Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Politics

Best Presidential Candidate for Nerds? 1140

Posted by Zonk
from the vote-quimby dept.
blast writes "Given the broad field of candidates, I was wondering who the community thinks will make the best President when it comes to representing issues Slashdot readers might care about? Eg: privacy, 'total information awareness', Internet regulation and taxation, net neutrality, copyright/patent reform, the right to read, the right to secure communications, the right to tinker. Who do you think best represents your views? "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Best Presidential Candidate for Nerds?

Comments Filter:
  • Simple (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:06PM (#19276543)

    Al Gore

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Opportunist (166417)
      After all, he made our internet!

      (Before you answer, yes, I know it's political spin, he never said it that way. But it had to be said, so now we're over with it and can go on with the show)
    • Re:Simple (Score:4, Insightful)

      by eln (21727) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:14PM (#19276669) Homepage
      I agree. It's unfortunate that he isn't running, I think he would have a real shot. I think he would probably carry a lot of the vote that he carried in 2000, plus pick up votes from people that voted for Bush at that time and now regret it. At any rate, it would make the Democratic primary a whole lot more interesting.

      Of course, his campaign would have to bar him from using the word "lockbox" at any time.
    • Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)

      by creimer (824291) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:17PM (#19276705) Homepage
      An Gore/Clinton ticket would be interesting. It'll give historians and talk show hosts something to talk about for years on end.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by polar red (215081)

        talk show hosts something to talk about for years on end.
        They don't need a subject to talk about.

    • RON PAUL (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ThomasFlip (669988)
      Is the best candidate for the U.S. Nerds... well he's popular on the net. BTW the entire world should be supporting this guy as well. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ [ronpaul2008.com]
      • If you absolutely have to vote for a conservative, you could certainly do worse. Of course, he's really more libertarian, with the implied support for strong property rights that entails. Let me use a quote from him to point out the absurdity of the libertarian position:

        Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless.

        If that's true, then without money to buy a press, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Ucklak (755284)
          They want the freedom to do whatever they want without the responsibility that goes with it.

          That's funny, I haven't heard that from the Libertarian camp.

          For example, yes they feel that you should have the ability to use recreational drugs in your own home but once you step outside and endanger someone elses life,liberty, and pursuit of happiness, they loose that responsibility.
        • by LiveFreeOrDieInTheGo (1107385) on Friday May 25, 2007 @08:01PM (#19277983)

          Ron Paul is a Republican. He is under consideration by the Contitution Party [constitutionparty.com] as a potential nominee under their party, and it appears the people in the party strongly desire his transfer.

          Libertarians believe in individual rights as well as social responsibility; furthermore, every Libertarian with whom I associate believes people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians desire the return to the fundamental Constitution of the United States [archives.gov]. Before disparaging all people who beleive the best approach for the U.S.A. as a nation of freedom and liberty lies with the Libertarian Party [lp.org], you should review the Libertarian Platform [lp.org].

        • Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the rich, and slavery for the poor.

          Are you saying I advocate rights for the rich and slavery for the poor? I am Libertarian AND poor and I advocate liberty for all, not just the rich. Fact is is that reducing government and therefore taxes will mean there is more money available to create new jobs, whereas big government can destroy jobs.

          Falcon
        • I agree completely, even though I'm supporting Ron Paul.

          I'm not a libertarian at the state level. I'm a pretty radical socialist. If Ron Paul was running for my state rep or governor, I wouldn't give him the time of day. I'd be looking for someone to the left of Kucinich (if there is such a thing).

          I'm a libertarian at the federal level because forcing my ideas on to the people of all 50 states is a bad way to get things done. You and I could be happy in our liberal paradise with our socialized medicine, $10/hr minimum wage, decent public schools, etc. The fine people in Utah wouldn't.

          From a purely pragmatic perspective, the "red states" are a net negative on the treasury (they take in more federal money than they dole out in taxes). They're always trying to shove religion down our throat as well. Cut them loose and let them turn their population into a bunch of idiot hicks that can't get a job. We'll do just fine without them TYVM.

          Let the politicians in the shitty states screw up their own states AND NOTHING MORE.
        • by qortra (591818) on Friday May 25, 2007 @08:44PM (#19278383)
          Well, let's see. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong.

          Like all libertarians, he advocates rights for the rich, and slavery for the poor.

