A Look At Joe Biden's Tech Voting Record 603
Aviran brings us an analysis of Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's voting record on technology issues. CNet breaks down the issues by category and provides details on the tech-related legislation he's introduced in the past several years. Biden received a score of 37.5% on CNet's 2006 technology voter guide. We've discussed the technology stances of McCain and Obama in the past.
Why... (Score:5, Informative)
Why did Biden vote against the FISA bill, the one where Obama voted for? You know, the one that granted telecoms immunity against criminal prosecution.
You don't know the history of the bill, then (Score:3, Informative)
The history of that bill is otherwise. While the vote was a lopsided 68/29/3 (y/n/not-voting), one must remember that it was filibustered, and overcoming a filibuster takes a 3/5 super-majority (on the US Senate base of 100), so the margin was more like 8 votes than 18, and wasn't a sure thing at all. It had previously failed, and the supporters had to "deal" in ordered to get the votes they needed. One wonders what deal Obama cut in ordered to get him to change is vote after an original pledge to oppose
Change (Score:5, Insightful)
How can a candidate running on a base of "change" justify picking a VP who has been in DC for 30+ years?
The only thing "changing" in January is the position DC is fucking me in...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Change (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, he got us the money. The Internet was a government funded research project, Gore got us the money for it which is all he ever claimed.
Imagine what would have happened if MuCullagh had not placed his smear story? Rove's objective there was to Swiftboat Gore and turn his greatest strength into a weakness. Gore could not campaign on his very real contribution to the creation of the Internet.
So instead we have had eight years of corrupt,
Re:Change (Score:5, Insightful)
/sarcasm.
Remember also that part of the point of a VP choice is that they'll be the ones running for President after the President's term ends.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah it's not like Cheney ever set policy...
/sarcasm.
Remember also that part of the point of a VP choice is that they'll be the ones running for President after the President's term ends.
which is why Dick Cheney is the GOP nominee.
/sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Still doesn't change the fact that VP's can and do set policy.
Re:Change (Score:5, Interesting)
The VP most certainly does set policy especially considering he is the one who carries a tie breaking vote in the Senate. He is the only person in the Executive Branch that has direct voting power in the legislative. Given the lame duck Senate we have today, that tie breaker vote does set policy.
Re:Change (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, a tie-breaking vote only ever comes up about once a year [wikipedia.org]. It's barely ever an issue, considering how many votes congress passes.
And congress is only lame duck because Neo-conservatives have set an all-time record for filibusters, and because Bush will veto everything the Dems do get through. They're trying to cause what seems like a shutdown of Congress, and then blame the Dems for it -- and the public is completely buying it. I tried to argue this same point to someone else, and was only met with the response "no, it's because the Democrats are a bunch of useless idiots." That's almost word for word, and it represents way too many people's thought processes.
Re:Change (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll admit, I really doubt anything will "change" with Obama in office. All politicians talk of change and yet it's the same thing every administration.
In this case, we can't complain too much. The US VP does very little in the government. Some even say it's a joke position. He gets a vote in Congress, and has a lead position at NASA and the Smithsonian. Beyond that he has little power.
The one thing the VP can do for him is serve as an advisor.
Some people like that Obama is new, others think he lacks enough experience. By putting someone high profile in his camp that has experience, the nay-sayers can relax.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if they high profile guy in question has specifically said that he doesn't think Obama is ready to be president? The inescapable implication is that he (Biden) thinks that only because of his presence can Obama handle the job. Or, that Obama still can't handle the job, but that's OK, because he'll do it for him, etc. This is all just a sign of Obama's awakening to the fact that he's way over his inexperienced head, here.
Re:Change (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Change (Score:4, Insightful)
The most important thing about a president is to recognize that that person is a figurehead. The transition from Nixon to Ford changed the president from being a colorful driving person to a gray eminence - but on the other hand, it was probably a good idea to not stand out too much after the Watergate event.
Personally I think that the government of the US has been overdoing it's way after 9/11 by being far too paranoid. This with a no-fly list that also traps innocent people (at least innocent of terrorism, they may have other things to be guilty about, but that's a different issue) just because they happen to have the same name as another person suspected of involvement with terrorism.
The big problem with McCain will be that a lot of the advisors and other people behind the scene will remain the same or continue in the same tracks as before. A change of government party will at least shave off a bit and also make some people think twice before acting.
It's very easy for a state to grow into a police state. Just be aware about the laptop searches and a lot of other things that will affect many of us. It's called democracy but sometimes I start to doubt it when I hear and see what is going on. Laws are made to be used as excuses for actions that were unthinkable 20 years ago. (Patriot act, DMCA...)
