Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Technology Issues by Candidate 271

Posted by CmdrTaco from the coming-to-the-deadline dept.
An anonymous reader sent in a good story listing the tech issues and breaking them down by candidate. Of course to me, the best part is the huge percentage of questions where yes/no wasn't good enough and a little asterick denotes "but" so you really don't know what half the candidates think of half the issues anyway. Regardless, tomorrow is the day. No matter what you believe, get out and vote tomorrow.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Technology Issues by Candidate More

Technology Issues by Candidate

Comments Filter:

  • The DoJ and President Bush. (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm wondering if the Department of Justice's case against MicroSoft is gonna quietly go away under Bush. This isn't flamebait -- I'm hoping someone will say something encouraging.
  • Alright, you (and my girlfriend, who advanced similar arguments) won me over. I wanted to vote for Browne anyways, but my anger at Bush's attitude led me to want to doing something that I thought would be more effective.

    To quote from Kang & Kodoss:

    "Silly human! You have a two party system! You HAVE to vote for one of us!"
  • Okay, convince me. I know that Democrats are for more government (which I'm against) and Republicans general go for less (which I'm for), but at least in the case of the war on drugs Bush seems to place it as a very high priority. Gore hasn't seemed to mention it at all (I can't find anything about it on his website [algore2000.com]) but Bush seems to be making it a major part of his platform (see this [georgebush.com]).
  • As usual, the candidates' stand on most of these issues is pretty irrelevant. The president is a member of the executive branch; they don't make the laws, they enforce them. Thus, the presidental stand on how to deal with existing enforcement - stuff like the military, the war on drugs, and foreign policy - is a lot more important than what they support in terms of new laws. (Obviously there is some relevancy, because they do get the chance to veto bills.)

    I normally vote Libertarian, but the closeness of this election has me a little nervous. I'm going to be (gag, choke) voting for Gore, just because I'm afraid that Bush might win and push our government's spending on military supremacy and the war on drugs back into the 80's.

    Now what's I'm really looking forward to voting on is Prop 36 [prop36.org]. If you're a Californian, check it out [drugreform.org].

  • That may be the message you're hoping to send, but that's not the one that's received. What you mean as "I don't like any of you," is taken as, "I didn't consider any of you." If you want to say you don't like any of them go do a write in vote for Homer Simpson or something inane.

    It's probably just the basic egotism of politicians, but they're much happier to decide that you're lazy than you're smart but dissatisfied.

    That said, I'm sure you could find a candidate whose view are 'close enough' to yours if you cared to look.
    --
  • Well, obviously you won't be voting for the Alliance, a group that might be called the fiscal Democrats and social Republicans.

    I come from a long line of unionised NDP party hacks and moderate Trotskyites, and now I live in the US, where I work for the Man, have a 401k and worry about the capital gains tax. I'm hoping to get out of the USA before whoever's in office next has been in for long enough to start screwing things up, because America's a bad place to live if you still remember what it's like to be poor.

    Whoever gets elected in the US will be a disaster. There will be an economic downturn - either soft or hard - in the next four years. Someone will have to take the blame, and it's usually whoever's in the White House. So, if I could vote in the American elections, I'd vote Nader. Harry Browne turns my stomach - corporations already control too much of my life, thank you, and compare any Canadian hospital to, say, LA county's public hospitals and you'll begin to appreciate socialised medicine. Nader at least is campaigning on actually improving people's lives, instead of the slow erosion of wages under the status quo. It won't make much difference if Bush or Gore is elected. Unless there's a Republican President, Republican Senate and a Republican House, no one will have the power to interefere with the status quo anyway. But a vote for Nader is a vote for the possibility of a real, social democratic third party.

    In Canada, a vote for a party that can't win is still a vote that makes a difference. 10-20 NDP MP's moves parliament well to the left, just as 10-20 PC MP's would to the right. Better still would be proportional representation.

    But in the US, if you live in a state where the election is a foregone conclusion, or you just can't abide the two candidates with real chances, your vote is wasted.
  • Maybe these questions were just hideously generic (is this wrong, is this right), but I didn't see a whole lot of difference between these candidates.
    Could it be that these candidates just don't have concrete opinions formulated about this (relatively) new medium, or are they all just advised on technological matters by the same people?
  • Many people view technology as a replacement for good teachers. The truth, of course, is that technology is not needed to learn. If you are well educated, technology will be easy for you to learn.

    My $0.02
  • in 1814, according to none other than The Whitehouse [whitehouse.gov] itself.
  • i don't like *any* of the candidates. low turn-outs should signal that people are apathetic about the choices we're given, and don't agree with anyone.

    I can guarantee you that nobody gives shit one what the nonvoters think: not the GOP, not the Democrats, not the third parties. This is because nonvoters (surprise surprise) are not likely voters. The likely voters are party aparachniks, idealogues (usually leaning conservative), and moderates, and they determine policy. If you don't like it, too bad, because the politicians aren't going to cater to you.

    If you really want to give people other options, you might want to run for office yourself.

    fearbush.com [fearbush.com]

  • Try http://www.speakout.com/votematch/index2.asp [speakout.com]. This is one of the redirects from the site referenced above.

    This is a very nice little quiz to see what candidates agree with you. Make sure you read the clarifying text with each question (each question has a little link)... your answers will probably change when you see how they interpret what you select.

    I took it and liked it... No suprise to find out I am the complete and total anti-Nader...

    Bill
  • Are you sure about that?

    Here's a hypothetical for you:

    Congress passes a law giving schools $20 billion to be used on Internet technology, to be administrated by the Department of Redundancy Department.

    President Bore's appointee to the DoRD implements a regulation that says "in order to get this money, you have to install filtering software."

    Now which branch's opinion on filtering technology is more important?

    Things like this happen daily.

    -
  • The branch that passed the bill in the first place, which is the same branch as the branch that can ovverride vetos with a 2/3s vote.

    Not all things are done with bills, I'm telling you. The EPA does things every day that are supported by their own regulations, not any law on the books.

    The interpretation of the ADA is a hot topic in Congress, and in the Courts, because the Executive branch basically sets all of the law regarding it due to an incredibly vague law.

    As for the "hypothetical" situation I named, Al Gore is proposing to do exactly that.

    Should a third party candidate ever actually win office, then you can be sure that a good amount of people will start seriously considering 3rd party candidates for the LEGISLATURE, where appropriations(sp?) are created and passed.

    Historically, it's the other way around. Look at the last third-party President who was elected; Abraham Lincoln. His party, the Republicans, had to claim massive legislature gains first.

    It's less so now, with the popular vote loosely controlling the Electoral College, but it is still a matter of winning at lower levels first before you can win the Presidency.

    That's why these numbers are important:

    Number of elected or appointed officials in various parties around the country:

    Libertarian: 313
    Green: 72
    Reform: 7
    Constitution: 1
    Natural Law: 0

    -
  • As usual, the candidates' stand on most of these issues is pretty irrelevant. The president is a member of the executive branch; they don't make the laws, they enforce them.

    The majority of "laws" today are in the form of regulations from the executive branch that carry the force of law unless Congress or the courts rule on them.

