Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

McCain vs. Obama on Tech Issues

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the six-v-half-a-dozen dept.

United States 877

eldavojohn writes "Ars is running a brief article that looks at stances from Chuck Fish of McCain's campaign and Daniel Weitzner from Obama's in regards to technical issues that may cause us geeks to vote one way or the other. From openness vs. bandwidth in the net neutrality issue to those pesky National Security Letters, there's some key differences that just might play at least a small part in your vote. You may also remember our discussions on who is best for geeks."

cancel ×

877 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Send These Clowns a Message! (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557477)

from the six-v-half-a-dozen dept.
Leela: Don't let their identical DNA fool you. While they might sound the same, they differ on some key issues.
Jack Johnson: It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: "I'm against those things that everybody hates".
John Jackson: Now I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man but, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!
Fry: These are the candidates? They sound like clones. [He looks a little harder.] Wait a minute. They are clones!
Leela: Don't let their identical DNA fool you. They differ on some key issues.
Jack Johnson: I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.
John Jackson: And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!
Fry: If I were registered to vote, I'd send these clowns a message by staying home on election day and dressing up like a clown.

Re:Send These Clowns a Message! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23558111)

that joke could have been modded "interesting" if we were speaking of Italy...

our situation is just like the upper post... sigh...
we've even called (nation-vide) the 2 candidates "Veltrusconi" ( Veltroni + Berlusconi), since they're just the same....

they had the same program, their parties have almost identical names (pd vs. pdl), and the "opposition" actually said that they won't oppose...

uhm...time to change country, i guess...

Re:Send These Clowns a Message! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23558217)

Arrooooo!

Has Obama been selected (4, Insightful)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557505)

I thought the Dems haven't selected a candidate yet.

Re:Has Obama been selected (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557541)

I thought the Dems haven't selected a candidate yet.

It's basically all over but the crying and reconciliation at this point. Look for news around this time next week -- until then it's just the media rehashing old stories over and over or inventing issues (Assassination-gate) to sell copy.

Re:Has Obama been selected (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557783)

It's basically all over...

"Dewey defeats Truman"

probably a slight majority of americans (-1, Flamebait)

phats garage (760661) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557999)

will walk up to the voting booth, think "ok, who was the white guy again? oh yeah" and vote for the latest idiot from the GOP. Seriously, some countries just don't fare well with democratic mechanisms, and the US is rapidly approaching that sad state of affairs.

Re:Has Obama been selected (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23557669)

They haven't. Hillary is very much still in this thing.

Basically, if you don't bother counting all the votes, Obama is winning. However, it you do decide that everyone's vote should matter, Hillary is leading the popular vote.

So after all the whining about Bush and how he didn't win the popular vote, it looks like the Democratic Party is going to ignore the popular vote in their election and select Obama anyway. I guess they're taking "God damn America" to heart, because ignoring the will of the people is definitely un-American.

Re:Has Obama been selected (4, Insightful)

cduffy (652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557813)

You want to count the votes in the state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot? How is that fair?

I haven't seen a single major media story discussing Hillary's claim of being ahead on the popular vote that didn't indicate that said claim was valid only given a very particular set of conditions. It's all over but the shouting, and additional carrying on does nothing but hurt the primary's winner in the real election.

Re:Has Obama been selected (4, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557977)

Not to mention that when Hillary "The primary is just a formality" Rodham Clinton "counts every vote", she doesn't count votes in all caucus states. Or that she wasn't planning on counting any votes after February 5th.

Re:Has Obama been selected (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557821)

Basically, if you don't bother counting all the votes, Obama is winning. However, it you do decide that everyone's vote should matter, Hillary is leading the popular vote.

Even if she was leading the popular vote (which by any fair metric she isn't, but that's beside the point), any 5th grade civics student (or Al Gore) can tell you what that's worth in American politics. You can debate whether or not that's just but those are the rules that we are operating under for this cycle.

So after all the whining about Bush and how he didn't win the popular vote

I didn't whine about Bush not winning the popular vote. I whined about him stealing Florida thanks to badly designed ballots and Jewish voters that couldn't tell the difference between Pat-WW2-wasn't-worth-fighting-Buchanan and Al Gore. Anyone that says that popular vote loss somehow de-legitimized GWB in 2000 never paid attention in civics class.

Re:Has Obama been selected (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23557917)

I whined about him stealing Florida thanks to badly designed ballots and Jewish voters that couldn't tell the difference between Pat-WW2-wasn't-worth-fighting-Buchanan and Al Gore.
The ballot that was designed by a Democrat and approved by a Democrat controlled elections board? The voters who were trained who to vote for and screwed it up because they're too incompetent to actually think for themselves? Yeah... that's all Bush stealing Florida. Ignore the shenanigans that happened in the other states or the fact that Gore lost his home state that had elected him Senator before. Bush stole the election...

Re:Has Obama been selected (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558085)

The ballot that was designed by a Democrat and approved by a Democrat controlled elections board?

It doesn't matter who designed it. The fact that but for that ballot Al Gore would have won the state should mean something to you. Even Pat Buchanan had the class to say that he felt really bad about getting votes that weren't intended for him.

Gore lost his home state that had elected him Senator before

Yeah, Gore ran a lousy campaign. I fail to see how that has any relevance to the unfortunate outcome in Florida though.

Bush stole the election...

I don't know for a fact that he stole it or not. I do know that we'll never know the answer to this question. I do know that lots of people on both sides were more interested in making sure their man won then they were in counting the votes. I do know that elections officials acted more like partisan hacks then impartial judges.

Re:Has Obama been selected (2, Funny)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558171)

I think when you consider all the problems they've had, Floridians should just not be allowed to vote for a few years until they get their act together.