And if nothing else - you can always call on the pedophile scare and blow the reputation of a person completely.
So even if Obama has his faults he also have the advantage of being flexible and relatively unblemished by scandals. Experience is something you build by time, but by selecting Joe Biden he will have someone that's really experienced behind him.
As for Hillary Clinton, I suspect that she can do a good work in another prominent position, like secretary of state. But that has of course to be decided after the election, given that Obama is elected.
For McCain it's also likely that he will only be in office for one term, but it's of course not certain. His age is a disadvantage here, and even if he is healthy now (or at least appears to be) things can deteriorate quickly at his age.
And Obama is also running the risk of being a one term president, mostly since there are a lot of cleaning to do after Bush. A lot of uncomfortable decisions to make, and a lot of people to piss off. I have a suspicion that there will be changes when it comes to taxes to clean up the shortcomings of the Iraq events. It's not a task that I would like to have on my desk, but some things just have to be done. Maybe he should hire Mike Rowe and make a Dirty Jobs episode of it? :-)
And regardless of who becomes president - you will have to accept that that person can embarrass himself on some occasions. But don't let that be something to decide who to vote for, just accept it and let it be a good joke afterwards. Like someone said about the Lewinsky affair - "I'd rather have my president happy than frustrated".
The best qualified candidate (Score:4, Funny)
McCain's Vietnam experience does show grit and character, but your main point is sound.
Obama is not qualified. McCain is not qualified. Nobody who has a chance of getting to run is qualified.
There's a science fiction story called "2066: Election Day" by Michael Shaara. In it, the master computer chooses the President, because the voters have proven to do such a bad job. It is programmed to select the "best qualified man". The story hinges on a constitutional crisis that came up because the programmers coded "best qualified man" not as the expected "Select max(qualified) from candidates" but as "select max(good) from candidates where qualified=true". The computer refused to select a President.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they are surrounded by the people that their experience tells them they need around them. Again, lack of worldlieness in that regard is a real factor.
I agree with you that Obama is lacking experience. But who of the Democrats would fit the "experience" bill the best? Bill Richardson? He is certainly worldly, and has depth. Joe Biden? He is one of the most experienced when it comes to international affairs and foreign policy? He and Richardson. Hillary? Well she was married to a man who is revered as one of the better presidents so I suppose that accounts for something
Re:Change (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Reagan and Clinton were both successful leaders (Score:4, Insightful)
...But, Clinton started out with a stellar academic career (you know, Rhodes scholar), wheras Obama went to a no-name college.
So you've never heard of those no-name colleges "Columbia University" and "Harvard Law School" (where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review)?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bill Clinton pointed out the other day that there is absolutely nothing that can
Re:Change (Score:5, Insightful)
You overlook the fact that the reason Georgia was not allowed to join NATO was precisely the fact that they had an existing border dispute with Russia. Moreover the current Georgian President was elected on a platform of starting a war with Russia to reclaim the territories concerned.
So why exactly should NATO give Georgia a blank check here? NATO has always been a defensive alliance, McCain is proposing turning it into an offensive alliance. The regions concerned have been occupied by Russia since 1992, Georgia has only been independent since 1991. Russia does in fact have a reasonable claim to make that the people who actually live in the region would prefer to be a part of Russia than Georgia.
Russia would not have sent the tanks in if the Georgians had been competent and blocked the only tunnel between Russia and S. Ossettia. So not only would McCain have us take sides in this squalid irredentist dispute, he would have us ally ourselves to an incompetent.
You're confusing a natural instinct to have the federal government NOT INVOLVED in every little aspect of your life with being uninterested.
Funny the way that wingnuts cannot talk to anyone without denigrating them as ignorant, stupid, etc. I guess that must be over-compensating for having a candidate who cannot remember what car he drives or how many houses he has. Is he really that confused or just senile?
McCain has never displayed the slightest interest in domestic policy. That is a problem because the levees that McCain called 'pork' are what the inhabitants of New Orleans called their protection from flooding.
Why aren't you concerned with how little thoughtful observation time Obama seems to be giving the actual reality on the ground in the middle east, as it relates to what the troops - whom he wants to command - are accomplishing?
McCain has made many untrue claims here. Was he lying when he said Obama had not talked to Petraus or had he merely forgotten that McCain was present when Obama questioned Petraus in the Senate hearings? You are repeating a Rovian talking point, it has no basis in fact.
Or (just as likely) he has a very predictable, oily level of disengenuous scorn for the people on the left to whom he's been promising one thing when - of course - he'll "refine" his position, and simply ignore once he gets the job.