    I normally vote Libertarian, but the closeness of this election has me a little nervous. I'm going to be (gag, choke) voting for Gore, just because I'm afraid that Bush might win and push our government's spending on military supremacy and the war on drugs back into the 80's.

    Then you are part of the problem.

    You can't get smaller government by voting for a candidate who supports much, much larger government.

    It's not possible to vote against a candidate; all you are doing is endorsing Al Gore's agenda.

    Your vote carries far more weight as an endorsement than it carries as a vote for a candidate.

    Look at the 1992 election; 20+% of the electorate voted Clinton/Gore into office, but their endorsement was seen by many as a mandate.

    Those 20% carried weight like they were 55%.

    BTW, Gore won't spend less on the drug war, and he'll continue the massive misdeployment of our military that renders it far less effective than budget cuts could ever reflect. If those are your criteria, he's no better than Bush.

    -
  • No, actually, that's just about right. Read Nader's and the Green party's platform! "Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage." Now do the math. It may not be exact, but it's close enough.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • They are fashion, even if you ascribe great philosphical significance to them, they are still fashion, swinging back and forth according to the norms of current society.

    I'm not going to get into either abortion or gun control, because those issues are so charged that we'll get away from my real point. However, the budget and spending policy is a great point to illustrate because without a SOUND fiscal policy in place our economy will go into the shitter. Who cares about abandonware if you've got to figure out how you're going to feed your family and keep your house? Just because you don't care, doesn't make those other issues unimportant. For example, I know that environmental concerns are very important, but they rank far from the top of the issues that I vote on.

    Technology, however, doesn't go backwards,

    How many millions of people stopped using the internet last year? I'm not going to pull some figure out of thin air, but those people do exist.

    The Internet is going to define the culture of this new century

    Not in any manner that is radically different from TV, Radio and Telephone. Sure it's easier to create your own internet content than it is to run an amateur TV station, but it's just another medium of communication. Don't make it out to be some digital messiah because that it isn't. It's a tool nothing more, nothing less.

    LK
  • If you don't plan to have children, why should you care about abortion?

    If your parents are already dead, why should you care about forced euthanasia?

    And if you don't go outside, you don't get shot.

    Then, you die from a heart attack when you're 36.

    If you have enough money, why should you care about budget issues?

    How much is enough? What if a downturn in the economy causes your investments in the stock market to plummet? How about if interest rates change so you're not pulling in as much as you expected this year? The budget is important for everyone.

    I personally don't care about my health as long as I have my freedom.

    If your health is poor enough, you won't live long enough to enjoy your freedom.

    LK
  • George W. Bush PAID for an illegal abortion in 1970!!! HYPOCRITE!!!!!

    You proof of this is what?

    LK
  • Yes. I should have phrased my question this way, "Do you have a reputable source for that claim?"

    LK
  • Linda Tripp had evidence. Like it or not, she was able to back up her claim.

    LK
  • Roscoe, you forgot to log out and chance which ID you were posting under.

    LK
  • if you have real go here -> http://www.cnet.com/cnettv/0-7134.html it has a link for the tech adgenda of the candidates and tells some info of who is supporting who.

    I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
    Flame away, I have a hose!

  • I'm a fiscal Republican but a social Democrat. I've yet to see a candidate that ever made me feel at all inspired.

    How about if the Republican party ceased to be in the pocket of all sorts of religious organizations?

    Yup. That pretty much says it all.

    Dammit. I HATE Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and James Dobson and Ken Hamm and Pat Buchanan and Billy Graham and Bill McCartney and all the rest of them.

    And all those guys and their vast herds of sheep are salivating at the chance for a victory at the polls tomorrow, and it looks like they are going to get it. That, more than anything, is the worst part of it to me. I don't know exactly why it gets me so much, but I have such a gut-level revulsion to those people that most of the other issues are insignificant to me compared to the importance of turning away their increasing grabs at political power.


    -------
  • Exactly what is a "qualified no answer"??? Is that like answering a somewhat related question, but ducking the issue at hand? If so, all of them should have been marked n/a*. It's what politicians are best at!

    Eric

  • No, I don't think they were given questionaires. I think someone compiled the answers from their previous statements. So n/a doesn't mean they refused to answer, just that they haven't happened to answer yet.

    Just my impressions.

  • Sorry, there is more to the story than the first page (damn that tiny text). They DID answer questions directly.
  • If the Libertarian Party is so great for liberating corporations, then why does "Big Business" donate millions of dollars to the Republicrats and nothing to the Libertarian Party? The Libertarians are the eternal third party candidate, with candidates running for most offices but no publicity or corporate backing. I think the corporations like the stats quo. They like having politicians under their thumb, hiding behind the veil of da gub'mint.

  • Nader also supports a binding "None of the Above" vote, BTW. Meaning if "None of the Above" gets the majority, a runoff occurs where none of the candidates may be listed on the ballot (and hopefully a new batch will run :)

    Such a ballot measure was voted on in California last year and (I believe) lost. However, it was non-binding. Does anyone know if a binding measure has ever been put on the ballot anywhere at a state level?

    Was Jesse Ventura a mayor before being elected Governor? He is currently Governor of Minnesota, a MUCH more powerful and high level job than (almost any) mayor.

  • Gore used to have an "A" rating, based on his voting record, from the NRA when he was in Congress. Later on, when it was expedient for him, he changed his stance on gun control and, as a result, received an "F" rating from the NRA. He also received a 94% rating from the National Right to Life Committee for his opposition to abortion. The guy is a weasel. Oops, I've just insulted the weasels of America.
  • I *really*, *really* hope Pat Buchanan is not celebrating victory on Wednesday. Although perhaps his campaign strategy really is to suck fewer votes from Bush than Nader is from Gore - he's doing really well there. Also he's probably going to drop below 5% of the vote, so there'll be no federal money for Ventura to run in 2004.

    I laughed at his "auction" commercial, though. And I really want to know what exactly he'd do to stop people withdrawing their support from the Boy Scouts.

    --
  • What really happened in 1812 [mp3s.com] (in mp3 format).

    --
  • Here here.

    I keep hearing statistics of how many elegible voters actually vote. If a significant enough fraction of them came out, and voted (doesn't matter who for), they could have a tremendous influence on the whole system.

    If you don't normally vote, great, just sign your name, walk in, and do nothing.

    Thats right, don't fill out that part of the ballot. There are usually other choices on the ballot (local ordinances, other elected officials, etc.). If you don't like your choices, don't cast your vote. If you want to see the political parties have a caniption, watch them count the votes and realize that 30% more people came out to vote and didn't like their choices BUT STILL CAME OUT TO VOTE. Then watch the next election when you find a choice you do like and it isn't one of the major political parties.
  • Even if he does claim to have invented the Internet.

    Okay, I'll admit I love poking fun at him about this silly quote as much as anyone.

    (Slight digresion)Has anyone else gotten a bellyache from the latest 'Snikers' advertisement with the guy going into a polling booth only to have a talking cartoon elephant plop down on one of his shoulders saying things like "I'm the same as my father" "We both wear pants" and a cartoon talking donkey on the other shoulder saying things like "I invented the internet" and retorting with "I invented pants".

