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!

A Look At Joe Biden's Tech Voting Record

Soulskill posted about 6 years ago | from the but-did-he-invent-the-internet? dept.

Democrats 603

Aviran brings us an analysis of Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's voting record on technology issues. CNet breaks down the issues by category and provides details on the tech-related legislation he's introduced in the past several years. Biden received a score of 37.5% on CNet's 2006 technology voter guide. We've discussed the technology stances of McCain and Obama in the past.

cancel ×

603 comments

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

Why... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726221)

Why did Biden vote against the FISA bill, the one where Obama voted for? You know, the one that granted telecoms immunity against criminal prosecution.

Re:Why... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726411)

Biden is apparently a pretty boy with little ability to think. Maybe he voted against the FISA bill because he knew it would pass?

My thoughts on US politics right now (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726229)

Fuck McCain
Fuck Obama

Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (4, Funny)

KillerBob (217953) | about 6 years ago | (#24726421)

You're welcome to, but I never really found either of them particularly attractive. And I suspect my girlfriend would have a serious objection, too.

Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (3, Funny)

iminplaya (723125) | about 6 years ago | (#24726609)

Conversely, I would contend that if we don't do them, they will do us. Are you a "pitcher", or a "catcher"? :-)

Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (5, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | about 6 years ago | (#24726563)

It's not flamebait. There's a good 5% of the voting public feel exactly that way about these two. And they have very good reason. While their position on "high" tech is interesting and all, when you starting asking the real questions, it boils down to their position on our rights to use that tech as we see fit. Because none of them are "against" technology. We have to watch how it will used against us. So the questions become something like, Who's going to to reign in the FBI and their wiretapping? Who's going to stop the TSA from damaging [aero-news.net] our airliners, possibly causing a real disaster? When are we ever going to see real adherence to the Bill of Rights? Not that we ever had, but it's about time we make a real effort. If we want to see truly rapid development of high tech, we have to ask when are they going to put an end to near infinite copyright, and the idea of software patents.

Well, from both of these guys we are getting negative responses to all these questions and more. We are going to get more of the same thing that we have been getting since long before we were born.

So the AC is right
Fuck McCain
Fuck Obama

The only thing I could add is "!"

Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (-1, Troll)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 6 years ago | (#24726617)

It's not flamebait. There's a good 5% of the voting public feel exactly that way about these two.

5%!! You're kidding, right? It's probably more like 5% of Democrats happy with Obama and 5% of Republicans happy with McCain. Actually, it's probably rather higher for the Democrats - the socialists in the party seem to really like him. But really, it's more likely that it's actually a majority of voters that are entirely dissatisfied with either choice.

There were actually some good choices for both parties at the beginning of the quest for delegates, but the system proved once again that it is an abysmal failure in promoting good leaders. I don't know how many people I've talked to that have said "Yea, I was going to vote for [statesman running for nomination] in the primary, but I didn't think [s]he could win."

Next time, vote your conscience.

Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (5, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | about 6 years ago | (#24726733)

...the system proved once again that it is an abysmal failure in promoting good leaders.

No, we have proven that we are abysmal failures at seeking out good leaders. It is we who are so easily distracted by their shiny trinkets. It is we who act so helpless when only we can make the needed changes.

Next time, vote your conscience.

I agree, but most are voting for the guy who brings it home. The system ain't broke. We are. We created this system, and we continue to feed it. Most are just just not uncomfortable enough to do anything about it. Lack of empathy and downright hate play a huge part.

Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | about 6 years ago | (#24726735)

Care to back this up with evidence? Voting for B in the primary doesn't necessarily indicate a dissatisfaction with A.

Obama has very high "favorable" ratings [realclearpolitics.com] .

Change (5, Insightful)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | about 6 years ago | (#24726239)

How can a candidate running on a base of "change" justify picking a VP who has been in DC for 30+ years?

The only thing "changing" in January is the position DC is fucking me in...

Re:Change (3, Informative)

Delwin (599872) | about 6 years ago | (#24726267)

VP doesn't set policy - they're the left hand of the President. Obama needed a strong 'experience' and 'foreign policy' answer to make it through the campaign, so he picked one.

Re:Change (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726285)

Don't forget he needed another socialist on the ticket too.

Re:Change (2, Interesting)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#24726295)

The Dan Quayles and Al Gores don't do shit except go to state funerals. The Dick Cheneys and Joe Bidens are the man behind the curtain.

Re:Change (2, Insightful)

wisty (1335733) | about 6 years ago | (#24726361)

He does seem a bit of an activist - trying to make the government solve peoples problems. A billion dollars to snoop on p2p sounds like big government to me. On the other hand, he has done a lot to protect people from violence, both domestic and abroad. Intervention is a good stance to take on violent crimes, but a bad way to run the internet.

Re:Change (5, Insightful)

Zeinfeld (263942) | about 6 years ago | (#24726533)

Al Gore was actually one of the most active Veeps of the 20th century. He was responsible for the whole 'reinventing government' project that changed the way a lot of the civil service worked to make it more responsive to the Clinton agenda. Now Gore was nowhere as hands on as Cheney, but that is a unique situation, we are not going to see another President as weak as W. Bush for decades, if then. Cheney is the reason that Obama could not risk Hilary: her expectation for the veep role could have been a serious liability. Obama clearly does not intend to have a co-presidency. Now the source of the article has to be considered here: Declan McCullagh, who admits having been the author of the 'Al Gore claims to invent Internet' smear. The way he created that story was that he first published an article in Wired news where he took the quote out of context, then shopped it to his Girlfriend at Cato and Newt Gingrich's office. Then replaced his original story with one that eliminated his fingerprints on the matter. In this story, Declan claims that Obama surrogate Danny Weitzner was involved in a controversy, what he does not mention is that what he calls a controversy is that he was not allowed to attend a W3C workshop that was invitation only, off the record and no-press. I was an attendee at that workshop and certainly could not have given the presentation I gave if press was present and would not have attended if McCullagh was going to be present to twist the proceedings to his own personal agenda. And we have yet another Declan twist here, the C-Net voter guide - I wonder who wrote the criteria? Oh, what a suprise! Declan - again. So what this sorry story is presenting as comment from others on Biden is in fact two links to other articles written by Declan.

