472) Homepage
    the reason the Justice department is arguing against co-op broadband systems is then his big business buddies in the telecom and cable industry don't get paid....see, he wants to get a spending bill passed that will subsidize the expansion of DSL and Cable, but if co-ops form, that means less money for his porky friends.
  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:11PM (#8697475)

    ...has been replaced by a bold new "don't tax, and spend" policy.

  • That's just wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by falsification (644190) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:14PM (#8697511) Journal
    GWB did not propose spending one dime on universal broadband. All he said is that all Americans "ought to have it."

    I agree. All Americans ought to have it.

    When GWB proposes spending government money on this, please get back to me.

  • Re:Whoop-tee-doo. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster (625375) * on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:14PM (#8697512)
    Is this anything like a certain other organization stating that everyone "ought to have" universal health care, without saying how, or who's going to pay for it, etc? This is a normal function of politicians, folks, nothing to see here.

    Exactly. There's a big difference between a "policy" and a "plan" coming out of a political type. Saying that you'd like to see something doesn't quite get as much done as proposing a specific law that would cause that something to get done.

    And this is an equal opportunity problem that afflicts the left and right equally...
  • Good plan. really. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by User 956 (568564) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:14PM (#8697520) Homepage
    Ok, great. so he's proposing all these programs, like hte Mars mission, ubiquitous broadband-- the thing is, he doesn't actually plan on coming through on any of them. It's called "starving the beast".

    In bold print on the first page of the long-term conservative playbook is a tactic called "Starving The Beast". It goes like this:

    * lower taxes (especially for your friends) to the point where a fiscal train wreck finally ensues.

    *declare that "raising" taxes (returning them to a prior level) would destroy the economy, and that the only solution is to gut Social Security and other unwanted New Deal programs.

    "Starving the beast" is no longer a hypothetical scenario -- it's happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they're affordable, but because they aren't. Tax cuts lead to budget deficits, and deficits offer an excuse to squeeze government spending.

    Second, squeezing spending doesn't mean cutting back on wasteful programs nobody wants, like missile defense.

    Finally, the right-wing corruption of our government system -- the partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical -- continues, and even extends to the Federal Reserve.

    But yeah, ubiquitous broadband is a great idea, if he actually meant it.
  • You're no FDR (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amichalo (132545) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:15PM (#8697525)
    I am sorry, but broadband in the household is not like FDR's Public Works Proejcts [nps.gov] of the 1930's. Roosevelt used such initiatives to give work to those hammered by the Great Depression while simultaneously modernizing the US infrastructure - electricity for rural communities and the like.

    I agree people should have broadband, but Bush needs to let ECONOMICS drive that, not legislation. When demand is high enough, providers will answer. Until then, there are plenty of other issues our government needs to take a look at.

    Here's a hint, turn your head East.
  • by the_2nd_coming (444906) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:16PM (#8697533) Homepage
    yeah...just look at the thousands of body bags being pulled off the planes...

    dude...you need some perspective here...

    Vietnam....56,000 dead americans....

    Iraq....550 dead americans....

    so stop being over dramatic, it hurts your argument.
  • by aceat64 (706106) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:17PM (#8697536)
    I'm sorry, but I read slash dot for tech news. Not political opinions, if I want to read that I'll check out the opinion page of my local news paper. I think it's disgraceful for the slashdot editors to allow this story be posted.
  • by use_compress (627082) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:17PM (#8697538) Journal
    Bush is probably looking to propose a plan comparable to FDR's REA (Rural Electrification Administration) which funded power lines to rural developments and encouraged rural businesses to adopt newer technologies. I hope Bush will take a lesson from FDR and not only extend BB access to rural homes and businesses but to give funding to poorer families and rural businesses to help close the "digital divide". For more information on the REA, see http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/20th/1930s/newdeal .html
  • by Nomihn0 (739701) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:19PM (#8697553)
    Before we get all excited about universal broadband, we should consider parts of the country that haven't even received narrow-band telephone lines.
  • by Jerk City Troll (661616) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:22PM (#8697581) Homepage

    <rant mode="troll">Mr. Bush, I'd like to point out that you've had nearly four years to involve yourself in such domestic progress. You've spent hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars on war and completely forgotten us. Those resources could have sent us to Mars. Those resources could have improved our nation's quality of life by providing services like broadband. There's so much that could have been done, yet the emphasis was purely on destruction.

    Frankly, Mr. Bush, you need to can it. A pile of false promises that could have been done will not win the American people. You've already lost. You, sir, are a miserable failure.</rant>

  • Re:You're no FDR (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster (625375) * on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:22PM (#8697583)
    Bush is complaining about a lack of jobs, but he's failing to connect the homeland issues that are painfully understaffed to the funding that allows peopel to be hired. For example, more effective security barriers could be built along the Mexican border to help make sure everybody who wants to enter the USA is going through a checkpoint like they're supposed to, but Bush doesn't exactly seem like he's interested in even trying to solve that issue. In fact, MSNBC reported last week that the all three parts of the Dept. of Homeland Security are presently in a hiring freeze... it's not like there's a lack of work in that department, just a lack of funding to pay people to do that work.

    If the Iraq war is the only government-funded project he can come up with, we've got a serious problem...
  • by rayvd (155635) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:23PM (#8697595) Homepage Journal
    Exactly. Why do people try to paint this as some huge govt spending project? Oh yeah, they blindly hate Bush... BTW, Kerry has criticized Bush for not implementing a broadband for all policy... of course, the fact that Kerry wants one doesn't make him a moron right? :-)
  • RIAA will be happy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by melikamp (631205) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:23PM (#8697599) Homepage Journal

    Broadband for everyone? That's just what RIAA needs to stop the music pirates. I heard that 50 million figures for p2p networks are way overblown, but with the help of W they will become a reality.

    I say, kudos to the president Bush.

  • by Valar (167606) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:25PM (#8697610)
    Well, even though the article title and the /. write up say broadband, the only actual statement they provide from GWB is for 'high speed internet' (unless I missed something). Keep in mind that earthlink considers themselves high speed internet. Heck, I think even some aol commercials boast being high speed.

    I haven't read the actual speech, so I could be wrong, but I think he called for something even more loosely defined than 'broadband'. He could just be talking about some kind of nationwide 56k dialup scheme. It is unlikely he actually knows, or that any of the people adivising him actually know (and I'm not just saying that because it is Bush-- there are very few technically saavy politicians at all). They probably just took a poll and said, "Gee, people want faster internet. I wonder how we can make this work for us."
  • I Don't Get It (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pave Low (566880) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:25PM (#8697611) Journal
    Bush doesn't mention a Pony in the article or anywhere else I've seen this article. Where did michael get that information from?

    I mean, this is a news site, right? We just wouldn't make things up out of thin air to push our agenda here, would we?

    I ask this because the Pony part seems unbelievable to me.

  • by MicktheMech (697533) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:25PM (#8697616) Homepage
    Vietnam....56,000 dead americans....


    Iraq....550 dead americans....

    so stop being over dramatic, it hurts your argument.

    Even one is too many. Just because it isn't as bad as vietnam doesn't mean it isn't really bad.
  • by HarryCaul (25943) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:26PM (#8697624)

    Howard Dean had proposed this, we'd be seeing tons of posts on how visionary it was.

    I loved "independent" thinkers.
  • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:27PM (#8697628) Journal
    While I will respectfully disagree with most of your opinions there and leave it at that, I'd like to see the reasoning that states preventing two loving people from gaining the social and legal rights equal to two other loving people is protecting the family. I'm genuinely interested as to why so many people think this way, so any sensible replys would be helpful.
  • Has anyone guessed (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:27PM (#8697631)
    yet that Michael is a democrat? Its nice how he can use this entire website as a big ad for the democrats. Perhaps the other /. editors should think about replacing him and bringing a shred of dignity back to this site.
  • by saskboy (600063) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:27PM (#8697632) Homepage Journal
    This is just nuts, both technologically, and unprofitable wise, as going to Mars by 2020.

    The amount of switches needed to put everyone on ground based broadband is nuts. I live out in an area where there is no cable TV, and a sparse population, so there is no highspeed option. And you can't consider Satellite an option yet, because 2 way is too expensive for a single household, and one way you still need the expensive dialup account.

    Canada promised to give highspeed access to everyone by about this time, and the project just needs technology to catch up with consumer will.

