×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

McCain Campaign Uses Spider/Diff Against Obama

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the now-we're-getting-somewhere dept.

Republicans 1171

Vote McCain in 2008! writes "McCain's campaign is doing everything it can to erase Obama's online advantage, this time they ambushed Obama by detecting edits to his website when he updated some of his policy positions. This isn't the first time the Republicans have shown up the Democrats with their web savvy — you may remember the previous reports about the Republican Web 2.0 Consultants and their online campaigning game. This just proves that old Republicans can learn new tricks." Assuming the spider adheres to robots.txt, this is clever and well done.

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

New Meme (5, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211421)

Okay, you can mod me OT if you want, but as the submitter chose to call himself Vote McCain in 2008! I'm taking license here. Apologies to those who still find it OT...
I hear one definition of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result each time. How many times have we thrown our votes away on the major party candidates only to get the same old status quo, regardless of the promises made? It's high time we the people just say no to the corrupt two party system. It's time we got off our lazy asses and learn about the alternatives available outside the corporate-approved "choice" spoon-fed to us by Big Media. Oh sure, probably we'll get either McCain or Obama this time, but if enough people vote outside the box it will encourage others to do the same. Maybe we can even take back our government at some point. But it'll never happen by voting for one of the two "approved" candidates. We need a new meme -- don't throw your vote away. Don't waste your vote on the Republicrats!
/soapbox rant

Oblig. Futurama Ref. (4, Funny)

slifox (605302) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211479)

I personally favor the Fingerlicans...
 
...although, the Tastycrats do make a good point about that titanium tax...

Re:Oblig. Futurama Ref. (5, Funny)

gilroy (155262) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211553)

Sadly, everyone's gonna end up voting for the Brain Slug Party... again.

Re:Oblig. Futurama Ref. (2, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211991)

Don't vote for the apathy part!

Re:Oblig. Futurama Ref. (5, Funny)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 6 years ago | (#24212003)

ALL HAIL PRESIDENT HYPNOTOAD.

Re:Oblig. Futurama Ref. (2, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211853)

The problem is that the Fingerlicans' ten-cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough.

The sad part is that the Libertarian Party really has built a reputation as being the Dudes For The Legalation Of Hemp party. If not for that, people wouldn't be afraid to be libertarian because they wouldn't have to always be saying "I'm libertarian with a lowercase ell" to people.

Re:New Meme (1)

simong (32944) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211541)

+1, anywhere in the world, including our grey little island in the North Sea.

Re:New Meme (3, Insightful)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211599)

I hear one definition of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result each time.

Wait, so if I roll a bunch of dice, I should actually expect them to come up the same every time? Maybe those superstitions about lucky dice or lucky numbers are actually on to something...

Re:New Meme (5, Funny)

neomunk (913773) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211677)

I mean, you're trying to be cute, but if you roll the die a thousand times hoping that NEXT TIME it'll wash your dishes instead of providing the information on one of the die's faces, you've touched upon what the GP is talking about.

Re:New Meme (2, Informative)

TriezGamer (861238) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211861)

Wrong interpretation of the word different. In this case, different referrs to 'different from previous results'. This requires some established results before hand -- that is, the dice would come up anything from 1 to 6. The crazy would be rolling them expecting that you will eventually get a 7. (assuming 6-sided die)

Re:New Meme (1, Informative)

Bloodoflethe (1058166) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211975)

Not sure if you were just being funny or if you were trying to sneak bad logic in.

In case the latter is true - you wouldn't expect the resultant information on the dice to be the same in most situations, but in a completely controlled environment, if you rolled the dice exactly the same way, they should come up exactly the same in the exact same position. Now, that kind of control is impossible to expect, therefore dice have some inherent degree of randomness.

Now - the OP was also wrong in referring to that "definition of insanity", as the public perceptions are so easily molded. Just because it didn't work today, doesn't mean that it won't tomorrow, who knows what strange thing that people notice, what moronic chain e-mail goes around, what insipid advertisement will catch the public's eye and allow the old message to be received well.

These guys didn't get into this level of politics without knowing at least something about how to manipulate public opinion.

the third parties are running idiots too..... (4, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211619)

It's high time we the people just say no to the corrupt two party system. It's time we got off our lazy asses and learn about the alternatives available outside the corporate-approved "choice" spoon-fed to us by Big Media. Oh sure, probably we'll get either McCain or Obama this time, but if enough people vote outside the box it will encourage others to do the same.