    But back to the subject. In context, what Gore had said was that he was responsible for championing Arpanet in Congress, which he was, and that he felt like its father (or something to that effect), which quickly got balooned out of control by the media. I was rather surprised when I found out that he actually DID have something to do with getting the internet created. He didn't create it, but he said something too close and its too good a story to pass up, and besides, a Vice Presidents primary job is to make the Pres look good, and he had a heck of a job with that one.
  • They may, but more because the Clinton/Gore/Reno administrationhas totally botched what should have been a lead pipe cinch of a case. Note that the Finding of Fact inexplicably left out almost all of the real offenses which would have meant serious Sherman act violations, while keeping a weaker few that were wanted by competiors like Sun and Netscape. The laws are intended to protect consumers, and the DoJ carefully crafted its case to avoid showing any significant impact on consumers, despite the fact that there was ample evidence (DR/Caldera, anyone?) that this did indeed happen.

    Bush may toss the case, but more because it's pointless now after Reno's bungling than because he's in Bill's pocket. It was Clinton/Gore/Reno that let him off. Oh, and remember, this is the same crew that brought you UCITA and the DMCA. Viva Bush!
  • (And please don't think that I think abortion is a good idea; it does devalue life and encourage people not to take responsibility for their actions, but to ban it outright is to ignore the fact that it will happen no matter what the policy.)

    So you agree it's morally wrong, but think that government should do nothing about that? What the heck is government for if not to uphold the right and punish wrongs? Besides, abortion is far less defensible today than slavery was in the 1860's, in both cases, it's the Democrats ignoring injustices to the voiceless oppressed.

    But, Clinton is Presidential. Not only did he clearly have fun in office (and some of that was even *without* Ms. Lewinsky), he was also a professional in all matters of foreign affairs. And, he was a thoroughly likeable individual for the world to see as the American leader.

    I see. This would explain the incresed stature of the US during the Clinton years (yeah, right.) Clinton has never been remotely presidential - foreign leaders laugh at him, and he has made our nation and the office of the presidency a joke in the international community.

    Bush, however, is that amiable guy sitting over there at the end of the bar, spinning yarns; he's interesting and exciting. If you met him - probably in a dimly-lit sports bar in the backwoods of Texas - you'd think he was a tractor salesman. He will command the respect of the world not through dignity, but only through sheer power. This is not the best way to influence international or domestic diplomacy. Bush is *no* statesman.

    As Linda Bowles put it so well in a recent column: "Although Gore flunked out of divinity school, dropped out of law school, and had lower college grades than Bush, when comparisons are made, it is Bush who is routinely underestimated. His humility and his plain talk are viewed by the liberal elite as evidence of mental limitations when in fact they are evidence of a refreshing lack of intellectual snobbery. Underneath Bush's folksy, disarming ways is a degree at Yale University and a masters degree at Harvard." Having seen Bush handle the international issues that arise in a border state such as Texas, I'd say he's a FAR better statesman than Gore ever could be.
  • The only thing that low turnout signifies is happiness with the status quo. Personally, I'm a Nader supporter, but if you really feel strongly about how bad the choices are, you should just go vote for something stupid, like a Ficus tree or Barry White.

    At the very least then you send a clear signal to the powers that be that you're dissatisfied with what they're offering and could be a threat to them in future elections.

    Basically, Voting for something stupid is a like a big "Fuck You" to everybody running, especially the majority.

    Staying home and voting for nothing just says that you're happy to have others (whom you do not approve of) in control of you.


  • if you hit 'next' and read the /entire article/ it lists the candidates entire responses. at least, as far as i've read (harry browne.)

    once again, taco proves his ineptness.
    ...dave
  • I guess anybody who believes that gets what's coming to them, but it is still Not Nice (tm). Shoulda put a smiley or something.
  • Well, the current incarnation [68k.org] of mandatory-filtering-bills says that porn that's already illegal to own should be filtered, and that the FCC should be in charge of deciding if a particular filter is passable. That, and local schools can decide to block more if they want.

    But the bill might be passed before the candidates get to weigh in on the issue. (during lame-duck session in congress, starting Nov 14)
    --

  • I normally vote Libertarian, but the closeness of this election has me a little nervous. I'm going to be (gag, choke) voting for Gore,

    I beg you to reconsider this. In recent years the Democrats have shown equal or greater hostility to personal freedom than the Republicans, while coming up with unending ways to make the government larger and more expensive. Gore wants our military to be the world's peacekeepers (no matter how many innocent civilians we have to bomb in the process), and it's his administration that allowed Barry McCafferty to spread blatant lies and propaganda for the drug war. He is certainly no better than Bush on these issues. Also remember that Gore supported restrictions on encryption (opposed by Bush) as well as the whole Clipper Chip fiasco. From a libertarian perspective Gore is less desirable than Bush even if you ignore the economic issues on which Bush is much preferable.

    Again, I strongly urge you to reconsider your vote. If you value liberty, Gore is the last person you should support.

  • The point is that if you are not informed of the candidates and the issues, then you are not doing anyone a service by voting, including yourself. Yes, everyone should be at least somewhat aware of the candidate's positions and philosophies, but if you are not, I would much rather you stay home than cast a vote in ignorance.

    Interesting theory on Nader btw. It would be fun to see mass infighting between principled socialists (Greens) and unprincipled near-socialists.

  • Glad to hear that. I've considered voting for Bush, but I'm going with Browne also. (Although I'm in Texas, so it's not like Bush needs any help there.)

    Your girlfriend is clearly a keeper :)

  • I'm a fiscal Republican but a social Democrat. I've yet to see a candidate that ever made me feel at all inspired.

    What about Harry Browne? [harrybrowne.org]. By conventional standards the Libertarians are a bit extreme, but they're the only party which is consistently for liberty and against government intrusion in personal and economic issues.

    Gore hasn't got the same joi-de-vivre as Clinton has, but at least he's an elegant and digified statesman, a boring but professional person.

    I would disagree with this. Look at his performance in the debates; he was consistently interrupting, violating the agreed-upon rules, at one point literally getting in Bush's face as he was talking. That does not strike me as professional, and I would not want anyone with an attitude like that representing my country.

    Bush is *no* statesman. The fact that he's leading in the polls arguably because more of the electorate things he'd be a more fun guy with whom to have a beer arguably proves the every dictator right: perhaps the people *aren't* smart enough to choose their own destiny after all.

    Can't argue with the first statement, but I don't think people are quite that stupid. I think people are tired of the constant lies and scandals emanating from the White House (of which Gore played many integral roles), and are not buying Gore's hysterical claims that Bush's plans would destroy the economy, cause senior citizens to starve, or result in the earth being sucked into a black hole.

  • Okay, convince me. I know that Democrats are for more government (which I'm against) and Republicans general go for less (which I'm for), but at least in the case of the war on drugs Bush seems to place it as a very high priority. Gore hasn't seemed to mention it at all (I can't find anything about it on his website) but Bush seems to be making it a major part of his platform (see this).