    I also don't think it is a good idea to give everyone and their dog access to highspeed Internet. With the inherent insecurities in the Internet's design, it is stupid to give attack capabilities to people who are unable and unwilling to keep their computers free of worms and trojans. The very safety of the Internet relies on some people not having quick service to the net.
  • by WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) <sexwithanimals@gmail.com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:30PM (#8697647) Homepage
    So, we get attacked by a guy who hates us because we meddle in the middle east.. what do we do? Invade a country that has NOTHING to do with the original pissed off guy. Oh, and we piss the original guy off more in the process. Damn right we're secure! What about the people of Iraq? We lose 3000 so we go kill 9000+?

    I don't like that math. I don't like this president, and as a registered voter, I'll do what I can to get him gone.

  • by DAldredge (2353) * <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:31PM (#8697651) Journal
    I dare to say that doing more to increase wages where both parents do not have to work to provide for their kids would do more to help the family than baning gay marriage.

    Also, if Bush was as Christian as everyone of the right thought he was he would do something about the treatment of Christians in China, yet he doesn't.

    Lastly, if he isn't doing what is necessary to protect our borders how can he say he is protecting us from terrorists? If you can just drive/walk across the border with a bomb/SAM all the antiterror checks at airports will not do a damn bit of good.
  • Unemployment (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Alethes (533985) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:31PM (#8697652)
    5.6% unemployment: Low for Clinton, High for Bush.
  • Re:I Don't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster (625375) * on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:31PM (#8697653)
    The statement of "and a Pony too" is usually tacked on to make fun of an outragious request being made... as this "proposal" by Bush seems to be at this point. He's not saying all Americans will have broadband by 2007, he's just saying they should. He's also not giving out any plan for just how more Americans will get broadband, or promising to see to it that more Americans get access to broadband.

    So, making a statement that "All Americans ought to have broadband." is something that nobody's goign to disagree with, and is not something he can be called for not following through on. More or less, he's said nothing newsworthy at all... he's just trying to get the geek vote without offering much in return.
  • Your mistake. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:37PM (#8697703) Journal
    You made a mistake. The mistake is you made the assumption that Bush is a conservative. He says he is, but his actions prove otherwise. (But he sure has fooled a bunch of people)

    He just wishes to be stay in power and will damn near say anyting to stay in the whitehouse.

  • by Raynach (713366) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:37PM (#8697705) Homepage
    Americans "ought to have" universal health care too...
  • by snkline (542610) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:39PM (#8697721)
    Oh of course, no one is allowed to protest the war because not as many people have died as in Vietnam! Great argument. Do you think Vietnam was a justified war? I don't, and I don't think the Iraq war and occupation is either. Shall we drag out this occupation until the number dead == deaths in Vietnam? Then we can in good conscious bring our soldiers home, because a war can't be bad until its worse than Vietnam. The point being I will complain about the hundreds of Americans dying in Iraq because it is wrong, just as Vietnam was wrong.
  • small mistake (Score:3, Insightful)

    by karb (66692) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:40PM (#8697725)
    Unemployment and gas prices are up

    The unemployment rate is going down ... the current rate is better than in most other industrialized nations and is about the same as clinton's during his first term.

    It's just that with all the, ahem, "technological advances" we've made in the past few years, reporters now have a much easier time finding unemployed workers to interview every single night than they did a mere 10 years ago. Ain't technology grand?

  • by RickHunter (103108) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:41PM (#8697730)

    Name one project that GWB's actually proposed spending government money on during his term, other than Iraq.

    That's right. Nothing. He's left a long trail of unfunded mandates, or mandates whose cost will only be felt by his successors. Makes him look suitably visionary, and sabotages the government of the next generation. What a President.

    Turns out almost isn't good enough.

  • by aceat64 (706106) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:41PM (#8697739)
    1) Tax cuts have historically always been followed by a large increase in the economy (coincidence?)
    2) Things like welfare and unemployment aren't needed in their current forms, all they do is encourage people not to work (not that it wasn't a good idea, it just was executed wrong)
    3) Missile defense programs are vital, just because you lock up/kill all the criminals in your city doesn't mean you can leave your door unlocked.
    4) I can probably name 3 times as many left leaning "nonpolitical" organizations then you can of right leaning non-politicals.
    5) I don't like the idea of the Mars mission either, but that has nothing to do with GWB. (NASA is bloated and inefficient, but no one wants to do anything about it). We do need to get to Mars, but NASA won't be able to do it.

    Go ahead, mod me down, just make sure you mod down all the rabid anti-bush (troll, flamebait) comments as well. If you don't, well then you're a hypocrite.
  • by rodgerd (402) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:43PM (#8697751) Homepage
    The words you're after are "borrow and spend Republican".

    What good will universal broadband be for Americans when Michael Powell is given juristiction over it and shuts down teh b00bi3z?
  • by RickHunter (103108) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:43PM (#8697753)

    In fact, squeezing often means cutting back on "small government for the people" programs, like real Medicare or Veterans' Care while, carefully and clandestinely, increasing welfare for your corporate buddies. Which is, amazingly enough, exactly what Bush has been doing.

    And please use the proper terminology. This isn't a part of the conservative playbook. Its part of the playbook of the neo-conservatives or, if you actually look at their policies and match it up to traditional political parties, the fascists.

  • by larry bagina (561269) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:44PM (#8697758) Journal
    yeah, but check your phone bill. you probably pay $10 or more a month in gov't fees and taxes to help pay for internet access in school and making sure phone service is available everywhere (as if it isn't).

    Broadband for everyone probably means broadband taxes for everyone.

  • Re:Whoop-tee-doo. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mental_telepathy (564156) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:48PM (#8697798)
    Actually, putting a man on the moon started with just such a speech [cnn.com].
    The policy details often follows the vision.

    In this particlaur case, I think America's CEO is blowing smoke, but you don't always start by proposing a law.
  • by Zeinfeld (263942) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:54PM (#8697843) Homepage
    yeah...just look at the thousands of body bags being pulled off the planes...

    By order of George W Bush, all photography of coffins returning from Iraq is prohibited. They don't want pictures showing the cost of the Iraq adventure to go spoiling their election plans.

    What they were keen to show pictures of was Bush playing dress up on an aircraft carrier, at least until Democrats said that playing soldier made the issue of his being AWOL during his national guard service fair game. After that story finaly made the mainstream media the footage looked more like 'Dukakis in tank' than 'Top Gun'.

    Another picture we were allowed to see was Bush presenting a fake turkey to adoring troops. The fact that the photo-op meant that most of the troops on the base were required to have 'meals ready to eat' for their christmas dinner must have gone down really well. Visiting the troops might have appeared more sincere if Bush had taken the time to attend just one funeral of one of the soldiers killed in his war.

    I hope that the GOP keeps on hammering Dick Clarke for several more weeks. The troops in Iraq must love hearing why they are stuck there rather than finishing the job they wanted to finish in Afghanistan.

    Oh and I am sure that every member of the US armed services just loves the way that Halliburton has been granted multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts by Halliburton ex-CEO Cheney.

  • by ZuperDee (161571) <zuperdee@AUDENyahoo.com minus poet> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:54PM (#8697844) Homepage Journal
    First step to universal broadband: don't have your Justice Department argue against communities providing their own broadband service.

    For my part, I don't care whether you like George Bush or not. (I do, but that's my opinion, and nobody says you have to share it.)

    Seriously though Michael, if you want to show ANY sort of objectivity on this kind of thing, don't make such statements--they totally sound like flamebait. There may be pros and cons to the idea of communities providing their own broadband service, but I wouldn't know it from listening to you, michael. I don't see any facts backing up what you say, either.

    However, all this aside, I think there IS a legitimate case to be made that it is better to have private business (corrupt as it appears to be right now) do such things than have governments attempt to create a virtual government-run monopoly. After all, I'll agree with you ANY day that our Big Business Community(tm) is corrupt. But by that same token: why on earth should we simply to assume that the government is totally free of corruption?
  • Cool (Score:1, Insightful)

    by daishin (753851) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:55PM (#8697850) Homepage
    Maybe soon we will also get all those jobs he promised.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:57PM (#8697859)
    Oh of course, no one is allowed to protest the war because not as many people have died as in Vietnam!

    You're allowed. Thing is, what you're doing isn't protesting. It's just whining. In order to protest, you have to (#1) be educated about the issue, and (#2) offer a thoughtful argument.

    Fortunately for you, whining is also allowed here. Unlike in, say, Iraq under the Saddam regime.

    Do you think Vietnam was a justified war?

    I do, yeah. It was a war that was worth fighting. It's just that it was poorly fought. The people who had to live and die under the past 30 years of communist totalitarianism in Vietnam suffered needlessly. It's a damn shame.