Projection, projection. The party of Abramoff, Reed, DeLay, Stevens, Ney, Cunningham did exactly that. They promised much and then when they got into government they spent their time making it bigger and selling favors to their fat cat friends. They were willing to let Stevens build his billion dollar bridge to nowhere because they were going to get a cut from his kickbacks as well. Stevens got a $500,000 house renovation done for free by Veco, how much did the rest of the sleazy gang get?
Now once there was a guy called John McCain who used to be against that type of thing, but unfortunately its not that McCain who is on the ballot. Instead we have Rove-McCain, which is what you get when the old John McCain sells out all his principals to the religious right and the corruption wings of the GOP to win the primary. The old McCain is gone, all that is left is the empty husk left to be filled by his aides.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"We recognized the independence of Kosovo on the basis that the local population had the right to decide that they would not be part of Serbia any more."
I will be the first to argue to you that Kosovo was a massive mistake on our part, and I put the blame squarely at the feet of George W Bush. What he did was either open the door for every postage stamp territory in Europe to declare independence... Wales, Catalonia, Sicily, northern Greece; or if we don't let the Basques and every other minority in Europe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, come on. His whole point was that if Georgia had been quickly allowed into NATO when it SHOULD have been allowed in, Russia wouldn't have sent tanks into it in the first place. Are you unable to grasp the utility of a deterrent? There's a reason we never "declared war" on the Soviets.
Isn't this all a moot point given the fact that Germany and France were opposed to bringing Georgia into NATO? And is it really wise to invite yet another country that can barely defend itself (let alone contribute to the defense of others) into NATO?
I've researched the history in that region and came away with the conclusion that there really aren't any good guys there. The South Ossetians and Abkhazians have done their best to make life for ethic Georgians in those regions unlivable. Historically the G
Re:Change (Score:4, Insightful)
"Even if they high profile guy in question has specifically said that he doesn't think Obama is ready to be president? The inescapable implication is that he (Biden) thinks that only because of his presence can Obama handle the job. Or, that Obama still can't handle the job, but that's OK, because he'll do it for him, etc. This is all just a sign of Obama's awakening to the fact that he's way over his inexperienced head, here."
Or, he was just saying that to win the primaries. He is, at the end of the day, still a politician. Everyone tried to paint Obama as young and inexperienced, a risk, and it didn't work. To read anymore into it, I think it a bit foolish.
Re:Change (Score:5, Interesting)
Alternate theory: I read a book recently, called "Team of Rivals", about Abraham Lincoln's presidency. This is a book that Obama claims has influenced him heavily, especially his vision for his own presidency.
Lincoln could have chosen yes-men for his cabinet. Inexperienced men would be grateful for their positions, and feel less qualified to disagree with their boss. Instead, he gave very prominent positions (State, Treasury, War, etc.) to the very men he had defeated in the Republican nomination fight. Lincoln, having served only one term in the House, was about as inexperienced as presidents came. For much of his first term, critics within his own party consoled themselves with the false assumption that the Secretary of State was actually pulling the strings.
All that infighting led to quite a few ego-driven disputes that Lincoln had to step in and resolve. It also led to an atmosphere where doubts were aired, and where issues got brought up and resolved before decisions were made.
The fact is, Obama knew full well that tapping an experienced, opinionated foreign policy wonk with decades more senate experience would highlight his inexperience. If he was feeling really insecure, he could have gone with a one-termer like Tom Kaine or Jim Webb. If he wanted to surround himself with yes-men, he could find a VP whose views more closely mirrored his own. I hope Obama really does try to build a Lincolnish presidency, where the (sometimes very public) infighting usually led to better choices.
Biden seems like a good start.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, Bush promised to "change the tone in Washington", and he sure did. To the tone of a trainwreck under Godzilla's claws.
Mainly by letting Cheney run the country (into the ground), while Bush took the "hard work" of being the Republican power monopoly's spokesmodel, "catapulting the propaganda" [youtube.com].
What we need to get from the next VP is a commitment, from them or from the president, that they will burn down the Cheney Bunker. No Republican would ever do such a thing to their most powerful "legacy". We have to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The ones who remember how abysmal the past 8 years have been, and how much worse the next 4-8 would be with McCain keeping the Bush economy running.
George Bush - corn $6/bushel
Bill Clinton - corn $2.5/bushel
Yep, they really want to go back to the good old days of Clinton, and make less than half of what they are making now.
Especially those who know that Bush squandered every penny and ounce of respect this country had amassed in over two centuries.