Re:Has Obama been selected (4, Informative)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558233)

Several thousand voter registrations were invalidated and "purged" from the rolls erroneously by several county supervisors of elections. The mandatory recount (which happens in EVERY election in Florida with such a small margin) was only partially completed. Some supervisors felt that simply retabulating the memory cards from the optical scan voting machines was an adequate recount rather than re-feeding the actual ballots through the machines (this is all before we even MENTION the punch card ballots). Bush won Florida, and thus the presidency by a mere 516 votes. Well within margin of error territory.

Re:Has Obama been selected (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23557839)

Florida and Michigan BROKE THE RULES. They fucked up and their votes won't count. So what now? We don't follow the rules. Florida and Michigan have no one else to blame but themselves for trying to push their Primary date up. I'm sick of you guys who want to bend the system to suit your candidate. There was no use of violence preventing anyone from voting and this is a primary. Technically the votes don't have to mean dick if the DNC deems it so.

Re:Has Obama been selected (4, Insightful)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558091)

And as a Floridian voter who was informed, in no uncertain terms, that the democratic primary would be rendered a non-binding beauty contest, I decided to re-register as a republican so my vote would actually count for something (even if it was half strength).

I'm far from the only one who did that. Even more simply stayed home. The biggest thing on the ballot for the primaries was a property tax amendment which was especially a big draw for elderly voters who owned their own homes.

The democratic primary vote here was deeply flawed and those delegates should not be seated. The only truly fair way of doing it would be to hold new primaries, which the logistics make exceedingly unlikely. I could accept a compromise and seat the Florida delegation at half strength, but knock it off with this popular vote bullshit. It "disenfranchises" every state that held a caucus because Hillary doesn't like those (because she did poorly in caucuses).

If the tables were turned and Hillary had an insurmountable lead while Obama won the non-binding Florida and Michigan primaries, do you think for a second she'd be lifting a finger to get those delegates seated?

Re:Has Obama been selected (3, Insightful)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558131)

I can't think of a better use of the "troll" moderation. Never mind the fact that Hillary was perfectly fine with the exclusion of states that didn't follow the rules, and now that it looks like it can't serve her she wants to change those rules. Never mind the fact that she is doing her best to tear apart the Democratic party, and never mind the fact that she's essentially self-destructed over the last several months showing herself as a bitter, small woman hell bent on power and will do whatever she can to get it.

No, let's ignore all of that and just look to the facts: More Democrats want Obama to be our next president than Hillary. Even counting the invalid votes (from elections that Obama wasn't even on the ballot), Obama still wins.

The continued Hillary support that goes on is dumbfounding. You know her problems. You can't have lived with your head in the sand for that long.

Unless, of course, you're still waiting around for him to get shot.

Re:Has Obama been selected (2, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557779)

It's starting to get embarrassing for Hillary Clinton now. Time to call it a day, but maybe she knows something that we don't know since the candidate isn't selected yet.

Anyway - most policy regarding the internet will be handled by subordinates with their own agenda, so I don't think that whoever holds the office will make much difference.

Re:Has Obama been selected (3, Insightful)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558239)

Not unnecessarily. We can assume that a candidate will chose subordinates who are in tune with his or her ideals. They might not understand the specifics of tech policy, but a democrat is likely to choose someone who is pro civil-liberties, while a republican is likely to go more pragmatic. They won't drive the policy, but the tone of their administration will show through in technology issues.

Re:Has Obama been selected (5, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557817)

Technically, neither party has an official candidate, and won't until they nominate one at their respective conventions. But when it comes to counting up the delegate votes, the fat lady has sung. Hillary Clinton still thinks she can scrounge up a majority, but she'd have to get all those delegates from the unsanctioned primaries in Michigan and Florida admitted and convince most of the uncommitted superdelegates to ignore the primary vote. Almost everybody who doesn't actually work for her agrees that's pretty unlikely.

Re:Has Obama been selected (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557831)

It seems the Clintons don't know basic Statitics. Barring a mirrical there is a slim chance of winning the nomanation. Lets put it this way. She will need to win 100% of the remaining states/terratories. Then get 79% of the superdeligate vote. Even in states that she had a big victory she never got 79% of the vote. I expect the super deligates wouldn't vote in that majority as well, if they did have a landslide towards clinton with the super deligates. It could cause a huge whiplash effect. As it seemed that the clintons somehow blackmailed the superdeligates to get the vote. Or Obama will need to majorly screw up in the next few weeks, like pull a Spitzer.

Re:Has Obama been selected (1, Flamebait)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557945)

Or Obama will need to majorly screw up in the next few weeks, like pull a Spitzer.
Exactly. I swear, about the only thing that could take Obama down at this point, would be the revelation that he regularly attended the sermons of some preacher who, like, claims that the government engineered AIDS to wipe out blacks or something!

Re:Has Obama been selected (0)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558119)

Exactly. I swear, about the only thing that could take Obama down at this point, would be the revelation that he regularly attended the sermons of some preacher who, like, claims that the government engineered AIDS to wipe out blacks or something!

The fact that even that didn't "take him down" should be conclusive proof to anyone with a brain that Hillary's arguments don't hold water. How long can you keep claiming to be more electable with a straight face while losing elections?

Re:Has Obama been selected (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23557913)

The term is nominated. Neither party has nominated a candidate as yet.

Re:Has Obama been selected (1)

packeteer (566398) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557975)

For a while there the republicans hadn't selected McCain yet but we still considered him the garunteed candidate. Its the same reason Ron Paul never had a chance really. He got written off by the media before when he still had a chance.

