×

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!

Economist Endorses Kerry, Reluctantly

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the throw-caution-to-the-wind dept.

Politics 143

An anonymous reader writes "The Economist has picked John Kerry as its preferred presidential candidate, over George W. Bush. Though a British publication, the magazine points out that almost half of its readers are based in the U.S. The Economist leans right on trade issues and supported going to war in Iraq, but has been critical on Bush's policies on tax cuts and the deficit."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

143 comments

WTF? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10662429)

What's with the Windows Server 2003 add under the article on /.?!

Blasphemers!!

Endorsements? (2, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662470)


I've heard a lot of newspaper endorsements both ways this time around. Does anyone know how much effect endorsements actually have on vote counts?

Not much... (1)

parvenu74 (310712) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662503)

I am sure that CowboyNeal endorsing Michael Badnarik and Libertarians at large would have more of an impact than most newspaper endorsements. :-)

Re:Not much... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10663337)

I voted the C. Neal / N. Portman write-in ticket this morning in early voting. (Seriously -- I think these two presidential candidates are essentially the same; I only voted at all to throw out our local County Commissioners who are trying to turn the road by my house into a toll road and raise my property taxes.)

d00d! (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663377)


> I voted the C. Neal / N. Portman write-in ticket this morning in early voting. (Seriously -- I think these two presidential candidates are essentially the same

If you can't tell the difference between Cowboy Neal and Natalie Portman...

Re:Not much... (5, Insightful)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664253)

The Economist is a magazine which carries a lot of weight in certain circles. It is the indispensible, must-read weekly magazine of international politics and business. If you had one subscription while working at the State Department or the Federal Reserve, it would probably be this one. Though based in London, their US readership is three times their British readership and 45% of their world readership.While it has a great sense of humor (when Clinton referred to the beginning of WWII in 1941, the Economist noted that this was a "peculiarly American take on things") it is a very serious magazine full of graphs and figures of economic data. It's the type of thing you're likely to find scattered around at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Government rather than the dentist's office.

While surprisingly progressive on social issues (the Economist is against the war on drugs for instance), and other times conservative (they supported the war in Iraq), it's a centrist to center-right magazine, balancing its values against pragmatic considerations. I think this makes the endorsement particularly condemning. A NY Times endorsement for Kerry is expected (anything else would be a sign of the End Times). An Economist endorsement of Kerry means that some very level-headed moderate conservatives and centrists looked at Bush and found him wanting. They say: we like his vision best. But it's clear he lacks the ability to carry it out. They aren't as thrilled by Kerry's vision, but feel he's all in all more capable for the job.

Probably a fair assessment. It's hard to disagree with Bush when he advocates freedom. But turning Iraq into a giant guerilla war and locking people up without due process or trial isn't the way to create that. Perhaps Bush would be more fun on a fishing trip. But John Kerry is clearly the better man to lead the United States.

Re:Endorsements? (3, Interesting)

4of12 (97621) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663985)


Does anyone know how much effect endorsements actually have on vote counts?

Depends.

However, The Economist is probably one of the most highly respected of the weekly news magazines in the English-speaking world. It's read by the heavy movers and shakers (when I had a subscription I used to get bulk mail for services that would make more sense if my net worth were two orders of magnitude higher) and has a lot more detail and depth about international news than you'll typically find in any single U.S. magazine.

In some ways they could be regarded as Libertarian; a few years ago they had some in-depth articles examining the proposition of decriminalizing recreational drugs.

The Economist is thoughtful, detailed, slightly right leaning. A good complement to reading the New York Times, which is thoughtful, detailed, slightly left leaning. Both publications are well-written, too.

Re:Endorsements? (1)

learn fast (824724) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664545)

36 papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 (including his hometown paper in Crawford, TX) endorsed Kerry this time around, while only 6 went vice-versa (link) [washingtonpost.com] . The Economist switch surprised me, since they've been defending Bush pretty strongly (recently they ran a poll [economist.com] (PDF) [economist.com] and found that most economists didn't agree with that -- much less the Nobel Prize winners [msn.com] .)

At this stage in the game, however, I've heard that the news coverage that's really going to effect the election is national news coverage culled from wire services like the AP in small town papers in swing states. (The AP doesn't endorse anyone, BTW.)

Info (0)

lastninja (237588) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662499)

The Economist has supported the tax cuts, But not the increase of government spending.

Re: Info (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662543)


> The Economist has supported the tax cuts, But not the increase of government spending.

Indeed. The "tax and spend" Democrats have been replaced by "tax cut and spend" Republicans. All the rhetoric about fiscal responsibility is just a facade for the real debate, "pay now or pay later".

It's hard for the party in power to cut spending, because pork is one of the primary ways for legislators to buy votes.

Re: Info (2, Insightful)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662759)

I blame the line item veto (the real reason the budget declined during the Clinton years), which was removed following the impeachment trial. It was passed following the Perot candidacy (and strong showing and became a part of the Republican congressional takeover platform, AFAIK). With a line item veto pork could be removed from a bill by the President and a 2/3s vote was required to override it. For those who haven't looked into the sausage factory that is Congress a large bill (annual highway, farm, defense, appropriations, tax, or similar) usually gets a series of amendments added to it that provide for things like a Norwegian-American interpretive center to be built in a congressional district that elected a representative or senator whose support is needed to pass the bill. Since the total bill might be for spending of several billion dollars the expenditure of a few million to secure a marginal vote is good for both parties (those who support the bill for other reasons and the senator whose support was bought). With a line item veto the president could strike the section of the bill that provided for the cultural center, highway, school etc without striking the whole bill and sending it back for another round. Now we shouldn't kid ourselves Presidents were likely to use this to hurt opponents, but overall it cut a whole bunch of wasteful spending. Without that there is no one with an incentive to reduce government spending who is in a position to do so.

Re: Info (3, Informative)

revscat (35618) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662910)

I blame the line item veto (the real reason the budget declined during the Clinton years), which was removed following the impeachment trial.

The line item veto was never actually implemented. As soon as the bill was signed by Clinton it was challenged on constitutional grounds and kept from going into effect. The SCOTUS eventually ruled it unconstitutional, and the OMB afterwards announced that the 40 items that were line item vetoed would have their funds released.

The budget deficit looked good because Clinton was a fiscally responsible president.

Re: Info (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663109)

.... and because he happened to be president during the longest largest boom in human history.

Re: Info (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663139)


> .... and because he happened to be president during the longest largest boom in human history.

Also, I'm not convinced that it's fair to lie everything at the president's feet. The Congress has a huge impact on our national spending habits too.

Re: Info (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663552)

.... and because he happened to be president during the longest largest boom in human history.

Sure- if you count the DOW hitting 10,000 while the soup kitchens get overcrowded as a BOOM. I consider it to be more of a bust myself- and the harbinger of the process to turn the United States into the third world bananna republic it is today.