Oh, you mean all that respect LBJ earned when he invaded Vie
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now he can say that while he lacks national level leadership experience he has a close source of advice that is hard to beat. I think that this choice is going to turn out more neutral then anythi
Re:Change (Score:5, Funny)
also, biden as VP forces mccain's hand. the christian right has made it very clear that mccain's toast if he picks a pro-choice VP. now with biden as obama's VP, mccain has to pick someone who won't get beaten to a bloody pulp in a debate against biden.
also, mccain needs someone who puts forth an aura of youth to counteract the fact that he's a fossil, and since mccain is getting beaten bloody on this whole confused-rich-guy-who-can't-even-remember-how-many-houses-he-lives-in thing, someone with solid middle-class credentials.
so mccain needs to find a young, anti-abortion middle-class outsider who can go toe-to-toe with joe biden in a debate. good luck with that one.
Re:Change (Score:4, Insightful)
McCain needs to find a young, anti-abortion middle-class outsider who can go toe-to-toe with joe biden in a debate. good luck with that one.
and if he is really smart about it; he sould pick a woman. That will really take "change" votes away from Borate Obama.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Too bad McCain's idea of middle class is 3 million a year.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
I have heard this accusation a lot lately. Eventually, I went and actually looked up what happened. I have come to the conclusion that your accusation is dishonest. A simple google for "obama" and "rezko" turns up thousands of stories, but here [suntimes.com] is a representative one.
For those who, like me, tend not to follow all the political scandals, here is a summary. Rezko and Obama bought adjacent parcels of land. Obama's parcel had a house on it; Rezko's was undeveloped. These two parcels had previously belonged to the same person, who had decided to split their property and sell it in two parts. Some time later, Obama wanted to expand his property, so he bought a slice of Rezko's land. I have not seen any indications that Obama bought the land for anything less than a fair price; in fact, I read an article showing that Rezko made a decent profit on the land but I can't find that article right now.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Change (Score:4, Insightful)
Just as Shigeru Miyamoto how much old people can't invent.
I had no idea... (Score:3, Funny)
Do Senators exist who can open a laptop without assistance and actually avoid drooling on the keyboard?
Joe Biden's pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting record (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the original post title and post by Aviran that's merely alluded to here... why the need to neutralize it? Would you have neutralized it for a Republican candidate?
I wonder what the FBI has on him. (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting. Is there a J. Edgar Hover wannabe there? Or is it just the current climate with this administration.
the trouble with this is, even though Obama would be the President if elected, Biden would be President of the Senate. So if there's a tie breaker for or against something that would further deteriorate our Civil Liberties, I can only assume Biden would vote in favor of less freedom. And if that should some to pass, maybe Obama would veto it. Then again, maybe not. This country is on a path of safety overrides freedom every time. I have lost hope.
Re:I wonder what the FBI has on him. (Score:5, Informative)
No, as President of the Senate he will always vote the way the Obama Administration wants him to - this is how all Vice Presidents have voted in the past.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Blaming a tie breaker solely on the person who breaks the tie is a little wacky.
Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:4, Insightful)
We have lost more freedoms than ever under Republican administrations and this user seems to question the ability of Obama/Biden before they even get a chance - as if its the democrats fault we're in this shit hole we're in today (or as if the parent accepts this shit hole as conservative progress)
Tell me ONE law, ONE goal, ONE ambition of the Obama/Biden ticket that will make "safety override freedom every time".
Obama/Biden isn't Clinton politics.
* Going Green is energy policy
* Creating Green jobs is Economic Policy
* Having a right hand mand to fill in the "DC politics" greed that voters will (for what reason i don't know) expect is a BOON.
* Healthcare is a great policy - a social insurance program that could have been funded for every human being if we hadn't been hell bent on WAR
I could go on and on what Obama/Biden can do for us but to people like you, its only what you assume they will do against you without regards for your fellow neighbors, countrymen and US citizens.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't believe you honestly believe there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats despite all evidence to the contrary.
Tell me ONE law, ONE goal, ONE ambition of the Obama/Biden ticket that will make "safety override freedom every time".
Too easy. [barackobama.com] Try another.
Have the Democrats got us out of Iraq after pledging to do so? NO!
Have the Democrats passed any laws that increased our freedoms? NO!
Have the Democrats ever passed any laws that increased freedom? NO!
Voting either Repulcrat or Democan is voting for politics-as-usual and no change, no matter what pretty-boy Obama says. When's the last time you saw a politicia
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if he does nothing else, Obama will raise taxes on the rich. This will have two beneficial effects:
That said, I believe Obama represents a far bigger and more beneficial change than you seem to see. But even if he does only what you believe he'll do, it'll be a good thing.
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not? Because you say so?