Re:Change (0, Redundant)

jez9999 (618189) | about 6 years ago | (#24726685)

And he didn't just 'reinvent' the internet; he invented it.

Re:Change (4, Insightful)

the_skywise (189793) | about 6 years ago | (#24726309)

Yeah it's not like Cheney ever set policy...

/sarcasm.

Remember also that part of the point of a VP choice is that they'll be the ones running for President after the President's term ends.

Not Biden (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726353)

Joe Biden turns 66 just after the November election. He'd be turning 74 if he ran to replace President Obama in 8 years. That'd be older than McCain is now; Biden running for POTUS in 2016 isn't bloody likely.

Re:Not Biden (-1, Flamebait)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | about 6 years ago | (#24726433)

Anybody remember a motorcade in Dallas? 'nuf said.

Re:Not Biden (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726561)

That is so totally relevant when talking about whether Biden would run for office in 2016...

Re:Change (2, Funny)

thegnu (557446) | about 6 years ago | (#24726397)

Yeah it's not like Cheney ever set policy...

/sarcasm.

Remember also that part of the point of a VP choice is that they'll be the ones running for President after the President's term ends.

which is why Dick Cheney is the GOP nominee.
/sarcasm

Re:Change (1)

the_skywise (189793) | about 6 years ago | (#24726429)

And which is why many in the GOP are upset because it created a power vacuum in the party over the last 4 years.

Still doesn't change the fact that VP's can and do set policy.

Re:Change (5, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 6 years ago | (#24726315)

I'll admit, I really doubt anything will "change" with Obama in office. All politicians talk of change and yet it's the same thing every administration.

In this case, we can't complain too much. The US VP does very little in the government. Some even say it's a joke position. He gets a vote in Congress, and has a lead position at NASA and the Smithsonian. Beyond that he has little power.

The one thing the VP can do for him is serve as an advisor.

Some people like that Obama is new, others think he lacks enough experience. By putting someone high profile in his camp that has experience, the nay-sayers can relax.

Re:Change (3, Interesting)

ScentCone (795499) | about 6 years ago | (#24726341)

the nay-sayers can relax

Even if they high profile guy in question has specifically said that he doesn't think Obama is ready to be president? The inescapable implication is that he (Biden) thinks that only because of his presence can Obama handle the job. Or, that Obama still can't handle the job, but that's OK, because he'll do it for him, etc. This is all just a sign of Obama's awakening to the fact that he's way over his inexperienced head, here.

Re:Change (5, Insightful)

sleigher (961421) | about 6 years ago | (#24726567)

I suppose Reagan, and Clinton for that matter, were fully experienced and ready to take the helm from the moment they took office. All this talk of experience is driving me nuts. I imagine there are very few who are actually ready for the stress and have the depth necessary to be the president. Certainly no one in the current running. However when someone becomes elected, they are surrounded by people with all sorts of experience in many different fields. This is how a president is successful, by surrounding themselves with the right advisers. You think because McCain was beaten in Vietnam that he is somehow more qualified to be the President? I get he has been in the Senate longer, but that is NOT presidential experience.

Re:Change (0)

ScentCone (795499) | about 6 years ago | (#24726765)

suppose Reagan, and Clinton for that matter, were fully experienced and ready to take the helm from the moment they took office

Both were governors of states. Executive positions that require an understanding of command and of relating to a legislative branch and judicial entities that are often at odds with your own policies and goals. State governors have armed people at their disposal and answer for their use. The sign or veto laws, deal with life-and-death situations in immediate circumstances, and have to have a particular sort of relationship with the press and with their counterparts at other levels of government.

We can debate whether or not having that job in California (an economy and government larger than most other other countries) is a different gig than having that job in Arkansas.

Regardless, coming out of the very corrupt Chicago street politics machine and state legislature of Illinois, and moving into a very short-so-far gig as a junior Senator without - during that short tenure - being involved in any long term interaction with the executive branch or the committees that are deeply involved the funding and oversight thereof ... that is NOT the same.

when someone becomes elected, they are surrounded by people with all sorts of experience in many different fields

No, they are surrounded by the people that their experience tells them they need around them. Again, lack of worldlieness in that regard is a real factor.

You think because McCain was beaten in Vietnam that he is somehow more qualified to be the President

No, I think proximity to the workings of the executive branch for as long as he's been there provides him with a view that Obama simply doesn't have. His senior role on key committees - especially as they relate to foreign and military affairs - means he's far more familiar with what's in front of him in that regard, and more likely to make good choices than will someone whose main message is that it all needs to be thrown out (Change! Change We Can Believe In! Um, Except For My Vice President!).

You don't need presidential experience to be president. But if you're younger, then you'd better have executive experience. If you're older, then you better have spent many long years involved in the many complex issues involved. Obama simply doesn't have it on either front, and his own vice presidential pick was one of the first people to point that out, repeatedly.