    Thanks for having an open mind. I won't attempt to defend Bush's drug policy because it's completely wrong. All I can suggest is that Gore is not an improvement. See this article [drcnet.org]. An excerpt:

    Such analysis, however, is far from exculpatory of the Vice President. Under the Clinton-Gore administration, marijuana arrests increased from fewer than 350,000 in 1992 to more than 650,000 in 1998, 88% of which were for simple possession, according to the FBI's annual Crime in the United States report. On December 30, 1996, in the wake of California's passage of a medical marijuana initiative, the Clinton administration held a press conference to announce that they would aggressively prosecute doctors who so much as discussed medicinal marijuana with patients -- despite the fact that Vice President Gore recently admitted that his sister tried marijuana for relief of the pain and nausea associated with cancer.

    As of yet, there's no hope of a rational drug policy from either of the two major parties. (Although Republican supporters of decriminalization are increasing in number, e.g. Gov. Johnson of New Mexico and William F Buckley).

    The only candidates willing to end the war on (some) drugs are Ralph Nader (obviously unacceptable to libertarians) and Harry Browne. Compared to them, there's virtually no difference between Bush and Gore on this issue. Voting Democratic is going to have the opposite effect of what you want; if ending the drug war is that important, as I see it you have to vote for Browne.

  • Just in case anyone out there wants a somewhat more indepth look at *all* the candidates (and other political bodies), I reccomend you go to this website.

    http://www.issues2000.com

    or

    http://www.issues2000.org

    I can't remember which it is. They have a LOT of information. So, if anyone out there is *still* undecided, check out the site, and make sure you are part of the election tomorrow!

  • I thought it was repugnant and disgusting because they're bribing them with cigarettes. And after all the fuss the Dems made about the evils of tobacco.

    Just goes to show, whoever wins (Rep or Dem), we can blame it all on the tobacco companies.

    (Vote for me and you'll all get affordable health care! Now heres some cigarettes so you can get lung cancer.)
  • Even if he does claim to have invented the Internet. <sigh>

    Bush keeps claiming he claimed that. Here's the real story in Gore's own words [zdnet.com]. And here's a viewpoint you may not have heard [salon.com].

    clear-cut reason for a Linux-loving computer geek to get out there and vote, it's for Gore

    It is true that a vote for Bush is a vote for Microsoft. He'll shut down the antitrust case faster than you can crash Windows 98.

  • Gore loves big corporations as much as the next guy.

    He loves some big corporations, but he doesn't love big tobacco (IMO, this ciggies for votes thing sounds like a setup) and he doesn't love Microsoft. In fact, on a campaign trip to Redmond last year, he got right in their faces and said that antitrust law should be applied to the software industry.

  • I'm wondering if the Department of Justice's case against MicroSoft is gonna quietly go away under Bush. This isn't flamebait -- I'm hoping someone will say something encouraging.

    Why is it more likely to go away under Bush? Gore loves big corporations as much as the next guy.

    The fact that one of Gore's daughters recently went to work for MS could cloud things, though.

    Rich...

  • Just in case anyone out there wants a somewhat more indepth look at *all* the candidates

    Actually, the site linked in the article has quite a bit of information. Taco got this bit wrong:

    Of course to me, the best part is the huge percentage of questions where yes/no wasn't good enough and a little asterick denotes "but" so you really don't know what half the candidates think of half the issues anyway.

    If he'd bothered to read to the bottom of the page, he would have found links to Q and A's with the candidates (or, occasionally, bits grabbed from the candidates' websites) instead of just the neat little summary table. It actually explains what those asterisks really mean in each case.


    ---
    Zardoz has spoken!
  • It seems that G.W. qualified EVERY answer dealing with privacy...

    That's not exactly correct. GWB didn't bother to answer their questions, but instead sent in what sounds like his generic policy paper on the issue. PC World went through and dug out the comments that came closest to answering their specific questions, but in a lot of cases the questions are different enough that the actual answer comes out as somewhat qualified compared to the question asked.

  • Even though I'm voting for Nader - I feel like I'm betraying Al Gore.

    After all - he did INVENT the Internet!!!

    *heh*

  • They may, but more because the Clinton/Gore/Reno administrationhas totally botched what should have been a lead pipe cinch of a case.

    I thought they did an excellent job; they totally outmatched Microsoft's lawyers, and in essence they did win. If they lose on appeal it would be because the appeals court is way to the right. Considering Judge Jackson is both conservative, and said before the trial started that he would be averse to splitting up the company, I think they did a phenomenal job. Look how Boies tripped up Bill Gates during the deposition, or how the government damaged the credibility of the economist MS called as witness.

    Oh, and remember, this is the same crew that brought you UCITA and the DMCA. Viva Bush!

    The DMCA was passed by a Republican congress. And if you think Bush would have vetoed it you are sadly mistaken.
    --
  • It seems the majority of the candidates support censorware in schools. I'm suprised by the fact that even though they support censorware, the don't think the federal government should decide what is to be censored. I guess this would move the decision to the states, either way it's bad. I'd hate to see what my home state of Mississippi (heart of the bible belt) would decide to censor. Obviously alternative and minority religions would be gone since they are cults to Southern Baptists. And does that mean that Califorinia would be more liberal? I wonder who these candidates think would be the appropriate agency to decide what is to be censored. I must say I find the whole position of censoring schools disheartening.

  • Reading the first article above really drives home the intellectual differences between Gore and Bush. There were questions he obviously hadn't thought about, but handled with both intelligence and a creativity I admire... and the ones he had thought about... his response with regard to Napster, and his nod to Linux and open source... show a methodical and careful thought process that could serve this nation well. Bush, OTOH, sort of plunges in with all the thought and responsibility of a frat boy. Oh, wait...
  • All I have to say is that up here in Canada, it has been decided that if you folks vote Bush into office, we are coming down there to burn the White House again!

    Funny... down here, among many of us, it has been decided that if the idiots vote Bush into office, we are moving to Canada.
  • As most would expect, there aren't many drastic differences. Seems to me this just represents a general aknowledgement that there is such a thing as the Internet, it has issues, and that all of the candidates will rely on advisors for determining future policy.

    Wise men do well to surround themselves with other wise men.

  • reposted, one level up. try now.

  • The President's technology policy making power is limited to veto and executive order.

    Not true. Just look at the FCC instituting a telephone tax for the purpose of funding the wiring of schools. That wasn't authorized by any congressional action, but there it is nonetheless. The executive has broad powers via its regulatory agencies. Even if the executive can't directly force an issue, it can threaten to withold federal funds to get states/municipalities to pass the laws it wants. Witness the threat to withold highway funds unless states make .08 the legal limit for drunk driving.

  • if you really feel strongly about how bad the choices are, you should just go vote for something stupid, like a Ficus tree or Barry White.

    Call and write letters to your representatives if you want to have an effect. They really do pay attention, particularly if you can get a group of people involved. Voting for Bugs Bunny doesn't tell them a thing about what's pissing you off, but a slew of mail, faxes, and phone calls on a topic will at a minimum let them know that there might be consequences for ignoring your wants.

  • Hey man, we rammed our share of Spanish Fishing Trawlers!

    Carefull, or we will turn off your water.
  • and in further news...