Just three weeks ago I would have argued with you about this. Then Obama flip-flopped on FISA and voted for a bill containing telecom immunity. In so doing he lost my vote and my support. The only thing I would dispute is that the third parties really offer a better alternative. Consider:

Bob Barr: Witch-burning [religioustolerance.org] religious lunatic that led the impeachment of Bill Clinton and somehow gets to masquerade as a libertarian. Could they really do no better than this guy?
Ralph Nader: Left-wing crazy that thinks we should nationalize the energy industries (even I don't lean this far to the left) and expand the nanny state.
McKinney: Don't know a lot about her yet but the initial reading is not very promising [wikipedia.org] . Seems to have a huge chip on her shoulder and is probably at least as far to the left as Nader is.

I won't be voting for Obama or McCain but I don't see how I can support any of these crazies either. I'll sign their petitions for ballot access if asked but I fear that my vote for POTUS may wind up being blank this year :( I'd love the chance to meet Bob Barr and ask him directly if he's changed his tune on wiccans/neo-pagans -- a satisfactory answer might get him my vote. The others don't stand a chance though.

Re:the third parties are running idiots too..... (0, Troll)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211709)

Just three weeks ago I would have argued with you about this.

You just realized Obama was a sham 3 weeks ago? It's been pretty clear all along he's full of it. Change? Hahaha, good one.

it could be worse.... (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211753)

... I could have been one of the idiots that voted for the guy I wanted to have a beer with. Twice. How'd that work out again?

Re:it could be worse.... (2, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211943)

I voted for Bush. Twice. The first time because I actually liked him better than Gore, and the second time because I cannot stand John Kerry or John Edwards and thought (and still think) that they would've been even worse. I've been a lifelong Republican because they used to be a conservative party, but this year I'm completely undecided.

Re:the third parties are running idiots too..... (5, Insightful)

kalirion (728907) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211953)

Then Obama flip-flopped on FISA and voted for a bill containing telecom immunity.

You know, I still don't get the huge deal with the telecom immunity. Yes the telecoms should be punished, at least as a preventative measure so that in the future companies think twice before following illegal government orders. And yet, the truly guilty party are the government officials who made those orders. Why are we so intend to lynch their stooges when the masterminds are getting away scot-free? Are we just settling because we know they're above the law? Isn't there a bit of a double standard here?

Just try thinking of it from the company's point of view. The government orders them to hand over records. The government obviously shows a disdain for the constitution and considers anyone who stands in their way to be terrorist accomplices. What's going to happen to you when you say 'No'?

Re:the third parties are running idiots too..... (3, Insightful)

kalirion (728907) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211993)

^ it should be obvious that "hand over records" should be replace with "wiretap people".

Re:the third parties are running idiots too..... (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 6 years ago | (#24212009)

It was a relief to get rid of Cynthia McKinney in Georgia. We honestly didn't mean to send her somewhere else though.

Re:New Meme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24211637)

Year after year, the US voters get just the kind of government we deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of the world has to deal with our poor choices.

Honestly, we need to get all these old bastards out, strip them of power, try them for crimes if they commited any, and start from scratch. But it will never happen, because the voting public is too entranced by "Melodrama Island" or whatever reality tv show is big these days to do more than ingest the spoon-fed sound bytes these people are excreting.

Re:New Meme (2, Interesting)

ZonkerWilliam (953437) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211655)

I agree with you! I'm typically Republican, but not a fan of McCain. I'm big enough to think if the Democrats brought someone to the table that I could believe in, I would vote for him. There's just to many unknowns with Obama, to many red flags.

Why not pencil in Powell as a candidate on the ballet?!

Re:New Meme (5, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211863)

Why not pencil in Powell as a candidate on the ballet?!

Because he was complicit in misleading the public into the Iraq war.

Re:New Meme (1)

ZonkerWilliam (953437) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211999)

I suggest watching "Bush's War" on PBS. Powell was pressured by Cheney to announce to the UN that Iraq had WMB's, without any true evidence. Why? because he wanted to have Powell as a fall guy. Why do you think he left almost right after?