Re:Change (3, Insightful)

Zeinfeld (263942) | about 6 years ago | (#24726773)

Even if they high profile guy in question has specifically said that he doesn't think Obama is ready to be president? The inescapable implication is that he (Biden) thinks that only because of his presence can Obama handle the job. Or, that Obama still can't handle the job, but that's OK, because he'll do it for him, etc. This is all just a sign of Obama's awakening to the fact that he's way over his inexperienced head, here.

Bill Clinton pointed out the other day that there is absolutely nothing that can ever prepare someone for the Presidency.

I think he is right. Thirty years in the Senate is not going to prepare you to be the top decision maker on ever single aspect of policy in the worlds biggest economy and military power. It isn't what you know coming into the job that counts, it is what you can learn.

McCain's analysis of every single foreign policy crisis of the past twenty years has led him to the conclusion that what is needed is a new war or a bigger war. He was an advocate for invading Iraq before Bush. He wants to immediately allow Georgia to join NATO, thus requiring the US to declare war on Russia under the joint defense clause.

What is the value of 72 years experience if you have learned nothing from it? McCain is visibly uninterested in every aspect of policy other than warfare, and that seems to be more than a little related to his desire to redeem his own military career which he is in the habit of talking about even more often than Rudy Giuliani talks about 9/11.

David Brooks, a conservative was advocating Biden because he was going to be an independent voice, not someone who would hero-worship or tell Obama what he wanted to hear.

Re:Change (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 6 years ago | (#24726661)

No, Bush promised to "change the tone in Washington", and he sure did. To the tone of a trainwreck under Godzilla's claws.

Mainly by letting Cheney run the country (into the ground), while Bush took the "hard work" of being the Republican power monopoly's spokesmodel, "catapulting the propaganda" [youtube.com] .

What we need to get from the next VP is a commitment, from them or from the president, that they will burn down the Cheney Bunker. No Republican would ever do such a thing to their most powerful "legacy". We have to see whether Obama or Biden will do so.

Even if they don't, a Biden behind the Obama curtain is going to be a lot less evil than a Cheney behind the Bush curtain. This is where Democrats' famed "internal divisions and disorganization" protect the people. Which is why I usually start with Democrats as my default, and then see who could be better in the office than one of those "mavericks" who don't all vote lockstep on their secret agenda the way Republicans do.

Re:Change (2, Insightful)

ageoffri (723674) | about 6 years ago | (#24726471)

Pretty easy to justify picking an old school Democrat for VP in this case. Obama through many of his choices and the GOP questioning of his experience had a choice to either balance his ticket or go all out change. No matter what he chose he was going to have problems with one group of his supporters or another.

Now he can say that while he lacks national level leadership experience he has a close source of advice that is hard to beat. I think that this choice is going to turn out more neutral then anything in a few weeks after the initial announcement wears off.

Re:Change (4, Funny)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 6 years ago | (#24726695)

also, biden as VP forces mccain's hand. the christian right has made it very clear that mccain's toast if he picks a pro-choice VP. now with biden as obama's VP, mccain has to pick someone who won't get beaten to a bloody pulp in a debate against biden.

also, mccain needs someone who puts forth an aura of youth to counteract the fact that he's a fossil, and since mccain is getting beaten bloody on this whole confused-rich-guy-who-can't-even-remember-how-many-houses-he-lives-in thing, someone with solid middle-class credentials.

so mccain needs to find a young, anti-abortion middle-class outsider who can go toe-to-toe with joe biden in a debate. good luck with that one.

Re:Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726477)

Well to go conspiracy nut on yo ass, I'd say he was maneuvered into it by the Georgian-Russian conflict. He didn't appear decisive when addressing the issue which damaged his credibility a bit in the foreign policy arena. He's gotta pick a VP now that has credentials in that area, much like Bush had to pick Cheney to provide a counter to his foreign policy inexperience. Plus, Biden is the quintessential Establishment politician and a favorite among beltway insiders.

Re:Change (2, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about 6 years ago | (#24726483)

How can a company founded in 1946 like Sony pretend to develop new products ?

Re:Change (2, Insightful)

Chemisor (97276) | about 6 years ago | (#24726627)

A company does not develop new products. A company's employees develop new products. A 65 year old company does not exclusively employ 65 year old people; it can employ younger people, who can think of new things. It doesn't work that way with people; if you are 65 years old, that's how old you are, with all your 65 years of experiences, biases, and a stone-hard mindset.

Re:Change (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726683)

Just as Shigeru Miyamoto how much old people can't invent.

Re:Change (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | about 6 years ago | (#24726809)

How can a candidate running on a base of "change" justify picking a VP who has been in DC for 30+ years?

Maybe it helps to know the system extremely well if you want to change it?

Whether there will be actual change or not is a separate discussion, so let's not get into that. But I don't see anything wrong with hiring expertise on the current system if you want to change it.

I had no idea... (3, Funny)

hyades1 (1149581) | about 6 years ago | (#24726259)

Do Senators exist who can open a laptop without assistance and actually avoid drooling on the keyboard?

I'm not voting for Biden or McCain's VP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726261)

I'm voting for the presidential candidate, not their VP and certainly not their spouses.

Right now, neither McCain, nor Obama will get my vote.

Re:I'm not voting for Biden or McCain's VP (2, Interesting)

foniksonik (573572) | about 6 years ago | (#24726741)

SO you leave it up to the rest of us? Your choice, just don't complain if the worst choice in your opinion gets in to office.

Voting isn't about getting your perfect choice into office. It's about choosing the best candidate from those available. you look at the candidates and select the one you think can a) make the biggest difference in your life and b) cause the least harm to everyone else

I voted for Bush twice because the other candidates opposing him were worse choices. John Kerry was a putz and Al Gore just wasn't a leader (a fine and good public servant but not a leader). He was at the times the better candidate - and I stand by those choices despite the results.