Do you really think they have opinions? (4, Insightful)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557519)

I doubt either one of these guys has the background or passion for tech to really have well thought out, firm ideas on any tech issues. They likely had aides poll and give them pat answers on tech. In other words, don't expect them to stick to any positions they might articulate now. Then again, that probably applies to all issues, not just tech.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (5, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557605)

doubt either one of these guys has the background or passion for tech to really have well thought out, firm ideas on any tech issues

I can't speak for McCain, but go watch Obama at Google [youtube.com] and tell me that he has no passion for tech issues. Half of his broader economic plan boils down to putting our faith in science and technology again -- we'll never be competitive with China at building toys out of injection-molded plastic -- we can be competitive in the technological arena.

Half the reason I started following him back before it was popular was because he was one of the few candidates that I heard that even acknowledges the war on science and all the ill effects that we've suffered as a result.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23558005)

yeah, you guys should stop waging war on everything and start working on peaceful solutions.

I kiiid, I kiiid..?

Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (1)

wamatt (782485) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558093)

Or just look at the way Obama has already leveraged technology. It's not just empty promises.

His campaign has obliterated the competition with their successful 2.0 social network, built by ex-Howard Dean IT director, Garett Graff (my.barackobama.com).It's been a key factor in setting staggering fund raising records this primary.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (4, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558211)

It's been a key factor in setting staggering fund raising records this primary.

Not to mention the behind the scenes stuff that most people don't see. They use that website (they call it MBO) for everything -- coordinating volunteers and logistics, calling voters, fund-raising, voter outreach, etc, etc, etc.

I've worked on a fair number of political campaigns in recent years and I've never seen one that leveraged technology quite as effectively as the Obama campaign. It was probably the margin of victory over Hillary -- especially in the beginning when nobody else had a clue how well organized Obama was.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (4, Interesting)

drcagn (715012) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557631)

I don't know about McCain but I suggest you investigate Obama further on this, because he definitely seems to know what he is talking about in general. There's an excellent interview with him at Google on YouTube. He even answers a jokingly-asked programming question semi-right ("what's the best way to sort an array of random 32-bit integers?" to which Obama laughingly answered "well, I wouldn't go with the bubblesort.")

Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557847)

The bubblesort is working sir. It is working... not "apparently", it is working.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23557677)

http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html#2325648293318667127 [blogspot.com]

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Why Bother With An Election?

by Egregious Charles

Firehand of Irons in the Fire, one of my regular reads, got this great
email from a friend.

We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold
an election.

      On one side, you have a bitch who is a lawyer, married to a
lawyer, and a lawyer who is married to a bitch who is a lawyer.

      On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman
with a huge chest who owns a beer distributorship.

      Is there a contest here?


Sometimes, the Danes seem to have more sense than we.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (4, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557731)

Well, good.

It's true that technology changes some things, like the economics of using copyright to provide economic support to creators. But a lot of the time technology is used as an excuse to reopen issues happily settled long ago, on things like the first sale doctrine, or the intrusion of the government into the private lives of citizens.

I don't look to tech geeks political leadership. I want somebody smart (which most geeks are) with their head screwed on straight (and geeks are as all over the map on this). If he's a tech geek, well that's nice, but not necessary. If he's got the right aims, and is smart enough to cut through the mumbo jumbo, that's enough.

In particular, I'd be wary of amateur tech geeks -- people who are computer enthusisasts, but not for anything that counts. I wouldn't rule them out, but I'd look extra close at their tech policies, which may exhibit a "knows enough to be dangerous" character.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (1)

arotenbe (1203922) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557833)

But a lot of the time technology is used as an excuse to reopen issues happily settled long ago, on things like the first sale doctrine, or the intrusion of the government into the private lives of citizens.
I don't recall the second issue ever being happily settled. Isn't that what conservatives and liberals have been fighting over for years?

Of course, now it's switched sides...

Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (0)

cduffy (652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557971)

Obama has strong endorsements from some very influential folks who are more than hobbyists -- Randall Munroe and Larry Lessig among them. I bought and read The Audacity of Hope long ago, have followed Obama's interviews w/ folks in tech, and am quite convinced he's got his head on straight.

Do you really WANT them to have opinions? (4, Interesting)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557749)

And what you've said, that they aren't tech fanboys, is a good thing. Or do you imagine that, amazingly enough, they'd be fans of exactly the same tech you are, and see all the Correct Solutions exactly the way you do? Ha ha, huh? Do you really want a President who not only has the power of the Chief Executive but also the arrogance to think he knows what's best for your industry?

What you want from these guys is the wisdom to see that letting folks alone to work out stuff for themselves is the best default option, and government should step in only as the utter last resort. You want them to know their own limits, to realize they're not only not experts in tech stuff, but also not experts in farming, or energy exploration and transportation, or medicine, or housing, or education, or any of the other million and a half things people do to keep the wheels humming. They're just lawyers, and if they confine themselves to drafting (or if President promoting the drafting of) well-written, focussed, modest laws that address the relatively few issues that actually can be helped with a good law...well, they'll do a lot more good than any number of demagogues and wannabe Caesars.

Re:Do you really WANT them to have opinions? (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558089)

The only reason that the government isn't the expert at tech, or at farming, or transportation, or medicine, etc, is that they don't hire experts. Or when they do, they don't listen to them, of give the experts they have hired any power. There's no reason why the government couldn't hire some technically oriented people or consult with people when drafting laws that affect the internet, or farming, or medical care. There's no excuse for the government coming up with bad laws. You can't just give them slack because they are just a bunch of lawyers.