Re: Info (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663891)

Regardless of the nature of the boom, government had no problem with revenue during the 90's. That was not because of Clinton.

Re: Info (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664249)

Who cares whether the GOVERNMENT had enough revenue? Or whether investors had enough revenue? The purpose of bothering with having a stable money supply and economy to begin with is so that the PEOPLE have enough revenue to live lives without government help- and that simply didn't happen very well at any time in the last 40 years, let alone during the Clinton Administration. In fact, it hasn't really happened since Ronald Reagan, President of the Screen Actors Guild, talked Congress into reducing the top tax rate from 95% to 75% during the Eisenhower Administration. Everything since then has been bad news for the middle class and good news for select groups of friends of the party in charge (whichever party that happened to be).

Re: Info (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664779)

Heinlein (via Lazarus Long):
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck."

Re: Info (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10665019)

no shit, but that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about Clinton's fiscal responsibility. I put forth that it wasn't his fiscal responsibility that set the tone for the 90's budgets and surpluses, it was gobs of available revenue for the government.

What you're saying has a few valid points, but isn't at all relevant to what we were discussing.

Re: Info (1)

revscat (35618) | more than 9 years ago | (#10665206)

Sure- if you count the DOW hitting 10,000 while the soup kitchens get overcrowded as a BOOM.

What are you talking about? Poverty went down massively under the Clinton administration. In 1999 the poverty rate was 11.9%, the lowest rate since 1979, child porverty went down by amazing amounts, median incomes were up, unemployment was down, and more people had health care than ever before.

No matter how you measure it, the Clinton years were great for Americans of all income levels. This was due to a combination of sound fiscal policy (not ideological: libertarian, Marxist, or trickle-down) and economic conditions. But they fed off of the other.

Re: Info (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10663315)

The deficit looked good because Newt Gingrich shutdown the government, and reduced spending to the point that the government borrowed less; without bonds to put the money into, big institutional investors and foreign banks had to invest it elsewhere, leading to a boom in the stock market and the economy in general. I think Clinton is considerably more conservative that people give him credit for; he probably wasn't as unhappy with the Gingrich freeze as he put on.

But Gingrich represents a completely different party than the Republicans of today. These fuckers have never seen something they didn't want to buy with your child's credit card.

Re: Info (1)

Mr. Ghost (674666) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664239)

I always thought of Clinton as someone that would have been fun to go drinking with and probably someone that would have been a good friend. I never thought of him as someone who would make a great friend because I figure he would turn on me if he thought he had too. I also figured he was not the kind of person that I would want my daughter to bring home as her fiancee.

But I still think he would be an excellent drinking buddy that your wife doesn't like you hanging around with.

Re: Info (1)

mabu (178417) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664717)

You're naive if you think the line-item veto would have made any difference. Just like campaign finance reform, had the line-item veto gone into effect politicians would have found loopholes, such as making one line-item contingent upon another not being vetoed, therefore rendering the whole effort useless.

Re: Info (4, Informative)

lastninja (237588) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662911)

Increases in non-defense discretionary spending over the past six administrations:

Nixon/Ford: 6.8% per year

Carter: 2.0% per year

Reagan: -1.3% per year

Bush 1: 4.0% per year

Clinton: 2.5% per year

Bush Jr: 8.2% per year

Source [washingtonmonthly.com]
And here [house.gov] is a nice graph.

Re: Info (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663093)

and what happens if you add in defense spending I wonder? Why pull that out?

Re: Info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10663280)

You have to pull out defense spending because Americans tend not to be bothered with buying nukes and guns on credit, because they are seen as necessities.

Re: Info (1)

markh100 (696858) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663401)

If you add Defence spending, I'm sure Bush's spending increase % would skyrocket. With the data included, people would generally state that the incease in spending was due to the war in Iraq. Seeing the numbers without defense spending shows that Bush has been fiscally irresponsible, even after including the increased costs due to the war.

Re: Info (1)

abulafia (7826) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664489)

and what happens if you add in defense spending I wonder? Why pull that out?

The rationale is that defense is (a) vital and (b) not an accurate reflection of policy, because it depends heavily on the behaiours of the rest of the world. There's a lot to that, and a lot to the observation that it should be included, as Bush's foreign policy shows, because it actually is "discretionary spending".

But, there you go, that's the reasoning.

Re: Info (1)

mintrepublic (821683) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663204)

That's because, despite popular belief, the Republicans are not the party of small government. They're the party of "government growing at a slower rate than the Democrats would." Economically, Reagan was a Libertarian, the party actually working for less government.

Re: Info (2, Insightful)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663515)

well, actually, the post's argument was that Republicans' government outpaces Democrats, but AFAICare, they both pork everything up.

What amazes me is that the "down home" americans, the 50% or so that make up the "working class" rural vote, believe that they somehow benefit from backing the party that spends in deficit and supports smaller government oversight in business alone, since in personal matters, we have abortion fights, patriots acts, and DCMA/internet nonsense.

These people end up the victims of closed factories, large corporate farming buyouts, and other corporate stomping, all while voting for people what have a "homeboy" appeal to their local nature. Sure, the local congressperson or senator may have a nice chuckle and win a government contract to build an extra submarine for 10$billion, but are these folks actually creating a sustainable lifestyle? nope. contracts end, environmental abuses catch up with you, and large corporations migrate to where the best manufacturering is. ask anyone in so many has-been towns - long after the politicos are done stumping, their constituents are screwed.

Re: Info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10665493)

What they're voting for is stability in their world view. They want to be able to leave their doors unlocked, their guns in their trucks, they don't want to worry about where their daughters are. With the more rigid social fabric essentially destroyed by the excesses of libralism and corpratism, is anyone really surprised to see them trying to legislate things back to a shade of how they used to be. They're used to a very big world, where the unpleseantness was far away, and now our world is very very small.

Re: Info (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664259)


> They're the party of "government growing at a slower rate than the Democrats would."

No, just as with spending the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is who gets the advantage out of it. The current government claims to be big on states' rights, but watch what happens when a state wants to legalize marijuana, import medicine from Canada, allow gay marriage or euthanasia, etc.

Also, if the newscast I heard a couple of nights ago was correct, the federal government has hired 800,000 people under the current administration (meaning the job loss figures would look even worse if not for growing government).

Re: Info (3, Funny)

Masker (25119) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663534)

You're totally missing Bush's strategery: You don't have to "pay later" if the apocolypse comes! Didn't Nostradamus predict [hogueprophecy.com] these events?! Yea, these are the end times, people. </sarcasm>

More Information: "The Economist" is Moderate. (1)

d102804 (826077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663658)

"The Economist" is moderate in an "averaging sense". This journal advocates open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens and also favors the use of H-1B workers. Yet, the journal also condemns Chinese society for violation of human rights and condemns Korean society for xenophobic racism (e.g. unleashing snakes in movie theaters showing American films).