    "Its only war the Yankees lost
    except for Vietnam
    and also the Alamo
    and the Bay of... Ham"

    *Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie*
  • It seems that G.W. qualified EVERY answer dealing with privacy...

    All I have to say is that up here in Canada, it has been decided that if you folks vote Bush into office, we are coming down there to burn the White House again!

  • Canada WAS British in 1812.

    Sheesh!!!!!
  • Wroooong!! If Bush get's elected , I am afraid you should put your fire department in red alert, because when the next recession hits, we will need you Canadians to put out the fire at the White House.


  • Now with the DMCA saying we can't even reverse engineer software, there will be even more monopolies springing up. If it's not MS, it's some other company.

    Yeah, I doubt that was specifically part of the plan with the DMCA. It was well-intentioned, but clearly written by people with no concept of computers.

    The law will always be behind technology. There's no way anyone could ever predict another potential killer-app like Napster. But at least if the people who wrote the laws had had a clue...


  • He'll shut down the antitrust case faster than you can crash Windows 98.

    Uhhh... Is it possible for a middle-aged alcoholic Texan to move that fast?


  • I *really*, *really* hope Pat Buchanan is not celebrating victory on Wednesday. <snip> Also he's probably going to drop below 5% of the vote, so there'll be no federal money for Ventura to run in 2004.

    Uhh... Yeah. The Reform party itself is pretty scary.

    I think Ventura, from what I've heard about him, very much appeals to me. Fiscal conservative, but of the Pierre Elliot Trudeau attitude that "the State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation". (Too bad PET wasn't a fiscal conservative...)

    But, between Ventura as the guy who calls religion a crutch for weak-minded people, and Pat Robertson as Bible-thumper extraordinaire, there's no real solid definition of the Reform party. I think this scares away people who would support it from either side...

    Until they get their act together, they're going to remain a fringe thing. (Remember their leadership convention in L.A.? Not gonna happen soon...)


  • This isn't just about abortion. It's about preserving the separation between church and state.

    Absolutely. You wanna live in a relious state? Move to Iran.

    For example, religous convictions notwithstanding, there is no reason to disallow gay marriages.

    For sure. It's time for people to get over it already. Remember, though, only a scant ?40? years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many states. The same people who were so against interracial marriages are now the ones who think that gay people are a satanic cult.


  • I'm wondering if the Department of Justice's case against MicroSoft is gonna quietly go away under Bush.

    Yes, it will.

    The Republicans feel that business is business; Microsoft is just conducting normal business practices, and that is how they have achieved their dominance.

    Now, on one hand, the Republicans hands-off attitude towards business is wonderful.

    On the other hand, in this case, some very special tweaking has to be done to extricate Microsoft from their current position. Clearly, they are not the party to do this.

    If ever there was a clear-cut reason for a Linux-loving computer geek to get out there and vote, it's for Gore, and for this very reason. Even if he does claim to have invented the Internet. <sigh>


  • Abortion: My problem with voting democrat is not that they'll keep abortion legal - it should be (sad but true).

    Exactly.

    However, it should _NOT_ be subsidized by the government, which the democrats have been doing. Now the government will take responsibilities for your (stupid) actions! Ludicrous!

    For sure! If people aren't held responsible for their inattention to proper birth control techniques, they won't do it. Now, I'd draw the line with rape and incest; perhaps that could be paid. But general "I didn't think I was fertile at this time of the month" or "I thought if I pulled out before I ...you know..." just aren't good enough.

    Although Nader my unfairly try to make an economy where no salary is over $100K, the sad truth is that most people who make over $100K don't deserve it,

    But when you make an arbitary decision like that, you give the successful no incentive to work any harder; to take that additional risk and open another business, which will employ x new people.

    The fact of the matter is that you can't punish success. If you do, your best and brightest will flee.

    Lemme tell you, I speak from experience. I'm a Canadian, no dependents, 26 years old. I make a good living. And over 50% of it is taken from me with one tax or another. That's one of the most tenuous issues that angers and frustrates me and just makes me crave an escape from Canada so that I can have a better standard of living in the United States.

    Nader's solution is great in theory, but it's no solution.

    and the people making them the money (eg working class) at $30-50K should be given a huge pay raise. Reward hard work but don't allow exploitation.

    Oh yeah, but doesn't the free market do that already?

    Is a parking attendant really worth $21/hr? Nope. But that's what Toronto's municipal parking attendants are paid. That's through unions, not through legislation. The net effect is that the municipal lots actually *cost* Toronto money; they're subsidized in order to make them compete with the private lots.

    This raises your property tax burden, and gives companies and people reason to locate somewhere else. Allowed to escalate, your economy will quickly flouder. And those people who are parking attendants will never feel the hunger for cash that drives many people to go on to higher education or tinker with that old 486 in the corner. Again, the economy stagnates: eventually, you have an economy based on convenience store clerks, parking attendants and janitors. And let's face facts, they're not generally the most innovative of people.

    However, if the job market was so tight that you couldn't get anyone to do the job for $20/hr, then that'd be fine with me.

    Capitalism generally works pretty well when you don't meddle with it.


  • Please do check it out, I'm sure you won't regret it, and it may even change your mind about the futility of voting this year...

    Sadly, I'm a Canadian citizen. I'm still a job offer, Green Card and 5 years away from being an American voter. <sigh> The fact that I was born north of the 49th parallel is proof positive that God not only exists, but also that he's got a sarcastic and evil sense of humor.

    But, even so, the problem is that if people vote Libertarian this year, even if it gets them up to the required 5% for federal funding, it also means that we've got the vote being taken away - probably substantially - from Gore.

    Even if the Libertarian Party gets over the 5%, it will be at the cost of Gore's Presidency. This particular election is especially crucial, because the next President will be appointing a whole bunch of Supreme Court judges. Republican appointees might well overturn Roe vs. Wade, etc. Not to mention absolutely decimating DoJ vs. Microsoft. Remember, in Republican eyes, Microsoft hasn't done anything wrong.

    In other words, while the Libertarian Party makes sense, you must vote for Gore this election, for God's sake. Or else abortion could be banned, Matthew Shepard died for nothing, and Microsoft will be allowed to take over the world.


  • Nice... I'm assuming this isn't a troll.

    Nope, not at all. A measure of frustration, yes.

    Ummm, bombing an aspirin factory is a professional act?

    Was he choosing the targets? It was an unfortunate wartime incident; sh*t happens.

    Allowing nuclear secrets to be stolen, with exactly 0 reprisals is professional?

    Wasn't Wen Ho Lee cleared? I'm sure it burned Janet Reno's ass, but didn't the facts show that the guy was just an imbecile with no criminal intent?

    Making the sanctity of the Oval Office, and his position a laughingstock is professional?

    Are you gonna tell me that no Republican has ever gotten his Slick Willie licked in office?

    Gimme a break.

    There are two unfortunate parts to this incident:

    Part 1, he lied about it (but come on, any guy can understand that, and Hillary is a bit of a ball-crusher, I'm sure).

    Part 2: Bill, Bill, Bill. You're the leader of the free world. You can do better than Monica!

    But, the rest of that is between Bill and Hillary, where it should be.