The Message and the Messenger. (5, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557923)

Politics can get pretty shallow, but there's more to it than being a bitch for the polls. I think this little Q&A is a case in point. Not the answers themselves, but the people chosen to deliver them. McCain chose a lawyer with strong connections to a major media conglomerate that many of us have reason to loathe. Obama chose a computer scientist with connections to a university that played a big role in creating the Internet. That, by itself, should tell you where there respective priorities are.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (5, Insightful)

internic (453511) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557941)

In a country with over 300 million people, a more than $13 trillion dollar economy, worlds largest military, and many global interests and programs, there are simply too many important issues for the candidates to have a nuanced knowledge of all of them. Realistically, they must all rely on advisors, so I would take the views of their advisers fairly seriously. You can also get at least a sense of a candidate's general leanings, which suggests which advisors they are likely to listen to. It's also useful to look at the opinions of people who you respect on these issues that have actually talked to the candidates, e.g., Lessig's endorsement of Obama [lessig.org] .

Now, let me add that, while a candidate must rely on advisors for detailed positions, he must know something about the issues himself, otherwise he cannot reasonably assess whose advice to take. We have in recent years seen a stark object lesson in the disastrous consequences when the decision maker really doesn't know anything at all and is simply led by whichever advisors are the loudest, most persistent, or the most clever at politicking.

The last point worth making is that the biggest problem on tech issues is that money talks. Lobbist access, fundraising, and political ads by large corporations have a tendency to drown out the public interest. I do think that on at least one of these points Obama has a clear advantage: His fundraising is based much more in small donations from ordinary people, so he is less beholden to these corporate interests and has less obligation to spend time listening to their lobbyists at fundraisers. I think this may make a bigger difference in the end than people realize.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (1)

fish_in_the_c (577259) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557991)

No new news here.. every body move on.
The republicans remain - pro big business the democrats remain pro-libralism and socialism. Neither one of them has brought forth a centrist candidate in a very long time. So the whole population is forced to vote on polarizing political issue of which tech is often a casualty. I'm sorry being for or against futher military action in Iraq. For or agianst continued abortion. Pro-or Con Gay marriage rights. etc SOOOO eclipses tech issues as to not really make them even usful to report on.
So of coarse they have no real opinion of thier own on these topics , why alienate your support based with creative thinking.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (2, Informative)

angryfirelord (1082111) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558003)

Obama currently receives over 4x the amount of money from the computer industry compared to John McCain: http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=B12 [opensecrets.org]

Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558139)

Like other posters said, the candidates don't really have to know about tech, neither they need to know about agriculture or naval construction but they have to listen from knowledgeable people. And McCain chose a guy from Warner Bros as his tech consultant, Obama, a guy from MIT.
This alone should make McCain sound like a very bad choice.

A lot can be seen from their choice of advisor. (5, Interesting)

jspayne (98716) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557581)

One candidate has a lawyer/media executive as technical adviser, the other has a MIT computer scientist. Guess which is which

Re:A lot can be seen from their choice of advisor. (-1, Troll)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557613)

Reminds me of an old adage from the 20th century:

"Those who can't do, teach."

Those who can't think, spout cliches (2, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557993)

That particularly cliche is arrogant, bigoted, and not even applicable here. For one thing, there are a lot of dedicated teachers out there who don't deserve to be lumped in with the clueless hacks. For another, this guy is not just a "teacher" (though I do hope he makes it to a classroom now and then), he's a scientist at a leading university, one where a lot of the technology we love so much originated.

All I need to know (4, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557583)

"Chuck Fish, an attorney for the McCain campaign and former Time Warner executive"

"Daniel Weitzner, an MIT computer scientist"

Who are you going to place more faith in there?
As usual republicans == corporate interests over technical or popular interests.

(BTW, before you accuse me of being a shill or a partisan or an idiot democrat, I'm not even USian and don't get to vote on this. I'm just calling it like I see it)

Re:All I need to know (2, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557665)

"Chuck Fish, an attorney for the McCain campaign and former Time Warner executive"

"Daniel Weitzner, an MIT computer scientist"

Who are you going to place more faith in there?
That really depends on what you're trying to get accomplished. The MIT scientist offers up a white paper on how to do it. Unfortunately, I don't need this to be proved or argued for. I want it done. I have no idea what Chuck Fish's interests are but if you want to change the market, it might be best to do it with someone who knows the market--or even has the ability to change it from the inside. I don't think the problem is a theoretical computational barrier, it's a real life political issue that's going to take Machiavellian like maneuvering to produce any real results.

Of course, neither side will offer up anything that's measurable or quantifiable nor will they set any milestones at this point. Which is truly sad.

Re:All I need to know (5, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557827)

"I have no idea what Chuck Fish's interests are but if you want to change the market, it might be best to do it with someone who knows the market--or even has the ability to change it from the inside"

The fact he's an ex-exec from a business that is a prime player in some of the most suppressive, anti-progress, anti-freedom and anti-privacy organisations, organisations which consistently try to criminalise vast swathes of people and totally miss the point on technological issues.... Well that puts him on my blacklist.

Whatever your "it" is, his presence ought to set off some BIG alarm bells.

As I said in my original post - I'm not USian and have no affiliation to either party. I have a preference for democrats but their "family friendly" policies make me sick - but a Time Warner exec as a tech advisor? Seriously, don't vote for this guy.

Re:All I need to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23558117)

Unfortunately, I don't need this to
be proved or argued for.
Say what? You do not want your representative in government to be able to argue using facts and reason for a position? Are you really that daft? Don't post crap like this. It is not well thought out and it makes you look stupid.

I have no idea what Chuck Fish's interests are
Chuck Fish is a former Time Warner executive. George Bush is a former oil company executive.