So, the journal supports both extremely liberal positions and extremely conservative positions.

By contrast, the Fox News Channel is moderate in a pervasive sense. For example, Bill O'Reilly supports using the national guard to protect the borders yet supports allowing a limited number of Mexicans to enter the USA as migrant workers under the stipulation that they must return to Mexico at the end of their stint.

Great quote (2, Insightful)

Troed (102527) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662552)

as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him ...

Re:Great quote (-1, Flamebait)

sybert (192766) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663348)

John Kerry has not accepted accountability
  • for making false claims about Bush and the draft.
  • for insulting our allies, falsely calling them the coalition of the coerced and the bribed, or by calling our action unilateral.
  • for voting against funding our troops.
  • for missing almost all of his votes in the senate in the last two years, and not resigning so that someone else can be appointed who can do the job.
  • for missing all his Senate Intelligence committee meetings after the first World Trade Center bombing.
  • for voting against the first UN supported golf war.
  • for voting against military spending in the middle of the cold war.
  • for supporting the communist Sandinista government on the North American mainland and claiming that they would have nothing to do with the Soviets when Ortega was in Moscow signing a soviet aid package a week later.
  • for claiming the only 2000 people would be in danger if the North invaded South Vietnam, when over 2 million were killed, imprisoned, or had to flee.
  • for falsely accusing our troops of routinely committing war crimes in Vietnam.
No one has a worse record of failing accountability than John Kerry.

Just wait until al-jazeera starts playing tape of the leader of the Great Satan talking about how the army of the Great Satan "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads...in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan...." That will play very well in the middle east.

Re:Great quote (3, Interesting)

macrealist (673411) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664000)

Wow. Great regurgitation of right wing propaganda.

However, you need to adjust your RDF. (when did rove steal that from Jobs?)

for insulting our allies
- got a reference? Link? Anything but an accusation?

falsely calling them the coalition of the coerced and the bribed

Many of the nations in the coalition formed for the 2003 invasion of Iraq stand to receive substantial aid packages and trade benefits from the United States in return for their support. The administration is provided billions of dollars in "aid packages" to coalition members [arabicnews.com] . Of the 30+ original coalition "members', 19 countries offering only political and/or moral support, one was named without it's knowledge (Solomon Islands), and one was Afganistain. Nine were/are seeking membership into NATO. An Institute for Policy Studies report found that "most were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery."

or by calling our action unilateral.

Unilateral [reference.com] means something much different than you must perceive. England, Australia, and the US have stood together on international issues for decades. If you do not consider these three countries to be on the same side, then you have a very myopic view of world politics.
In March of 2003, Ari Fleischer said that the adminstration has "all along said, in terms of actual active combat, there will be very, very few countries."

The original invasion forces consisted of troops from only six countries. Nearly 99.9% of these troops were from the US, UK, or Australia.
The countries sending troops and the amount of troops were:

Albania: 70
Australia: 2000
Romania: 278
UK: 45,000
US: 300,000

oh, and let's not forget
Poland: 200

Without the US's politicing, would the coalition have been created? Did any nations besides the US and UK present evidence insisting immediate action? The coalition was a huge sham, created only for political purposes.


"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..." -- C.S. Lewis

Newspapers voting for Kerry? (1)

greppling (601175) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662608)

According to German press articles, many more newspapers recommend to vote for Kerry this time, than did support Gore in 2000. Is this true? If so, is this a trend in the more intellectual America? Is this a division between the more intellectual America reading and writing newspapers, and the popular opinion? Or is there another explanation for the fact that this tendency is not reflected in the popular opinion (according to polls)?

Re:Newspapers voting for Kerry? (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662666)

I believe fewer Kerry supporters answer the phone that bush supporters, hence phone polls are skewed.

Re:Newspapers voting for Kerry? (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663598)

Actually most of the polls activly target a certain number of republicans and democrats and independents to balance with amounts that exist in said county. Of so the only way you will see polls differ from registered numbers is from people who are going to vote for another party. In past elections this number was fairly large, its become quite small with the divisions that we now have.

Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (2, Insightful)

revscat (35618) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662683)

See here [editorandpublisher.com] for an overview of battleground state endorsements. Of course, the Republican radio propaganda network will chalk this up to the "liberal media", but this isn't good news for Bush, and is therefore good news for America and the world.

Is this a division between the more intellectual America reading and writing newspapers, and the popular opinion?

More of a reflection that newspaper editorials only have a limited impact. There is far more of an impact from the previously mentioned propaganda network: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, etc., etc. In my hometown (Dallas) there are currently *two* radio stations, with pretty significant market share, whose only purpose is to spread GOP propaganda, 24 hours a day. The Democrats have no such partisan network.

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (1)

Mr. Ghost (674666) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662777)

In my hometown (Dallas) there are currently *two* radio stations, with pretty significant market share, whose only purpose is to spread GOP propaganda, 24 hours a day.

Wouldn't you think that those two radio networks are carrying those particular shows because they have a large listening audience and therefore garners larger ad revenues for the stations. I don't believe that the station owners are in the business of losing money. If there was not a market out in this country for political talk shows then those shows would go out of business.

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (1)

revscat (35618) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662821)

I don't believe that the station owners are in the business of losing money. If there was not a market out in this country for political talk shows then those shows would go out of business.

What's good for their bottom line is not necessarily good for the republic, and in fact in this case I would argue that it is specifically damaging to the republic.

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (1)

Mr. Ghost (674666) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662994)

There is a large percentage of the population that feels that what they here from the major networks is filtered through the sieve of the liberal/progressive agenda.

They feel that they are not getting the whole truth and have to turn to alternative sources to here the whole truth of what is going on in the world. For example you never here a single story about the good that is being done in Irag (like the many public works projects that the US and its allies have started and completed). You never here the story of soldiers being invited into Iraqi homes for dinner bacause those citizens are happy to be free of Saddam and actually do consider the US and its allies as liberators.

What you do here is about the terrorists there attacking the soldiers, body counts and various other "bad news" because it either fits the agenda of the various mainstream information sources, it is more "sensational" or it is just easier to run these types of stories.

There really is a lot of good being done over there, more people have jobs over there than at any time in its history and more people have access to utilities such as electricity (when Saddam was in power he directed something like 70% of all electricity to Bagdad and left the rest of the country in the dark. The Iraqis now distribute electricity to all parts of country on a more regular basis than under Saddam. Again, you never here these types of stories run in the mainstream media and can only here them through alternative outlets.

Besides how is the expression of any political views damaging to the republic?