    Shall we drag out this occupation until the number dead == deaths in Vietnam?

    If necessary, yeah. But we learned important lessons from Vietnam, so that won't happen.

    Incidentally, it's not an occupation. In order for it to be an occupation, the US government would have to be in charge of Iraq. It isn't. So it's not an occupation.

    Then we can in good conscious bring our soldiers home

    The phrase is "in good conscience."

    The point being I will complain about the hundreds of Americans dying in Iraq because it is wrong, just as Vietnam was wrong.

    No, my dear friend. The point is that you will complain about anything at all without first learning what it all means. Yawn.

    The larger point, of course, is that you are allowed to complain. It reminds me of those "Bush = Hitler" commercials that caused so much controversy a few months ago. Because, of course, if Bush really had been like Hitler, the people who produced those commercials would have been dragged out into the street and shot.

    The mere fact that those commercials existed is proof that they were wrong.

    In the same way, the mere fact that you're exercising your right to complain without the slightest concern about the facts demonstrates why it was important for us to go into Iraq.

    I do not expect you to understand this.
  • Re:Your mistake. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:57PM (#8697861) Homepage Journal
    >The mistake is you made the assumption that Bush is a conservative.

    Conservatives want to limit the size and power of government, even (especially?) when the expansion looks like it's being done for good reasons.

    Conservatives like to balance budgets.

    Conservatives believe in military action but only when it's supporting US interests.

    Conservatives, like Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich, are speaking out against the "USA PATRIOT" Act.

    This is going to be a tough election for conservative voters. Both candidates are far from conservative.
  • by Trelane (16124) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:01PM (#8697892) Journal
    Not necessarily.

    Given BB to every house, VoIP can be used for phone communication.

    Personally, I think it may take a government mandate to get the phone companies to take out the twisted pair infrastructure and put in fibre to every home.
  • Re:I Don't Get It (Score:2, Insightful)

    by helix400 (558178) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:03PM (#8697903) Journal
    Aaah, another michael article, another anti-right wing rant. Why am I not surprised? Michael has no objectivity whatsoever. His opinions are based almost solely on the liberal fad of the year. If he read a headline with blanks....

    __________________ wants broadband for every home in America.

    He'd naturally support it, because it was a good technology cause. If the blanks said "Kerry", we'd hear a flowerly article praising him. But when the blank says "Bush", he's mocks the idea.

    Michael, grow up.
  • by Hard_Code (49548) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:07PM (#8697930)
    In fact, since gay people CAN'T naturally have children, they very often ADOPT children who genuinely need it, so in fact, prohibiting gay marriage may well do more to harm "families" than help them. The notion that giving somebody else the same rights you have is somehow weakening yours is stupid and craven.
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:07PM (#8697931) Homepage Journal
    While its a nice political gesture to want everyone to have broadband ( its not a necessity, but its nice to have ), how about everyone having a job to pay for it?

    That would be much more useful, with how jobs are flying out of the country at a frightening pace.
  • by Billly Gates (198444) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:10PM (#8697959) Journal
    Thats politics for ya.

    IF the papers only display things on gay marraige then thats all people will think about. After time people would associate Kerry as pro gay marraige which would hurt him since the majority oppose it.

    It called divide and conqueror, and republicans play it real well. In 2002 it was national security. Bush put out one press release after another about terrorism and securing Iraq. THe voters then only thought about that which favored the republicans.

  • by 10101001 10101001 (732688) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:12PM (#8697981) Journal
    George Bush is this thing we call the President. That means, that when he says, "I'll create more jobs", you ask yourself, "Why isn't he doing that right now?"

    If Howard Dean said it, we could bitch about how that it would mean more taxes regardless of whether he made mention of it. With Bush, this is the nth package he's talked about which would involve a good deal of spending without raising taxes. Given that eventually we can't load ourselves enough money to allow for all the programs required with the current tax level, there seems no indication that taxes will go up, and no indication that current programs will be cutback, all of the above either leads to George Bush being a huge liar about really supporting all the programs he talks about or he's setting up for rampant inflation/a recession.

    Personally, though, I wouldn't believe any presidential candidate who was offering such things, nor do I think it's the government's business to fund such. Ie, I'd be just as much against Howard Dean if he supported it. (The only way I can take exception to that is if there was good proof that the telecommunication conglomerates were unfairly holding back broadband to cause intentional overpricing in which case there might be a basis for an anti-trust case which *might* eventually lead to ubiquitous broadband, and the would-be President could push towards such a case.)
  • Re:Unemployment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GigsVT (208848) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:15PM (#8698004) Journal
    The economy was already getting weak when Bush took office.

    I sure as hell don't support the republicans (or the democrats for that matter), but implying that the president has anything but a minor role in the immediate economy (especially during thier first term in office) is silly.
  • by Doverite (720459) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:19PM (#8698037)
    This seems to be the only thing this guy is good at making a lot of noise about stuff that will never get done because with all the tax cuts, there is no funding to actually do anything like fix the schools, go to mars or build infrastructure of any kind the only thing our govt is doing is wasting what money they do have.
  • Re:Unemployment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rysc (136391) <sorpigal@gmail.com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:26PM (#8698097) Homepage Journal
    The president always gets the blame for everything, unless he can find a scapegoat. People are just bitching about lost jobs because it's easier than trying to make treason stick.
  • by the_2nd_coming (444906) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:33PM (#8698154) Homepage
    dude....I did not say to protest it...I said your over dramatization hurts the argument.

    obviously you think emotionally, not logically.
  • by Rysc (136391) <sorpigal@gmail.com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:35PM (#8698166) Homepage Journal
    Since when were we only permitted to be upset about one thing at a time? Lack of heart disease research == bad. Invading iraq == also bad. I am not going to try to pick one based on which is causing more deaths, I am going to pick both.

    And, right at this minute, I'm going to yell louder about Iraq, because unlike heart disease research right now a lot of people are also yelling and there seems like there's a good chance of stopping the problem cold, and soon.

    Heart disease research I can support over time as usual, the issue of the moment is Iraq and so I will talk about Iraq. This does not mean I've given up on heart disease research or any other topic, but merely that /right now/ the most useful thing to be protesting is the travesty in Iraq.
  • by Rysc (136391) <sorpigal@gmail.com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:43PM (#8698234) Homepage Journal
    We're trying to amend the Constitution to allow states to define marriage however they choose. Right now, the definition of marriage is in the hands of three old white men sitting behind a bench. The amendment will put that decision back in the hands of the people.

    If anyone is likely to react incorrectly and ban gay marriage, it is old white men. The only reason they wouldn't do that is if it were (gasp!) illegal to ban it.

    As for why states shouldn't be allowed to define it seperately: What part of FULL faith and credit do you not understand?

    I'm so terribly sorry that you don't appreciate democracy.

    The old white men are part of our democratic system. One of those brilliant checks and balances: They'll follow the law, regardless of popular opinion. This makes nasty things hard to do quickly, thus making it less likely that wrong things will be done in haste. If they're right things, eventually they will be done.

    People complain about judges only when the check/balance is not working for them. Guns would be illegal by now if not for old white men.
  • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:47PM (#8698270) Journal
    the reason the Justice department is arguing against co-op broadband systems is then his big business buddies in the telecom and cable industry don't get paid...

    That's an interesting interpretation.

    Especially given that they're NOT arguing aginst broadband operated by co-ops. (Which, by the way, the explicitly support, along with broadband supplied by other little companies, even if it competes with their "big business buddies".)

    They're arguing against broadband companies run by county and local GOVERNMENTS. And even then they're only arguing against them when they're implemented in violation of the objections of the STATE governments from which the smaller governments derive their powers and mandates.

    The issue was STRICTLY whether an FCC regulation allowing "any entity" to operate a broadband company free of state regulation could be used by cities, counties, and the like, as arms of their state, to escape control by their state legislatures and constitutions.

    But of course certain rabid Bush-haters just LOVE to lie about it, claiming that the Bush administration is trying to block small broadband carriers, rather than to block governments from squeezing them out, with tax-subsidized unfair competition and conflict-of-interest driven regulatory roadblocks against any little guy that wants to compete with THEIR operation.
  • by www www www (763043) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:54PM (#8698331) Homepage Journal
    You need to have an economy with low deficit, high employment and healthy growth before you can have the funding for such lesser things as broadband.
  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HarveyBirdman (627248) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:54PM (#8698333) Journal
    I'm not a Republican, but how come no one ever asks "how much" when Democrats proposed essentually the same thing?