          No, libertarians advocate liberty. Even people who have nothing can choose to use their mind and their hands to create wealth for themselves. Libertarians just don't think it should be somebody else's responsibility to make wealth for the people who choose not to make it themselves.

          libertarianism provides only simple answers to complex questions

          Libertarians do provide mostly simple answers, but the questions aren't as complex as you think they are. They only seem complex because they've been answered by corrupt bureaucrats who are beholden to conflicting corporate and minority interests.

          and libertarians will never directly answer any challenges to their beliefs, they will simply accuse you of hating freedom

          I am a libertarian. I will directly answer any challenges to my beliefs. I will also not accuse of you hating freedom (most people I encounter, including you, truly do love freedom). However, when a libertarian answers a question, liberty will almost certainly come up; it is at the core of the libertarian ideal. Moreover, you must expect that a Libertarian will often claim that liberty trumps utility. If you don't believe that liberty could ever be the paramount consideration, then become a utilitarian and form your own party.

          I've said it before

          Yeah, you should probably stop saying it, huh?

          Libertarians forget that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

          ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Libertarians believe that every action has a consequence, and everybody is responsible for his or her own actions through the consequences of those actions. Libertarians also believe that society is responsible for somebody, that person is no longer completely responsible for themselves. So, libertarians advocate that these people be solely responsible for themselves.

          Libertarianism: the philosophical equivalent of shouting, "you're not the boss of me!" in response to any question.

          Funny, I would say it's the philosophical equivalent to pleading "give me liberty or give me death."
  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:06PM (#19276549)
    With the existing electoral system, only those in swing states matter. Most of the other votes are essentially discarded.

     
    • Sad but true, it applies...

      Someone broke into a party bureau. But no damage was done, all that's missing is the manifest and the election results of the next 10 years.
    • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Friday May 25, 2007 @07:19PM (#19277517)
      Actually that is not true. The votes in the swing states are divided approaching evenly between parties. That means the candidates have to work hard for any undecided's. In the non-swing states, the votes count just as much, sometimes more, but everyone knows who the overwhelming majority are going to vote for. If we got rid of the electoral college, only the votes of people in high population states would count. If it is simple majority of votes, who gives a s$$t about Alaska voters, there are probably more undecided's in Chicago than all the voters in Alaska (and certainly more in the greater metropolitan Chicago area). The biggest problem with our Presidential elections is that all the media really pays attention to is the "horse race", who's ahead in the polls, who's gaining ground who's losing ground. The news media don't really tell you about a candidates stand on an issue unless it is one they care about, and even then they distort the position. Sometimes they distort to make a candidates position seem closer to the ideal, sometimes further away. I remember one election (state or local), candidate A thought the priorities should be: Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 4, Item 5; candidate B thought the priorities should be: Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 5, Item 4. The local press all reported "Candidate A is opposed to Item 5, Candidate B favors it".
  • Tubes (Score:5, Funny)

    by prod-you (940679) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:07PM (#19276573)
    Ted Stevens, he understands that the Internet is not like a big truck
  • Right. (Score:5, Funny)

    by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:07PM (#19276575)

    Given the broad field of candidates, I was wondering who the community thinks will make the best President when it comes to representing issues Slashdot readers might care about?


    Because, as all the political threads on Slashdot show, Slashdot readers care about the same issues, and all lean toward the same side of each of those issues.

  • by EEPROMS (889169) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:08PM (#19276579)
    Please check the box for the candidate you wish to support.

    Republican Stooge [ ]
    Democrat Stooge [ ]
    Some Wacko Independant [ ]
    Non of the above [X]
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:09PM (#19276587)
    Let's be honest, folks: We're a minority. Not in the sense this word has to day, but really: We're a small group and thus we don't exist for politicians.

    What would make us happy?

    For example net neutrality. Net neutrality pisses off some money pumpers, though, and the general population doesn't care. Will we get it?

    For example, no longer blaming computer games for violence. But it's a cheap scapegoat and it makes overcareful and ignorant parents happy, and it's a cheap excuse not to change a thing about education or social issues. Not blaming games cost more money and votes than blaming them.

    For example, if the mafiaa didn't get whatever laws they want handed to them. Though, we're the only ones caring, there's a lot of money coming from them, so... see first example.

    Do I have to go on?

    Face it, as long as we don't ship more geeks into the US from somewhere, we won't get jack from either side of the political spectrum. We don't count.
    • by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:35PM (#19276943)

      Let's be honest, folks: We're a minority. Not in the sense this word has to day, but really: We're a small group and thus we don't exist for politicians.