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (1)

demachina (71715) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663575)

"There is a large percentage of the population that feels that what they here from the major networks is filtered through the sieve of the liberal/progressive agenda."

Fox News is a major network. Rupert Murdoch, News Corp and Fox are a gigantic global media empire that is unabashedly right wing. The "liberal" networks usually try to maintain a pretense of neutrality whether true or not. Murdoch is blatant about his political bias and it shows in his networks, newspapers, etc.

Fox News is the #1 cable network by a wide margin now. You are whipping a dead horse. You might have had a case before 9/11 and before Fox News came to dominate cable news. At this point the liberal bias has been thoroughly countered and there is a distinct chance the balance has tipped right in the U.S. media, especially when its seen alongside a government currently dominated by the right.

I'd appreciate it if you would all declare or maybe admit victory in crushing the liberal media bias and stop sawing on it. Sure there is still some at places like CBS but it more than compensated for by Fox.

Our media doesn't need to swing any further to the right than it already is. It IS dangerous to the republic and the world because the right has a great tendency to tilt to extremism, demonize everyone they disagree with and is really, really fond of solving disputes by killing people.

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (1)

Mr. Ghost (674666) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663765)

It IS dangerous to the republic and the world because the right has a great tendency to tilt to extremism, demonize everyone they disagree with and is really, really fond of solving disputes by killing people.

I think this is the pot calling the kettle black. The left/liberal/progressive side also tends toward extremism, censorship and suppression of free speech.

They tend to demonize anything that does not fit their opinion of the way the world should be.

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (2, Interesting)

demachina (71715) | more than 9 years ago | (#10665159)

"The left/liberal/progressive side also tends toward extremism, censorship and suppression of free speech."

This isn't really a right versus left thing either. Libertarians and true conservatives are a shining light in this regard from the right. Unfortunately they've been buried under the extremism that is the new Republican party. I'm not really interested in framing this as left or right, my problem is almost entirely with the new Republican party and the fact its completely abandoned its civil libertarian and small government roots.

But, could you cite some example of excess on the left. Some that comes to mind, Roosevelt did step over the line on numerous occasions during World War II, but the whole country left and right was on that band wagon. The Chicago DNC in 1968 was bad. Maybe you could cite suppression of prayer and religion in public institutions but that is a hard issue. Fact is Christians shouldn't be able to inflict their beliefs on others in public schools and courts if we believe in separation of church and state and religious freedom for all.

Here are a few examples from the right.

McCarthyism took place the last time Republicans had power in Congress. You will be hard pressed to find a left equivalent of this rabid attempt to destroy our constitutional liberties than that.

Free speech zones are an invention of today's Republican controlled government, a cyncial name since they are in fact cages designed to hide and suppress people expressing opposition to the people in power. Again you will be hard pressed to find a liberal sponsored equivalent of this major attempt at suppression of free speech. You can claim the Free Speech Zone at the DNC but that was created by Homeland Security and the Secret Service which are run by the Bush administration.

Its been a while since we've had a government thats been willing to say "you're either with us or you're against us" or you are unpatriotic, aiding and abedding terrorists, if you question or criticize us.

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (1)

E_elven (600520) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664615)

They feel that they are not getting the whole truth and have to turn to alternative sources to here the whole truth of what is going on in the world.

Utter crap. Any half-decent psychologist could tell you that most (probably all) people simply need (psychological imperative) their opinions to be reinforced rather than questioned. And that's what we do.

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (1)

Mr. Ghost (674666) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664873)

So the mainstream media exists to support the opinions of those on the left/progressive side :-)

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (1)

blahlemon (638963) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663216)

Keep in mind that what you consider to be "good for the republic" is in many ways a reflection of your political views and may or may not accurately reflect reality.

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (1)

bshensky (110723) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662964)

You are rig^H^H^Hcorrect...consider this tho:

(1) Air America is a new left-leaning radio network; seems to be doing well for itself.

(2) In this left-vs-right radio survey, I'd venture to say that most moderate-to-left folks tend to support public radio, the avenue that rightists refer to as among the "liberal media".

(3) Left-leaners simply may listen to the radio less, or differently, on the whole, than right-leaners. Consider a recent theory that telephone-based surveys skew to the right because surveyors do NOT call cell phones, and a disproportionately high number of young and/or progressive people have given up their landlines and use cell phones exclusively. Similarly, left-leaners *might* use other media outlets (like newspapers and Internet) more than radio (at least to get their politics on), resulting in a for-profit radio market that skews to the right.

(4) Left-leaners tend to live on the coasts and in big cities; right-leaners make up the balance. This results in a very different population density for the two groups. But a radio station transmitter covers a fixed geography, so there would need to be *more transmitters* - more *radio stations* carrying right-wing syndicated content - to reach their base. It might take 10 radio stations, each syndicating O'Reilly content in America's Heartland, to cover the same number of conservatives that it would take 1 transmitter to cover the same number of liberals in Eastern New England.

Just my C$0.03...

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (2, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663412)

A right wing talk show host explained the phenomena pretty well a day or two ago. Right wing radio/TV portray everything as black and white, liberal media tends to be shades of gray. Unfortunately combative black and white is more interesting and holds an audience better, especially a poorly informed audience who is just listing to have their preconceptions confirmed on a daily basis.

The right wing has also become way more adept at demonizing the democrats and liberals and this again makes for good entertainment, and holds an audience better. The Clintons were mauled for 8 years, and still are, and in the end the worst thing they nailed them for was an affair between consenting adults and lieing about it. Bush/Cheney has lied their way through their entire first term about stuff that matters, stuff that killed people, and it slides right off their teflon coating because liberals suck at demonizing and mauling right wing politicians.

Maybe its just a fact of life you have to kind of vicious to be successful in political talk radio and TV and the right wing are good at vicious. Liberals actually tend to want to explore the issues, think things out, see if there might be a peaceful and diplomatic way to solve a conflict. The right wing has everything predetermined in a little guide to every issue, they never need to revise it, and there is one conflict resolution technique, intimidation, saber rattling ending in Shock and Awe. Shock and Awe again makes for good radio and TV. Its exciting, entertaining and makes people feel good when their giant military crushes a 3rd world country like a bug.

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (1)

Mr. Ghost (674666) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663959)

I guess that means the right="evil/pig headed/stupid" and left="good/enlightened/smart".

All I ever here from the left is how stupid/racist/ignorant anyone is who does not agree with them and their opinions. It's just one ad-hominem attack after another.

Some things really are black and white. Moral relativism is more a sign of societal decay than enlightenment.

To say that Bush/Cheney have lied more than Clinton/Gore seems a little bit like sticking your head in the sand. They lied or covered up many, many things but then who cares about them, they are now in the history books and no longer matter.

