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!

Bush Cousins Launch Pro-Kerry Website

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the hip-boots-needed dept.

Politics 138

WerewolfOfVulcan writes "CNN is carrying a story about bushrelativesforkerry.com, a site launched by relatives of the President."

cancel ×

138 comments

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

Family connection (4, Informative)

byolinux (535260) | more than 9 years ago | (#10631681)

These are the grandchildren of his great-aunt (George Bush Senior's Father's Sister).

Re:Family connection (2, Insightful)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 9 years ago | (#10631937)

(George Bush Senior's Father's Sister)
...former roommate?

The funny thing is that since Bush and Kerry are distant cousins, we could take George's siblings, daughters, and parents, and point to them as "Kerry Relatives for Bush."

Re:Family connection (-1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632069)

The problem with that is other than Jeb, I can't name a single CLOSE family member for W either. His own father is against this adventure in Iraq (said so in his autobiography- he was given the same chance back in 1991 and refused to take it *because* the cost in lives would be higher than worthwhile). Even Jeb- if W isn't re-elected, he's next on the list of favorite family members to take a shot at the Presidency.

Re:Family connection (0, Flamebait)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632442)

His own father is against this adventure in Iraq (said so in his autobiography- he was given the same chance back in 1991 and refused to take it *because* the cost in lives would be higher than worthwhile).

So... because Bush Sr. was against invading Iraq in 1991 (before the Oil-For-Food scandal, mind you), he doesn't support Dubya now?

Well, in that case, I guess John Kerry is a closet Bush supporter:
"I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards.
How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis?"

-- John Kerry, November 16, 2001

Now take your faulty logic and willful blindness and go home.

Re:Family connection (-1, Flamebait)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10634251)

No more faulty logic than you use in your sig line, depending on the CIA for intelligence on Iraq...but I guess the real point is that there is no black&white when it comes to Iraq, only shades of explosions- Bush Senior's favored tactic was to wall Iraq off from the world and wait until Saddam died of old age. Kerry's favorite tactic is to go in with an overwhelming number of troops- far more than Bush thinks we need. Bush's tactic seems to be to maximize profit for his friends in the defense and oil industries while putting our troops in danger.

None of them are the same as my plan, which is to pull out of the middle east entirely and either (a) isolate the United States until such a time that the world returns to sanity or (b) create an artwork in radioactive glass in a 1000 square mile area surrounding Mecca, as a warning to future generations as to what happens when you let a crazy right-wing religious sect have weapons and terrorist training camps.

Re:Family connection (1)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 9 years ago | (#10635257)

Part of your response:
create an artwork in radioactive glass in a 1000 square mile area surrounding Mecca, as a warning to future generations as to what happens when you let a crazy right-wing religious sect have weapons and terrorist training camps.

Your sig:
The real test of liberal tolerance isn't in how we treat our friends- it's in how we treat our enemies.


Was that an intentional bit of humor?

fwiw (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10631720)

I saw on TV last week something about Bush and Kerry already being distant relatives of each other, maybe these are the Bush relatives that are closer to Kerry?

Re:fwiw (2)

SkyWalk423 (661752) | more than 9 years ago | (#10631840)

Wouldn't Bush supporters tell you that we are all distant relatives, if you go back far enough?

Re:fwiw (2, Informative)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 9 years ago | (#10631879)

They're cousins [msn.com] . They went to the same school and belonged to the same Fraternity.

Oh, and Kerry is worth more...

Re:fwiw (2)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632100)

From that article: Playboy founder Hugh Hefner is the president's ninth cousin, twice removed
So why vote for either of the cousins running when you can vote for Hef!

Re:fwiw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10632917)

16th cousins? Do you realize how distant a relation that is? That means that one of them has great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents that are the same as the others great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents. They are probably just as related to eachother as any other pair of caucasians on the planet.

Family trees tend to be shaped kind of like a diamond since after a few generations of ancestors you start running into the same people more than once. My wife and I are fifth cousins.

Re:fwiw (2, Insightful)

pudge (3605) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632190)

Everyone in the Bush family who is for Bush is a Kerry Relative for Bush. And everyone in the Kerry family who is for Kerry is a Bush Relative for Kerry.

Yawn.

Re:fwiw (0, Troll)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632289)

Hey, pudge, you're an editor. Could you do us all a favor and kick michael's ass? Oh, and maybe key taco's car too.

Thanks

9th cousins, twice removed (1)

JavaRob (28971) | more than 9 years ago | (#10633077)

I ran into this in Kerry's wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] initially.

The source: FamilyForest [familyforest.com]

I wouldn't make too much of the cousin relationship (honestly, if you're looking into this kind of thing, it's a lot more significant that they both went to Yale and were in Skull & Bones!), but the relationships are funny sometimes.

For example, Bush is actually more closely related to Gary Trudeau than he is to Kerry. (Trudeau is the author of Doonesbury [doonesbury.com] ... a political newspaper comic strip that's -- well -- not very Bush-friendly).

Bush is also a 9th cousin to John Edwards (though Kerry and Edwards are not related).

Bush is a 6th cousin (6 times removed) to Joseph Smith, Jr., who is a *very* interesting guy. He founded the Mormon faith in the 1820s after being visited by the angel "Moroni" and told about golden plates that had been hidden in a hill in upstate NY, by a race decended from the Jews who lived there 600-400 BC. He translated the text on the plates and returned them to the angel (so the plates are not available to be examined today). He and his followers moved west from NY gradually, in response to repeated episodes of mob violence until (led at this point by Brigham Young after Smith was killed) they eventually settled in Utah, which was then Mexican territory.