Re:All I need to know (3, Insightful)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557711)

Dems, despite all their bluster, are beholden to big businesses as well. Both parties, particularly at the top, are heavily influenced by both competing and non-competing corporate interests more and more.

corporate interests? (1, Insightful)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557963)

Er...who, exactly, do you think gets technical stuff done? Martians? NGOs? Neighborhood watch associations?

Nope. Corporations. You know, like Amazon.com, Cisco, Google, Sun, and a thousand tiny tech start-ups you won't hear about until the day you sure wish you'd bought stock early in 'em.

So I'm pretty mystified by how you see it as conceivable that "corporate interests" are opposed to "technical interests." Seems to me the only way to really advance technical interests is to advance the corporate interests of technical corporations. Or are you thinking you still live in some quaint 18th century world where the individual inventor can do it all himself, and there is no real need to form large cooperating teams of technical folks and provide them with good support staff and plenty of capital investment -- i.e. found "a corporation"?

As for "popular" interests: the "popular" interests are what the vast seething market of consumers want, and, guess what, they don't give a flying fsck about technical interests at all, because they're not techies. They want their tech stuff to Just Work and be incredibly cheap, if not free. They're not the least bit interested in coolness, or advancing the art in amazing ways, or any of those other geeky kinds of goals you might find among people who seek each other out and associate into a corporation so that they can spend the productive part of their lives advancing those technical interests.

Sheesh, get a clue. Or a job. Find out how the world actually works instead of regurgitating mindless slogans from the 19th century.

Re:corporate interests? (5, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558247)

Actually, I work for one of the world's biggest tech firms.

"So I'm pretty mystified by how you see it as conceivable that "corporate interests" are opposed to "technical interests."

See DRM, the multiple court cases over DeCSS, the whole DMCA and its restrictions over discussion of security, the massive abuse of the patent system (effectively cutting out or severely crippling many of your "thousand tiny tech start-ups you won't hear about".

I'm pretty mystified that you could have missed out on these themes over the past few years.

"Or are you thinking you still live in some quaint 18th century world where the individual inventor can do it all himself, and there is no real need to form large cooperating teams of technical folks and provide them with good support staff and plenty of capital investment -- i.e. found "a corporation"?"

I'm sorry if my use of the word "corporation" set off your hippie and/or student radar. Neither is the case here and I'm quite capable of backing up my previous comments without resorting to impugning the intelligence of those I argue against. I suggest you try the same, nice ad hominem though.

As for "popular" interests: the "popular" interests are what the vast seething market of consumers want

In other words the people of the United States of America, those that the POTUS is supposed to represent and to serve, right?

they don't give a flying fsck about technical interests at all, because they're not techies.

Didn't say they were, I said the likes of the republican's apparent tech spokesperson was against their interests.

"They want their tech stuff to Just Work and be incredibly cheap, if not free. They're not the least bit interested in coolness, or advancing the art in amazing ways, or any of those other geeky kinds of goals you might find among people who seek each other out and associate into a corporation so that they can spend the productive part of their lives advancing those technical interests."

Do you live in a fantasy world? Tech advances are a means to an end for some companies, not all, and not the only means. Large companies exist to make money. In fact for public companies that's a legal requirement or the board can face charges. Yes, a lot of tech comes from large corps, they are good for that, but please don't pretend that corporate influence, especially on politicians, is always a good thing. Especially given this person's prior record.

In the arena of copyright law, the likes of Time Warner are clearly directly opposed to what the people of the country want and are arguably going well beyond what's best for society and business in general. They don't respect privacy, they engage in campaigns of scaring the population into compliance with their take on IP...

Sheesh, get a clue. Or a job. Find out how the world actually works instead of regurgitating mindless slogans from the 19th century.

Back at you. You've swallowed the "money is always" right line a little too far there. Tell me, in your world, do companies always act in the best interests of the whole population?
Or are there no incidences of monopolistic behaviour, unethical behaviour, exploitation of cheap foreign child labour etc etc?

McCain has been one of Amtraks most (4, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557587)

vociferous critics, and one of the Iraq wars biggest cheerleaders...nuff said.

Re:McCain has been one of Amtraks most (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557825)

I can't say it means much to me, if Amtrak wasn't ungodly expensive and incredibly inconvenient maybe I wouldn't have so many problems with it.

I spent 36 hours on an Amtrak couple years ago, next time I'm spending the $100 more and flying.

Re:McCain has been one of Amtraks most (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558187)

Or $100 less and go by motor-coach. And still arrive in half the time.

One expects rail to be an inferior choice to air for personal travel, but why the heck should it also be in every way inferior to a freakin' bus?

Re:McCain has been one of Amtraks most (1)

Black-Man (198831) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557961)

As I watch a half-empty Cardinal go by, I'd say McCain is doing the RIGHT thing.

Re:McCain has been one of Amtraks most (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558045)

Iraq is one thing, but are you really going to make Amtrack a major factor in choosing the next leader of our nation? Whatever the merits of keeping up rail passenger service, it's not as if the future of society depends on it.

"Give me all your McCain votes." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23557595)

"Go Fish."

Server Error in '/' Application. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23557603)

What can a candidate do about overloaded sites?

What about the other candidates? (2, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557615)

I'm not voting for Obama and I'm not voting for McCain. Despite the hot air coming from both their mouths to the contrary, they are both deeply in the corporate pockets. They have taken their corporate bribes and the corporations own them.

Obama and McCain want to put potsmokers in prison. A vote for someone who wants you in prison isn't just a wasted vote, it's a stupid vote. "Vote for me, I want you incarcerated! A gambler in every prison, a pothead in every institution, a hooker or a john in every cell!"