Re:New Meme (1)

fredrated (639554) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211663)

"I hear one definition of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result each time"

So my job search is just an indicator of my insanity? Maybe so, but it seems to me that insanity has become a defense against modern society.

Re:New Meme (5, Funny)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211747)

I hear one definition of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result each time.

I knew it: Quantum physics and statistics are insanity.

Re:New Meme (5, Insightful)

Strangely Familiar (1071648) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211789)

Unfortunately, while you're busy forming a great new party, the party most sympathetic to your new party's ideals is getting drained and beaten. You cut off your nose despite your face. No, the time for reform is in the primary election season. If you want to make a difference, get active during the primaries. Because of relatively low voter participation, your vote will count 10x. Your efforts (contributions, editorials, canvassing) count even more. Pick a Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich then, and support him early. That will make a real difference. Otherwise, make sure you're enjoying yourself chasing the windmills, because otherwise the exercise will be pointless.

Re:New Meme (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24211901)

I hear one definition of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result each time.

So, how many times have you backed a third-party candidate? Has the result changed yet?

Re:New Meme (0)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211915)

Republicrats is just not a useful word. It is way too easily confused with republicans. I know what your intention is with the word, and it achieves that goal when spoken, but in written language it just fails miserably.

Re:New Meme (1, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211941)

Until we change our voting system to something like Instant Runoff [wikipedia.org] voting, the large parties will never be beaten because voting for a 3rd party really is throwing away your vote.

Sad thing is, the voting system will never change from the top down because it benefits those in power. It needs to start from local elections, to state, and then finally Federal, as those that take power in the smaller areas demand it to move up in the political ladder. In other words, if you want to change things, get involved in you community and push this issue on your local politics!

Re:New Meme (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211983)

New mod point subject:

goodluckwiththat.

I will always make an informed choice and vote accordingly; It's just a shame that I know it still won't make a sodding difference.

Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24211425)

So can we expect to see a video of Barney teaching Bush how to roll over?

The Goods (5, Informative)

slifox (605302) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211431)

Here are the goods from TFA:

The Friday, July 11 version of the page says:
"at great cost our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006."

The Monday, July 14 version spidered by Versionista says:
"Our troops have heroically helped reduce civilian casualties in Iraq to early 2006 levels. This is a testament to our military's hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice by our troops and military families."

Re:The Goods (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24211665)

Spiders and the magic flip-flop detecting diff engine? No sir. They hired a room full of pedantic neocon monkeys to do this. Nice thought though.

Re:The Goods (2, Informative)

mweather (1089505) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211799)

So he updated his policy position when the facts changed? No wonder the Republicans see this as a bad thing!

The context? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211849)

So, has there been news out of Iraq in the past couple of weeks that indicate a bigger reduction in violence? Does this change reflect reality or not?

http://www.barackobama.com/robots.txt (2, Insightful)

Jizzbug (101250) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211449)

is totally empty... how adhering to robots.txt is clever is beyond me...

Re:http://www.barackobama.com/robots.txt (4, Funny)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211617)

what'd be nice is if politicians adhered to theconstitution.txt

Re:http://www.barackobama.com/robots.txt (2, Informative)

rhoder (690061) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211761)

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Re:http://www.barackobama.com/robots.txt (3, Informative)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211977)

Robots.txt only exists if you want to direct the search engine spider/robot in some regard. If you just want the search engine spider/robot to do what it does naturally (crawl and file information away), then you don't need to have a robots.txt at all. I think the editor was concerned that it would be unethical for the McCain campaign to create a crawler that ignores robots.txt. So McCain's campaign's savvy was only "clever" if it wasn't cheating (by ignoring robots.txt). In this case, as you mention, there was no robots.txt, which means McCain had no need to cheat. And of course that is the case--certainly Obama wants his campaign website to be searchable by Google.

Obama - go figure (-1, Flamebait)

nastilon (525562) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211465)

Why is this not surprising? Anyone with any sort of brain knows that Obama has no idea about anything; the only people voting for him are the ones too stupid to realize he is just saying whatever he needs to, to get elected.

Re:Obama - go figure (1)

gilroy (155262) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211593)

Anyone with any sort of brain knows that Obama has no idea about anything

which clearly explains why McCain's campaign feels a need to raid his site for ideas... ... and why Senator McCain felt compelled to reverse his long-standing, long-stated "policy" in Afghanistan, in order to adopt Sen. Obama's.