    Politics blows. I really wish we could evolve beyond it, but some structure (read: flaw) in the human mind just won't allow it.

    Damn these simian brains!

  • by Grishnakh (216268) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @07:05PM (#8698412)
    Actually, most of the troops within Iraq understand and agree with the mission given to them. I know, personally, many marines who see that rescuing 25 million as a worthy cause, and one to risk their life for. It's too bad that you, sitting at home in front of your computer afforded to you by men who have died for their country to keep you from having to deal with such people as Saddam Hussein, can criticize and "assume" the thoughts of the troops in Iraq.

    I don't get it. I thought the war was about WMD, but there aren't any of those. So now you're saying it's about "liberating" these people from Hussein? Since when was it our job to liberate people? Why aren't we liberating the Libyans from Gaddafi? Why aren't we liberating the various African countries from their leaders? Better yet, why aren't we liberating the Chinese from their authoritarian government? Or how about a country right off our own shore, Cuba?
  • by sg3000 (87992) * <sg_public@@@mac...com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @07:12PM (#8698457)
    > Bush says he wants broadband for everybody by 2007, Kerry
    > says he wants to spur technologies that will bring broadband
    > to everybody. Same thing. However, on slashdot, we're only
    > allowed to point out when Republicans say stupid things, not
    > when Democrats do. Didn't you read the F.A.Q.?

    Simple. Challengers run on change. Incumbents run on their record.

    The point is, Bush has been president for four years. He determines the budgets, the direction of Federal departments, and in general tax policy (with the help of the other Republican who have been in power for the past four years). And Bush has done absolutely nothing to make universal broadband a reality in America since he's been president. His FCC has worked to allow more media consolidation, he's cut taxes for the rich (thus reducing the amount of revenue available to fund a public works project), and he was so focused on going to war in Iraq, that his priorities haven't accommodated universal broadband, among other even more serious issues [cbsnews.com].

    Kerry is a senator, but he's not president. So he's saying that if he were president, this is a possible works project that would stimulate the economy, create jobs, and help broadband become universal like phone service. Kerry is the presidential challenger, so it's up to him to present his vision for America and explain why he's the right man for the job.

    Bush is the presidential incumbent. It's up to him to explain his record for the past four years and explain why that record is good enough that he deserves another four years. If Bush really thought this was a good idea, well, he's been able to do it for four years. It makes no sense for the presidential incumbent to make vague promises about things he has not done anything about for the past four years. But when your record isn't good enough to run on, you avoid talking about it. You change the subject to talk about going to Mars, you make vague subjects about universal broadband, you resort to hateful language about constitutional amendments, etc.
  • by Rysc (136391) <sorpigal@gmail.com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @07:17PM (#8698491) Homepage Journal
    i suppose the same should be said about a group of 5 loving people, and yet I wouldn't be surprised if you were against polygamy

    You say this like it's supposed to sound ridiculous. In fact, I for one have no problem with polygamy on moral grounds.

    The major argument against polygamy is historical, it being the case that multi-partner marriages have seldom been wholly consensual. It is wrong for a man to keep five women as much as it is for him to keep one, if keeping is what he is doing. With two people the chances that the relationship is less harmful is greater. None of this says that polygamy should be illegal or is immoral. In todays world it might even be possible to have perfectly workable polygamous marriages, given our fairly good legal and social system. I think we could do it in this day and age without it being harmful.

    And heck if you love your brother or sister?

    In principle there is nothing wrong with sexual contact of some kind between siblings, but I agree that it should be generally illegal on genetic grounds. And again, the possability of abuse is rather greater with a member of ones own family. So, while it's possible to have a safe icestuous relationship, I don't think the practice should be legal as at this time I do not believe such a relationship has a good enough chance of being safe.

    As for incestuous marriage... why not? Apart from the sex issue, it seems fine to me.

    I mean you love each other, or your dog for that matter.

    The only reason to ban beastiality is health reasons, both yours and the animal's. Thereis some chance of disease, for one. And I have heard of reports of harming the animal by means of the act itself. The major argument against it is that there are curently no laws of enough specificity on any books (of which I am aware) to protect the animal in such situations.

    As for marriage... you can already leave posessions to pets, and you can already sleep with them (more or less). While it may be necessary to exclude such unions from certain aspects of marriage (how would health benefits work?) and thus make the process more of a legal fiction than anything else, I see no problem with it.

    The problem is you have no objective morality

    I've got news for you, in case you slept through your philosophy classes: There is no objective morality. A few people have tried to define objective morality, and "community standards" are about as close as you can come.

    Give me one reason I should trust your judgment?

    Give me one reason you need to trust my moral judgements. If I married (say) a goat, it would in no way involve you and thus your moral perspective would be irrelevent.

    Why is your view more right than mine?

    Why is your view more right than mine? I know, majority opinion, right? Well anyone can see how quickly majority rule gets screwed up. "It's always been that way!"? This veneration of the past, while amusing, does not hold any moral weight. We don't keep slaves any longer, though it is a venerable practice. Give me some real argument as to why your opinion on marriage has any impact on anyone other than yourself and your spous (if any).

    Why should any of this be illegal or legal? What buisness does the government have telling anybody what they can and can not do.

    None at all, insofar as what people do does not cause particular harm to other people or the government. And maybe not even then.

    How does a government decide wht is moral or immoral if the electrical impulses going through their brains are nothing more than chance?

    Ah, that's jsut it, y'see.You've hit the nail on the head: The government doesn't decide what is moral, the government decides what is /legal/. Government should prohibit only minimally, as necessary, and let churches wring their hands over whether things are moral.

    Your views of right and wrong are abitrary and have no
  • Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zhobson (22730) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @07:20PM (#8698521) Homepage
    > 1. Anger most of the population
    > 2. Attempt to win them over with cheap internet
    > 3. ???
    > 4. Pro...Re-election!

    Isn't it obvious?

    3. Election fraud
  • by isa-kuruption (317695) <`ten.noitpuruk' `ta' `noitpuruk'> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @07:24PM (#8698566) Homepage
    NEWS FLASH! Gaddafi is no longer a threat! Gaddafi has given up his weapons of mass destruction (yes, he did have them!) He is no longer a threat to the United States or any other nation. Why? Because of Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The Iraq war was not about weapons of mass destruction. It was about a lot of things, and in the real world (not the one fabricated by liberal media and the Demo'rats), the war in Iraq was a continuation of the 1991 conflict of which Saddam surrendered and agreed to certain stipulations. Those stipulations were not met, which led to 17 U.N. resolutions. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq had not met it's obligations under the previous resolutions. This was the real cause of the second conflict in Iraq. This resolution was agreed to and signed by all members of the UN Security Council.

    Iraq had not met the terms of the cease fire and therefore was responsible. This was one point of the war. The second point of the war was his actions towards his own people. He was very cruel , tortured men and raped women.

    The other countries you mention have other difficulties, politica, financial, whatever.. they are irrelevant. We cannot treat every nation the same, as we are not treating North Korea the same.

    The third reason was the attempt of Saddam to assassinate a former president of the U.S. Yes, it was Bush's father, but he was still a former president. Saddam also had ties with multiple terrorist organizations. While we can not prove, yet, that Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda, there is plenty of interesting evidence. Saddam also supported many other terrorist organizations, of interest is Hamas, as they bombed Isreal. Because of Iraq's relation with these terrorist organizations, it's hard to believe that Saddam excluded Al Qaeda.... it just doesn't make sense.

  • Re:I Don't Get It (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sg3000 (87992) * <sg_public@@@mac...com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @07:26PM (#8698578)
    > he's said nothing newsworthy at all... he's just trying to get
    > the geek vote without offering much in return.

    Ironically, he is saying something, but with his actions and not his words.

    He's actually saying, everyone should have broadband. So he recognizes the opportunity.

    On the other hand, he proposes no funding, no time table, no vision, no structure, nothing. So he doesn't think it's important enough to ask a single member of his administration to look into this. He relegates this to a vague promise.

    It's like this. Bush He had his administration immediately work to revitalize their space-based missile program. At the same time, he announced a terrorism task force back in early 2001 (pre-9/11), with Dick Cheney as the head, but the task force never met and never did anything. Since actions speak louder than words, clearly Bush considered setting up a space-based missile program to be more important that preventing terrorist attacks.

    So, the fact that he recognizes the opportunity, but he chooses to do absolutely nothing about it indicates the relative priority of the task.
  • How many died? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eniu!uine (317250) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @07:42PM (#8698687)
    "First, we're up to 591 now."

    When did Iraqis cease to count as people?