      Wrong. Slashdot is a group that doesn't (as a group) have clear priorities, communicate them to politicians, and give lots of money to political campaigns based on them, therefore as a group it doesn't exist to politicians.

      Lots of small groups have extraordinary influence, politically, in this country.
      • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Friday May 25, 2007 @08:34PM (#19278293)
        Lots of small groups have extraordinary influence, politically, in this country.

        Squeaky wheel gets the oil and all that. Some groups have influence that is far out of proportion to their actual value to society. Personally, I think we need to form a Slashdot Geek Squad and send some of the more literate and charismatic members among us to Washington to properly educate our lawmakers on these important technical and scientific issues.

        Always assuming that such a thing as a literate, charismatic Slashdotter actually exists.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SuperBanana (662181)

      Let's be honest, folks: We're a minority. Not in the sense this word has to day, but really: We're a small group and thus we don't exist for politicians.

      Nobody exists for politicians. They serve at our pleasure.

      Don't vote for someone because the polls said they'd win.

      Don't vote for someone because they look good.

      Don't vote for someone because they say catchy things.

      Don't vote for someone simply because they're incumbent.

      Don't vote for someone because they promise you something, because they're

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Opportunist (166417)
        And most of all, judge them by their deeds, not their words. I have met so many people who listen to the spin and the promises, forgetting immediately what they have done the past 4 years.

        Judge them by what they do. Choose your candidate by his past record, not by his promises for the future, for words can lie, acts cannot.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        And for the love of zombie jesus, don't vote for someone because you'd like to have a beer with him . . . we all know how that turned out.
  • by tomson (100060) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:09PM (#19276597)
    CowboyNeal for president!
  • by astrashe (7452) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:11PM (#19276613) Journal
    With everything that's going on now, I can't imagine putting geek issues on top of my list when I pick a candidate.

  • Bloomberg (Score:4, Interesting)

    by janneH (720747) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:13PM (#19276639)
    Assuming he runs - it must be Bloomberg. I have heard from people that have met him that he is a total computer geek - and really understands technology.
  • by w3woody (44457) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:13PM (#19276655) Homepage
    I hate to say this, but given the fact that the Commander In Chief is constitutionally responsible for things like dealing with the Iraq War (either waging or withdrawing, as your political leanings indicate), increasing or decreasing the federal government's footprint in things like military spending, the public safety net, drugs, energy and oil, foreign policy, government reform, immigration, infrastructure, etc., etc., etc., etc., isn't asking about technologically-specific issues sort of like arguing over the color of the china on the Titanic?

    I mean, beyond setting policy which encourages economic growth, mindful to development issues such as environmental policy, who cares about a Presidential candidate's opinion about relatively minor stuff?
  • Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Nowak (872479) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:13PM (#19276663)
    A very clear choice -- He has stated repeatedly that he does not want to regulate the internet in any way. (Most of his other views, immigration not withstanding, are sensible as well.)
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ThisNukes4u (752508) *
      I 100% agree, although I admit he has a very slim chance of winning the republican nomination, at least he was smart and ran as a republican where he could not be denied access to the debates and at least got some minor media coverage. Overall, I think hes done a good job and should be commended. That said, since he likely won't be on the final ballot, I'll probably be voting libertarian or writing in Ron Paul.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by eric76 (679787)
      I'll take Ron Paul over any other candidate.

      In fact, the only potential major party candidate I would vote for is Ron Paul.
    • Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Informative)

      by cyberkahn (398201) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:33PM (#19276917) Homepage
      Yes, I am in for Ron Paul. Not only for Internet issues, but because he actually believes in the Constitution and Habeas Corpus.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by geekoid (135745)
      If only he would explain how he plans to provide services for society and cut taxes.

      Cutting taxes, or raising taxes, is not an immediatly good thing.

      Here is an idea, figure out what service you will cut, and after cutting them see if the tax revenue is greater then the nations expenses*, then cut taxes.
      Doing it any other way cuts road, schools, and emergency services, but leaves pork barrel.

      I would prefer a build up of cash first, say a trillion dollars. In a crisis, like Katrina, the money can quickly be a
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Ron Paul was totally against giving any money for Katrina--it's not the (national) Government's job.
  • Cthulhu (Score:5, Funny)

    by ehaggis (879721) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:16PM (#19276695) Homepage Journal
    Cthulhu [cthulhu.org]. "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
  • by transporter_ii (986545) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:20PM (#19276741) Homepage
    A person running that actually has enough integrity to stand behind what he says. Don't think you could say that about another person running...period.