Re:Obama - go figure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24211603)

And how exactly doesn't this apply to every single politician to ever walk the Earth? You act as though Obama is the exception to the rule.

Re:Obama - go figure (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211813)

You act as though Obama is the exception to the rule.

No, Obama's supporters do. In fact, every 4 years the supporters of both candidates act that way.

Re:Obama - go figure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24211919)

It is the D.O.O. (Disciples of Obama) that seem to think L.B.A. (Lord Barack Obama) is the exception. The grandparent is just trying to undo some of the Obama is god brainwashing.

Re:Obama - go figure (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211629)

Why is this not surprising?

Anyone with any sort of brain knows that Obama has no idea about anything; the only people voting for him are the ones too stupid to realize he is just saying whatever he needs to, to get elected.

Which is different from any other major candidate, how?

Re:Obama - go figure (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211675)

Which is different from any other major candidate, how?

The other candidate is less eloquent and not quite as good at saying whatever he needs to to get elected. Not that he's not trying really hard, though.

Re:Obama - go figure (1, Troll)

HanzoSpam (713251) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211697)

Why is this not surprising? Anyone with any sort of brain knows that Obama has no idea about anything; the only people voting for him are the ones too stupid to realize he is just saying whatever he needs to, to get elected.

Shhhh! It's not like they're actually paying attention [moonbattery.com] , anyway....

Re:Obama - go figure (1)

methuselah (31331) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211795)

if you replaced obama with mccain this would have been moderated to five. if slashdot is one thing its consistent...

Re:Obama - go figure (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211883)

Do you remember the last politician who was successfully elected to anything higher than the local school board on a campaign that didn't utilize that technique? Neither do I.

no robots.txt at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24211477)

Can you say Watergate?

But if there is one, would you expect that to stop the McBush team from doing what they want to do?

Who are you trying to fool? (4, Informative)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211481)

This just proves that old Republicans can learn new tricks.

Are you kidding? The Republicans have been embarrassingly behind the times when it comes to IT stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole spider/diff issue came from some college Intern with initiative, working on his own.

Normally I'd say something positive to balance my post out, but this election is look god-awful for both parties. I just don't give a damn.

Re:Who are you trying to fool? (2, Insightful)

ZonkerWilliam (953437) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211521)

Republicans definitely are not behind in IT, We've been doing IT since, well the first computer.

Re:Who are you trying to fool? (1)

Kopiok (898028) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211611)

But the democrats invented the internet!

Re:Who are you trying to fool? (1)

ZonkerWilliam (953437) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211681)

I guess if you count all the porn they helped generate, you could be right!

(Joke)

Re:Who are you trying to fool? (4, Informative)

slifox (605302) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211549)

"The Republicans" didn't do a damn thing that I'd call special or a new trick--they simply used an existing tool (and no, its not diff or any other command-line tool):

Versionista monitors Web sites that you specify for edits. Our Web-based service records every change, clearly highlighting added or deleted words and sentences.

Re:Who are you trying to fool? (1)

theguru (70699) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211551)

> I wouldn't be surprised if the whole spider/diff issue came from some college Intern with initiative, working on his own. ... and this college intern is the future of the party. Working on his own? That's pretty much how things work. Very few people working on a campaign have strict marching orders. Most have full time jobs and are doing what they can on their own time, based on the skills they have.

Re:Who are you trying to fool? (1)

hamburger lady (218108) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211641)

Normally I'd say something positive to balance my post out

why? the story came from mccain's camp, who needs balance?

Re:Who are you trying to fool? (1, Insightful)

Bombula (670389) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211949)

this election is look god-awful for both parties.

Really? Obama is 'just another democrat'? Is that what people smart enough to post in html on slashdot really think? I'm surprised it isn't obvious to more people how significant Obama is as a fundamentally new kind of candidate. More so even than JFK, Obama has inspired a whole new generation of voters to get involved in politics because they can actually relate to someone running for office. Why? Because for the first time in 40 years there is a contender who isn't a rich old white guy. For the first time EVER there is a real contender who isn't white.

After this election, there is a very good chance that we'll have a president who does NOT hail from a family of either wealth or privilege or both; he'll be a Harvard-educated, self-made minority millionaire.