If even Bush cousins are pro-Kerry (-1, Flamebait)

Pan T. Hose (707794) | more than 9 years ago | (#10631758)

the election outcome should already be obvious to anyone.

Re:If even Bush cousins are pro-Kerry (0, Flamebait)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10631830)

Bush has Bob NASCAR and Jane Minivan, though.

The problem is that there are people who aren't aware of certain.. aspects of the Bush group. Such as their pure black evil hearts.

Re:If even Bush cousins are pro-Kerry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10631954)

The problem is that there are people who aren't aware of certain.. aspects of the Bush group. Such as their pure black evil hearts.

That's ironic that you say "pure black evil hearts" about people who are rasicists.

Re:If even Bush cousins are pro-Kerry (1)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 9 years ago | (#10633648)

I doubt Bush is evil in the conventional, mwah-hah-hah supervillain with a white cat kind of a way. He really seems to believe in what he's doing. A term often used by insiders to describe Bush and his core group is "Utopian"- they really buy the fairy-tale stuff about democracy flowering across the Middle East.

However, good intentions... well, as they say, the road to hell is paved with them. Bush's intention for Iraq to become a Western democracy is admirable, but his incompetence in dealing with the occupation has led to a war that both America and Iraq are losing, and his good intentions are cold comfort to the thousands of Iraqis and Americans killed and maimed by that war.

Still, I wouldn't rule out selfish motives. People often do things for a combination of reasons. The thinking might have been "Hey, we free the Iraqi people from opression. PLUS, Halliburton and other companies can make billions rebuilding the place- which is gravy."

Re:If even Bush cousins are pro-Kerry (1)

Poppler (822173) | more than 9 years ago | (#10634425)

Bush's foreign policy accepts two principals as fact:

1. Democracy, like Communism, will spread via domino effect. (Remember, his administration is made up of people who still believe it was right to intervene in Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Grenada because we had to stop the forward march of socialism.)
2. The ends justify the means.

The first part, which you addressed, can be interpreted as good intentions. I personaly don't buy their premise, but that's up for debate.
However the second part is a sign of moral bankruptcy.

Re:If even Bush cousins are pro-Kerry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10632165)

These are distant cousins of George W. Bush, and I doubt that they've even met their presidential relative. If Bush's daughters, brothers, sisters, or parents vouched for Kerry, then you'd have a story.

But I guess the opportunity to run any anti-Bush story on Slashdot is too great.

what's next? (4, Funny)

rixdaffy (138224) | more than 9 years ago | (#10631810)


www.monkeysforkerry.org ?

sorry, couldn't resist... :)

The monkey vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10632252)

No, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10632285)

www.communistsforkerry.com [communistsforkerry.com]

Re:what's next? (1)

Discoflamingo13 (90009) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632672)

The first law of internet domain generation claims that in less than a week this will probably be a registered site - I mean, how many hours did this site [youforgotpoland.com] take?

Of course, the second law of internet domain generation claims that it has a 95% chance of being pr0n.

Re:what's next? (1)

burns210 (572621) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632685)

hey, atleast you didn't say Canadians For Kerry .com [canadiansforkerry.net] . Oh, wait a minute...

how about (1)

Choroisothiazolinone (779859) | more than 9 years ago | (#10631856)

www.whogivesamonkeys.org

Another Useless (but funny) Site is... (2, Funny)

dan_sdot (721837) | more than 9 years ago | (#10631865)

...this one [footballfansfortruth.us] .
It's nominally anti-Kerry, but if this site really convinces you to vote for Bush, then your voting priveledges should be revoked. It's just a funny site.

Was the domain name... (0, Flamebait)

AlexeiMachine (604654) | more than 9 years ago | (#10631877)

...inbredzforkerry.com taken?

Wow (1, Flamebait)

CodeWanker (534624) | more than 9 years ago | (#10631888)

I've got a bunch of cousins who do stupid things, too.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10632169)

I've got a bunch of cousins who do stupid things, too.

What's that? They have opinions that don't match your narrow world-view?

Don't contribute anything worthwhile, it's just a /. forum, anyway.

No Political Bias on /. (5, Funny)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | more than 9 years ago | (#10631910)

Slashdot is doing a great job covering both sides of this election: both Pro-Kerry and Anti-Bush.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10632002)

Flamebait?! Strange, I would have modded you insightful.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (2, Insightful)

macinrack (314691) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632032)

It certainly does seem like that. However, the crowd that runs this site, as well as the majority of readers, are a pretty bright bunch that generally takes time to think, and it's hardly surprising that the tendency is anti-Bush. I would disagree with the pro-Kerry statement, though. A lot of kerry supporters (myself included) are not so much FOR Kerry as we are AGAINST Bush. It's all about removing the unprecedented incompetence, not about electing a blue blood from Massachusetts.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (2, Insightful)

fnord123 (748158) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632080)

A significant number of commentators are pretty immature, in that they assume bright people must be anti-Bush. Part of maturity is realizing those who disagree with you are not necessarily stupid.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632093)

The problem with that theory is that it fails to be supported by the proper objective data.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (3, Interesting)

benhocking (724439) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632481)

Granted, there are a lot of bright people who are pro-Bush. I'm sure the assumption comes from people's first-hand experience that most bright people they know are pro-Kerry. I've spent significant time in both academia and in the commercial world, and my experience is that most (but not all) bright people in academia are anti-Bush (and some are even pro-Kerry), and most (but not all) people in the commercial world (including, but not limited to the bright people) are pro-Bush. Of course, I realize that these generalizations are based on my own experiences, so YMMV.