This year I'll vote for Barack both because I think he'll do a good job and because I think McCain would do a poor job. I'm lucky this year... one of the candidates is IMHO a good choice.

SO don't vote - but remember, I will. SO if you think McCain is better in any way than Barack - you could cancel out my vote... or alternatively if you think Barack is the least dangerous candidate you could help ensure his winning the election by voting for him.

Joe Biden's pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting record (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726265)

"By choosing Joe Biden as their vice presidential candidate, the Democrats have selected a politician with a mixed record on technology who has spent most of his Senate career allied with the FBI and copyright holders, who ranks toward the bottom of CNET's Technology Voters' Guide, and whose anti-privacy legislation was actually responsible for the creation of PGP."

That's the original post title and post by Aviran that's merely alluded to here... why the need to neutralize it? Would you have neutralized it for a Republican candidate?

I wonder what the FBI has on him. (4, Insightful)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | about 6 years ago | (#24726273)

FTA: ...which the EFF says he was "persuaded" to do by the FBI.

Interesting. Is there a J. Edgar Hover wannabe there? Or is it just the current climate with this administration.

the trouble with this is, even though Obama would be the President if elected, Biden would be President of the Senate. So if there's a tie breaker for or against something that would further deteriorate our Civil Liberties, I can only assume Biden would vote in favor of less freedom. And if that should some to pass, maybe Obama would veto it. Then again, maybe not. This country is on a path of safety overrides freedom every time. I have lost hope.

Re:I wonder what the FBI has on him. (5, Informative)

slutsker (804955) | about 6 years ago | (#24726319)

No, as President of the Senate he will always vote the way the Obama Administration wants him to - this is how all Vice Presidents have voted in the past.

Re:I wonder what the FBI has on him. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726565)

I've known Joe Biden for 30 years, and damn you've sure got him misfiled.

Re:I wonder what the FBI has on him. (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | about 6 years ago | (#24726391)

Blaming a tie breaker solely on the person who breaks the tie is a little wacky.

Can't believe parent gets modded up... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726401)

We have lost more freedoms than ever under Republican administrations and this user seems to question the ability of Obama/Biden before they even get a chance - as if its the democrats fault we're in this shit hole we're in today (or as if the parent accepts this shit hole as conservative progress)

Tell me ONE law, ONE goal, ONE ambition of the Obama/Biden ticket that will make "safety override freedom every time".

Obama/Biden isn't Clinton politics.

* Going Green is energy policy
* Creating Green jobs is Economic Policy
* Having a right hand mand to fill in the "DC politics" greed that voters will (for what reason i don't know) expect is a BOON.
* Healthcare is a great policy - a social insurance program that could have been funded for every human being if we hadn't been hell bent on WAR

I could go on and on what Obama/Biden can do for us but to people like you, its only what you assume they will do against you without regards for your fellow neighbors, countrymen and US citizens.

Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726465)

I can't believe you honestly believe there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats despite all evidence to the contrary.

Tell me ONE law, ONE goal, ONE ambition of the Obama/Biden ticket that will make "safety override freedom every time".

Too easy. [barackobama.com] Try another.

Have the Democrats got us out of Iraq after pledging to do so? NO!
Have the Democrats passed any laws that increased our freedoms? NO!
Have the Democrats ever passed any laws that increased freedom? NO!

Voting either Repulcrat or Democan is voting for politics-as-usual and no change, no matter what pretty-boy Obama says. When's the last time you saw a politician come through with a campaign promise on policy?

About the only thing that Obama will do that McCain won't is raise our taxes. Otherwise they're identical.

Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (2, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | about 6 years ago | (#24726559)

Even if he does nothing else, Obama will raise taxes on the rich. This will have two beneficial effects:

  1. Slow the hemorrhaging of money out of the country
  2. Decrease the income inequality that's skyrocketed during the Clinton and (especially) Bush eras. Our gini index has gone up considerably, and those chickens need to come home.

That said, I believe Obama represents a far bigger and more beneficial change than you seem to see. But even if he does only what you believe he'll do, it'll be a good thing.

Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (1, Insightful)

schnikies79 (788746) | about 6 years ago | (#24726623)

It's not the governments duty (or right) to force income equality.

Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (3, Interesting)

QuoteMstr (55051) | about 6 years ago | (#24726693)

Why not? Because you say so?

A democratic government's responsibility is to make the world a better place. A happy society is an egalitarian society. Yes, that goal has to be balanced against others. But completely ignoring income inequality would just make us enter another gilded age. Are you ignorant of that era's miseries, or are you callous enough to inflect them on your fellow citizens?

Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (0, Redundant)

schnikies79 (788746) | about 6 years ago | (#24726725)

A democratic government's duty is to do what the populace demands, nothing more, else it's not democratic.

Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (3, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | about 6 years ago | (#24726769)

Yes, the populace: not the richest 2% of the populace, but all of it. More specifically, we elect people who keep our interests in mind. Our interests are not in allowing the richest to accumulate ever-increasing wealth while wages flatline for the vast majority.

Do you really think a single person can be a hundred million times more worthy than another?

Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (1, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about 6 years ago | (#24726835)

Well, it would be good that we live in a republic who's only ties to being democratic is in how we elect representatives.

The government's job is to govern the country or the post they are in. Nothing more nothing less. They have no obligation to you or anyone else unless that somehow effects the post they are over. They have no obligation and I would actually say they are stupid is they think they are supposed to make the world a better place.