    C'mon. GW ain't perfect but don't tell me Clinton knows how to behave. That's like saying Ted Kennedy has sexual restraint.

    Nah, Bill's just human.

    Further, under the scrutiny of being President, if Bush gets to that point, I'd bet large sums of money here and now that facts will turn up against the man that are *far* more damning than anything raked up about Clinton. Remember, we're talking about the priviledged son, who has never had to work for anything in his life until this campaign. The party-boy whose only previous experience has been doing lines of coke off toilet tanks in the local saloon and then crashing his father's businesses. Then he gets to be governor of Texas, maybe even President. If he's elected, just you wait. He won't be in office a month before the first scandal, I promise.

    I consider GW Bush's DUI arrest in 1976 to be far more damning than Clinton's bit of Presidential penile recreation. Even in the context that, in 1976, drinking and driving was a lot less illegal than it is today.

    I don't think the electorate should expect *anyone* in office to be perfect; these are human beings, with individual strengths and weaknesses like the rest of us.

    But, let's face facts. Bush is the new Quayle; even if you happen to agree with his politics, the guy is a *goofball*. There's nothing about him that makes you look at him and say, "Wow, this is a dignified and capable leader". Clinton wasn't perfect, but he sure did capture the hearts and minds of Americans and the rest of the world alike, on a level unseen since the Kennedy days.


  • we see that M$ gives fairly equally to BOTH parties.

    Hey, if I were Bill, I'd be hedging my bets pretty carefully, too.


    Hey, do you suppose Bill Gates has a Slashdot account? It's not too impossible...


  • And Microsoft's success is hard-earned -- and will not be cured by a Federal Department of Software Innovation.

    Yeah. Right. A little bit of luck, a good marketing department, and a founder who has the same absolute assuredness that what he's doing is the right thing as Hitler had...

    If Bush gets into office, he'll kill the DoJ's case against Microsoft. And then... ?

    And we'll get to support Windows 2002, then Service Pack 1, 2, 3, Security Packs 697 to 3,422, Service Pack 5, Windows 2004, Service Packs 1-17, Security Pack 14,921 - Security Pack 21,476, and somewhere in there Windows Me2, Windows Mini-Me (for palmtops; no Austin Powers reference intended, of course), Windows Me4u, and all the other nasty names that Microsoft's marketing department could get past our friends, Bill and Paul.

    Please. I don't like government meddling in business, but if for no other reason to help the DoJ see this thing through, vote for Gore.


  • No, no, try Kabul, Afghanistan [excite.com] for a great place to live. Never forget: The religious masses are full of stupid people.

    I've never understood Islam. I mean, I know they're just out there, doing their own thing. But it strikes me that Afghanistan must be pretty warm in places? And they want you to keep a beard? [sigh] I'd already read the article, but I still don't get it.

    I understand why Islamic customs make women wear all the headgear; apparently, the men get distracted when they're horny. Sure, fine, makes good sense to me. I can't condone it, but at least I understand it.

    But, some of this is definately arid tropics where these people live. Don't the women get heatstroke? Even if Muslim men don't consider their women to be equals, doesn't a day of heatstroke at least reduce the quality of the sex when they get back to the tent that evening?

    Understand that I'm not making fun, I'm just seeking an answer for what I consider to be a valid question.


  • Disclaimer: this article contains thoughts of a politically mature nature. You're welcome to agree or disagree with me. But if you're moderating, remember the Slashdot rules: moderate based on the intelligence of the posting, not based on whether you simply agree or disagree with it. Consider your motives between choosing a moderation point and then clicking that Moderate button.

    Fiscal Republican but social Democrat. Huh? You want to provide services without getting taxes? Where's all this money going to come from? Or will you just hugely inflate the National Debt?

    No, I suggest that you simply don't provide the services, but let people live their lives as they see fit.

    I've since seen the answer, though they've not got a snowball's chance in hell of being elected for the near future: the Libertarian Party.

    They're for low taxes (0 federal income tax!), the separation of church and state, and not meddling in capitalism.

    They're for an abolition of entitlements, which make up a *huge* percentage of the federal budget. They're for a system which forces people to be accountable for their own fiscal survival.

    Imagine how nice your retirement portfolio would look if you could invest everything that you now spend on income tax into it.

    They're for an abolition of gun control. Fine, Columbine was tragic, but we all agree, based on an earlier Slashdot discussion, that there were underlying problems with student morale that caused it. The fact of the matter remains: criminals are called criminals because they ignore the law. Do you think criminals are going to register their guns? Nah. So, current gun control laws can only serve to hurt legitimate gun owners and sportsmen, antique firearm collectors and those who feel a need for personal defense.

    The Libertarian Party wants to rescind all marriage taxes and fiscal benefits. And, since they're not affiliated with any religious organizations the way the Republicans are, they don't care if your sister wants to marry a yack. It doesn't matter to them, as long as both parties are consenting.

    They feel abortion is wrong, as I do, but we also agree on the point that attempting to stop it through legislation will only mean that women start getting killed by coat hangers again.

    By all measures, the war on drugs hasn't worked. Like Prohibition, most criminal activity can be attributed to the fact that drugs are illegal. Murders, thefts, etc. are all related to that. Back in the 1930s, anyone could walk into any pharmacy and buy heroin, yet no one was being killed in drive-by shootings over drug territories. Sure, some people will get hooked, and they might even die. Oh well. Darwinian Theory goes hand in hand with Libertarianism. Even so, few informed people could actually call marijuana dangerous. It's ironic that huge numbers of people are currently in jail - instead of productively working and spending - over what is widely considered in pharmacology to be a less addictive drug than either tobacco or alcohol.

    And, they propose to get the federal government out of its involvement in all tasks not specifically described in the Constitution. In the USA, the Federal government has millions of square miles of land. The Libertarians propose to pay down the debt by auctioning that, and keep the government running on only its Constitutionally-appointed tasks with a variety of existing federal taxes not including income tax.

    In Canada, they would do the same thing by selling constant fiscal liabilities like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, zillions of other silly government agencies that don't serve the Canadian constitution, and ending subsidies to private companies. Nortel, for instance, gets over $100 million CDN a year from the Canadian feds. Remember, Canada's population is 1/10th of the American population; that's a big strain.

    I'd vote Libertarian in the upcoming Canadian election - at least out of disdain for the more practical choices - except there's no Libertarian candidate in my riding.

    Maybe there's even a future for me running for public office... :)


  • What about Harry Browne?. By conventional standards the Libertarians are a bit extreme, but they're the only party which is consistently for liberty and against government intrusion in personal and economic issues.

    Yup, I have checked out that website, and I agree: He's the man. You're one of the few people to have changed my viewpoint. Thank you.

    I would disagree with this. Look at his performance in the debates; he was consistently interrupting, violating the agreed-upon rules, at one point literally getting in Bush's face as he was talking. That does not strike me as professional, and I would not want anyone with an attitude like that representing my country.

    I will agree with you about Gore's skill with the debates, too.

    Certainly, running against as inept a Republican nominee as one can imagine (short, maybe, of Dan Quayle), one would have expected Gore to have done a lot better, especially in the debates.