I just hope that whoever wins on Tuesday wins by a landslide. I am tired of the incivility being expressed by both sides, I am tired of each side claiming partisanship everytime something does not go their way in a given state relating to voting fraud/law/etc...

I really do hope Bush wins but then if he doesn't I hope he is gracious in defeat.

I am tired of people saying "I hate so-and-so". I have very strong beliefs that Bush is a better candidate and would be better for our country but I do not "hate" Kerry.

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (2, Interesting)

demachina (71715) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664891)

"To say that Bush/Cheney have lied more than Clinton/Gore seems a little bit like sticking your head in the sand."

Please list some of these lies? I can't wait. We can do a head to head comparison of the gravity and magnitude. Again Clinton/Gore were savaged for theirs including impeachment which as serious an accounting as our Constitution allows.

As nearly as anyone can tell no one in Bush/Cheney have paid in any way for theirs and constantly deny they've ever lied or done anything wrong or made a mistake. Well there was George Tenet, the scapegoat who fell on his sword (and its likely most of the bad intelligence on Iraq came out of the DOD not the CIA, the CIA just didn't fight it) but he was a Clinton hold over and not one of the Bush faithful. I'm exactly pro Clinton/Gore but I'd sure like to see some equity in the political weapons of mass destruction.

You can attribute the lack of equity to the fact the Republicans completely control the government so there is no one to hold Bush/Cheney to account while Clinton was mauled by a Republican controlled house engaged in a one hatchet job after another. The Republicans can quite literally get away with murder.

I shopuld add I don't "hate" either of them but I don't like either of them either. Unfortunately neither one of them appears to have the level head, integrity and honesty I want in a President.

"I just hope that whoever wins on Tuesday wins by a landslide."

I hope you get your wish but chances are high its going to be a really close election and the losing party is going to be fighting legal battles for months trying to seize power. You don't build two lawyer armies and expect them to go home without fighting a major war first. Neither of these candidates can win on merit so they win with attack ads, smear campaigns, election rigging and a legal spectacle that will likely dwarf 2000.

"I am tired of the incivility being expressed by both sides"

Not sure you follow my posts but I slam both candidates equally. I'm not on either side though I really want to Republican stranglehold on power broken. It is extraordinarily unhealthy. I want gridlock again so the nutcases on both side can't keep changing things for the worse.

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10664126)

Don't worry, you're doing a good job.

Re:Newspapers voting for Kerry? (2, Informative)

demachina (71715) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663785)

I've seen a number of editors of conservative newspapers explain why they endorsed Bush in 2000 and are either endorsing no one, Kerry or Bush only reluctantly in 2004. They are pretty consistent in what they say. They endorsed Bush in 2000 based on the policies he said he supported in the campaign, since it was all they had to go on other than his stint as Texas governor which wasn't a very good guide.

They are all disenchanted with him because his actual record in office has run counter to everything they thought he stood for.

In particular they naively though he would be fiscally conservative while he is instead dramatically expanding spending, while cutting taxes leading to a staggering debt. They were naive in thinking he would be fiscally conservative since Bush idolizes Reagan and Reagan ran up the deficit exactly the same way though Bush has taken it to a who new level. Reagan could blame the Dems for the spending since they controlled Congress. The Republicans have no one to blame but themselves and its especially bad since its massively, hypocritical juxtaposed to their fiscal responsibility rhetoric. All the editors put this at or near the top of their list for turning on him with the war in Iraq being the other top reason.

- During the campaign Bush said he was dead set against nation building but they are instead doing it all over the place especially in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti. Conservatives hate nation building.

- Bush/Cheney have established a track record of either lieing or being so completely wrong it borders on incompetence, especially on the reasons for invading Iraq. Most newspaper editors are thoughtful, educated and informed people. Bush/Cheney have been able to lie their way out of the lies with less thoughtful, less educated and less informed American. I don't think its working with newspaper editors who are smart enough to see that the Republicans are being consistently untruthful and are getting away with it.

There is a paper in Orlando, Florida who has been getting a lot of press for endorsing Kerry. They haven't endorsed a Democrat since Johnson in 1964. Its telling that Johnson was running a right wing extremist, Barry Goldwater, which is no doubt why they endorsed LBJ. You could conclude this paper is placing George W. Bush in the same class as Barry Goldwater. They do have a lot in common for their severe tilt to the far right, lack of judgement and thoughtful discretion.

Economist endorsements (1)

Quinn_Inuit (760445) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662623)

Interestingly, it also endorsed Tony Blair in the last British election. From what I can tell, this is more of a reaction to the Democratic and Labour Parties moving toward the center rather than the editorial board moving toward the Left.

Slashdot One-Sideness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10662765)

Nice to see Slashdot report on yet another Kerry endorsement.

So far, slashdot has post articles about an obscure Crawford newspaper, Bush-cousins, the Economist, and others endorsing Kerry. Yet there are no articles about endorsements for Bush, like the Chicago Tribune, WSJ, NY Post.

Why is this? I thought CmdrTaco said they were going to fair with the politics section. So far, it has been all Bush-Bashing all the time. This place has jumped the shark.

Re:Slashdot One-Sideness (2, Interesting)

fredrated (639554) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663334)

Yeah, an "obscure Crawford newspaper" which happens to be his home town paper. And don't forget that bush said "if you want to know about me talk to the texans that know me" (not an exact quote).

a vote for bush is an accessory to murder

His hometown paper? (1)

TreadOnUS (796297) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664062)

The paper is published by a individual that lives in another town and is the mayor of that town. This individual set up shop in Crawford while Bush was running for President. The large majority of the town does not agree with this "outsider."

Article [harktheherald.com]

Re:Slashdot One-Sideness (1)

xeaxes (554292) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663531)

The Wall Street Journal has not endorsed anyone for President, yet. They normally abstain from endorsements.

The Financial Times did endorse Kerry for what its worth.

MICHAEL ENDORSES KERRY, COMPULSIVELY (0, Troll)

SimianOverlord (727643) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662855)

WHILST TOUCHING HIS JUNK, LIBERALLY.

Is it obvious much [slashdot.org] that michael is a Kerry supporter? Is it any surprise that anyone critical of this blatant astroturfing is modded down? I didn't realise Slashdot was a forum in which to impose your political views on others, I thought it was a bookmark collator for IT news. How stupid of me.

What was it Rob said when politics.slashdot.org was launched? They wanted to comment on politics, and that the editors represented a pretty wide base of political belief?
We think we can do a good job since the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies.
How many stories has the token Republican editor Pudge posted here? Would it be not a million miles from ZERO?

Just look at the headings. There's at least a 20:1 ratio favouring Kerry fluff ie. "Kerry MAY perhaps consider repealing DMCA" appeared a few days ago (he won't). So much for balance. Pathetic.