As the Parent said, it isn't the government's job to manufacture income equality. And no, this isn't because of something he says, it is because the very essence of freedom means that you are free to put your resources to work and make money. Even if you end up making more the someone else. You are essentially taking freedom away when they artificial barriers are put into place. And to make things worse, addressing income equality by limiting the people who are doing something to make money will only make things worse. Imagine a life where you have unemployed people because they don't want to work or they fuck off and get people hurt so they were fired. Then fire as many people making the most money just to open jobs up for these original slacker unemployed people. That is what you are wanting to do by raising the rent on the rich just so they don't have as much or more then the poorer people when do something to make money.

It is a lot like lowering standard to include unqualified people instead of elevating unqualified people to qualified status. You still have a bunch of ignorant fools not qualified for the job but now they are proving it and showing everyone else their special treatment when they aren't fired. And somehow, people think this special treatment will end racism just because they can say, look, they are hired and getting jobs, our work it done here.

That's what I hate about ignorant asses like you, you only care about your little agenda and don't have the wherewithal to see it for what it is. Income equality is something that is earned not forced or given. At least not in a free country/world.

Re:I wonder what the FBI has on him. (1)

woverly (223564) | about 6 years ago | (#24726785)

Biden currently has one vote in the Senate. Should he become Vice President, he would one vote only if there were a tie breaker. The likelyhood of there being a tie breaker is extremely remote, so his influence in the legislative branch will be vastly diminished. Given that, his alledgedly poor voting record on technology issues make it a win for techonology if he becomes Vice President, assuming that his replacement would have a better record. (I don't know what the median voting record, so I'm skeptical about the likelyhood of that).

Basic competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726301)

At least Joe Biden knows how many internets there are.

Are you sure? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 years ago | (#24726677)

I would guess that he has many ppl creating speeches for him.

You never know, with Joe (-1, Flamebait)

ScentCone (795499) | about 6 years ago | (#24726317)

Well, I suppose that could be his voting record. But it could be someone else's [mahalo.com] , too.

Re:You never know, with Joe (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726375)

Did you read your own link? "Although Biden's presidential bid was derailed, the senator did address the claims. In the case of the speech, Biden had previously cited Kinnock as its source and claimed to have forgotten on the occasion that it was scrutinized.3 According to Biden, the law school incident had been the result of confusion regarding the rules citation and footnoting.4 In 1989, the Delaware Supreme Court's Board on Professional Responsibility cleared Biden of the law school charges."

Re:You never know, with Joe (2, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | about 6 years ago | (#24726647)

He's a repeat offender. That was a bit of a Google grab-bag link, but it's going to haunt him. Having "addressed" the issue doesn't alter his repeatedly having done the deed. It speaks to his need to always have something (at length!) to say. Couple that with, for example, lecturing someone in front of the Senate for an appointment review along the lines of, "my IQ is higher than yours," and you get a sense of how he relates to the rest of the world.

The one conclusion we can draw from this (0)

Dachannien (617929) | about 6 years ago | (#24726329)

Whoever wins, we lose.

Why I never trust "voting records" (4, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | about 6 years ago | (#24726339)

Everyone has bias. Everyone.

The problem with voting records is not always apparent when you look at them and try to decide if someone is good for an industry or not. Industries are too complicated for any law to be truly pro or against the industry. Tech is especially so.

For me, the best voting record for a candidate is proven by those who halted BAD legislation by not just voting against more government intrusions into the market, but also worked to hold up bad bills from leaving committees. My favorite legislators are those who just shut down most bills before they're even really bills. The legislative committees is where the best work is done, or the worst work is done.

This is why I fully believe our campaign finance laws are to blame when it comes to voting records. Since the individual is greatly limited in who they can support, and how, it is always the large lobbying groups that end up writing the laws. McCain and Feingold knew this, and they knew that limiting the voice of the individual would end up limiting the power of the individual.

To wrap up, trying to look at voting records is bad because most of the work is done before the vote is even considered. We have no power, as individuals, to try to work in that process. The lobbying groups, which are always about MORE legislation to destroy competition and never LESS, are cozied up very nicely: to Obama, to Biden, to McCain, to whoever it is who is elected, might be elected, or was elected. And on that, all of them have terrible voting records which do nothing but restrict competition in every market they touch.

Re:Why I never trust "voting records" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726447)

How DARE you try to bring rationality and civility into a political discussion?!? Back under your bridge now, troll!

"Joe Biden has strong anti-piracy record" (4, Informative)

jaiyen (821972) | about 6 years ago | (#24726525)

I guess we'd better hope voting records don't mean much, as it seems Biden is a firm friend of the *AA's

NEW YORK -- Joe Biden may have made his name in foreign relations in 32 years in the Senate, but his efforts against piracy have won him respect in Hollywood.

Biden was named Saturday as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate. The Delaware senator has got a long list of credentials, including chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, membership on the Senate Judiciary Committee and experience on the world stage lacking in the top of the ticket. But the 64-year-old Scranton, Pa., native has been a strong advocate for U.S. intellectual property rights and an ardent soldier in the fight against piracy.

As a founding member of the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus, Biden has helped the lead the fight against countries such as China, Russia, Mexico and India that need stronger copyright protections.

"When somebody holds you up on the street and takes your wallet, we call it robbery," Biden said in May 2007. "And when somebody steals your idea and creation, we call it theft, plain and simple." The MPA has lauded the work of the anti-piracy caucus as being essential to motivating the government to action.

(From http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i67f2ad037eba0dd6e4821ce39ce827a3?imw=Y [hollywoodreporter.com] )

Re:"Joe Biden has strong anti-piracy record" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726793)

"When somebody holds you up on the street and takes your wallet, we call it robbery," Biden said in May 2007. "And when somebody steals your idea and creation, we call it theft, plain and simple."

