Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Innocent is a relative term here (Score 1) 138

by damn_registrars (#49764175) Attached to: Al-Qaeda's Job Application Form Revealed
Jihadists believe that the people they are killing are in some way interfering with their goals. They generally believe that the land they are fighting in is rightfully theirs, so they see the killing of "infidels" as a righteous cause. It just so happens that the people they are killing are better skilled at selling their own cause to the media that reports the killings.

Comment: Re:So, that's how it works? (Score 1) 10

by damn_registrars (#49758343) Attached to: The Kevlar Kandidate Prepares to Surprise Nobody
As I've said before, when I get to vote, I have to choose between a candidate who doesn't really fit my beliefs and one who wants to destroy my ability to make a living. Voting for a nonviable candidate in a close race is effectively giving a vote to the candidate who wants me unemployed.

But I've told you that before. So go ahead, tell me how it means something completely different from what I have told you it to mean.

Comment: Re:So, that's how it works? (Score 1) 10

by damn_registrars (#49756621) Attached to: The Kevlar Kandidate Prepares to Surprise Nobody

Unfortunately Bernie can't raise enough money to be taken seriously by those who have the power to select a candidate...

It's the voters who select their candidates, or allow them to be selected by someone else. It's all very simple.

And when was the last time that there was a president who wasn't from one of the two parties we have today? When was the last time that either house of congress had a significant number of members who were not from either of the two parties?

And the game is rigged within the two parties, as well. We have seen before that most of the candidates - specifically any that vary from the party platform - are systematically eliminated from contention well before most voters have a chance to make their interests known in the primaries and caucuses.

We've also already seen that Bernie has committed to only running as a Democrat. Once he is eliminated - which will probably happen at most two weeks after Iowa - we won't see him again as a presidential candidate.

So no, the voters do not select their candidates. At least, not for president. We've seen that some people are interested in re-separating the voters from the senators as well, which is a related matter.

Comment: Who uses putty that way? (Score 1) 216

by damn_registrars (#49726979) Attached to: Trojanized, Info-Stealing PuTTY Version Lurking Online
I use Putty plenty, but I haven't had a time yet where I have needed to use it on a new system and needed root access on the system I am logging in to. If I'm using it on a new box, I am logging in with my usual non-root account on my remote system. How exactly would they use that to gain root access?

Comment: Re:Another Assumption (Score 1) 607

by damn_registrars (#49726737) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

Obama has signed into law - including during the time when Pelosi was leading the house - bills that Reagan and both Presidents Bush could have only dreamed of

I don't recall Pelosi or Obama advocating anything more than not raising taxes as much as some wanted. What laws are you referring to?

What they advocated for, and what they actually did, were two very different things. I'm talking about the budget proposals that they actually signed into law (in the case of Obama) or voted for (in the case of Pelosi). These were really not even close to reflections of what they said they were campaigning for. Even more so, they resulted in higher government handouts to wall street and the military-industrial complex than the GOP presidents had ever dared dream for, and larger tax cuts to the wealthy as well. The cherry on the sundae comes in the continued dismantling of workers' rights.

Another way to put it in perspective is to look for any bill that Obama signed that Reagan, Bush, or Bush Jr. would not have signed. I can't find a single one.

Comment: Re:Another Assumption (Score 5, Informative) 607

by damn_registrars (#49725631) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

After the 2008 elections everyone realized the Democrats under Pelosi and Obama were too far left

Really? Obama has signed into law - including during the time when Pelosi was leading the house - bills that Reagan and both Presidents Bush could have only dreamed of. Under Obama - regardless of who controlled either chamber of congress - we saw huge tax cuts to the wealthy, and continued marginalization of the middle and lower classes.

Essentially, while the GOP was marching further to the right, the democrats decided it would be a good idea to follow.

Comment: You get old, you get scared... (Score 3, Insightful) 607

by damn_registrars (#49725563) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties
... you buy a gun, and you become a republican. That's been the cycle for a long time. Yeah, lots of republicans have croaked lately but they're being replaced by democrats shifting over.

Besides, as we've seen the last 6 years there isn't much difference between the two. One party is right-wing, and the other is 1 order of magnitude further to the right. Either way the republicans and their supporters win.

"For the man who has everything... Penicillin." -- F. Borquin

Working...