  • Re:Unemployment (Score:4, Insightful)

    by www www www (763043) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @07:43PM (#8698700) Homepage Journal
    You cannot deny that Clinton and Bush have very different takes on how to help the economy along.

    You cannot deny that the economy did much better during Clinton than during Bush.

    First term or not, it is hard to deny that the US economy would have looked very different if the country had continued Clinton's policies than Bush's. For one thing, the huge tax cuts for the rich would not have had happened. If these tax cuts are good or bad, we can discuss, but to say that Bush has had no influence on the current economy is plainly wrong.

  • by dpilot (134227) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @07:44PM (#8698706) Homepage Journal
    Which differs from the previous quest to remove Clinton from the white house at ALL COSTS in what way?
  • Re:Your Poll (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rysc (136391) <sorpigal@gmail.com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @07:51PM (#8698756) Homepage Journal
    Carter was a quite good person, and did as good a job at being president as the circumstances were likely to permit. Painting him as a bad president is misleading at best. On the other hand, I wont dispute that he's commonly *believed* to be the worst president. It's just that I don't rank a failure to bring around the economy and the lack of any spectacular public events during his term are quite as bad as treason, which is what King Gorge II is guilty of twice over.

    It's all in how you define "bad."
  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportlandNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @07:55PM (#8698785) Homepage Journal
    first, you sound like someone who is going to believe Bush is the best, no matter what, and not bother to think about it.

    Second, it's not flaimbait, bacasue the JD did argue against people owning their own broadband service.

    "But by that same token: why on earth should we simply to assume that the government is totally free of corruption?"

    we never should. However you say it like it's perfectly OK for Bush to be corrupt.

    Before you start labeling, my opinion is based on action Bush has done, and has nothing to do with my political beliefs.

  • Re:Hmmm (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28, 2004 @08:00PM (#8698819)
    That's enough to get him elected, if the Supreme Court helps....

    Yet another fucking idiot who doesn't understand the difference between a direct election and a delegated election.

    Go read about the Electoral College, willya? Right now, Election Projection has the president at 290, Kerry at 248.
  • by cgenman (325138) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @08:06PM (#8698854) Homepage
    It's not an unfair burden to expect somebody to be able to afford to buy their own phone hardware. But, just what is the minimum feature set of a computer to enjoy the Internet? Is Lynx a good enough browser, or do we have to assure that the subsidized level of service can deliver Mozilla?

    Your post was intelligent and well thought-out overall, but I'd like to point out that at the time the rural telephone access was an issue, telephones were actually quite expensive. Even in the early 80's a basic telephone would run 30 dollars, and that is in the dollars of the time. My mother was leasing a telephone in the 70's, because leasing was cheaper than owning. If we assume a phone in the 50's was 50 dollars (someone who remembers/has data from that time please chime in), and the median income was 5,000 dollars, then that creates an income/cost ratio of 100 to 1. If the median US income (for 2002) was 43,000 dollars, that would imply an access burden of 430 dollars. Cheap computers can be had inside of Wallmart for that much money, including monitor, and everywhere else for not significantly more.

    So yes, while the concept of rural broadbandization seems laughable, the cost to the end user doesn't seem that out of line with previous similar programs.

  • by fmaxwell (249001) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @08:07PM (#8698861) Homepage Journal
    Except the AWOL aligations were false, and the White House proved otherwise.

    What planet are you from? All that the White House did was show that Bush once took advantage of free dental work at the Air National Guard base in Alabama.

    The payroll records released by the White House show that Bush performed no guard duties at all for more than half a year in 1972. They also raise questions about how he could be credited with at least 14 days of duty during subsequent periods when his superior officers in two units said they had not seen him.

    This was a blatent attempt of the Democrats to portray John Kerry as the "war hero" while Bush as a deserter. The attempt failed miserably. In fact, Bush spent more time training to be a pilot than Kerry spent in Vietnam.

    What heroism! Flying a fighter jet around Texas at taxpayer expense. Think of the danger! What if the North Vietnamese had attacked Houston? Bush would have been on the front line. And to think that people portray Kerry, who was awarded a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, a war hero! Damn liberals.

    Actually, most of the troops within Iraq understand and agree with the mission given to them. I know, personally, many marines who see that rescuing 25 million as a worthy cause, and one to risk their life for.

    Give your chest pounding bravado a rest. Bush lied to the American people about "weapons of mass destruction", lied to the troops, and sent our troops to Iraq with no exit strategy and poorly equipped. I know troops who did not have enough rations, toilet paper, and whose parents had to buy them the body armor that Bush & Co. didn't supply. Maybe you think that it's okay to lie to our troops, but I don't. Quit with the ends justify the means crap. If Bush thinks that we should be engaged in "nation building", then he should say so instead of making up stories about imaginary weapons.

    In closing, here are some things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

    1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

    2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

    3. Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

    4. "Standing Tall for America'" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

    5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

    6. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

    7. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

    8. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

    9. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

    10. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

    11. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

    12. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

    13. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

    14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

    15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
  • Re:You're no FDR (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @08:34PM (#8699017) Journal
    But it is the job of the US Gov to protect our borders and as the head of our gov. it is his responsibility to ensure the borders are protected.

    All the Bush supporters keep telling me how Bush is a 'Man of his Principles', well it sure as hell looks like he forgets what he believes in when it will help he keep his job.
  • by useosx (693652) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @08:34PM (#8699020)
    Ah yes, they "knew the risk and accepted it"--good to see you have a solid grasp of class issues. More like: really needed the money and joined before Sept. 11th with the pretty justifiable assumption that the US wouldn't be going to war any time soon.

    Or something [megspace.com]

    But since you, obviously, are wealthy enough to have avoided military service, I guess you can't ask them how they feel [commondreams.org] about being in Iraq.
  • by shadowbearer (554144) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @08:42PM (#8699082) Homepage Journal
    Let's be really honest, here; the whole 'ban gays' initiative is nothing more than extreme Christian fundamentalism. No amount of logic or moral appeal is every going to change what those who are intolerant to any other lifestyle but their own feel about it. This isn't exactly a new issue, either.

    Myself, I'd go so far as to say that the whole fanatical dedication to the "nuclear" family has probably done more to harm it than just leaving the whole issue alone would have. The whole argument is just plain stupid. WTF business is it of ANYONE how two other people live, ESPECIALLY if they don't even know those people?

    Oh, to head off the trolls:

    1) No, I'm not homosexual. I have friends who are, tho, and I support them in living however they want to. I'm not religious, but I was raised so, and I seem to remember Jesus talking about tolerance towards those who don't live like you, but who are still moral.

    2) No, I'm not some "family expert". I don't think one really needs the opinion of "experts" or government officials, or religious people, to raise good kids. Make of that what you will.

    3) I'm seriously of the opinon that the whole concept of marriage should be a covenant between two (or three, or whatever) people and/or their church, and should not be any province of the government at any scale, federal, state, local - WHATEVER. It's none of their goddamned business. We have something called seperation of church and state in this country partially for this exact reason. (Yes, I know it can be argued that marriage is not primarily a Christian institution - but in this particular context, WRT to our administration, it is.) The only winners in the legal venue of marriage in this country have been the divorce lawyers.

    Get the fucking government out of it. Completely.

    End Rant.

    SB

  • Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AKnightCowboy (608632) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @08:52PM (#8699145)
    2. Attempt to win them over with cheap internet

    Bread and circuses. I voted for the guy and I want him out more than anyone at this point. I can't stand politicians that like right to my face about some major issue. You wanna get a blowjob? Fine, but don't lie about it. You want to bomb Iraq cause they tried to kill your daddy? Fine, but don't lie to me about it and say they have WMD. Assclown.

  • by rsilvergun (571051) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @08:57PM (#8699181)
    just me. Still, I doubt I'm the only one paying more in taxes. Moreover, why the hell should a millionaire be getting a tax break in the first place. It seems to me those who are recieving more benefit from society (i.e. the wealthy who owe that wealth to society, since no single individual could possibly gather that much wealth alone) should shoulder the most burden.

    And what 'services' are you talking about? I pay for my own education, health care, housing and transportation (and yes, I know education is subsidised, but that ought to come from my state taxes). If you mean the military, I say let's cut back on oil use by forcing public transportation on everyone (and maybe building a few more nuclear power plants) and we'll see how much of a military we really _need_ (apart from the nukes to keep China at bay, which we really do need).
  • Re:Whoop-tee-doo. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr. Piddle (567882) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @09:00PM (#8699194)
    Is this anything like a certain other organization stating that everyone "ought to have" universal health care, without saying how, or who's going to pay for it, etc?