Nice coming from a plagerist.

Honestly I don't think I will live to see candidates worth actually voting FOR.

Re:Why I never trust "voting records" (3, Informative)

QuoteMstr (55051) | about 6 years ago | (#24726593)

more government intrusions into the market

How can you profess to be impartial when you use loaded language like that? Government intervention in markets is a good thing unless you like all your telephones rented from AT&T, or antifreeze in your toothpaste.

You're dead-on about lobbying groups, however. Most of them are corporate shills. Then again, consider the EFF.

Re:Why I never trust "voting records" (1)

dada21 (163177) | about 6 years ago | (#24726705)

How can you profess to be impartial when you use loaded language like that?

I'll never want to be impartial. In fact, I'm completely partial, and one of the few people who admits to prejudices and dislikes of others. I'll even say it to their face (you should see me at most churches, I'm the first one to stand up and condemn the "pastor" for using Scripture incorrectly).

Government intervention in markets is a good thing unless you like all your telephones rented from AT&T, or antifreeze in your toothpaste.

AT&T was granted a monopoly by government. In many ways, AT&T is still granted SOME monopoly in the market. Antifreeze in the toothpaste is one person's fault: the person who sold it to you without testing it.

Without government intervention in the market, Target or Walgreens or your local covenient store would be more careful with the products they sell. Whether its dog food or toothpaste or whatever, it would be up to them to make sure what they bought is safe, or face prosecution or loss of business. That's how the market works. But because your government pretends to protect you, retailers don't use as much common sense to test their products.

In one small area of the market, we have private organizations like the Underwriters Laboratories that test products before retailers will sell them. Some retailers don't sell UL-listed goods, so the consumer is required to use their due diligence to make sure the product is safe.

I would never think the FDA, USDA, and other organizations do anything but pander to the monopolies they create. I buy my dairy illegall (raw, unpasteurized and local) because the FDA/USDA stamped milk is dangerous. Their stamp, to me, means "Not up to par, probably unsafe." I'm sure all the E. Coli that has festered in dirty farms is gone for good because your government makes sure of it, right? Oh, wait...

Some people just don't understand (5, Insightful)

JoshJ (1009085) | about 6 years ago | (#24726367)

Biden wasn't nominated the VP because of his tech voting record. Just look at what the Democrats are talking about- Iraq, the economy, healthcare, the housing crisis, etc. Net Neutrality is barely on the radar, and you can be assured that NN isn't going to get a vote in the next two years (unless someone piles it in an omnibus) even with a Democratic majority.

Biden is a tactical choice to try to win the election; not a choice of "who would actually make the best VP once we win". All you have to do to realize that is watch Biden's acceptance speech, where he smacked the hell out of McCain. Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on politically; that "seven kitchen tables" line was gold. That's what Biden is there for- to attack McCain (and McCain's VP choice) while Obama is above the fray.

VPs are chosen as an attempt to win elections, not as an attempt to pick the best man for the job.

Re:Some people just don't understand (0)

the_skywise (189793) | about 6 years ago | (#24726405)

Then why not pick Hillary who would've easily solidified the Democrat base?

Re:Some people just don't understand (4, Interesting)

JoshJ (1009085) | about 6 years ago | (#24726443)

Because Hillary has extremely high negatives. Rush, Savage, Hannity, Malkin, O'Reilly, etc. would have a field day tearing her apart. Obama would look extremely bad for picking her- we're talking about losing a large number of moderates and nearly all the Republicans who would otherwise be willing to vote for Obama.

Re:Some people just don't understand (0)

the_skywise (189793) | about 6 years ago | (#24726481)

Not necessarily. There are many on the Republican side who find Hillary to be more conservative on certain issues than McCain. (including Malkin and O'Reilly)

Re:Some people just don't understand (4, Insightful)

JoshJ (1009085) | about 6 years ago | (#24726507)

Well, that's because Hillary really is a conservative, so they're okay with how she votes on certain issues. Make no mistake though, if she were the Democratic nominee for President or VP, she'd be declared the next coming of Karl Marx.

Much like all those Republicans who declared McCain a traitor to his party for the past 10 years, but now fall in line behind him (though they're right to do so; since McCain is now toeing the party line rather than holding "mavericky" positions.)

Re:Some people just don't understand (1, Interesting)

the_skywise (189793) | about 6 years ago | (#24726603)

You mean like the Democrats are now doing to McCain?

The guy Kerry was thinking of making the Democrat VP ticket in 2004? (Which is why he was declared a traitor to his party...)

Re:Some people just don't understand (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | about 6 years ago | (#24726659)

Kerry was never thinking of making McCain the VP; that was a suggestion Biden made, and even Biden said he doubted Kerry would do it.

Furthermore, McCain has significantly changed position on nearly every issue he was a "maverick" on in the past couple of years.

Re:Some people just don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726595)

Because Hillary has extremely high negatives. Rush, Savage, Hannity, Malkin, O'Reilly, etc. would have a field day tearing her apart. Obama would look extremely bad for picking her- we're talking about losing a large number of moderates and nearly all the Republicans who would otherwise be willing to vote for Obama.

Don't forget the racism issue. Committed racists will never vote for Obama anyway, but a lot of people will subconsciously react negatively to the idea of a black man and a white woman on the same ticket.

Re:Some people just don't understand (2, Insightful)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 6 years ago | (#24726605)

also, it would make obama look very weak to pick the woman who continuously savaged him in the primaries as some sort of concession.

Re:Some people just don't understand (5, Insightful)

grahamd0 (1129971) | about 6 years ago | (#24726457)

Because she is loathed by the critical "undecided" voters. Most of Hillary's people will vote for Obama anyway, and there's no point in courting the "Hillary or nobody" crowd.