    Transporter_ii
    • by transporter_ii (986545) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:31PM (#19276897) Homepage
      A thing to note on Ron Paul, too, is that he is one of the few who voted against the Patriot Act and against Internet regulation. A few other nice things about him:

      Paul unites opposition to the war and the police state at home across the entire political spectrum...

      Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record
      He has never voted to raise taxes.
      He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
      He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
      He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
      He has never taken a government-paid junket.
      He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
      He voted against the Patriot Act.
      He voted against regulating the Internet.
      He voted against the Iraq war.

      He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
      He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
      • by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday May 25, 2007 @08:42PM (#19278363)

        He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.


        This is, in fact, untrue. Congressman Paul has voted for numerous criminal laws, including the federal ban on dilation & extraction ("Partial Birth") abortions. Every criminal law increases the discretionary power of the executive branch, since it can choose to prosecute or not (or to pardon or not) any criminal offense. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is probably debated best case-by-case on each particular law, but that's not the claim being advanced.

    • by transporter_ii (986545) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:38PM (#19276973) Homepage
      Here is an interesting piece (source WND) on Ron Paul in the debate and his true comments about the war:

      But who was right - Rudy or Ron?
      Posted: May 18, 2007
      1:00 a.m. Eastern

      It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.

      Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:

      "That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.

      "I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what he really meant by it."

      The applause for Rudy's rebuke was thunderous - the sound bite of the night and best moment of Rudy's campaign.

      After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.

      Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.

      "I would ask the congressman to ... tell us what he meant," said Rudy.

      A fair question and a crucial question.

      When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.

      Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahedeen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.

      What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?

      Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahedeen were declaring war on us.

      Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.

      Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective.

      What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?

      Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple?

      Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.

      Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?

      Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in co
      • by Chris Burke (6130) on Friday May 25, 2007 @07:44PM (#19277791) Homepage
        Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.

        and from the sounds of it is thus the only person who was standing on that stage who is not an idiot.

        Invading Iraq was bin Laden's dream come true. He probably thought that just luring us into Afghanistan would be enough to weaken us, but then we went and not only got ourselves embroiled in an even bigger quagmire, we also took out a huge enemy of his for him. The only way in which bin Laden could have been made happier is if we had gotten involved in an even bigger quagmire by trying to take out an even bigger enemy of Osama's, namely Iran. Thank God we didn't; Iraq is an episode of American Idol compared to what invading Iran would be like.

        We do not excuse - but we must understand.

        Nobody fucking understands the difference anymore, and it's made us retarded. If you even imply that the terrorists are not completely insane, completely evil, and driven by nothing less than the demonic forces of hell to kill, then you are condoning their behavior. If you try to discuss the actual motivations behind their actions, you are just making excuses.

        We are deliberately avoiding understanding our enemies under the guise of patriotism, and as a result we don't understand our enemies and thus, unsurprisingly, we are completely inneffective against them.
  • by BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:22PM (#19276761) Journal
    Mitch Kapor, I choose you! http://www.pbs.org/cringely/nerdtv/transcripts/006 .html [pbs.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Kapor [wikipedia.org]

    Al Gore should be offered a position in the administration: It would be a shame to waste all those PowerPoint and 3DSMAX skills. Plus the guy can take out a rowdy student with a laser pointer at 500 yards.

    Bill Gates? Nay Bill. His first act would be to make all schools buy Microsoft, and recast the 'Best viewed with Internet Explorer' errors on all Government web sites. Then NASA would be forced to rewrite all their software in .NET. And we'd have to listen to him say "Cool" a lot. "Cool" is a cool word, but every time I hear Bill Gates use it the word dies a little.

  • My thoughts. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by macsox (236590) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:27PM (#19276837) Journal
    I think that, while it is interesting and important to understand how a candidate feels on issues of interest to you, it is critical to understand two things.

    1. No candidate, ever, will share the same views as you.
    2. Determining who should be President based on such specific things as their stand on copyrights is an extremely bad idea.

    If American society has really become so striated that this is the most important issue to middle- and upper-middle-class white men in their 30s and 40s, then we're really in trouble.