I want to know what the Green and Libertarian candidates stances are on tech issues. Why these two parties are not mentioned in the corporate-owned media is obvious; the question is why they are being ignored by slashdot?

Re:What about the other candidates? (2, Insightful)

smack.addict (116174) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557703)

Do you have evidence for Obama being in corporate pockets? Or are you just parroting the Green and Libertarian lines?

I think you are just parroting.

Re:What about the other candidates? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23557869)

Well, he's a Republican or Democrat, and he's breathing.

But you want real evidence? Here's plenty [opensecrets.org] . $3 million from the entertainment industry, although that's dwarfed with the $16 million from the law industry.

Re:What about the other candidates? (2, Interesting)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558049)

That's ridiculous. OpenSecrets counts industries by the employers stated by individual contributors. That's a very different thing from contributions from actual corporations (which are mainly made to PACs, not to campaigns).

Re:What about the other candidates? (2, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557715)

True, all this Rep vs Dem stuff ought to be academic.

You a copyright infringer? They want you behind bars.
Pot smoker? Behind bars.
Violent video games? Banned.
Porn? Off the internets.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there more sold on the "lesser of two evils" doctrine, than are sold on the "don't give your mandate to someone that wants to put you in jail!".

Not voting for people with views like those should be an obvious choice. Unfortunately it seems not.

It's not that simple (2, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558017)

The main-stream candidates are also more committed to maintaining the status quo. This may sound like a bad thing, but changing a lot of things all at once is much, much worse. It is a testimant to the supreme arrogance of man that almost everyone on this message-board believes they are intellegent enough to make radical, sweeping changes to the government and the economy without killing everyone.

No one in their right mind should vote for somone who advocates that kind of change, no matter how much they think it's a good idea. The only approach that works it making small changes over time and working toward your eventual goal. Libertarians should vote for the republican candidate, since he advocates deregulation and reliance on markets. This is not the same as making drugs and porn legal, but it's a step in the right direction.

Re:What about the other candidates? (3, Interesting)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557727)

I want to know what the Green and Libertarian candidates stances are on tech issues. Why these two parties are not mentioned in the corporate-owned media is obvious; the question is why they are being ignored by slashdot?

Probably because they have no realistic chance of winning.

(Yes, I know that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.)

In all seriousness, I feel like a third party candidate would now need to be part of the "national conversation" on the election a lot earlier than now to win in November -- assuming that's even still really possible.

Re:What about the other candidates? (0, Troll)

Kazrath (822492) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557767)

Yeah well... Unlike pirating music smoking pot IS a crime. Just because you want it to be legal to smoke yourself stupid and lazy to the detriment to society doesn't change the fact that your breaking the law and law breakers go to jail.

While I personally think Marijuana should be legalized with the same types of restrictions as alcohol I really think your reasoning on why you won't vote for someone is ridiculous.

I will not vote for XXX because he wont let me break the law!!!! Seriously, grow up.

Re:What about the other candidates? (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557887)

"Unlike pirating music"

It's currently a civil offense, look for it to be criminal in the next term as both candidates are in the pockets of the media corps.

"Just because you want it to be legal to smoke yourself stupid and lazy to the detriment to society"

Prove that it is to the detriment of society. You can't.

"I will not vote for XXX because he wont let me break the law!!!! Seriously, grow up."

I will not vote for XXX because he will not do anything about changing the law on an issue that directly affects me. My yes, what horribly childish reasoning.

Think before you post, moron.

Re:What about the other candidates? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23558009)

I think it's fucked up you think that society's interests in a human outweighs the human's interests in doing what makes him happy. If somebody doesn't want to contribute to society who are you to make them? "But they'll get on the wellfare and it becomes my problem." No, the problem is you are giving them money, not that they aren't earning their own.

Disgusting.

Re:What about the other candidates? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23557773)

Yea, lets do something constructive like voting for a third party candidate in a two-party system!

Oh wait, that doesn't help anything. No really, it's not "everyone thinks third party candidates are wasted votes otherwise they'd vote for them." The election is set up as a two party system, and has no good way of deciding who wins if someone doesn't get a majority. As such third parties are a waste until you get the election system reformed.

Re:What about the other candidates? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557801)

Because they don't matter.

That's about half snark and about half the truth by the way. It might be nice if they mattered more, but at the moment, supporting a third party candidate in a presidential election isn't really worth anyone's time (except maybe one of the two major candidates, if they want to split their opponent's votes).

Re:What about the other candidates? (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557891)

A vote for someone who wants you in prison isn't just a wasted vote, it's a stupid vote.
That's a bit of an ass-backwards strategy.
1: Vote for Me!
2: Be branded a felon
3: Never be allowed to vote for anyone again!

Re:What about the other candidates? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558047)

In the US, it depends on the state.

Re:What about the other candidates? (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558021)

Obama and McCain want to put potsmokers in prison

With regards to Senator Obama, do you have a citation for that? Everything that I've seen suggests that he is open to the idea of decriminalization. Every quote that I've heard suggests that he realizes the folly of putting people behind bars for non-violent drug offenses.

Obviously that's not as good as Gravel or Paul's positions on the issue, but I'm not going to base my vote on the single issue of pot smoking. Not when we have an ongoing war, climate change, a failing economy, nuclear proliferation and the rise of China, India and Russia to deal with. And yes, I am a regular pot smoker.

Besides which, even if you got Gravel or Paul in office what about the state laws against marijuana? Those are the ones that actually impact pot-smokers on a day to day basis. Other than the bullshit Federal raids against medical marijuana dispensaries I'm hard pressed to think of any meaningful impact that the Feds make against pot-smokers.