Personally, I always enjoy finding a bright person who disagrees with me so I can understand an intelligent alternative view point. Frequently the differences center around your priorities and moral beliefs. E.g., if you're pro-life and pro-environment think that overtuning Roe v. Wade is more important than anything else, Bush is a logical choice. If however, you are think that the environment is more important than anything else, anti-Bush is a logical choice. (Seriously, it's hard to imagine anyone doing more harm to the environment than he has.) There are other reasons to support either belief, and I have made obviously over-simplified statements just to illustrate that differing priorities can lead to differing logical choices, even if both people have the same moral stances and agree on the facts. (Big "if" of course.)

Re:No Political Bias on /. (2)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632660)

I've been looking for an intelligent pro-Bush person to try to convince me that voting for Kerry is anything but the logical choice.

So far, there has been little attempt and no success. Please, point these people to me. My east-coast post-college psuedo-intellectual social group only has a few weak Bush supporters who prefer not to argue about it.

(The pro-life argument is the closest thing I've seen to a competent pro-Bush argument, but I'm not pro-life and it's not my biggest issue.)

Re:No Political Bias on /. (2, Interesting)

Bombcar (16057) | more than 9 years ago | (#10633441)

I in no way claim to be intelligent, but one reason I have for supporting Bush (ignoring guns & abortion, which are big issues for me) is that he recognizes that the War on Terror is not like the War on Drugs.

Bush has also answered questions many times, while Kerry has refused [washingtonpost.com] to answer questions from a reporter that many consider to be left-leaning!

Bush has also had the balls to say that Social Security is in danger, and will need to be revamped. Kerry's response was, "It'll work long enough." I was pleasantly suprised to find that I actually agreed with Bush's domestic policy.

Perhaps the main reason is that Bush's reelection is going to be 4 more years of the same, which (for me and my friends) has not been too bad. But Kerry's election would be (potentially) 8 years of who knows what. I have no real hope that either party will work to fix the DMCA, as both parties supported it whole-heartedly, but perhaps we can at least keep Congress involved with howling about Iraq and not passing any more extensions.

The PATRIOT act [senate.gov] is troubling, but Kerry just says he wants to "review" it. If Kerry says that he passed it without reading it, then he is admitting that he didn't do his job as a Senator. That is frightening. At least Bush seems to know (and do) what his job entails.

And furthermore, we need a decisive electoral victory for Bush, to show Iraq and Afghanistan that we really are going to support them, not dump them like a hot potato the moment it becomes convenient. That was the biggest mistakes we've made as a country recently - pulling up short of Baghdad in 1991, which resulted in many Iraqis who thought we were going to help them overthrow Saddam dying, and ignoring Afghanistan after the Soviet Union fell, which resulted in the Taliban taking control.

Also, I do not believe that an administration that supports the Clinton view of the Second Amendment is good for the long-term freedom in America.

Those are some of my reasons.

Things I disagree with Bush on:

1. Outsourcing. It needs control, but I don't care if an Indian has my job if I'm been blown up by a terrorist, so priorities.
2. Education. I think that education should either be controlled by local politics (cities & counties) or not by the government at all.

In fact, I am more in agreement with the Constitutional Party [constitutionparty.com] than with the Republicans in many ways, but I feel that especially after the 2000 election, we need to have a decisive victory. Otherwise every election from now on will be decided in courts by lawyers. This is unacceptable.

Here is a link [littlegreenfootballs.com] to a blog that explains some of the reasons behind my thinking.

Other, more personal reasons I don't like Kerry:

1. He attacks Bush about this "Draft," yet the draft bills were introduced by Democrats [snopes.com] , defeated 402 to 2, and John Kerry himself [archive.org] supported "National Service" as very recently. This is not just politics, but downright shameful. Also, given that many military personell have said they won't reenlist if Kerry wins, the only way he can keep his 40,000 more troops promise would be to instate a draft. Note that the link is to the archive.org's copy of the John Kerry website; this draft stuff has been modified [johnkerry.com] in his current platform. Even Rumsfeld [defenselink.mil] doesn't want a draft.

2. Why the hell does he try to pretend to be a normal guy? It is just painful to watch [footballfansfortruth.us] . At least when Bush falls off a Segway once he doesn't keep doing it.

3. I'm sick of hearing about "a plan." Why doesn't someone point out what the plan is?

4. I like Texas more than California or New York, but am stuck in California. :(

P.S. I actually support a system similar to Switzerland [wikipedia.org] , with every male over the age of 20 serving in the armed militia with requirements to keep (real) assault weapons in the home. But I don't like politicians accusing the other side of supporting what they support themselves! Sheesh.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

Wraithlyn (133796) | more than 9 years ago | (#10634929)

"I am more in agreement with the Constitutional Party than with the Republicans in many ways, but I feel that especially after the 2000 election, we need to have a decisive victory."

Then why not vote Constitutional, man? Third parties have to start somewhere. The Republicrat duopoly wants you to think they're the only two viable choices. Just look rationally at the issues, and support who you agree with most. That's how it's supposed to work. Hell, you're not even in a swing-state... it's not like your vote will cost Bush California.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

Robert The Coward (21406) | more than 9 years ago | (#10633497)

Not in my world. Most of the people I deal with that are pro-Kerry are idiots. Some are so dumb I thing could qualify for SSI from being so dumb. Granted there are idots on both sides. I think the breakdown is rich and poor = demcrates. Middle class = bush. Look at the states and prove me wrong.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (2, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632688)

A significant number of commentators are pretty immature, in that they assume bright people must be anti-Bush.