    Please. I beg of you. Consider these issues as, to use a universally understood analogy, the flair on the uniform of a candidate. Worry about economic disparity. Worry about who will or won't lie their way into a war. If a candidate promised me that he or she would introduce national single-payer healthcare, address the rapidly increasing disparity between rich and poor (and uber-rich and rich), and would put the lives of our troops above proving a point, I could live with four to eight more years of vapidity and short-sightedness in terms of DRM.
  • by Maljin Jolt (746064) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:29PM (#19276869) Journal
    Zaphod Beeblebrox for president!
  • by antarctican (301636) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:38PM (#19276981) Homepage
    Actually the more fundamental question is, can any candidate accurately represent any individual's core beliefs? And is the idea of voting for an entire platform really democratic?

    Slashdot readers will be familiar with the debates on issues such as a la carte cable channel selection, and how hard we fight to be given options instead of a one size fits all package deal. So why do we accept it with democracy? Why do we have to pick which of our beliefs are most important and vote for the person who best represents those, while sacrificing other beliefs?

    The system must be changed to allow people to vote on issues, or at the very least sub-sections of government policy. Finance, social, military, environment. Yes these issues are all related, but individual opinions may not line up with the traditional slates when grouping these issues together.

    So, what candidate will fight for this finer granularity in democracy?

    Sadly I think the answer is none. Except for me of course (those in my geographic area, vote for me next time!)
  • Bill Richardson (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stox (131684) on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:46PM (#19277083) Homepage
    He has the most technical experience ( Former head of the Department of Energy ), the most foreign policy experience ( Former diplomat to the UN ), and an open mind. He supports medical use of marijuana. Most of all, he seems to be an honest guy. Too many candidates seem to have a facade formed by their political handlers, Bill just appears to be who he is. And finally, he is the only candidate I have drunken a beer with, and that seals it!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geekoid (135745)
      07/12/1996 Definition of Marriage Amendment Y
      07/12/1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Y

      So if your not Gay and you are his brand of christian, then it's cool!
      At least you can protest you aren't happy with america any way you... oh mayube not:

      Flag Desecration bill Y
  • by geekoid (135745) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {dnaltropnidad}> on Friday May 25, 2007 @06:58PM (#19277243) Homepage Journal
    # Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
    # Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
    # Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
    # Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)
    # Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
    # Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
    # Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

    # Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

    # No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)

    Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)

    Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)

    Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools (AKA religious schools)

    Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.
    Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.
    Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
    Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
    Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
    Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
    Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)

    Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)

    In short, he wants to cut services, not allow woman to make up their own minds, and do what supports his belief in the magical tooth fairy...oh sorry "god"
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by KermodeBear (738243)
      Not allow women to make up their own minds?

      What about making up their own mind to spread their legs in the first place?

      Sorry to be crude, but people need to take more responsibility for what they do around here.
    • by tcrown007 (473444) on Friday May 25, 2007 @07:36PM (#19277683)
      You're very confused about the reasoning behind these votes. A little more due diligence on your part would go a long way toward understanding government. I will comment on the reasons, though.

      # Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
      -- Government should not be funding research.

      # Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
      -- Government is not constitutionally authorized to restrict such transport.

      # Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
      -- Federal government is not authorized to make this a crime, this is an area where only states are supposed to have law making power.

      # Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)
      -- The abortion issue is tricky, all libertarians do not agree on this. The logic goes like this: All people own themselves, their life, their person, etc. All people have full control of their property, and nobody may take that away from you unless you are attempting to take it from someone else first. One person's rights ends where another persons begins. Two adults have an exactly equal right to life, and no matter how beneficial it is for one person to harm another person, you may never do so unless you are threatened.

      So using the above principle, person a is an unborn baby, and person b is the mother. Person A and person B have equal right to life. But at exactly which moment do all of these rights kick in? When do they start to exist? Conception? Viability? Birth? We know they kick in at some point, because all people have them, and they are inalienable. So where is it? Viability is a moving target. Does it make sense that these rights exist now at 7 months whereas 100 years ago they existed at 8 months?

      The above quandary will go away eventually. In 500 years when viability is the same as conception, it will no longer be a moving target, and then we can say that rights begin at conception, I suppose.

      But don't say Ron Paul is not for the rights of women. He is for the rights of everybody equally. You only differ in when you think a baby's rights start to exist.

      # Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
      -- Government is not authorized by the constitution to regulate cloning.

      # Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
      -- Government is not supposed to be promoting particular social agendas.

      # Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
      -- Government should not be taking money from hard working taxpayers in the US and sending out to foreign countries. If people wish to do do foreign charity work they should do it themselves. This is not in the purview of government.

      Ran outta time, have to run. Hopefully the above will get you started.

      # Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

      # No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)

      Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)

      Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)

      Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools (AKA religious schools)

      Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.
      Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.
      Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
      Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
      Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
      Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
      Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by CodeBuster (516420)
        # Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

        -- See the above commentary on when those inalienable rights kick in...