Re:Some people just don't understand (2, Interesting)

Nimey (114278) | about 6 years ago | (#24726467)

Because Hillary would have come with Bill, and that would have been very awkward, not to mention the number of people who hate the Clintons.

I think there's a bit of acrimony between Obama and HC from the primary, besides.

Re:Some people just don't understand (1, Troll)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | about 6 years ago | (#24726473)

Because having Hillary on the ticket would have also solidified the right-wing whackos who are only lukewarm on McCain to vote for him as a vote AGAINST Hillary, who they see as some kind of antichrist figure?

Re:Some people just don't understand (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726801)

She and Bill also seem ambivalent (and that's a generous assessment in Bill's case) about Obama winning this election - I'm sure they have serious thoughts about running in 2012 if McCain wins.

You don't want a running mate who is not 100 percent committed to winning the election. Otherwise you get someone damning you with faint praise - "Sure, he lacks experience, but the alternative is even worse!" like that. And we'd still hear the continuous whining from the entire Clinton camp about what should have been, had it not been for massive media bias, sexism in America, DNC doing this and that, etc.

Re:Some people just don't understand (3, Insightful)

Blackhalo (572408) | about 6 years ago | (#24726815)

"Then why not pick Hillary who would've easily solidified the Democrat base?"

Because she could not graciously concede, once it became apparent to all who understood delegate math, that she would be unable to get enough delegates for nomination. Instead she had to bitterly and derisively, carry on until the last possible moment. Which is entirely her and her campaigns right, in my opinion. But I suspect that from the view of the Obama Campaign and the Democratic party, she put herself before her party and so lost any rational claim to be V.P.

Also, for those who can understand electoral math, the bitter holdouts are not as important to winning the election as the non-party voters in key battleground states.

Re:Some people just don't understand (1)

gtall (79522) | about 6 years ago | (#24726415)

While I think you are correct that VPs are chosen to swing elections, I doubt they have ever swung an election. Their best use is as a bird dog. Want to find out if something will fly, sent in the VP with a speech. If it bombs, the VP takes it in the neck and you can move on to the next issue your pollsters say you believe this week. If it does fly, then you quickly take the credit by giving a speech putting your VP's speech "in context" and claiming victory with honor...errr..or whatever passes for political leadership these days.

Gerry

Re:Some people just don't understand (4, Insightful)

JoshJ (1009085) | about 6 years ago | (#24726485)

Well, selecting a VP from state X as an attempt to win the state is almost never going to work- the election would have to be extremely close in that state for it to matter, there's just not enough people who will vote for the local guy as VP. (Remember, Gore didn't even win his own state in 2000 and he was running for President!) However, a VP selection can and does impact the outcome of the election by way of the campaign being able to launch attacks without the Presidential candidate being seen as the "attacker". This is quite important if the other side goes negative, as is the case here. I will say though, a VP nod can hurt a lot more than it can help. See: Clinton, Hillary. (Lesson to the Republicans: going negative every election gets really old, really fast; and doing it when your candidate is absurdly rich will burn you the instant you make a mistake.)

Re:Some people just don't understand (2, Insightful)

JoshJ (1009085) | about 6 years ago | (#24726549)

By the way, as an indication of just how badly McCain and the GOP is running their campaign strategy...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/23/new-mccain-ad-gets-more-personal/ [wsj.com]

And guess who's speaking at the Democratic convention? Horrible, horrible move. If she chooses, she could tear McCain a new one for that ad.

Re:Some people just don't understand (1)

mrroot (543673) | about 6 years ago | (#24726821)

If she chooses, she could tear McCain a new one for that ad.

Why? She was the one who SAID those things.

Re:Some people just don't understand (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726775)

Maybe Barack Obama should have the guts to make a choice based on something different. If he claims to be the candidate of change and then behaves like a typical run of the mill politician, what does that tell you?

Re:Some people just don't understand (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 6 years ago | (#24726831)

Biden was a mistake. Obama has a real problem with NRA type voters. Biden is even worse with that group. McCain and the NRA are going to have ads with Biden's most anti-gun statements. They're going to make it look like that'll be the top priority once they're elected.

Who gives a flaming fuck? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726373)

Against all the parties of capitalism, for a workers party that fights for a workers government!

Re:Who gives a flaming fuck? (0, Flamebait)

wellingj (1030460) | about 6 years ago | (#24726517)

Your an idiot. Or a troll. Or an Idiot-Troll.

Quite literally doesn't matter (1, Interesting)

jeffehobbs (419930) | about 6 years ago | (#24726389)

If the only alternative is McCain and $haircut, then Obama and LITERALLY WHOEVER gets my vote.

This is the power and the glory of the two party system at work.

Re:Quite literally doesn't matter (1, Insightful)

mkcmkc (197982) | about 6 years ago | (#24726577)

If the only alternative is McCain and $haircut, then Obama and LITERALLY WHOEVER gets my vote.

This is the power and the glory of the two party system at work.

You should note that when you vote for the (slightly) lesser of two evils, you are voting for the two-party system by doing so.

Re:Quite literally doesn't matter (5, Insightful)

jeffehobbs (419930) | about 6 years ago | (#24726663)

I would argue that it's not a slight difference, but past that: There's a time for idealism and a time for pragmatism. In 2000, I went idealism and voted Nader. I won't be making that mistake this time around.

Obama Hates Clinton (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726439)

By picking Biden, Obama has shown that he HATES Clinton more than he wants to be president...