Re:What about the other candidates? (5, Informative)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558027)

Obama and McCain want to put potsmokers in prison.

Obama has indicated a willingness to halt the DEA raids on dispensaries in California. He and Bob Barr (Libertarian) favor letting states handle the issue. Obama still wants the FDA involved somewhere; I'm not sure about Barr. McCain has waffled but apparently endorses the current Bush Administration policy. link [sfgate.com]

Re:What about the other candidates? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23558051)

if your a pot smoker you deserve to be in prison.

Re:What about the other candidates? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558175)

You should ask yourself why the other parties can't get any air time. I'm sure you think you know: there's an evil conspiracy to silence them. But the fact is that the media conglomerates only care about one thing: eyeballs. They'll give even their nastiest detractors exposure if it will bring in more viewers, readers, and listeners.

The simple fact is that Libbies and Greenies have no following in this country, even counting all the Ron Paul fanboys. (Note that the Green Party does quite well in Europe, even though they also have an overconsolidated media.) Put one of them on the air, and people tune away in droves. That is why you never hear from them.

method is more important than issues (5, Interesting)

m0llusk (789903) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557627)

Barak Obama consistently evaluates situations and sets goals in a dynamic and networked way. This is how his campaign has generated such a huge response from mostly small donors. John McCain has been labeled a maverick, but has closely associated himself with conservative players and the mindset that an authoritative leader can best set goals for others.

Virginia Postrel explores the differences between these approaches in detail in The Future and Its Enemies. Al Gore, for example, appears to be future oriented because of the many apparently progressive stands he takes on issues, but Al Gore uses a top-down evaluation strategy that locks in a particular view with little input before or after. As such the future is at odds with Al Gore, and will tend always to surprise him and chafe at the positions he takes which are based on a mostly static model of the world and the options for progress it presents us.

Re:method is more important than issues (2, Interesting)

boligmic (188232) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557873)

I think you have it backwards - Obama is the authoritative leader - he's a communist (which is facist) and thinks he knows best of how you should live your live.

Conservatives are the ones that follow the constitution and do little to hamper our freedoms. Check out Reagan - the greatest president of the 20th century and compare him to FDR, our most facist dictator of a president - and the biggest failure.

Re:method is more important than issues (1, Flamebait)

EQ (28372) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558019)

The problem is neither one of these idiots is one that will "follow the constitution and do little to hamper our freedoms".

But Ii will say that the cult of personality being built around Obama scares me more than McCain's bluster.

At least with McCain you know what you are fighting against.

Re:method is more important than issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23558035)

Please get a dictionary. Look up the words 'fascist' and 'communist'.

Sorry, but I'd prefer their voting records (2, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557645)

not their campaign promises or who is working for them currently.

Granted Obama doesn't have as much time in the Senate as McCain, and Clinton doesn't compare favorably for time either but still beats out Obaman, but what does their voting record say?

Considering the fact we can look at how these people voted on many issues why would you believe their promises without comparing the two? Turning over a new leaf is more fairy tale than anything

Re:Sorry, but I'd prefer their voting records (4, Informative)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557933)

The ACLU Scorecard [aclu.org] might be helpful. It doesn't contain some technical issues, and has a bit of fluff, but it's worthwhile anyway even for a general overview of a candidate's voting style.

Both of these candidates, however, are abstaining quite a bit in the recent votes to avoid alienating any swing groups.

White people like Obama (2, Funny)

Kohath (38547) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557845)

Stuff White People Like [wordpress.com] says white people like Obama [wordpress.com] .

He's against trade, so if you want any equipment from overseas, you might have trouble. (On the other hand, some on his campaign say he's only pretending to be against trade to fool stupid voters.) If you want packets from overseas, he may be your guy.

I can't support any of the major party candidates or Ralph Nader because I care about freedom and liberty and all of them are anti-freedom. I can't support Bob Barr either because he has no effective foreign policy plan.

Re:White people like Obama (1)

FurtiveGlancer (1274746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558081)

White people also like Eddie Murphy, but that doesn't mean they want him as our next president.

McCain favors trolls and sockpuppets (yes, really) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23557853)

Here's one key McCain stance on tech issues: he gives points [johnmccain.com] to trolls and sockpuppets. Yes, really.

I anticipate that the online political discourse this year will be even more unreadable than usual.

Tech knowledge doesn't matter ... (4, Insightful)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557877)

Technical skill is not even close to being on my radar of what I want in a president, nor necessarily even in his/her closest advisers. In fact, I worry when the ones at the top, be it a corporation or a government, think they know more than the underlings and specialists as regards any subject, including technology. In my mind, vision, scruples and the ability to see through BS are the leadership skills I look for in candidates. And as it happens, these are actually pretty easy to discern by simply examining their track records. The hardest way to determine these things is to listen to what they say.

Re:Tech knowledge doesn't matter ... (2, Insightful)

Wister285 (185087) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558231)

I have to agree. I think it's absurd that people expect elected officials to understand microscopic issues. The problem is when the think they know what they are talking about and they make laws that, while well intentioned, are extremely hard to execute. The more important thing is that they are able to let the experts take charge to determine feasible solutions that maximize a cost-benefit analysis.

H-1b is the real tech jobs issue (3, Insightful)

randall_burns (108052) | more than 6 years ago | (#23557983)

Both Obama [betterimmigration.com] and McCain [betterimmigration.com] favor expansion of the H-1b program.


What that means in practice is that tech jobs [vdare.com] in the US will be largely filled by foreigners because is is cheaper for companies to pay employees with green cards [vdare.com] than with cash.