    Fundamentally, I think they'd underestimated Bush. Further, I think there's a lot of animosity and frustration in Gore that Bush is even on his radar screen.

    If you were forced, by your aspirations, to have what is essentially a job interview against a fellow computer geek who feels that Outlook is the most secure e-mail client in existance, wouldn't you feel smug and superior, too?

    To my way of thinking, this was Gore's undoing, but as a human being, I can understand it and even empathize completely. He must have been frustrated as hell.

    So, despite the absolute debacle of the debates, I still feel that Gore is an elegant and qualified statesman, a gentleman of a high caliber who could represent the United States abroad with a measure of dignity unparalleled by Bush's brash hail-fellow-well-met demeanor.


  • (Slight digresion)Has anyone else gotten a bellyache from the latest 'Snikers' advertisement with the guy going into a polling booth only to have a talking cartoon elephant plop down on one of his shoulders saying things like "I'm the same as my father" "We both wear pants" and a cartoon talking donkey on the other shoulder saying things like "I invented the internet" and retorting with "I invented pants".

    Absolutely. Great ad. It's not on TV here, but I caught it at Adcritic.com. You can Slashdot them by clicking here [adcritic.com]. You will need QuickTime to view it; sadly, Apple apparently hasn't seen fit to release it for Linux yet.

    Further, Windows Media Player intercepts it though it can't play it, so you might have to take all *.mov filetypes away from Windows Media Player. (Hey, I run Linux on all my servers, but I need Winbloze for my main machine.)

    what Gore had said was that he was responsible for championing Arpanet in Congress, which he was, and that he felt like its father (or something to that effect), which quickly got balooned out of control by the media.

    Yeah, I know. I knew that there was a grain of truth to it, but I thought it was just a quote taken out of context. Which it basically is, if he helped to get funding for ARPANET. (Ahhh... memories. I got my first Internet account back in '88, when it was still called ARPANET, and all you got was a line to dial into a shell account with your terminal program. I started out with surplus equipment: a 300 baud acoustic modem on a real DEC VT-100 terminal, both of which I still have, for historical reasons.)

    Gore may be uninspiring, but he's the clear choice.

  • It seems to me that about 50% of the questions received answers from Gore and Bush that put them both in direct contradiction with the current actitivities of the US government.

    Most telling is this, though, "Do you believe the internet should be filtered in schools? Yes, Yes." next question: "Do you believe the government should set criteria used to block web sites in schools?" Bush: no answer. Gore: "No." So just who the hell does he expect will decide how to implement the filters he just stated should be used?
  • Seems like there's a general consensus on the issues they chose to answer. Who says you don't have any choices?

  • Re:Gota say it, cause they wont post it. (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, 2000 @11:50AM (#645565)
    As repugnant and disgusting as I think this is, I don't think it should be illegal.

    I own me, and thus I own my vote. If I want to enter into a contract with someone else so as to vote for them in exchange for some consideration, what difference does it make to anybody else where that consideration was "will uphold 2nd amendment rights" or "a pack of Camels"?
  • All he said was that he "took the initiative in Congress in creating the Internet" - ie he persuaded Congress to fund it. Which he did. Vint Cerf, who (if anyone did) really did invent the Internet, has backed Gore up on what he actually claimed.

    I can't stand the man, and wouldn't vote even if I was a USan, but the dull repetition of an old lie still annoys me.
    --

  • If you don't agree with me... ... DON'T VOTE! (Score:3)

    by Saurentine ( 9540 ) on Monday November 06, 2000 @11:45AM (#645567) Journal
    I'm going to take the very unpopular position on this one, not just for fun, but because I've decided I thoroughly believe it. The fact that its fun to tell people to their faces is beside the point.

    CmdrTaco just told everyone "No matter what you believe, get out and vote tomorrow." WHY?

    I'm sick of all these people making so-called 'public service' pleas for everyone to get out and vote, regardless of who you vote for! Screw that! If you don't agree with me, I don't want your sorry ass voting. Don't vote. Stay home!

    I don't care if the representative I pick gets one vote or a million, just as long as he/she wins. All of the non-partisan encouragers can shut the hell up. If all the other sheeple are perfectly content to sit on their butts on November 7th (or whatever day your country holds elections), I say let 'em! I want my opinions, ideas, and views overrepresented in our government because I think they're better than any known alternatives. I'd drop them in a minute and adopt some other ideas if I didn't think mine were the best. If you think about it, unless you've got "not-invented-here" syndrome, you would do the same with yours, too. Since I think my political views are the best, I'm perfectly willing to drop the air of neutrality to say "If you don't agree, stay home!" because that's the only way my views get overrepresented in government. Overrepresentation is exactly what I want!

    So let's all stop playing this silly game. Leave it up to the partisans to motivate their voters. That's what political parties are for! To hell with this whiny "go vote no matter who you vote for" civic duty crap. It's your RIGHT, not your obligation, just like it's your right to sit home and eat nachos with beans and cheese and hot salsa instead of going all the way across the neighborhood to cast a vote that you believe in so little that you have to be encouraged to cast it.

    Stay home! I'll make political decisions for you when I cast my vote.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday November 06, 2000 @12:59PM (#645568)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • . . . but why do elementary schools, for example, NEED net access ?? For that matter, why do secondary schools ???

    I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I've never seen a decent, well-thought-out argument for net access in the schools. Libraries, yes, but how does it improve mastery of classroom subjects ??? Will it teach little Johnny or Janie to read, or to do arithmetic, or explain why the Magna Carta is the first major precursor of American government ??? Kids need to master SOME knowledge before the Net can be a help. And just where IS that point ?????

  • Polling Day Changes (Score:3)

    by belloc ( 37430 ) <belloc@latinmaiO ... inus threevowels> on Monday November 06, 2000 @11:19AM (#645570) Homepage

    No matter what you believe, get out and vote tomorrow.

    Actually, for those who haven't heard, there's been a change in the scheduling. Due to the expected crunch at the polls, voters are being asked to stagger their voting times to allow for the additional capacity. Republicans should vote on Tuesday, November 7, Democrats and Independents on Wednesday, November 8.


  • Re:no, don't 'just go vote' (Score:3)

    by SquadBoy ( 167263 ) on Monday November 06, 2000 @11:22AM (#645571) Homepage Journal
    "they're all wrong on something important." True but of course that is going to be true no matter who is running. Anyone who is not you is going to disagree with you on at least one issue that you think is important. Ok maybe you and a couple of other people in the world. The point of the matter is not who is right or wrong on any one issue. The point is does the persons overall view of the world and the role of governemnt fit with yours in such a way that you can see them doing a pretty good job. This is why I support Browne. Simply put he *is* wrong on some issues. But overall his viewpoint is that government should be very small do for me those few things that I, my family and my friends can not do for ourselves and get out of the rest of my life. This is a overall viewpoint I can agree with. Now some might say he is "wrong" on the spam question. But given the freedom to do so I can take care of a spam problem and there is ,IMHO, no good way to write a antispam law without having other freedoms be limited. Therefore because I can agree with most points and because I can really get behind the overall worldview I will be voting Browne.
  • recent news story out of Milwaukee, Gore supporters were caught, on tape, distributing cigaretts in exchange to homless for their absente vote. Story here. [themilwaukeechannel.com]

  • fixed link (Score:3)

    by photozz ( 168291 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [zzotohp]> on Monday November 06, 2000 @11:27AM (#645573) Homepage
    Here [themilwaukeechannel.com]

  • Re:Bush's Answers (Score:3)

    by jonfromspace ( 179394 ) <jonwilkins@@@gmail...com> on Monday November 06, 2000 @11:32AM (#645574)
    Well sir, you certainly are a product of the Texas Education system. Perhaps you should do some reading on the War of 1812.