Boo hoo wah wah cry to mommy (2, Funny)

revscat (35618) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662984)

Is it obvious much that michael is a Kerry supporter? Is it any surprise that anyone critical of this blatant astroturfing is modded down? I didn't realise Slashdot was a forum in which to impose your political views on others, I thought it was a bookmark collator for IT news. How stupid of me.

Wahh wahh wahh whine whine whine. Look I'm a Republican! Media bias! It's not FAIR! MOMMY! MOMMY! Wah wah wah!

How many stories has the token Republican editor Pudge posted here? Would it be not a million miles from ZERO?

Here, have a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up, pussy. You want Republican propaganda go turn on the radio or point your browser at Free Republic, k? Bush is a complete and utter fuckup and the whole world realizes it, at least those who don't suck Sean Hannity's (et al) cock on a daily basis.

Re:Boo hoo wah wah cry to mommy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10663801)

What a tool you are. I'll try and make this fast before Al Franken comes on.

Read these links and respond with something substantive, I dare ya.

Don't worry we will still love you next Wed.

Vote Kerry, disarm America!

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-buzzcut.ph p? range=10%2F24%2F2004%20-%2010%2F30%2F2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55919- 20 04Oct22?language=printer

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/ano th er_october.html

Re:Boo hoo wah wah cry to mommy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10664359)

nice to see this moderation system work exactly as intended. I guess this really is the cream of the crop at slashdot.

Re:MICHAEL ENDORSES KERRY, COMPULSIVELY (1)

KevinIsOwn (618900) | more than 9 years ago | (#10665327)

It's actually huge news that The Economist endorsed Kerry. The Economist tends to side with Republicans, supports free trade and globalized economies, and businesses.

I was shocked to see The Economist supporting Kerry, as it generally gave fair marks to the President on most issues (and this is addressed in the endorsement quite well).

The fact that The Economist is vehemently in support of fiscal responsibility is also an important issue.

Give the bias issue a break. It's a typical conservative trump card when they want control of the media. If the media has any articles at all that don't fully support Republicans they cry bias. Stop whining about bias, it has never been true and still isn't. The articles just go on the facts, and that should be a suggestion regarding the feasibility and logic behind your ideals.

Re:MICHAEL ENDORSES KERRY, COMPULSIVELY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10665566)

I will repeat myself as it seems no one has read my earlier post (or perhaps they actually read the links).

Come on Where is Kerry on these issues huh?

Tool.

"What a tool you are. I'll try and make this fast before Al Franken comes on.

Read these links and respond with something substantive, I dare ya.

Don't worry we will still love you next Wed.

Vote Kerry, disarm America!

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-buzzcut.ph p? range=10%2F24%2F2004%20-%2010%2F30%2F2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55919- 20 04Oct22?language=printer

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/ano th er_october.html
"

Another great magazine loses its way (-1, Flamebait)

CodeWanker (534624) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662909)

Well, crap. One of the best mags for news is giving into some Pollyanna-ish leanings that I'd thought them too mature and intelligent to cave into. Guantanamo a mistake that will haunt us for years? We lock up savages (savages based on their behavior, not their ethnicity, by the way) in one of the few places we can be sure they won't escape from, we give them vastly better food and medical care and religious freedom than they've ever seen, (and the few we've let out have returned to assaulting Western Civilization, which argues for MORE 'Tanamo, not LESS) and even The Economist wants to get all trial lawyer-y on us? Man.

Oh, and now they fall into the trap of considering morally equal an irretreviably corrupt and evil gang of thugs (The PLO) with the ONLY thriving representative democracy in The Middle East (Israel.) Name the one country in The Middle East where Arabs get to freely elect Arabs to a truly democratic parliament: yup, Israel. But a bunch of savages who see using children as suicide bombers against other children is Israel's moral equivalent? Give me a break.

The conservatives have become stronger in Iran? Oh, that explains the nationwide protests against the theocracy. [nationalreview.com]

Finally, they're choosing a man who, while still in the U.S. Armed Forces, gave aid and comfort to the enemy by going to Paris and meeting with the North Vietnamese communists and Viet Cong terrorists to get the propoganda line he would follow in 1971 "testimony" before congress. Testimony he HAD to know was untrue. [stolenhonor.com]

Just shameful.

Wow.. you memorized the RNC talking points to the (1)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 9 years ago | (#10662993)

T..

Now can you come up with something that is actually truthfull and isn't political rhetoric BS?

Besides "dogging the other side" can you actually show why we should consider voting for Bush?

Re:Wow.. you memorized the RNC talking points to t (1)

CodeWanker (534624) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663146)

Awwww, precious! The testimony of former American prisoners of war is political rhetoric BS? Videotape of young men openly inventing atrocities to report in 1971 is political rhetoric BS? Iranians risking their lives to protest the mullahrocracy is political rhetoric BS? Videotape of your candidate openly engaging in pro-Communist propoganda is political rhetoric BS?

Okay, let's talk about reasons to vote for Bush:

Treats the War on Terrorism as a War, not a law enforcement problem (as Kerry has repeatedly called for)

Treats the Poles, Italians, British, Australians and the 28 other nations allied to us in our fight against terrorism as valued friends, not bribed stooges

Realizes that if France, Germany, and Russia are on the take from Saddaam's Oil for Food program (and they were) then they won't be good allies against Iraq.

Actually paid taxes on his income instead of sheltering most of it from funding the government (that one's got to REALLY gall you, doesn't it?)

Understands that a "plan" is more than just a laundry-list of Monday-morning complaints you throw out whenever your opponent actually accomplishes something in the big game Sunday evening.

Has liberated 50 million people from totalitarian regimes, including liberated millions of women from the yolk of religious oppression.

But you knew all that already, didn't you?

Re:Wow.. you memorized the RNC talking points to t (1)

double-oh three (688874) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663463)

Fuck man, it is a law enforcement problem if it's any one area at all. That's why it's the FBI/CIA that tracks/arrests terrorists. The laws as they are set up give those powers to the law enforcement community, not the armed forces.

Personally I belive that we could quench the flow of terrorism a lot if we could deal with sucky economies in other countries and get Saudi Arabia to end the welfare-state additude common there. People need something to live for, and while there will always be crazies, people who work on what they want to work on are probably less likely to fly planes into buildings.

By the way, Saddam was hated by Bin Laden. You want to know why? He had a secular state. It wasn't perfect in rights for women, but it was a damn slight better than across any of Iraq's borders.

And the US does give out billions to other countries, and most of those countries live off that money. By the way, Poland's PM has gone on the record stating that the only reason he gave troops(special forces) was so that Polish companies could get a slice of the oil action.

Re:Wow.. you memorized the RNC talking points to t (1)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663529)

Personally I belive that we could quench the flow of terrorism a lot if we could deal with sucky economies in other countries and get Saudi Arabia to end the welfare-state additude common there.