Oh brother (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558057)

Let's face it, Obama is the current cause-celeb so he's going to get a lot of bank from young techies if for no other reason than no one wants to be the guy who doesn't like him. I think it will come down to Obama possibly embracing more content freedom and McCain embracing more general freedom of the Internet itself. The two probably won't be far apart in tech in general.

Obama won't get my vote due to a myriad of other issues that no technology stance is likely to sway.

Both are Globalists (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23558067)

Both are pro rigged-trade globalists. Their loyalty is to the elite. To Joe Workingman American, it's tweedledee vs. tweedledum. Middle class has choice between
A) Lower Standard of Living and huge defecits (mccain)
and
B) Lower Standard of Living and huge taxes (obama).

Whatever.

The bigger question is who has the best health car (1, Offtopic)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558071)

The bigger question is who has the best health care plan.

Vote Hillary! (0, Flamebait)

suck_burners_rice (1258684) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558127)

Why is everyone ignoring Hillary?

Bush #1, economy in the gutter. Clinton, economy booming. Bush #2, economy in the gutter. Is there a pattern here?

Net Neutrality and politicans who support it vital (3, Insightful)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558143)

Net Neutrality is very important and critical to preserving a free and open internet and we do badly need to make this a part of law. Barack Obama is more likely to do this. I am definitely a Obama supporter not only due to this but due to a wide spectrum of other issues as well.

The claims made by telcos are mostly lies and deception. The telcos always have been able to tier service based on overall speed, what they have not been allowed to do is effectively censor content by slowing down some sites or blocking access to them. They dont need any capability to censor content or to discriminate against certain content. The corporations agenda is simply a vieled attempt to control information flow over the internet and to block access to things they dont like and dont agree with.

Measures lesser than Net Nuetrality wont be enough to address this. Blocking access or making access more difficult to certain content is innately bad and has no place on what should be an open and democratic form of communication where everyone has equal opportunity to be heard, where things are not biased towards corporations and their content. There is no way to make discriminating against content an acceptable practice or tilting it in favour of powerful corporate interests.

It is little different from what is being done in china, It is different in name only, here we have corporations do the censorship, In china it is government, The US has a composite government consisting of corporations and the republican government which they elect and which represents their interests. The corporations are the republican constituents. When you here a republican talk about their constituents, they are usually referring to the wealthy corporate donors who got them elected and paid for their campaigns. Democrats while not always perfect are certainly have a greater propensity to represent the people and do what is in the best interests of the general population rather than of big corporations.

We complain about what China has done in censoring the internet however we would have the same situation here unless we do something to bolster the internet as a free and open medium where everyone which is open to everyone with no discrimination. The same sort of mentality and insidious objective behinds Chinas censorship and the desire of corporations to censor the internet springs from the same mindset. The corporations have been able to control the flow of information for so long, they have had a monopoly on the media and were the gatekeepers, they could control what people could see and hear and it was very difficult to reach a large number of people, very expensive, though traditional mediums, so it excluded many from being able to express their views. the internet is a democratic form of communication, it is the first time we have had anything approaching true positive free speech where anyone could broadcast their views to anyone else and everyone is on an equal footing, no matter if you are poor or are a millionaire. And if a you re a rich megalomaniac you just cant have a situation where the little people can express themselves and actually make their voice heard to millions, and where there is nothing you can do to stop this and where they basically are on an equally footing, yhou no longer have your built in advantage of traditional media which allows you to more effectively distribute your views. Thje rich hate this because they have been so long accustomed to setting the agenda and manipulating society for their own benefit. So the openness and democracy of the net scared them because they are losing power and the internet has moved us more in the direction of a democratic society, so they are now trying to find a way to desperately shut it down and turn it into some sort of corporate controlled outlet one way sort of medium just like television is, where only the corporations have any rights to express themselves and everyone else is a mindless consumer who pays their monthly satellite subscription bill to be brainwashed by corporate media outlets. The corporations and wealthy elite are basically scared to death that the common people now actually have a voice and can express themselves. Its just not supposed to be that way from their view. they have always had more power to control the flow of information and to maintain control over society and they have never really liked the idea of democracy, they do pay lip service only to it just to avoid people realising the truth and their being an outright revolt.

Thw wealthy of this country, who pay for Mccains campaigns, the wealthy corporate sponsors, are truly afraid of democracy and are afraid of the fact we are moving towards a more free society, so this is why we see such urgant and desperate attempts to shut down democracy and free forms of expressions and open mediums and turn them into corporate monopolies that the wealthy few can control. They only give lip service to democracy to trick the people into voting for it, but they really dont care at all about. Nor does Mccain. Republicans generally represent the interest of the elite few like the MPAA, the recording companies, Microsoft, etc, and will disadvantage the common people. Republicans just manage to trick enough americans into thinking they care about them when in fact they only care about the rich elite who gets them elected.

Obama has had a much cleaner campaign, has been more reluctant to take corporate money and has repeatedly put forward positions which favour the people and would return power to the people and restore our democracy and our freedoms. He is not nearly the kind of elite serving individual who wishes to erode away personal freedom, free speech and democracy to empower a wealthy elite, that McCain is. He has strong positions for Net Neutrality and for the common people in many other areas.

Barack "I see dead people" Obama (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23558185)

What's up with his seeing dead people in crowds at his speeches? I know the dead vote in his town of Chicago, but I've never heard of them showing up at political rallies.

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." Barack Oboma, May 26, 2008, New Mexico

luckyluckyluckylucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23558249)

I'm italian, I just wanted to let you know how luky you are to have such candidates...

here we don't even have an opposition for the government :,(

well, sctually we have one, but the goals are just_the_same, and they said they won't oppose any decision of the government...

uhm... can anyone invade us? pleeeeeasee!!!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?