    I belive if you go to the White house, and sneak your way onto one of the Balconies, they have left one single stone with the scorch marks.

    Never underestimate the power of Snow, Good Beer, and Free Health Care!

  • The End of Slashdot! (Score:3)

    by atrowe ( 209484 ) on Monday November 06, 2000 @11:20AM (#645575)
    "2) Messages or files posted on the Web are protected by the First Amendment?

    Bush: N/A Gore: N/A"

  • Give me a break. (Score:4)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Monday November 06, 2000 @01:03PM (#645576) Homepage Journal
    While all of these issues are important, I feel sorry for the poor bastard who is so disconnected from the real world that s/he will actually choose who to vote for because of someone's stance of IP and the internet.

    Abortion, murder or a woman's right to choose?
    Gun Control, an issue of freedom or an issue of safety?
    The budget, tax cut or more medicare spending?

    I don't give a fuck as long as I get my napster!!!!

    That's just sad.

    LK

  • Too Much Focus on Executive Branch (Score:4)

    by Nissyen ( 101509 ) on Monday November 06, 2000 @11:33AM (#645577) Homepage

    Although I have selected and will vote very enthusiastically for one presidential candidate tomorrow, I think we are oversimplifying things. The President's technology policy making power is limited to veto and executive order. Although it is important to find out the views of presidential candidates, it is even more important to find out the views of your local congressional candidates.

    Executive orders often signal the shape of policy to come, but the real power to create technology policy lies in congress. They make the laws, and the laws they're making about technology are not good. We should take the time to research our representatives stances on technology issues and send them our opinions, because it doesn't take many letters to start changing their minds, and if they know we are watching them, they'll be a lot more careful writing technology related laws.

  • This is why this site sucks. (Score:4)

    by b0r1s ( 170449 ) on Monday November 06, 2000 @11:22AM (#645578) Homepage
    Instead of taking a few seconds to check the actual url, this fine person is trying to post early so that he gets modded up. This might be a decent post, had he: 1) checked which url actually works, and 2) taken a few seconds to make it into a real link.

    For everyone else, here's the link. [issues2000.org]


  • Unfortunately, not true (Score:5)

    by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Monday November 06, 2000 @11:47AM (#645579)
    As usual, the candidates' stand on most of these issues is pretty irrelevant. The president is a member of the executive branch; they don't make the laws, they enforce them.

    The executive does effectively make many laws these days. Besides the staggering growth in the number of Executive Orders inaugurated by Clinton, congress has abdicated its role in law-making by passing laws establishing broad-brush 'regulatory' agencies. These agencies (FCC, EPA, HUD, etc.) are given general direction by their enabling legislation, and then are free to pass 'regulations' that are effectively laws. A good example is the FCC, which, with absolutely no power in its charter to do so, is interfering with major media mergers. They use their licensing power to extract concessions from the parties involved, or completely quash some mergers. The executive has enormous power in a climate like this, since those agencies are under its control.

  • Re:no, don't 'just go vote' (Score:5)

    by BigBlockMopar ( 191202 ) on Monday November 06, 2000 @12:11PM (#645580) Homepage

    i don't like *any* of the candidates. low turn-outs should signal that people are apathetic about the choices we're given, and don't agree with anyone.

    Urk. Completely.

    I'm a fiscal Republican but a social Democrat. I've yet to see a candidate that ever made me feel at all inspired.

    How about if the Republican party ceased to be in the pocket of all sorts of religious organizations? And if the Democrats could actually allow a woman the right to chose without hugely inflating the debt?

    How about some balance between the two?

    So far, the two-partied system seems to work only by massive changes in equilibrium. It's frighteningly disorienting.

    This time, the choice is a little more clear. Since a President Bush (yuck) would be appointing a whole bunch of Supreme Court judges - with the possible ability to therefore overturn Roe vs. Wade and a whole bunch of other important social issues, I'm alarmed that Bush has a good chance of getting the White House. (And please don't think that I think abortion is a good idea; it does devalue life and encourage people not to take responsibility for their actions, but to ban it outright is to ignore the fact that it will happen no matter what the policy.)

    While many pundits will complain that Bush is the governer of maybe the worst-managed state in the Union, it's important to note that Governer William Jefferson Clinton of Arkansas was in about the same position when he took power. But, Clinton is Presidential. Not only did he clearly have fun in office (and some of that was even *without* Ms. Lewinsky), he was also a professional in all matters of foreign affairs. And, he was a thoroughly likeable individual for the world to see as the American leader.

    Gore hasn't got the same joi-de-vivre as Clinton has, but at least he's an elegant and digified statesman, a boring but professional person.

    Bush, however, is that amiable guy sitting over there at the end of the bar, spinning yarns; he's interesting and exciting. If you met him - probably in a dimly-lit sports bar in the backwoods of Texas - you'd think he was a tractor salesman. He will command the respect of the world not through dignity, but only through sheer power. This is not the best way to influence international or domestic diplomacy.

    Bush is *no* statesman. The fact that he's leading in the polls arguably because more of the electorate things he'd be a more fun guy with whom to have a beer arguably proves the every dictator right: perhaps the people *aren't* smart enough to choose their own destiny after all.

    And when you don't particularily care for either candidate's platform and yet you've resigned yourself to the fact that one or the other is going to be calling the shots, may as well not bother.

    (not any of those third party buttfuckers like nader or browne either.)

    Nader is dangerous. Sure, he sounds noble enough on the surface, but he's a great way to:

    drive businesses away through punishing regulations and embrace of a society where no one makes over $100,000/year

    ensure that the Republicans (in this case, probably the greater of the two evils currently offered) are given the Presidency next.

    While I don't like either Gore or Bush especially, I'd prefer to see Gore in power; I think he'll do a lot less damage than a Bush presidency.

    But I also wish that truly interesting people were actually running. Liberman and Cheney are far more presidential than either one of their runningmates.

    Now, having said all this, breathe easy. First off, moderate me down if I've said something false or off-topic, not because you disagree with the political views. As a Canadian citizen, I get to watch the foray without it affecting me in any huge way, I can only comiserate, as the Canadian federal elections are coming up on November 27th.

    I assure you, the Canadian choices are every bit as bleak as in the US. Only, instead of two viable bleak choices, there are 5 up here.

    I'd run for office in Canada myself, but I hope to be out of here long before whoever is about to be elected here calls the next election.

    Until then, though, I've already registered with Elections Canada for an official Abstain Vote. It's my way of registering my displeasure with all the candidates offered, without it being assumed that I'm simply a case of voter apathy.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close