If you can't see that this is an astonishing departure from the status quo, then you really are blind. I'm not sure what kind of candidate it would take to impress people like you, short of a 35-year old gay atheist inuit liberatarian.

Fortunately, the difference - if it is lost of slashdotters - is NOT lost on the rest of the world. 5 billion brown people in foreign countries know that Obama represents a tectonic shift in American politics, in American foreign-relations, and in American global leadership - economic, political, cultural, environmental, and more.

Re:Who are you trying to fool? (1, Redundant)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 6 years ago | (#24212017)

"Are you kidding? The Republicans have been embarrassingly behind the times when it comes to IT stuff."

That image has helped the Republicans immensely. Emails? We... uh... we lost those. Sorry. Never underestimate the other side.

New Tricks? (4, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211489)

Perhaps old Republicans should learn that Czechoslovakia hasn't existed since the early 1990s before we deem them worthy of learning new tricks?

Re:New Tricks? (2, Insightful)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211931)

all 55 states of it are gone?

muahaha, gotcha... (5, Funny)

ckuttruff (1315571) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211495)

McCain Camp:
So through the course of our research we've found that you've modified some of the sections on your policy positions...

*coughs (and that you have twenty times the traffic we do)

Re:muahaha, gotcha... (5, Funny)

paeanblack (191171) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211647)

So through the course of our research we've found that you've modified some of the sections on your policy positions...

*coughs (and that you have twenty times the traffic we do)

How else do you expect people to keep up with all of those policy position changes?

robots.txt? Goldmine! (5, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211499)

robots.txt is idiotic in this context, except to steer spiders away from forms that shouldn't be submitted or triggering infinite loops. Suppose you find something like:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /campaignfinancesecrets/

Don't you think that's going to be the first place to look? Again, robots.txt is to avoiding causing site meltdowns or stupid behavior. It's not to hide information.

Re:robots.txt? Goldmine! (1)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211669)

Disallow: /campaignfinancesecrets/

Dang, why did I call the directory that? And on the public webserver too. Doh!!!

So what? (3, Insightful)

Manchot (847225) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211517)

Am I the only one who doesn't see a big difference between the two passages? The second one is pretty much just a rewritten, more detailed version of the first one.

Re:So what? (3, Insightful)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211559)

Am I the only one who doesn't see a big difference between the two passages? The second one is pretty much just a rewritten, more detailed version of the first one.

The first one could be read as bashing the military (bad bad bad), the second one can't.

Re:So what? (3, Informative)

Eddi3 (1046882) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211633)

Not only that, but this is also Obama admitting that the surge worked, which McCain always pushed for...

worked ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211723)

still car bombs are exploding regularly in iraq. anything works if you just reduce the patrols and avoid casualties.

Re:worked ? (2, Informative)

Eddi3 (1046882) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211873)

Such is the nature of this war. What I was referring to was this quote from the article:

"But military statistics released last week show that violence in the form of attacks, and the number of US casualties in Iraq, are now at a four year low. The attacks and casualties have plummeted from a peak in June 2007, according to those statistics."

And when did the surge start? From Wikipedia:

'June 15, 2007: The troop surge operations begin. The U.S. military reports that 28,000 troops required for the surge have arrived in Iraq and that the surge operations can now commence. "All the forces initially identified as part of the surge have completed their strategic movements into theatre in Iraq,"'

That's the date when the deaths started plummeting.

actually, no (0)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211829)

Leaving aside questions about whether or not it was the US troop escalation that lowered violence in Iraq (there's a convincing argument to be made that is not the most significant factor in the decrease in violence), the entire point of "the surge" was political reconciliation in the Iraqi government.

And this hasn't happened at all.

You only get to call it a success when it succeeds, and it hasnt.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24211739)

Not bashing, just recognizing that the situation isn't good. Sitting here claiming things are better than they really are is no service to our troops.

From TFA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24211539)

If anything, the changes simply reflect that Obama is just another politician.

Robots.txt (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211567)

Why should McCain adhere to the robots.txt? I will vote for Obama (likely) and definitely not McCain. But when dealing with an election, anything is fair game short of disruption of services.

If Obama puts up a "no crawler" policy, then screw him. What he puts up there is for public consumption, and knowing what changes he is making should be known by all.