    Universal health care is a joke. It has to be. Just last week, the big news was that our existing medicare and social security programs are hanging on by a thread. They don't even know how to fund our existing programs when the baby boomers retire. Universal healthcare will be right beside our mars missions and universal broadband as things that are bankrupting the federal government.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28, 2004 @09:00PM (#8699198)
    "When GWB proposes spending government money on this, please get back to me."

    There is no such thing as government money.
  • by Mr. Piddle (567882) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @09:09PM (#8699252)
    Also, if Bush was as Christian as everyone of the right thought he was he would do something about the treatment of Christians in China, yet he doesn't.

    He is a modern feel-good selective-bible-reading loud-bible-thumping christian. In other words, he is barely christian at all; rather, he is a part of a large quasi-religious subculture that is very common in the Southern USA.
  • by 0x0d0a (568518) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @09:33PM (#8699381) Journal
    It is nothing more than rebellion against God.

    Actually, banning gay marriage really has little foundation in divine command, even in Christian belief.

    Leviticus 18 deals with homosexuality, and prohibits it. However, there is a huge quantity of other old Judaic law in these sections, containing other commands that are ignored by modern-day Christians, mostly because they are inconvenient (don't eat pork, treat your deceased brother's wife as your own wife, etc).

    The idea that Christians have is that Christ established a new covenant, and that the commands they have to obey are listed in the New Testament (which contains nothing banning homosexuality). However, there was an arbitrary mishmash of Old Testament stuff that just happened to be kept and shoved into Church doctrine. It's a serious inconsistency in Christianity -- essentially, there are no Biblical grounds for both eating pork and condemning homosexuality. It's really nothing more than a cultural thing that happens to live on with the church.
  • by 0x0d0a (568518) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @09:49PM (#8699464) Journal
    However, on slashdot, we're only allowed to point out when Republicans say stupid things, not when Democrats do. Didn't you read the F.A.Q.?

    I'm pretty certain that the most commonly reviled politician on Slashdot is Sen. Fritz Hollings ("The Senator from Disneyland"). He is a Democrat.

    IMHO, the flak that Bush and Ashcroft get on Slashdot is very much well-deserved. It's often misdirected, as when Bush does something *stupid* or *wrong* ("Let's attack Iraq to fight terrorism!") and then gets complained at for the number of soldiers dying, when we are doing very well. Invading Iraq was the real problem, but deaths of soldiers is a current and ongoing issue that can be complained about. People didn't just randomly decide "hey, let's hate Bush!", though.

    It's kind of like Microsoft. Microsoft frequently catches a huge amount of complaining on Slashdot for doing something incredibly minor. However, Microsoft *earned* a steady and widespread hatred from many Slashdotters from years of screwing customers and competitors alike over. They're simply paying for their original actions in installments.
  • by ellem (147712) * <ellem52.gmail@com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @10:24PM (#8699621) Homepage Journal
    abolish the FCC.
  • by rjh (40933) <rjh@sixdemonbag.org> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @10:51PM (#8699812)
    How did you manage to get modded "insightful" when your entire post is one giant troll and straw-man argument against people you neither understand nor wish to?

    I'm a conservative Republican. I have some pretty strong Libertarian leanings, but given the Libertarian party is fond of putting up candidates like Howard Stern for major political positions, I can't in good conscience throw myself in with them. So, as a conservative Republican, let me respond to your twenty bits o' trollage.

    Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

    Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, without regard to your occupation, fame, or anything else. However, being a drug addict does not prevent you from also being human, and thus deserving of human dignity and compassion. There is no contradiction here: the "contradiction" only exists because you're unwilling to consider that "the Enemy" (which is to say, me and people like me) may have views which don't reduce down into a three-second sound bite.

    The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

    The United States shouldn't get out of the United Nations, but at the same time, we shouldn't have any delusions that the United Nations confers legitimacy. The majority of nations at the U.N. are totalitarian dictatorships, and it is beyond me how you can imagine that a bureaucracy of despots can confer legitimacy.

    I don't like dealing with the U.N., but I'm fanatically in favor of dealing with NATO, with the European Community, and with basically any other multinational organization composed of free nations.

    But until such time as we're able to come up with a better alternative to the U.N., should U.N. mandates be obeyed? Yes, unless doing so would directly and substantially reduce our security. For instance, I think we should be pressing Israel to return to their 1967 borders, as required by a Security Council resolution; and I think Israel is within rights to say "screw you, do you have any idea how tiny those borders are? We could be overrun in a matter of hours!"

    Again, there's no contradiction here. The contradictions only seem to exist because you're not willing to view the other side as anything more than a straw man.

    Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

    Government should relax regulations at all levels. The more laws you pass, the more you're going to inhibit economic development. If you don't believe me, just look at France--or ask JFK, who cut income taxes by huge amounts expecting that it would lead to an increase in tax revenues and a boosted economy. (Both happened, by the by.)

    With regard to marijuana... I believe government should enforce the law and I believe the Federal government should, in most things, defer to the states. It's a matter of constant irritation to me that our current administration has sicced the FDA on those states who've enacted laws allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. That's something the Left would do, override local government in favor of the divine wisdom of Washington. Conservatives, speaking generally, strongly doubt the divine wisdom of Washington and prefer to let states and municipalities handle things.

    "Standing Tall for America'" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

    Read some basic economics books, starting with David Ricardo. Until such time as you learn some microeconomics, please don't give people economic advice.

    And no, Ricardo isn't some neocon or some colleague of Milton Friedman. He's an 18th-century economist and a peer of Adam Smith. I hav

  • by Zeinfeld (263942) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @11:14PM (#8699969) Homepage
    It doesn't help us to ignore reasonable discussion just because it doesn't support our desire to not re-elect a certain president. In fact, it hurts.

    You think he was elected?

    Why is this modded flamebait? It's a reasonable, non-vitriolic reply to a scathing, error-ridden post (which itself was closer to flamebait, but is instead at +5).

    The best tactic for partisan moderation is to use 'overrated', that way your chance of being meta-moderated negatively is not great. They probably are modding flamebait because they forget this when they get mad.

    The fact is that nothing hurts as much or as hard as the truth. What the republicans are reacting to in this thread is the fact that so many people don't believe Bush is a competent leader. Ever since 9/11 they have been looking at polls that say 75% plus of the population believe that Bush is a 'strong leader', 'tough on terror' etc. Its not just those particular views that are part of their core belief system, the fact that these views are near universal is also part of their core belief system

    This is why they react so strongly when these ideas are questioned. That is why the mere questioning of Bush's competence results in inflated charges of 'treason' or as they are currently throwing at Clarke 'perjury'. They can't handle the fact that amongst people between the ages of 20 and 40 the idea 'Bush = Liar = Incompetent = Fool = Coward' is not merely a fringe view, it is now the overwhelming consensus.

    I don't like ideology, I don't like religions where you are told what to believe. I have not even joined the Quakers because that is too organized for me. What I dislike about what the Republican party has become is the total subservience to dogma. When they accuse us of being blinkered for merely criticizing Bush they are merely projecting their own ideological blinkers that blind them totally.

    The reason we are going to win and the right is going to lose can be seen on the Web. Go to any of the right wing blogs and you find a fan site which simply promotes whatever today's line from GOP headquartes might be. The left wing blog sites are very different, the typical story for a widely read left wing blog like atrios [blogspot.com] or Kos [dailykos.com] or Josh Micah Marshall [talkingpointsmemo.com] consists of a immanent critique of the right. So say Drudge and cronies will put out a statement by Condi Rice attacking Clarke, the left wing blogs will then show that the statement is in direct contradiction with a previous statement by Cheney, or better yet by Rice herself. Right wing blogs often try to do this, but in order to create the 'contradiction' they usually have to end up doing some malicious editing to present words out of context, and that leads to the second typical story for a left wing blog, the post showing the manufacture of a specious quotation.

  • by patternjuggler (738978) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @11:38PM (#8700104) Homepage
    Bush says he wants broadband for everybody by 2007, Kerry says he wants to spur technologies that will bring broadband to everybody. Same thing.

    They sound pretty different to me. One comes with a target date and promise of reaching everyone- and it sounds like a 30s era public works type project: may have a worthile goal, but requires lots of money and bureaucracy, blindly adopts a huge monolithic solution, and is rife with the corruption you'd expect ('In order to avoid certain legal complications, the broadband deploying trucks are always rolling').