But the grandparent poster didn't say that. What he said (emphasis mine) was:

[T]he crowd that runs this site, as well as the majority of readers, are a pretty bright bunch that generally takes time to think, and it's hardly surprising that the tendency is anti-Bush.

Tendency != necessity. Are there bright Bush supporters? Sure; I even know a few. But the observation that more intelligent people tend to be anti-Bush is not invalidated by these exceptions.

Not all ideas are created equal. Some ideas are better, and appeal more to intelligent people, than others. The reflexive hip cynicism we're taught to apply to political arguments -- all politicians lie, they're no differ from each other, all we get to do is vote for the lesser of two evils, blah blah blah -- tends to obscure the fact that certain policies, and those certain politicians who espouse these policies, are better than others. Intelligent people recognize this, on the whole if not in every individual case.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (2, Interesting)

jilles (20976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632759)

I agree It's dangerous to put things black and white. However, I do notice that most arguments for Bush in threads like these attack the pro Kerry attitude instead of giving us sound arguments about why we're supposedly wrong about Bush & Kerry.

Bush has had to deal with some specific and very serious accusations. He's accused of being a poor leader, a liar, a proxy for some dark neocon movement, of having a low iq and many other traits we're not looking for in the next president of the USA. Before Bush I don't think it would have been very polite or appropriate to attack someone like that. However, given his lack of a good response to any of these accusations (he has chosen the way of misrepresenting rather than addressing issues) I don't think that it is very surprising that people who bother to inform themselves about stuff that matters are mostly pro Kerry.

Maybe a slashdot poll on this matter would be nice. I have a feeling that Bush would loose badly (even if only american slashdotters would vote) but please prove me wrong.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

Vile Slime (638816) | more than 9 years ago | (#10633043)

> Bush ... accused of being

- a poor leader : That is certainly a matter of perspective. There are a lot of definitions of what makes a good leader. Unfortunately there is no mathematical equation that can be used to lock it in as to whether Bush is or isn't a good leader. Same problem for Kerry.

- a liar : They all are, politicians that is, if you don't realize this fact then you're not so bright.

- a proxy for some dark neocon movement : Oh please!

- having a low iq : They don't give away Harvard MBA's in boxes of Cracker Jacks if you haven't noticed. BTW, IQ should be in uppercase, does that reflect on your IQ, no it doesn't, it just says you were in a hurry (most likely) but others might use it against you, especially if you were running for president...

> given his lack of a good response to any of these accusations

Excuse me, why should Bush approach any of the accusations? They sound like accusations from you personally. He doesn't owe you anything. Get over it.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

kroymen (242910) | more than 9 years ago | (#10633484)

- a poor leader : That is certainly a matter of perspective. There are a lot of definitions of what makes a good leader. Unfortunately there is no mathematical equation that can be used to lock it in as to whether Bush is or isn't a good leader.

It's actually pretty simple. Bush's job approval rating has only been good when he's been able to rely on the mindless American rally-around-the-flag effect. That means he's a bad leader.



- a liar : They all are, politicians that is, if you don't realize this fact then you're not so bright.

That's intellectually self-indulgent crap. Everyone's a liar, but that doesn't mean there aren't many different degrees of liars. There is a world of difference between John Kerry's degree of veracity and George Bush's degree of veracity.



- a proxy for some dark neocon movement : Oh please!

Oh please? Neocons are a dark movement! Neofascism by any other name would smell as rank.

- having a low iq : They don't give away Harvard MBA's in boxes of Cracker Jacks if you haven't noticed. BTW, IQ should be in uppercase, does that reflect on your IQ, no it doesn't, it just says you were in a hurry (most likely) but others might use it against you, especially if you were running for president...

2 points:

  • money buys many things...including Harvard MBA's
  • just because he may have once been intelligent does not mean that he is still intelligent...

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

Vile Slime (638816) | more than 9 years ago | (#10634257)

> It's actually pretty simple. Bush's job approval rating has only been good when he's been able to rely on the mindless American rally-around-the-flag effect. That means he's a bad leader.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but one shouldn't rely upon only one metric to accurately gauge the effectiveness of a person's performance in such a multi-faceted role.

> Everyone's a liar, but that doesn't mean there aren't many different degrees of liars. There is a world of difference between John Kerry's degree of veracity and George Bush's degree of veracity.

Personally I don't see it as an issue of veracity. I see it as an issue of context.

John Kerry's usage of someone else's war medals to throw away says it all for me. Anyone who would first attempt to use America's highest honors, medals given for patriotic acts, for his own perverted benefit is using a lie in a context that is unacceptable to me. Then, secondly, to have the gall to have not even used his own medals makes it just doubly worse. I am offended that anyone would take something given in the purist form of appreciation and toss it on the ground.

> Oh please? Neocons are a dark movement! Neofascism by any other name would smell as rank.

Once again, nuff said: Oh please!

> money buys many things...including Harvard MBA's

That's a cop-out and I could just as easily say, "Where did John Kerry buy his at?"

> just because he may have once been intelligent does not mean that he is still intelligent...

One's mannerisms and speech patterns have no bearing upon ones intelligence. Anyway, who said intelligence is a criteria for president. It's really got to do with popularity. Let the most popular guy win...