Get Your Whine On, SlashKos Idiots (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24211575)

Ooooooh! Repuglicans EVIL! Ooooooh!

Please remember to change your underwear after you pee yourselves with impotent rage, you freakin' morons.

Re:Get Your Whine On, SlashKos Idiots (1)

fredrated (639554) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211719)

"Please remember to change your underwear after you pee yourselves with impotent rage, you freakin' morons"

Wow, seems like the impotent rage is yours, moron.

Mmmhmm (3, Insightful)

PhoenixFlare (319467) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211587)

No doubt Mr. "Vote McCain in 2008!" is looking to score some points [johnmccain.com] with this one.

I'm not saying everything posted here has to be neutral by any means, but geez, this is pretty transparent.

Re:Mmmhmm (3, Funny)

cswiii (11061) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211823)

I hear that if you accumulate ten McCain Points, you can trade them in for a liver spot.

Why is updating your policy positions bad again? (4, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211607)

Why is changing what you have to say a bad thing? If you have a different set of facts or a change in thought, why is it bad to change your opinions?

And are the edits that the Obama campaign making really significant? I had a look at the differences highlighted in the linked Wired article, and they didn't really look like a significant change in substance.

So fucking what? Are we really this stupid in our politics that it's now a game of crying "flip-flopper" when you just say more or less the same thing, maybe with a different emphasis?

Re:Why is updating your policy positions bad again (4, Insightful)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211627)

Why is changing what you have to say a bad thing? If you have a different set of facts or a change in thought, why is it bad to change your opinions?

Hello, where have you been the last 7 years ? Changing what you say makes you a flip-flopper. Real men stay the course.

Re:Why is updating your policy positions bad again (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211729)

Ah, silly me - I've been trying not to breathe in teh Stupid that's washed over America.

Re:Why is updating your policy positions bad again (4, Funny)

Spad (470073) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211751)

Or to put it another way:

"I may be a fucking moron, but at least I'm consistantly a fucking moron".

Re:Why is updating your policy positions bad again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24211817)

There is absolutly nothing wrong with changing one's policy. For example, I was going to vote for Obama. Then, after he carried out his FISA vote, I decided to not vote for anyone.

I don't consider him a flip-flopper, but then again I don't consider myself one either. Things change.

Re:Why is updating your policy positions bad again (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211899)

So fucking what? Are we really this stupid in our politics that it's now a game of crying "flip-flopper" when you just say more or less the same thing, maybe with a different emphasis?

Yes.

Vote McCain in 2008! ....... (1)

Vote Obama in 2008! (1327001) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211623)

Vote McCain in 2008! ???

I can't put my finger on it, but this guy has to have some sort of an angle.

Re:Vote McCain in 2008! ....... (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211705)

Yeah. Click on the link behind his name. You will see his TRUE allegiance.

Dissonance (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211639)

So let me get this straight, the two biggest issues people have with a candidate are:

A. He doesn't have enough experience.
B. He might change his mind.

(C. is of course, being a secret Muslim)

If he gets some experience and changes his mind, criticize him for B. If he doesn't get any experience, criticize him for A. Genius.

Re:Dissonance (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211847)

I have a big problem with him voting for this: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/10/1341207 [slashdot.org] . Oops, I apologize for saying anything remotely bad about Obama.

Re:Dissonance (2, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211891)

You don't have to apologize for saying something bad about Obama. I hated that decision and I thought it was typical weak Democratic waffling.

I'm still going to vote for him in November, because basically it's him or McCain. And McCain would be at best an extension of the Bush years, and we frankly just don't need that.

Re:Dissonance (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211939)

No, the biggest issues people have with Obama is that he participated in the whitewashing of the crimes of the Bush administration. That he somehow thinks National Security trumps the Rule of Law. That he even thinks we can have National Security without the Rule of Law. That right there shows that he is totally unfit to govern.

Didn't read the title properly (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211645)

At first I thought

"Dressing Obama up as an Islamic terrorist is one thing, but dangling a spider in front of the man when he's arachnophobic is just plain evil"

I've read it properly now so here are my real thoughts:

"Why bother creating a diff of Obama? He doesn't have a twin to apply a patch against"

We have unequivocal proof... (5, Funny)

languagehacker (1317999) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211649)

...that someone spending almost all their time going across the country talking to people about different issues actually changed his mind about where he stands on certain topics. As Republicans, this is foreign to us, and upsetting to think about.