        # No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)

        -- Government is not supposed to be promoting particular social agendas

        Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)

        -- Bankruptcy was originally intended to be privilege that would be exercised responsibly by the citizens. Unfortunately however, enough of us proved to be irresponsible enough to ruin i
  • Green Party (Score:5, Informative)

    by sepluv (641107) <blakesleyNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday May 25, 2007 @07:00PM (#19277295) Homepage
    I'm surprised no one seems to have mentioned the Greens who tend to be more into civil liberties, transparency, participatory democracy, cutting back copyright law (inc. supporting free software), &c than the other parties which would appeal to a lot of the /. crowd.

    I'm British (and biased as I was a Green candidate over here this month) so I don't know much about the US Green Party's policies, but looking at RMS's website [stallman.org], he seems to be promoting them.

    According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the announced prospective Green candidates are Alan Augustson, Elaine Brown, Kent Mesplay and Kat Swift and there is speculation that Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Rebecca Rotzler, Cindy Sheehan and Al Gore might stand for the Greens.

  • slashdot party (Score:5, Interesting)

    by superwiz (655733) on Friday May 25, 2007 @07:08PM (#19277391) Journal
    I've been saying for a long time now that slashdot (despite the wide spectrum of philosophies and voting practices of its readers) is becoming a political party. Let's face, we do have a common interest that is largely influenced by politics. America never had a united technocrats party before. You might be witnessing its emergence.
  • Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)

    by psykocrime (61037) <mindcrime.cpphacker@co@uk> on Friday May 25, 2007 @07:25PM (#19277583) Homepage Journal
    Ron Paul is the best choice for Americans, period, not just nerds. He's the most pro-freedom candidate out there, and the only one - IMO - who's qualified to hold the position.
  • by OldHawk777 (19923) * <oh21 @ c omcast.net> on Friday May 25, 2007 @07:50PM (#19277851) Journal
    Mike Gravel: http://www.gravel2008.us/issues [gravel2008.us]

    If I was to pick one bad apple, out of (nothing other than) rotten apples in a basket.
    Gravel jams the "status-quo" bullshit and lies back up the ass of the other leader-clowns
    and fraud-leaders (like Bush and Hillary), pseudo-patriot politicians/generals (like
    Chaney and Franks), faux-prophet kings (like Falwell (thankfully dead) Roberts/Robertson,
    Bin Laden...)....

    GIVE U.S. FREEDOM FROM THE THREAT OF ALL MEGALOMANIACS/PROPHETS [AKA: Dogmatist]!

  • ME! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Friday May 25, 2007 @08:06PM (#19278023) Homepage Journal
    If Elected I promise:
    1) Decriminalize most crimes except for the really bad ones (Murder, rape, robbery, etc) and institute a policy of impaling for the rest of them. Worked for Vlad. I'd be Greyfox the impaler.
    2) Mandatory reversible sterilization for all children at puberty.
    3) Breeding license. It's harder to buy a gun or a car than it is to have a child. We'll have a test to insure that the Wrong Sorts don't breed.
    4) Forced breeding but
    5) Child rearing is a very difficult task and parents are far too busy these days. Therefore all children will be confiscated at birth and raised in sanitary state run facilities.
    6) Not only will gay marriage be legal, it will be mandatory for all people who don't hold breeding licenses.
    7) All organized religion will be abolished and a mandatory state run one involving Smurfs will be put into place.
    8) Mandatory Samurai honor code for corporate executives and public officials. Bring shame to your office, commit sepuku.
  • by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Saturday May 26, 2007 @01:22AM (#19280253) Homepage
    I was wondering who the community thinks will make the best President when it comes to representing issues Slashdot readers might care about?

    This has got to be one of the stupidest questions ever asked. Slashdotters are not some group of insulated nerds living divorced from the real world (I mean, if your parents go broke, whose basement are you going to live in, huh? :-).

    Off-hand, issues that I find most important are little things like the Iraq War, the disastrous ecological problems and looming energy crisis we need to face, the national debt and potential meltdown of the economy, trade imbalance and job outsourcing, to name a few. Compared to these, the technical things that I care about (i.e., copyright law, internet control, etc.) are so far down the list of issues that will form the basis for my vote they don't even register. Sorry if that's not nerdly enough for you, but if you really make your choice on technical issues at this point, you really are a clueless geek.

The person who's taking you to lunch has no intention of paying.

Working...