You wanna-be intellectuals better understand that the world doesn't whirl around your big head.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (2, Interesting)

fnord123 (748158) | more than 9 years ago | (#10633348)

The reason many of the arguments in these threads attack the article selection is because that is the issue - the article selection being quite biased.

That being said, there are plenty of thoughtful, well reasoned arguments for Bush out there, if people take the time to look for them. Try Hugh Hewitt [hughhewitt.com] for example. I've actually been looking for thoughtful, well reasoned bloggers for Kerry and had little success. Many of them are pure propaganda (e.g. Michael Moore) or are mostly just sarcasm and snide comments with little real substance (e.g. Joshua Marshall).

As to Bush being a liar, a proxy, or a poor leader, you would need to be more specific to get a good counter argument. In regards to the accusation of Bush being a low IQ, there is evidence that Kerry's is lower [vdare.com] .

A /. poll would only prove that bored computer people have a certain opinion. Generalizing from that to the "tendency" of the general population's intelligence is silly. Maybe /. is mostly slackers and all the really hardworking, intelligent computer people don't bother reading/posting/moderating here, in which case the Kerry support is simply a symptom that lazy computer people support Kerry. Of course, this theory I just made up is entirely lacking in factual basis - just as the theory that bright people choose kerry is lacking in any solid factual basis.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

jilles (20976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10634335)

There's a lot maybes in your reply and some vague references. Granted, I didn't provide any references either but given the huge amount material out there, it is actually quite easy to prove that george bush has lied about a great deal of topics relevant to this election: I can afford to be lazy in this respect and you can't because Bush is on the defensive here.

The point is, Bush supporters don't care that Bush lies. Worse they want to believe the lies (because if the lies are true they are not stupid for believing them). I think Bush was the first president to be compared to a monkey so convincingly (during the 2000 campaign already). Also Russia, Germany, France and the UK (and many other US allies) have all been embarrased by high ranking politicians making remarks about George Bush competence as a president (recently in the UK for instance). Aside from Reagan who was ridiculed abroad on a much smaller scale I don't think any foreign leader has ever had to endure such an embarrassing, widespread doubt about his competence.

Your last paragraph is characteristic of the Bush campaign: in denial of obvious things, a few vague references (one of them is so obvously engineered to look convincing that you'd have to be a fool to believe anything on that page) and no facts whatsoever. Trying to portray slahdotters as potentially less educated/smart than the average US population is bordering on being insulting. But maybe you are just speculating.

It's no secret that Bush portrays Kerry as overly intellectual & liberal: he's said so explicitly. So what's your point anyway? Is the assumption that a slashdot audience, which may safely be assumed to consist mostly of well educated males between 20 and 40, is pro Kerry so far fetched? I don't think so. There's a lot of evidence in the form of polls, hordes of scientists (including some nobel prize winners) supporting Kerry, demographics on where the republican party supporters come from, etc. So IMHO that provides some factual basis for the theory that Kerry is likely to appeal to well educated, non Fox watching, slashdot reading citizens.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

fnord123 (748158) | more than 9 years ago | (#10634991)

I'd started writing up a long post, but in the the end decided it isn't worth it. My response at least contained two specific links for where one could get more information. Yours essentially contained assertions only, and yet you end with criticism that mine is the one in denial, factless, etc. I think our basic thought process as to what are facts, what is information, and what is opinion is so different that we probably can't feasibly communicate.

...still looking for a good, thoughtful pro-Kerry blog that isn't just sarcasm and handwaving.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10633279)

Not in this case and you've just proven that, indeed, you are as dumb as a brick.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10635090)

"Although it may not be true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives."

--John Stuart Mill

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632232)

You are among a group of people who get it, just not in the right way.

A vote AGAINST someone isn't the same as a vote FOR someone.

Why not use your vote to vote for the guy who YOU agree with more?

Why do people refuse to vote for a guy who, in their opinion, couldn't win.. but his views are the closest to the ones they agree with?

I got into a discussion with a friend of mine who said that my vote was worthless and being thrown away because I'm voting for neither of the two big guys.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632381)

Why not use your vote to vote for the guy who YOU agree with more?
Why do people refuse to vote for a guy who, in their opinion, couldn't win.. but his views are the closest to the ones they agree with?


Because in that circumstance, if I vote for the guy I agree with most, the guy I agree with least will be more likely to win?

How hard is that to figure out? You have to go with the realistic alternatives.

Luckily(?), this time around I like who I'm voting for better than I like any third party candidate.

A vote AGAINST someone isn't the same as a vote FO (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632420)

I'm unhappy with the direction the USA is progressing. I'm not sure I'd be happy with Kerry's plans, either.

But in reality, I'm voting to STOP the current direction, fully realizing that with a staunchly Republican House Kerry will have a difficult time getting ANYTHING done. The worst problems on BOTH sides of the fence will not come to pass, in this circumstance. For anything that REALLY needs to be done, pressure typically goes directly on the President, so that's visible and gets reacted to. If Kerry is trying to do what NEEDS to be done, the nation knows it, and the House is blocking him, then the 2006 elections will reflect that, just like 1994 did.

As for your third-party vote being worthless, it depends on if you more highly value stopping the current direction, or going in your candidate's direction. Keep in mind that with the House composed as it is, your candidate's direction problably doesn't matter, even if he were elected.