Silly article writer (4, Insightful)

wytcld (179112) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211657)

The article concludes:

If anything, the changes simply reflect that Obama is just another politician.

This is like comparing two drafts of James Joyce's Ulysses, noting that changes were made, and concluding, "If anything, the changes simply reflect that Joyce is just another writer." Keeping in mind that as it happens Obama is also a talented, best-selling author, we should be surprised that he prepares more than on draft, or releases more than one edition of his work?

In other news, the detection of edits in the latest kernel release prompted a clever Wired hack to print, "If nothing, the changes simply reflect that Torvalds is just another coder."

Dumb (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211721)

This just proves that old Republicans can learn new tricks.

It's pretty stupid to think just because someone's old, they are less web saavy. It's also pretty stupid to assume that all Republicans must be collecting social security right now.

This is such a life-wasting exercise. (1)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211733)

I can't believe people waste their lives on stuff like this. Presumably it's done in order to convince undecided voters that one candidate is worse than the other because he flip-flops on some issue. But I would expect that undecided voters have better things to do than to read through web page comparisons, or watch hours of video comparisons.

McCain trying to hide his flip-flopping (4, Insightful)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211785)

Yes, Obama is editing his web site and fine-tuning his message. BFD. That's what web sites are for. I don't see anything greatly inconsistent in what Obama is doing.

What is really going on is that McCain has a lousy record: he has been flip-flopping on positions and has a lot of history that he needs to hide from. This is a huge problem for the Republican party establishment, who probably would have preferred any candidate other than McCain.

So, what does McCain do? He tries to go on the offensive so that he can say "well, it's OK if I flip-flop because the other guy edits his web site, too".

Don't let McCain get away with this bullshit. McCain is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of both conservative Republicans and moderates in terms of his actual positions and record.

meanwhile, the mccain camp scrubs too. (1)

cswiii (11061) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211787)

Most recent news [bradblog.com] .

Regarding the technological issue -- I think the spidering can be somewhat useful, but it's kind of like bringing a knife to a gunfight; it isn't going to make up for all the gaffes and flip-flopping on positions that McCain has stated publicly, versus something written on a website/weblog.

A youtube video comparing/contrasting McCain against himself -- of which there are many -- are far more damning than a diff of a website.

Vote McCain 2008! (1)

Anonymous Crobar (1143477) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211815)

Another objective story from the "we don't check usernames" department. Seriously guys, this is obviously a plant - note the lack of spelling and grammar mistakes! Also, this is the first time I have seen this story on Slashdot. Real news for nerds is submitted several times over a one week period, has some psuedoscience factoid that we can all slam and is tagged with "Ohnoitsroland."

Here's a better headline for the same story that we could sink our teeth into:

"McCain Campaign Uses Spider/Diff Against Obama... and checks his email with emacs on a PDP-11 BeOS port"

FLAME ON!

How can you say Republicans are "old dogs" (0, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24211877)

When it is Republicans that have had the vision to put the capital tools, trade agreements, and military forces in place to create a genuinely free trading global economy? No plan ever made by Democrats has lifted nearly all of Europe and then Asia out of poverty and into the modern world, but the Republican -decades- long commitment to free trade most definitely has. Ultimate, this does mean social change for everyone, but, it is a change in world that is much more peaceful than it has been in a long time, a world where there are increasingly more people that have than have not, a world where people with brains and ambition and want to work, are not held back by those who lack them.

All the Democrats offer, despite their supposed advantage in brains, is, largely reactionary. Obama's central campaign thrust is really "anti-Republican", and not anything really substantive as a view of life in and of itself. Obama argues -against- free trade, argues -against- American military expansion, and finally even seeks to argue -against- global wealth for everyone by demanding that the world accept a greater degree of poverty (thus rationalizing inefficient socialism), in the name of saving the environment.

Even the very idea of redistribution of wealth, is, in essence, a reactionary idea. Some people succeed, other people didn't, and so they invent a bunch of arguments that give their thugs a right to go and take that money, and even worse, demand that someone who is successful work more days per year to pay their taxes than someone who is not.

Because a President should be elected by tricks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24211925)

maybe we get what we deserve, like the last 8 years.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?