    'Investing in new technology' is vague, but sounds much less heavy-handed. Even if the new technology doesn't bring broadband as we know it to every last citizen, you've probably promoted the invention of some new and interesting things rather than providing a permanent subisidy to the cable laying and maintenence industry, or whatever.

    Which plan did you say came from a Democrat and which from a Republican?
  • Re:A pony indeed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by uncoveror (570620) <webmaster@uncove ... om minus painter> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @11:40PM (#8700118) Homepage
    I think he is serious about broadband in every home. How else do you think Big Brother will be able to watch? Read More. [uncoveror.com]

    It will all be part of Total Information Awareness, [uncoveror.com] which isn't gone since Congress defunded it, it only went back underground.

  • Re:Whoop-tee-doo. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0WaitState (231806) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @11:59PM (#8700218)
    Canada, Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Sweden, (gasp) France (gasp), Greece, AND MOST OF THE FUCKING CIVILIZED WORLD have single-payer medicine. And you know what? They live longer than we do. And they spend less per capita. There are parts of society where the profit motive just ain't quite the right way to do things.
  • by fmaxwell (249001) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:06AM (#8700266) Homepage Journal
    1) Name one republican who has criticized people addicted to drugs. Show me proof, too.

    Rush Limbaugh:

    "[He's] another dead drug addict."
    - Rush Limbaugh on Jerry Garcia, 8/11/95

    "We have alcoholics and drug addicts in our society, don't we? And what do we say about them? Well, they can't help it. Why, it's genetic. Why, they have a disease. Why, put one thimbleful of scotch in front of them and they can die.' We totally exempt them from any control over their lives, do we not? Some athlete will spend two years snorting lines of coke. He can't help it.' You know, it's--it's just--it's not--it's--it's genetic. These people--they're predisposed to having this addictive syndrome. They--they can't help--yeah, like that line of cocaine just happened to march into the hotel, go up to the athlete's room and put itself right there in front of him on his blotter."
    -- Rush Limbaugh how, December 16, 1994

    5)I look at it this way: in order to be human you need to have 46 chromosomes, this is unique to the animal kingdom).

    Now people with Down Syndrome [utah.edu], Klinefelter Syndrome [utah.edu], and Turner Syndrome [utah.edu] aren't human. Great going, Dr. Mengele.

    Do you support killing humans?

    No. I was against the war in Iraq.

    Bush has nothing to do with sending jobs overseas. Businesses do, however... but in your little world, you believe they are one of the same.

    When Republicans pass legislation that gives tax incentives to send jobs overseas, then, yes, they are responsible for the job losses.

    Everyone makes mistakes. Bill Clinton did it too, but that's OK. That's "youthful discretion" as Mr. Clinton claimed.

    So now that Clinton's out of office, you are willing to accept "youthful indiscretion" as an explanation, but when he was in office, you right-wingers wanted to hang him by his balls for those same indiscretions.

    We did not "belittle" our allies, we had disagreements with them.

    Donald Rumsfeld said "Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem," but you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They're not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States."

    That sounds like belittling them to my ears.

    The difference is that in the US you have the opprotunity to get a job which provides health insurance.

    Bulls***! There are people out there who lack the skills, advanced education, and intelligence to get a job at a firm that will provide health insurance. About 62% of uninsured people live in a household in which the head of the family works full-time for the full year, but is either not offered health insurance or cannot afford to pay the premiums to participate. Uninsured workers tend to be self-employed or work for smaller businesses. About 12% of the self-employed are uninsured, 36% of workers at businesses with less than 25 people are uninsured, and 13.7% of workers at businesses with 25 to 100 employees are uninsured.

    No one has proposed censoring the internet, they have proposed stopping people from stealing from others.

    Ever heard of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), a federal law that requires public libraries that rely on federal funds for Internet use to install filtering software on library computers? That was Republican legislation.

    Creationism, on the other hand, should be taught in school right next to evolution. They are both theories, neither of which is proven, and one should not be chosen above the other, but both should be taught.

    The word "theory," as used in science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of genera

  • by Bodrius (191265) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:17AM (#8700325) Homepage
    Good to see you have a solid grasp of personal responsability.

    The US is not currently drafting civilians. You do not need to be wealthy to avoid military service, you just have to NOT voluntarily apply.

    The military seems pretty straightforward about the "running risks, shooting people" part, they're not lying about it. They may not put it in the harshest light, but I don't see them selling the "Army of One" idea as "cushy job, easy salary". Rather, they try to sell it as heroism.

    If you sign up for the military, you do it knowing the risks, regardless of your motivation.

    While "I'll never see action" may be a "justifiable assumption", it is still a conscious risk to take based on the odds. You're still signing a contract that says you're willing to risk your life if necessary, and that's your part of the deal, regardless of how unlikely you think that necessity is.

    If you wanted to take advantage of the deal and never pay up on your promise, we'll, it was your own bad decision.

    Soldier is not the only profession that expects you to potentially risk your life in some undetermined future. We don't normally expect cops to say "well, I never really expected to deal with crime directly anyway" or national guards to neglect duty on the grounds that "I didn't expect to deal with REAL emergencies!".

    We don't steal the responsability from their actions by assuming they don't know what they're signing for.

    Instead, we expect them to be the proud professionals we need them to be; we're aware they'd rather not deal with the ugly side of things, but we hope they will rise to the needs of the situations they're trained for. We praise their outstanding character and do our best to make sure they can do their work as safely as possible.

    In other words, we give them the benefit of the doubt of being decent people who can make their own decisions, good or bad. They can marry, they can have kids, they can join the circus or the military.

    But since you, obviously, are wealthy enough to worry about the class issues and make the assumption their social disadvantage makes them defenseless children freeloading on the government, I'd suggest you use some of your ample free time to re-read the articles you link to, which do not support your argument and are actually orthogonal to the whole issue.

  • Re:Unemployment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:32AM (#8700400)
    "You cannot deny that the economy did much better during Clinton than during Bush."

    And what does that have to do with anything? You could, wiht equal validity say "You cannot deny that the economy did much better when Sycraft was a student than when he was not."

    When Clinton was president, the economy was on a brief and artifical major upswing. It had been doing well for some time and then the .COM boom happened. Investors went nuts over anything and everything that had to do with the Internet. If you were a net bussiness, you had instant funding. Bussiness plans, profits, products be damned. If you were on the Internet, you could get funding. This led to a lot of artifical job growth in the tech sector. I mean even there were highschool kids getting $100,000+ jobs as sys admins and programmers because the demand was so high. I had more than one person tell me I should drop out and go get a job, since university meant nothing.

    However it turned out, as any competent economist knew, to be short lived. So many of the .COM bussinesses had NO plan at all and just hemmoraged money. They had no idea how to make any money, and never should have gotten funding in the first place. As they started to fail, loose all their value and die off the economy slowed. People were being layed off (from jobs they were never qualified to have) and making less (since they never should have made so much to begin with).

    This already had us in a downward cycle, and then the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened. A free market such as ours is highly based on consumer confidence and such a thing shakes that. It lead to less spending, less growth, and more cutbacks.

    As in most of history, the president had very litte to do with the economy. While the president's policies do influence the economy, no question, he does not have the overwhelming control most people assume. Actually, the federal reserve chairman has more direct control over the economy than the president except in extreme cases.

    So no, the economy wasn't up because Clinton happened to be in office. Nor was it up because Bush Sr. happened to be president before Clinton. It experienced a huge growth becuase of an artifical upswing due to over enthusiam in the Internet. It's downswing then was a result of the repercussion of that, combined with a catastrophic event that shook the confidence of consumers.

    You'd do well to take a couple economics courses at your local university. While the world isn't solely motivated by money, a great deal of what happens makes more sense if you understand the basic economic forces at work.
  • by Bull999999 (652264) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:35AM (#8700424) Journal
    I believe they (Japan/S. Korea) are ahead of U.S. in broadband usage because their population density is higher and thus reachable with less cabling.
  • by k_head (754277) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:52AM (#8700529)
    Nah. The republicans would call him a tax and spend liberal. They would argue that the govt has no role in that and that it should be up to the private sector to provide high speed internet. rush would call him a communist, Bill Oreilly would call him a socialist, ann coulter would call him a traitor, and david horowitz would call him a terrorist.
  • by k_head (754277) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:05AM (#8700584)
    Have you been in the military? I have. My experience is that most people are in the military to get away from the little town they grew up in. Second most popular reason is to have money for school. Third is because it was expected of them by their family.

    Being a hero is way down there.