Re:A vote AGAINST someone isn't the same as a vote (1)

Poppler (822173) | more than 9 years ago | (#10633403)

There is one thing Kerry can (and almost certainly will) do that is important - he'll get some of the neocons a little further from power. I consider those people [wikipedia.org] to be dangerous.

Though I take anything written by an anonymous author claiming to have inside information with a grain of salt, this article [1accesshost.com] is a pretty interesting take on what may happen in a second Bush administration.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632681)

Why do people refuse to vote for a guy who, in their opinion, couldn't win.. but his views are the closest to the ones they agree with?

Probably because there's no points for second place in American democracy. Al Gore beat Bush in the popular vote, and almost beat him in electoral votes, but the Democratic party has had little influence on the course of the nation the past four years. Think about it: ten million more Nader votes wouldn't have made as much difference as a few hundred more votes for Gore in Florida.

HOWEVER, there is an interesting story on Slate.com about trying to promote the agenda of progressive third parties without tipping things to Bush (http://www.slate.com/id/2108641/ [slate.com] ). The concept is called "vote pairing". The idea is that you get supporters of independents in swing states (Florida, Wisconsin) to connect online with Kerry voters in decided states (California, Utah, Texas) and they agree to swap votes: the independent voter will vote for Kerry in the swing state, and the Kerry voter will vote for the progressive(Nader/Cobb/Badnarik) in the secure state. The idea is that by working together, voters can vote against Bush where it matters and for a progressive where it won't throw things to Bush. The web the VotePair site is http://www.votepair.org/ [votepair.org] . Given how close the race was in 2000, it is conceivable that this could actually make a difference. So far, they have gotten a lot of interest from Kerry voters who would like to see their vote count in a swing state, but they don't have enough third party voters participating.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

rossifer (581396) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632734)

I'll disagree with them and say that, if you're in a battleground state, your vote for a third party candidate is half as useful as a vote for the lesser of two evils.

True, you're not voting for either of two evils, so neither of them can count your vote as sanctioning their decisions (should they win), but by voting for the lesser of two evils, not only do you deny your vote to the more evil, but you add it to his opposition's totals.

Thereby increasing the chances still more that the lesser of two evils will be elected into office. So your vote for a third party candidate is only half as useful as it might be in defeating Bush. But you get to sleep better at night knowing that you didn't voice your support for either of the morally bankrupt individuals in the lead for President of the US.

Of course, if you're in a state that's already guaranteed to either Kerry or Bush (as I am in California), your vote is much more useful as a vote for a third party (and clearly expressing your discontent with either of the two choices presented to you) than anything else.

Regards,
Ross

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

macinrack (314691) | more than 9 years ago | (#10633272)

Seems I opened up a can of worms here.

Believe me, I am not the most pro-Kerry left-winger out there, and I would much rather see Nader instead of Kerry. However, I am a realist, and I know as well as the rest of the world knows, that one of these two men will be president. So the question becomes, do I want a 1 on a scale of 10, or do I want a 5 on the scale of 10? I can't have a 10, so I am forced to pick the lesser of the two evils.

In 2000, I DID vote for Nader, because I lived in Massachusetts at the time, and it was a given that Massachusetts was going to Gore. I would likely do the same again if I still lived there. However, I live in New Hampshire now, a swing state, and it's clear that my vote for Nader would be a vote for Bush, and given the stakes, I simply cannot do that.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10633558)

You seem to be confused.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. A vote for Bush is a vote for Bush.

What's so hard to understand about that?

If your have to choose between K, B, and N.. and you put your vote in pile N, pile B does not get bigger.

Vote for the guy you want to win, not the "lesser of two evils".. because with each "lesser of two evils" the evil is getting worse and worse.

Why accept ANY evil at all?

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

Bombcar (16057) | more than 9 years ago | (#10633527)


A vote AGAINST someone isn't the same as a vote FOR someone.


Actually, if you work it out, a vote for Candidate A instead of B is the same as half a vote for Candidate C. It doesn't give a vote to C, but also doesn't give a vote to A. Therefore, there is a half vote difference.

This assumes B won't win.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (0, Flamebait)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632269)

What site are you talking about? You sure as hell are not talking about the one you are reading this message on.

Kerry will not change anything. He currently has the power to try to change things, yet he refuses to use it.

What does that tell you?

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

citabjockey (624849) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632728)

Even folks who are pro Bush seem to want to distance themselves from him. I have a *misguided* friend that intends to vote for Bush in CA but says that because he is in CA and his vote will be overridden by the majority of voters in CA that "he can't be blamed" if Bush wins. Sounds like a great way to wash yourself of responsibility of re-electing the worst president this country has ever had!

"Bush... the worst president..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10632873)

"Bush... the worst president this country has ever had!"

Compared to reality, that statement is almost praise for Bush.

Extraordinarily corrupt is closer to the truth.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10632034)

Are you implying that /. is biased? No way. I don't believe it.
/sarcasm

This is not flamebait! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10632038)

He's right. Slashdot's politics section is a veritable soapbox for Kerry supporters, which isn't surprising, since most of the editors here are liberal. Sure, they point out that pudge is a Republican, but who cares? Alan Colmes is a liberal, but most people think Fox News reeks of conservative bias anyway.

This place is becoming like the lite version of Democratic Underground. How about some criticism of Kerry and the left? They're not perfect either.