Re:Obama Hates Clinton (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726487)

Why mark this as troll. It is obvious that Clinton was the better pick carrying 18Million Democratic votes (Essentially all the votes Obama didn't get in the primary) but instead he chooses a guy that has lost two bids for president and recently got so few primary votes that it isn't even worth mentioning... Cleary the marking of troll is an indication of the political bent of the Slashdot modorators!!!

Go ahead mark this one troll too!!! I dare ya!!!

Re:Obama Hates Clinton (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726531)

And Hillary now has a solid reason for wanting Obama to lose, to get a crack at 2012.

dol6l (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726497)

your spare time NIGGER AASOCIATION

Obama Chose Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726523)

After taking over the Foreign Relations committee, Biden became a staunch ally of Hollywood and the recording industry in their efforts to expand copyright law. He sponsored a bill in 2002 that would have make it a federal felony to trick certain types of devices into playing unauthorized music or executing unapproved computer programs.

Good to know that at least one elected official is willing to stand up for the rule of law. Music and software thieves have it far too easy with today's technology, and its good that the law is being refined to punish them and punish them HARD.

--

Don't steal the dream - don't steal music.

All of them voted for (4, Informative)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | about 6 years ago | (#24726551)

All of them voted for the I-CAN-SPAM Act, except Obama. Obama didn't vote for the I-CAN-SPAM Act because he was not there to vote for it.

He should have asked John McCain (0, Redundant)

entrylevel (559061) | about 6 years ago | (#24726583)

Yeah, I know it sounds absurd, but I think doing something like this would have done two things:

1) It would have proved that he is not all talk. I was skeptical before, but now I know for sure that he is just more of the same. The only thing that sets him apart is that he is very well spoken. Clearly that is no longer one of the factors for the American people when electing a president.

2)) It would have proved he is willing to step over the partisan lines, if even in a most ridiculous fashion, to demonstrate that he really does want change at the base level. This system is so fucked, the only way to get change is to blow up the foundation.

To be honest, I now believe that this upcoming presidential election will be the *least* important in decades.

Biden Voted Against FISA Amnesty (4, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 6 years ago | (#24726585)

When FISA came to a vote as HR.6308 [senate.gov] on July 9, 2008, Biden voted against it, Obama voted for it.

mod Up (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24726763)

duty To be a big we don'7 sux0r as

Who wrote the summary? Fox News? (5, Insightful)

Mark_in_Brazil (537925) | about 6 years ago | (#24726767)

Oh noes! The Democratic vice presidential candidate only got a 37.5 rating from the CNet technolgy voter guide.

Here are a couple of basic facts omitted by the submitter: Obama got a 50.00% rating and McCain got a 31.25% rating.

Given that that information was available via two clicks on the same page that yielded Biden's rating, and given that the positions of the presidential candidates is a lot more important than the positions of the VP candidates, one has to wonder why the submitter didn't find those details worth mentioning.

Additionally, Obama made it very clear before he announced his choice of Biden that he wanted a VP candidate who would engage him in discussions about issues, disagree with him, and challenge his assumptions. Here's an example, in Obama's own words:

Let me tell you first what I won't do. I won't hand over my energy policy to my vice president, without knowing necessarily what he's doing. I wont have my vice president engineering my foreign policy for me. The buck will stop with me, because I will be the president. My vice president, also by the way my vice president also will be a member of the executive branch, he won't be one of these 4th branches of government where he thinks he's above the law. But here's what I do want from my vice president, I want somebody who has integrity, who's in politics for the right reasons, I want somebody who is independent. Somebody who is able to say to me, 'you know what, Mr. President, I think you're wrong on this and here's why' and will give me (applause) who will help me think through major issues and consult with me, would be a key advisor. I want somebody who is capable of being president and who I would trust to be president. That's the first criteria for vice president. And the final thing is I want a [vice] president who shares with me a passion to make the lives of the American people better than they are right now. I want someone who is not in it just because they want to have their name up in lights or end up being president. I want somebody who is mad right now, that people are losing their jobs. And is mad right now that people have seen their incomes decline, and want to rebuild the middle class in this country. That's the kind of person that I want; somebody who in their gut knows where they came from and believes that we have to grow this country from the bottom up.

I apologize if this reduces the number of McCain troll points [johnmccain.com] for somebody interested in getting some McCain campaign schwag.

I added the bold text for emphasis in the Obama quote above.

Another thing: a voting record is useful for evaluating a congresscritter, but not via a simple number. It requires more careful analysis. This is because a congressvarmints will sometimes vote for positions he opposes when the defeat of those positions is assured, but the positions are popular with the congressvarmint's constituents (or the opposite: vote against a position he supports when passage is assured without his vote). And while both members of the House of Representatives and Senators both do that, Senators have yet another trick because of the existence of the filibuster in the Senate. An example is Senator Joe Lieberman, who voted with the Republicans for cloture (i.e., to end the Democratic filibuster) on the nomination of Samuel Alito the Supreme Court. Since it was known that the Republicans had enough votes to rubber-stamp Bush's nomination of Alito, the vote that mattered was the cloture vote. After that, Lieberman cast his vote against confirming Alito, so he could tell the voters in Connecticut, an overwhelmingly Democratic state, that he had voted against Alito. If you were just to look at the confirmation vote, you might think Lieberman had been against confirming Alito, but on the vote that mattered, he voted with the Republicans.

Why is CNet writing a voting guide anyway? (2, Insightful)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 6 years ago | (#24726825)

There are legitimate reasons to vote against Internet gambling. There are legitimate reasons to vote against H1B visas. There are legitimate reasons to vote against free trade with China.

CNet is a news site. It shouldn't try to push a political agenda, even one that it thinks its audience shares.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>