    I do think the people who signed up AFTER 9/11 probably wanted to be heros though. Too bad they are just being cops instead. Hopefully that will be heroic enough for them.
  • by Dastard (567360) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:05AM (#8700851)
    As a result, it helps to be aware of American society and fit into it, and our quick 8-step guide should have you on the path to burger-munching enlightenment.

    And I suppose eating snails, frogs, rotting cheeses and 1000 year old turds buried by woodland creatures is a better alternative. (Let's not forget the sulfites in the wine, too).

    1 - Buy yourself a gun To become a fully-fledged Yank, you'll need to get a weapon. Americans think that having more killing machines magically makes their country safer, and it helps them to walk around saying "I'll put a cap in your ass". Even though the concept of "no guns = no gun-related crimes" is alien to the average Yank, it'll give you a false sense of security in this country with the highest crime rates in the developed world.

    "American == Gun Owner" is a common European misconception. In this country only ghetto troubelmakers, Elmer Fudd types, Cops, homeowners, and French-inspired Libertarians own guns. The first and last categories are regrettable, but it's only becuase we respect our constitution and don't change it like dirty underwear as the French do.

    On the other hand, we don't have criminally-ispired Islamic ghettos where young women are gang-raped by do-nothings hanging around the hallways of tenements, while the government turns its head. But then again, we are not France.

    2 - Put on at least 25 stone Skinny? Medium? Chubby? That won't cut it in the good ol' US of A. Because America has the highest obesty levels on the planet, you'll need to get those rolls of flab built up. Eating 18 waffles with Maple syrup for breakfast (and visiting Burger King five times in a day) is all natural when much of the world is suffering massive poverty. Get fat and fit in.

    That's a lofty complaint from a national of a country where the average family spends 75 percent of its income on food, most of it is drenched in animal fat. It leads one to conclude that the reason there are not many Fat Frenchmen, is due to the fact they all die at an early age from congenital heart disease.

    Heart attack on a plate, nicotine and spit-drenched stogies hanging from the lower lip, and booze are what kills Frenchmen. Inability to protect yourselves from invaders, and lack of air conditioning will probably kill-off whoever's left.

    3 - Learn the lingo We've talked about issues affecting society, but on a personal level you'll need more knowledge (or ignorance as it may be) to fit in. First, forget proper English. Confuse "your" with "you're". Say "must of" instead of "must have". Whenever anything interesting occurs, say "shucks" repeatedly. Instead of clever spontaneity or witty insults, call people "asswipes". It's funny!

    You apparently think language is only suitable as a vehicle for insults and vulgarities. If you want to beat the Russians at this game, your culture is already halfway there. It's never the language that is ugly. It's the the people who use it. They just have no class.

    4 - Throw away all maps, history books etc. To really feel a part of American society, you must lose all knowledge of the world. Forget where Poland is. Scrap your knowledge of the lengthy Chinese history. Make cretinous remarks like "India? Is that in Africa?". Because ALL that matters is America, and it doesn't matter how pathetic you look to educated people the world over.

    And that unfounded French egotism will make you all that more attractive to the world. Your "intimate" knowledge (and subsequent ignorant abuse) of other cultures will not buy you influence and respect you think you deserve.

    I love it when the French complain about English being the defacto standard language of world trade and international diplomacy. They are so bitter about losing the cultural influence they once had. Acknowlege your has-been country is no longer what it once was to international diplomacy and world trade. Contribute to the furtherance of Western Culture and put something on the line. If you ju

  • Re:Whoop-tee-doo. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rusty0101 (565565) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:15AM (#8700874) Homepage Journal
    Of course they spend less per capita. They didn't sign away the ability to negotiate the price of the care given, or the medications prescribed.

    It would not surprise me if the pharmacutical companies started petitioning the federal govornment to start extending the lifetime of pattents as well. Taking a page almost right out of the RIAA and MPAA. They have already gotten buy in from our govornment to prevent other countries from setting up their own drug manuracturing facilities to manufacture drugs for their own populations.

    -Rusty
  • by kerika (574943) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:48AM (#8700946)

    Instead of going crazy with the broadband, why not create a system of free dial-in connections that is administrated by the local library system? Imagine: when applying for a library card, your average American might be given a list of phone numbers to a local dial-in server, along with a unique user ID and password. Along with this service, library patrons might be allowed to check out various free software, such as internet browsers or a program that helps walk people through the basics of establishing a dial-up connection as well as teaching them how to browse the internet.

    GWB is being so shortsighted here. The kind of people who could conceivable really =need= Broadband can afford to it on their own... nationwide availabilty will slowly evolve as demand increases. The most important thing is not to make sure that the most privileged people can have the highest tech internet access available, it is to make sure that as many Americans as humanly possible have the most essential, entry-level internet access.

  • Re:A pony indeed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Thomas Miconi (85282) on Monday March 29, 2004 @06:02AM (#8701470)
    It's a bit more complicated than that.

    Bush says "We're gonna fight terrorism"; invades Afghanistan to overthrow Talebans (OK, good), then all of a sudden invades Iraq, thus sending more recruits to Osama than any ad campaign, and equates all dissenters with friends of terrorism / tyranny / whatever. WTF ?

    Bush says: "We must make peace in the Middle East"; says that terrorism is bad and the Hamas freaks should be stopped (OK, good), then all of a sudden pats Ariel Sharon's back and calls him a "man of peace". WTF ?

    Bush says: "Every American must have broadband by 2007". Expect him to provide federal funding for optic-fibering the whole country (OK, good), then introduce laws that turn the Internet into a slightly more controlled version of the Sing Sing prison.

    Well, at least this will happen if you Americans really hate the rest of the world enough to inflict this guy upon us for another four years...

    Thomas Miconi
  • Sleight of hand (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ride-My-Rocket (96935) on Monday March 29, 2004 @10:35AM (#8702724) Homepage
    I propose that Bush have a big tall glass of shut-the-hell-up and focus on fixing Medicare, Social Security, corporate malfeasance and skullduggery and our reliance on foreign oil instead. Broadband is spreading without his help, and given his track record on the above issues during his administration, I'd just as soon he not help.
  • Re:Your Poll (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sheldon (2322) on Monday March 29, 2004 @03:54PM (#8706712)
    You want to tell me Bush is a liar, Prove it.

    Are you willing to listen to the proof, or are you going to claim it's all biased?

    We can go back to the 2000 election campaign for starters. The points that Bush ran on, in no particular order or all-inclusive:

    - That we could cut taxes, increase spending, while still maintaining a balanced budget.
    - That we could change Medicare without harming it.
    - That he would be a Uniter, not a Divider. He would change the tone in Washington away from partisan bickering.
    - That we should have a humble foreign policy, more isolationist than a global police force.

    Then we can get into all the recent crap...

    The numerous times, like this article, where he has said something should be a priority, and then either didn't follow up(no big deal), or did exactly the opposite(as he's done on education and environment).

    The whole lead up to the Iraq war. A war of choice, I should point out, fabricated upon the belief that Hussein was a potential threat. With no regard for intelligent, reasoned debate on that choice, and a bullying attitude ramming down the throats of the American people this idea that Hussein had Nuclear and Chemical weapons at his disposal. Coupled with this same arrogant bullying attitude used towards our friends and allies.

    Now we have new evidence.

    In retaliation against Joe Wilson, Bush outed a strategic CIA operative... e.g. Wilson's wife Valiere Plame.

    In order to pass the Medicare bill, Bush lied to Congress as to what it's cost would be. Ok, maybe lying is a bad word, but he told them something that he knew was wrong, and he told the Whitehouse actuarial staff to not answer questions from Congress because they also knew the numbers given were wrong.

    And now this past week, Richard Clarke comes out and says, "Despite what this President may tell you, Terrorism wasn't his top priority in 2001, it wasn't even in his top 10 priorities. Bush is trying to claim that he did something where Clinton didn't, but in the Clinton administration it was their number 1 priority. Here's why I say this, here's what happened, here's my evidence."

    Then to top of all of this, at the National Press Club dinner, Bush had the audacity to make fun of the fact that he lied to the American people about the WMDs in Iraq. He thinks it's a joke.

    I understand your sentiment, I understand that we should respect the Office of President in this country, and this partisan political rhetoric is difficult to swallow. It certainly was when the Republicans were bashing Clinton over and over again.

    There's one difference, and this I find truly sad. The charges made against Clinton were fabricated and were done for pure partisan political advantage.

    But as a former Republican, I can say without a doubt that the charges against Bush are truly sad, for they are credible.

    This President is the greatest buffoon to ever hold this office. Even Richard Nixon didn't stoop to putting our nation at risk for partisan political advantage.

Them as has, gets.

Working...