Re:This is not flamebait! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632147)

I've got plenty of criticism for them- problem is most of the things I can think to criticize them on (like their ties to corporate money, their lack of respect for individual rights, their downright bigotry on pregnancy and birth, and large government intruding into our lives), Bush is actually worse on. Which is why if I find time to vote today, My vote will go to [electoral-vote.com] Kerry- but I'm not promising that I'll find time to vote today, and it could just as easily flip-flop to either Bush or Kerry winning Oregon by more than 10%- in which case Peroutka will get my vote.

I'm willing to bet a lot of the "left leaning liberals" on slashdot are similar- and will be voting third party for Badnarik or Peroutka if their state isn't a "swing state".

Re:This is not flamebait! (2, Informative)

dan_sdot (721837) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632259)

A better site for polling breakdowns is this one [realclearpolitics.com] .
It averages out all the polls to get a global view of what is going on. It also has and electoral map [realclearpolitics.com] and electoral count [realclearpolitics.com] breakdown, as well as polls for each state.
They actually show you the data that they are basing their numbers on.

RealClear Politics (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632547)

Interesting charts. Read all the way to the bottom of the page, and it's clear that by *every* source, more people think the nation is on the wrong path than think it's on the right path. In fact, in only one poll is it less than a 54% majority that think we're on the wrong path.

Yet only a few polls show Kerry winning, and most show Bush winning decisively.

This is unsettling, largely because of how WRONG our current path is, IMHO, and that as a nation we're apparently choosing to keep going that way, anyway.

Re:This is not flamebait! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10635307)

In the case of Oregon, it doesn't seem to make any difference whatsoever- both sites show Oregon going to Kerry, but with less than a 10% lead (leaning Kerry, not actually solid Kerry).

Re:This is not flamebait! (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632291)

Kerry, as his lack of action in the Senate, will not change any of the things that matter to you.

He, like Bush, says one things and does another.

Re:This is not flamebait! (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10634983)

The difference being that he's an intelligent hypocrite rather than an idiot puppet. Not much difference, I'll admit- but different in three very important areas:

1. Admitting mistakes.
2. Changing plans to fix mistakes.
3. Giving a rat's ass what other people think.

That's why the complaints that Kerry is a flip-flopper don't matter as much to me- I'm COUNTING on him being a flip flopper when it counts.

The words "liberal" & "conservative" are epith (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10633024)


Anyone who uses the words "liberal" and "conservative" shows that he or she is not thinking deeply. Those words are used in so many ways that they have lost their meaning, except as epithets.

Programmers and those who administer complicated computer systems must be logical. If they aren't, they cannot write a working program or troubleshoot problems. If logical people read enough books and gather enough facts, they must come to the conclusion that Bush should not be re-elected.

I could give hundreds of pages of support for this view. For 100 facts, see this well-documented article from The Nation magazine:

100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration [thenation.com]

Many Republicans and some Democrats maintain power by selling the government to the rich and powerful: Government data compares Democrat and Republican economics. [futurepower.org]

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632146)

In other news, our regular news sources are happy to put on a person who tells the truth, and another one who tells nothing but lies, and call it balanced coverage.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (0, Flamebait)

christopherfinke (608750) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632185)

Slightly off-topic: I'm pretty sure I was the first one to make this joke on Slashdot (see the post [slashdot.org] ), but I knew that I had finally made a difference in the world when I saw myself quoted in a Slashdotter's sig. Sad, I know...

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

mabu (178417) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632304)

Whine. Whine. Whine.

It's not Slashdot's job to tell people what they should think - they're merely just putting information and stories online. Considering the old adage "blood is thicker than water", it's probably newsworthy that relatives of GW are actively campaigning against him. If you don't think so, it's probably you that are the most biased.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (2, Interesting)

superyooser (100462) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632436)

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

Big Sean O (317186) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632646)

Using Drudge to uncover bias is kind of like putting Fox in charge of the hen house.

Pun intended.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

superyooser (100462) | more than 9 years ago | (#10633627)

Read the article. The source is NBC News. Drudge is just the messenger.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 9 years ago | (#10635183)

Read the article. The source is NBC News. Drudge is just the messenger.

Drudge is the only source, now that NBC has pulled the plug on their story.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (3, Informative)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632713)

Sorry, this has been debunked. [talkingpointsmemo.com] According to contemporary reports [globalsecurity.org] the explosives were still there when we arrived, no matter what Drudge would like to have you think during the next few days.

Of course there's a bias! (1)

abb3w (696381) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632686)


What makes you think that geeks wouldn't have a firm opinion [catb.org] about the religious zealot [catb.org] currently running the White House [catb.org] ? True, not all Slashdotters are male SF Fan, heterosexual-in-theory and monosexual-in-practice, liberal-to-libertarian hacker [wikipedia.org] whackos. However, there's (apparently) a strong correlation to each of these characteristics individually. Virtual communities, like most other forms of community, form around COMMONalities. Those who don't like the neighborhood, move on. (This may or may not be a good thing, but it is easily observed in internet groups.)

So, most Slashdotters lean one way, while most Born-Again-Christians lean another. Beeg Fat Hairy Deel. If you don't like it, submit [slashdot.org] more Pro-Bush coverage stories, or more Anti-Kerry coverage stories. If they have a defensible point, they might get through.

Re:No Political Bias on /. (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632722)

If the facts favor one candidate over the other, then reporting those facts is not bias.

Yeesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10632054)

With a week left in the campaign, you'd think CNN would have something less trivial to highlight. Of course, you'd think Slashdot might, also.