I absolutely agree. However, how do you propose we do this when all money flowing into or out of a country goes through a single, corrupt, dictatorial ruler? Or, rather(since I suppose each dinar didn't cross Hussein's hand), the money flow is directly controlled by him? It can't be done. That's one of the problems with sending oodles of money to Africa right now; no enforcable way to make sure it gets where it should go.

Economic resolutions need to start at the root, and that root is the leadership of a given area. If the leadership is corrupt, there's no chance for economic reform.

--trb

Re:Wow.. you memorized the RNC talking points to t (1)

firephreek (752523) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663569)

Treats the War on Terrorism as a War, not a law enforcement problem

Which is why we've been searching for WMD's in Iraq, at the cost of over 100,000 civilian casualties + 200 billion some odd dollars, and 1,000 lives of US forces.

Treats the Poles, Italians, British, Australians and the 28 other nations allied to us in our fight against terrorism as valued friends

Friends, yea, but 28 nations that constitute about 10% of the total resources being used to invade, I mean, remove Sadam from power.

Actually paid taxes on his income instead of sheltering most of it from funding the government

Why shelter it when you can simply cut it? Bush policy actually allows more companies to hide their incomes. Here's an interesting site [taxhistory.org] BTW. I didn't know that being the VP of the US was that lucrative.

Understands that a "plan" is more than just a laundry-list of Monday-morning complaints you throw out whenever your opponent actually accomplishes something in the big game Sunday evening.

Name those accomplishments exactly. And what exactly is Kerry complaining about that isn't something of importance? If there is an important issue that a president is not addressing or is not handling properly to the detriment of his country, shouldn't it be addressed? Get a grip!

Has liberated 50 million people from totalitarian regimes, including liberated millions of women from the yolk of religious oppression.

No, he's still president, remember?

Seriously though, the administration never talks about Afghanistan except in soundbites. Then we talk about elections and womens rights, elections that have been delayed for over three years and are still continuing. Women just came under the opression of totalitarian warlords. Why are they still there anyways? And as for Iraq, well, we're still there, they are not free, and we've killed over 100,000 of them, not counting those injured. And you can make every argument you want about it being the fault of the terrorists, but because of our administrations inability to truly win the peace, more and more suppore is gained for the side of the terrorists. And we still look like the bad guy because there is almost no one else there except us. We started it, now we can't finish it.

All we had before was a bunch of crazies shouting
"They're evil! they're destroying our country"
And nobody really listened, cause they were crazy.
Now we've got a bunch of crazies shouting
"See! They're evil! They're destroying our country!"
And people are starting to listen because they might not be so crazy.
Now, quick! Who am I talking about? Us or them?

Re:Another great magazine loses its way (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663173)

1. It's called Due Process. If you can't abide by it, you are in danger of unjust and immoral practices. That's why it exists. That's why doing without it should be a very last resort indeed.

2. On the one hand you have a country with death squads and the world's best military equipment and training, and on the other you have poor people throwing stones and blowing themselves up to kill civilians. Morally equivalent, perhaps not exactly, but they are not so far apart. It sounds like Sharon is chilling out in his old age though... maybe good things are ahead, we'll see.

3. Protests are great, are they gonna stop Iran from developing Nukes?

4. "Aid and comfort". Fuck off. Vietnam was a total political bullshit war, just like Iraq, and I for one salute every single person who had the balls to stand up and call a spade a spade.

Re:Another great magazine loses its way (1)

CodeWanker (534624) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663285)

Awwww, Precious! If Vietnam was a total political bullshit war, why is it that John Kerry takes every opportunity he can to point out that he fought there for 4 months?

Re:Another great magazine loses its way (1, Flamebait)

Leftist Troll (825839) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663369)

If Vietnam was a total political bullshit war, why is it that John Kerry takes every opportunity he can to point out that he fought there for 4 months?

Because he is a political opportunist, and his advisors told him it would help his poll numbers. It was also a big factor in him winning the Democratic nomination. He's trying to beat Bush at his own game, playing the tough guy. I personaly don't think it's working.

Kerry's present-day bullshit PR stunts have no relation to whether or not Vietnam was a just war.

Re:Another great magazine loses its way (2)

rhakka (224319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663536)

awww, because he actually stepped up, did his duty, and went when he was called... served... came back and spoke out on what he saw. He has something to talk about. The fact that he actually did his duty is something he's got up on Mr. Bush.

Just because he spoke out on the war, he shouldn't be able to take credit for actually doing his duty like thousands of others (but not Bush) did?

Re:Another great magazine loses its way (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10665193)

furthermore, what are you saying? That if it weren't a just war, that the soldiers who fought in it should be ashamed? I thought the reasonable stance, that we all learned from vietnam, is you don't shit on the soldiers, you shit on the administration that wasted their lives. A man doing his duty is worthy of respect. A man sending others to die for nothng is worthy of charges of treason, or murder.

Re:Another great magazine loses its way (2, Interesting)

Leftist Troll (825839) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663324)

It sounds like Sharon is chilling out in his old age though... maybe good things are ahead, we'll see.

Understand that the Gaza plan (which is what I assume you are reffering to) is designed to halt negotiations. Read the Haaretz interview [haaretz.com] with Sharon advisor Weisglass to understand what's really going on here.
A brief excerpt:
"The disengagement plan is the preservative of the sequence principle. It is the bottle of formaldehyde within which you place the president's formula so that it will be preserved for a very lengthy period. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary
so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians." (my emphasis)


I'd like to also give you a huge "right on" for your point #4:

4. "Aid and comfort". Fuck off. Vietnam was a total political bullshit war, just like Iraq, and I for one salute every single person who had the balls to stand up and call a spade a spade.

Anyone who thinks Kerry "invented" the atrocites might want to look into Tiger Force [toledoblade.com] .

Re:Another great magazine loses its way (0, Flamebait)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663688)

Don't forget that he was activly involved with Jane Fonda who took a group (Kerry didn't go surprisingly) illigally to Vietnam to see the POWs. The viet-cong paraded the prisoners out to show how "well" they were treated and then Jane's group proceded to insult these prisoners and accuse them of various war crimes to their faces.

Re:Another great magazine loses its way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10665697)

Do they pay you to be this stupid or are just naturally a fucktard?

Do the world a favor, kill your kids and cut off your nuts.

The Economist calls Kerry a fiscal conservative? (0)

sybert (192766) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663002)

A fiscal conservative's first priority is reduced spending. Anyone who calls them self a fiscal conservative because they call a vote for a tax increase a vote to reduce the deficit is a fraud. Kerry's health plan is less than half of the new spending he is proposing, and how can he get credit for both being better for health care and better fiscally because his health plan won't pass? The only spending Kerry has voted to cut recently is the $87 billion to support our troops.