Re:Yeesh (-1, Troll)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632182)

Like the missing WMD? The ONE WMD we knew for sure that Saddam had (sort of- the International Atomic Energy Association had taken actual possesion of it, locked it up, and told our troops where to find it- by the time they got around to actually attempting to secure it it had been looted), the 300 million + pounds of conventional weapons in a single huge stockpile?

poor moderation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10633845)

How is this a troll? It's a legitimate point.

What's next bastard pretenders to the throne? (1)

Jaldhar (24002) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632089)

I'm rather bemused by how dynastic politics is in a country that was based on rebellion against monarchy. It seems in many minds being named Bush or Kennedy automatically makes you representative of some particular ideology. If I ran for President today my own wife probably wouldn't vote for me let alone distant cousins. What does that prove about anything?

And another thing, why do so many Americans refer to "the queen" when they mean "the queen of England?" You know you don't have a queen because you kicked out her loony German ancestor all those years ago right?

Re:What's next bastard pretenders to the throne? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10632192)

Ironically enough you probably mean "the Queen of the United Kingdom" rather than the "Queen of England".

This is my letter to the Bush relatives: (2, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632197)


This is my letter to the Bush relatives:
_______

Bush Relatives,

The three movies and 35 recently published books reviewed in the article linked below describe U.S. government corruption:

Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org]

There were several books published before and during the Clinton administration about former U.S. President Bill Clinton. However, the situation with Clinton and previous presidents was not even remotely comparable. There are many more books discussing the Bush administration, and the negative issues are far, far more serious.

Also see this well-documented article from The Nation magazine:

100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration [thenation.com]

Michael Jennings
Futurepower Publishing

P.S.: I learned about your site from a front-page story on Slashdot.org.

_______

In past elections, there has been a reason to vote for the other side. I didn't choose Bob Dole, but if he had been elected, the nation would have been okay, because Bob Dole is a decent man.

This election is different. It is not a matter of preference. The Bush Administration is extremely corrupt. Those who vote for Bush are not well-informed.

An old DEC manual for technical writers said that only 2% of Americans read non-fiction books not connected with work. That seems correct to me. I have found that even Slashdot readers, who are more intelligent than most people, have little knowledge of the activities of their government. Instead, some of them have picked up and believe Bush campaign lies like "Bush is Christian" and "Bush will protect us in the war against terrorism".

Bush supporter moderation abuse (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632731)


Moderators are using their moderation points to make political statements. My parent comment above is not a "Troll". You may disagree, but I am not making trouble. My statements are backed up by 3 movies, 35 books, and a very well-documented article.

--
Bush borrows [brillig.com] money to kill Iraqis [iraqbodycount.net] . 140 billion borrowed [costofwar.com] . With interest, you pay 200 billion. When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?

Re:Bush supporter moderation abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10632931)

whatever dude. it's offtopic, and you know it.

you trot out the same link, and the same bullshit in every post you make.

Have you been following the situation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10633553)

I'm guessing you have not read one book about the U.S. government.

Re:Bush supporter moderation abuse (1)

Vile Slime (638816) | more than 9 years ago | (#10635139)

So you're allowed to make political statements and others aren't?

What hypocrisy!

so what? (4, Insightful)

dh003i (203189) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632214)

The fact that these people are distant relatives of Bush is completely irrelevant. They have added nothing to the discussion that hasn't already been said in a more intelligent fashion elsewhere. All I see is a poorly designed website that's like a run-on sentence with no organization.

PS: Vote Badnarik (Libertarian).

Re:so what? (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632857)

But on the plus side, it seems to be standing up to a Slashdotting pretty well, so at least they got quality hosting before putting up that eyesore.

Re:so what? (1)

stinkyfingers (588428) | more than 9 years ago | (#10634526)

All I see is a poorly designed website that's like a run-on sentence with no organization.

For my money, that just proves these people are related to Bush.

Big deal (3, Informative)

jbarr (2233) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632362)

So he has relatives who don't agree with him. So what? Don't we all? The problem with these types of stories is that they make an issue out of a non-issue. Imagine if a story was run that stated that EVERY relative backed Bush: there would then be whining of collusion and conspiracy.

Nothing to see here. Move along...

Way to go (1)

sn0wman3030 (618319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632375)

but maybe they should have put it up with a little more time remaining (one week left).

Come see my site... (1)

HexaByte (817350) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632799)

I'm going to start a web site where I proclaim that, since my Uncle's cousin's brother-in-law's 2 wife once sold a dog to Kerry's ex-wife, and my uncle's a Bushite, we all should be.

It would have about the same relevance to this election.

Kerry and Bush are related! (1)

spitzak (4019) | more than 9 years ago | (#10632980)

Unfortunatly I threw it away but I got a chain email about some site showing that Bush and Kerry are releated by a few generations. That seems quite likely, so this really isn't too suprising. Bush could start his *own* web site and call it "Kerry relatives against Kerry".

Oh for God's sakes (1)

crmartin (98227) | more than 9 years ago | (#10633683)

Folks, JOHN KERRY is Bush's cousin. What meaning, if any, do you imagine this has?

The real question here... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10634992)

is whether these Bush relatives benefited from Bush's great-grandfather the Nazi Traitor [congress.org] . All that Nazi money helped make the Bushes that much richer.

You can see quite a bit of the Nazi showing through in Bush, what with the PATRIOT act, disappearing "enemy combatants" without any legal standing whatsoever, ignoring the international treaties of the Geneva Convention, invading another country without just cause, calling anyone who questions the administration a traitor... oooh, I'm gettin' sick.

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>