And they mention the deficit but make no mention of Social Security. Kerry is completely unwilling to change our 1930's retirement program and believes that the government ponzi scheme cannot be improved upon. Social Security reform will reduce current revenue in order to reduce spending by more in the future. When Kerry compares the deficit of Social Security reform, which is a reduction in spending, to his deficit, which are an increase in spending, he is an even bigger fiscal conservative fraud.

And why does the Economist see our deficit as a threat? Our deficit is less than GDP growth, Europe's deficit [eu.int] is much greater than GDP growth, and our public debt is half that of Europe's total public debt. They should be looking in a mirror if they are worried about deficits.

Re:The Economist calls Kerry a fiscal conservative (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10663239)

You are another example of a Republican who turned into a communist once in power.

I think the touchstone of TRUE conservatism is emboddied in the Boy Scout's policy on camp ground cleanup: Always leave the place better than when you came. That means, that if you want to pull off a big operation like such as invading a random country while you are already have your hands full in a war on terror, you pay for it. You don't leave your dirty dishes in the sink for the next guy to wash. The fact is, you can claim that Kerry would make a bigger mess, but at the end, no one can leave behind as much a mess as W has.

As far as your comments about the deficit being less than GDB growth, that makes no sense unless you plan in the future to confiscate all the GDP growth to pay for government expenses. I prefer a plan that allows for a future that is continually getting more and more prosperous; I say we should pay for what we spend NOW, whether that means paying more or better yet, spending less, and next year KEEP that GDP growth and use it to do whatever we want, not give it to the Federal Government.

If you continously spend more than you take in, eventually you end up like Argentina. Either your government collapses back to just a tax-extortion system that offers no services for decades while it is paid off, or your debtors begin to use your huge amounts of bonds just like money, trading them among themselves, creating massive inflation, so all our savings are worthless and our wages can't pay the electric bill. This happens even if the economy is booming. If the economy booms, you have to COLLECT enough of that money to PAY the spending, if it is to make a difference in the your budget.

Re:The Economist calls Kerry a fiscal conservative (1)

sybert (192766) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663650)

FDR was borrowing 30% of GDP during WWII, and left with public debt 110% of GDP, a much bigger 'mess' and we were just fine. We just grew the economy. The deadline to pay off the national debt is NEVER. The debt can keep growing forever as long as GDP grows more. It is spending that matters. Whether borrowing or taxing, spending takes the same amount out of the economy today. Borrowing just means that the debt will be transferred later from the public to the public. Borrowing is voluntary, while taxes are involuntary, and harm the economy.

Argentina collapsed because they pegged their currency to the dollar. Instead of simply devaluating everyone redeemed their pesos to dollars until their treasury was bare. The six depressions in the history of the USA (1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, and 1929) all began during or immediately following periods of budget surplus. Only Bush has had a big surplus not turn into a depression.

Re:The Economist calls Kerry a fiscal conservative (1)

funk_doc (738861) | more than 9 years ago | (#10665154)

How could there be a surplus when the Federal Government didn't start collecting taxes until 1894, and not reliably until 1913 (16th amendment [findlaw.com] ). References please, oh wait, this is slashdot politics.

When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil, vote Libertarian [badnarik.org] .

Re:The Economist calls Kerry a fiscal conservative (1)

sybert (192766) | more than 9 years ago | (#10665593)

Tariff's

History of the Debt
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm

History of Depressions
http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2u pa/Abe/Recess ionsDepressionsPanics.asp

Check it out, It's really true.

Re:The Economist calls Kerry a fiscal conservative (1)

funk_doc (738861) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664920)

You cannot justify bad behavior with worse behavior. The deficit is a big problem that needs to be addressed. Also, Bush has done nothing in regards to Social Security reform, other then happily spend its surplus on other government programs. The only reform of Social Security you will get through the Bush administration will be to allow you to put a small percentage into a heavily regulated government account.

If anyone is concerned with the fiscal policies of this administration and getting rid of Social Security, they should be voting Libertarian [badnarik.org] .

Re:The Economist calls Kerry a fiscal conservative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10665027)

>The only spending Kerry has voted to cut recently >is the $87 billion to support our troops.

I can understand how you might get away with propagating this lie on TV or in a friendly arena like the Free Republic, but do you really think the people here are ill-informed enough to buy into it?

Re:The Economist calls Kerry a fiscal conservative (1)

NSash (711724) | more than 9 years ago | (#10665250)

It's possible that the poor fool actually believes what he's saying.

On the other hand, since he has 5 recent posts modded at -1, the more reasonable explanation is that he's a stupid political troll.

Kerry Republicans (4, Interesting)

Alomex (148003) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663076)

This is yet another case of a Kerry republican. In all, there have been over two dozen publications which endorsed Bush for president in 2000 and this time around are behind Kerry. In contrast, half a dozen newspapers have gone the opposite way, that is, from endorsing Gore in 2000 to endorsing Bush in 2004.

I believe history won't be kind on the 43rd president of the USA. He had the support of the entire world post-9/11, plus the largest fiscal surplus ever and he blew away both of them in less than three years.

Re:Kerry Republicans (1)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 9 years ago | (#10663835)

He had the support of the entire world post-9/11, plus the largest fiscal surplus ever and he blew away both of them in less than three years.

That post-9/11 sympathy was a blip in a sea of anti-Americanism. It evaporated long before the runup to the Iraq war.

And when the economy goes down, golly gee, tax revenues go down too! Who'da thunk it?

Re:Kerry Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10664533)

It started to evaporate after some people/government agencies started getting racist at middle eastern looking people indesciminately, but mostly it was infact the Iraq war, and it's long run-up. And anti-americanism was much lower before Bush, lower still post 9/11, and by totally preventable means rose to record levels afterwards.

American Conservative endorses Kerry (1)

hph (32331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10664017)

Kerry's the one. [amconmag.com]

No they don't (1)

davetrainer (587868) | more than 9 years ago | (#10665010)

From the cover [amconmag.com] of the series:

"we've asked several of our editors and contributors to make "the conservative case" for their favored candidate. Their pieces, plus Taki's column closing out this issue, constitute TAC's endorsement."

They go on to endorse [amconmag.com] the Constitution Party candidate, Michael Peroutka - not John Kerry.

"Without big ideas, elections become about personalities--popularity contests, nothing more. Both major candidates are filching each others' rhetoric and pandering. All that matters is the sell, not the content. Kerry is an opportunist sans pareil, Bush a man under the wrong influence. Vote for the real deal, Michael Anthony Peroutka."

What's really funny is... (1)

MSBob (307239) | more than 9 years ago | (#10665391)

That the New Republic endorsed John Kerry... No. Really. Check it out [tnr.com] for yourselves.

This from a magazine that prides itself in being the in-flight magazine of Air Force One.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...