A democratic government's responsibility is to make the world a better place. A happy society is an egalitarian society. Yes, that goal has to be balanced against others. But completely ignoring income inequality would just make us enter another gilded age. Are you ignorant of that era's miseries, or are you callous enough to inflect them on your fellow citizens?
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the populace: not the richest 2% of the populace, but all of it. More specifically, we elect people who keep our interests in mind. Our interests are not in allowing the richest to accumulate ever-increasing wealth while wages flatline for the vast majority.
Do you really think a single person can be a hundred million times more worthy than another?
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the populace: not the richest 2% of the populace, but all of it. More specifically, we elect people who keep our interests in mind. Our interests are not in allowing the richest to accumulate ever-increasing wealth while wages flatline for the vast majority.
Do you really think a single person can be a hundred million times more worthy than another?
But Obama is not talking about doing anything about the richest accumulating ever increasing wealth. He is talking about raising the top level income tax. The richest people either pay minimal amounts of income tax or none at all. How much impact on their wealth do you think income tax has for the Duponts or the Rockefellers?
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps if the world really worked like that, you'd have a point. But the people getting rich aren't the ones with knowledge and skill. They're the tall, confident ones who wine and dine important people. They play the game, and who join the old boy's club. These qualities do not translate into worth to society at large. The ultra-rich are parasites.
Also, small government über alles is not a sustainable philosophy. At least government is accountable. Corporations, unchecked, become little autocratic empires that aren't good for anyone but the owners.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but there are multiple ways to govern.
If they didn't, our system wouldn't be even remotely democratic. In reality, officials need to stand for re-election. In some jurisdictions, they can even be recalled mid-term. (See California.) These mechanisms ensure accountability. (Which is why I oppose term limits but s
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trickle-down economics has been widely debunked. The gist is that creating luxury goods does less to help the economy than Keynesian projects.
I think Godwin's Law ought to apply to all oppressive leaders, not just Hitler. Yes, my ideals, executed naively, lead to communism. Your ideals, executed naively, lead to fascism.
The key is to create a workable system for the benefit of all while still providing incentive for individual achievement. Neither extreme achieves that goal. Today, however, we are still too far to the right.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To quote GTA:SA, "People dont have a right to cheap transport. The Constitution is very clear on this. Remember, its only a small step from mass transit to Communism."
By the way, progressive taxation cannot possibly be a goal of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As the Parent said, it isn't the government's job to manufacture income equality. And no, this isn't because of something he says, it is because the very essence of freedom means that you are free to put your resources to work and make money. Even if you end up making more the someone else. You are essentially taking freedom away when they artificial barriers are put into place.
There are a lot of situations where some level of freedom is given away to promote the overall good of the people. In fact, every single form of government takes away some level of freedom. Monopolies aren't allowed to exist so it can better our economy, but that sure is a restriction on my freedom to run a business. Remember that the only form of government where you are completely free to do as you please is anarchy.
Imagine a life where you have unemployed people because they don't want to work or they fuck off and get people hurt so they were fired. Then fire as many people making the most money just to open jobs up for these original slacker unemployed people. That is what you are wanting to do by raising the rent on the rich just so they don't have as much or more then the poorer people when do something to make money.
Imagine a life where you have corporations controlling every aspect of society -- corporat
Why I never trust "voting records" (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone has bias. Everyone.
The problem with voting records is not always apparent when you look at them and try to decide if someone is good for an industry or not. Industries are too complicated for any law to be truly pro or against the industry. Tech is especially so.
For me, the best voting record for a candidate is proven by those who halted BAD legislation by not just voting against more government intrusions into the market, but also worked to hold up bad bills from leaving committees. My favorite legislators are those who just shut down most bills before they're even really bills. The legislative committees is where the best work is done, or the worst work is done.
This is why I fully believe our campaign finance laws are to blame when it comes to voting records. Since the individual is greatly limited in who they can support, and how, it is always the large lobbying groups that end up writing the laws. McCain and Feingold knew this, and they knew that limiting the voice of the individual would end up limiting the power of the individual.
To wrap up, trying to look at voting records is bad because most of the work is done before the vote is even considered. We have no power, as individuals, to try to work in that process. The lobbying groups, which are always about MORE legislation to destroy competition and never LESS, are cozied up very nicely: to Obama, to Biden, to McCain, to whoever it is who is elected, might be elected, or was elected. And on that, all of them have terrible voting records which do nothing but restrict competition in every market they touch.
"Joe Biden has strong anti-piracy record" (Score:5, Informative)
I guess we'd better hope voting records don't mean much, as it seems Biden is a firm friend of the *AA's
NEW YORK -- Joe Biden may have made his name in foreign relations in 32 years in the Senate, but his efforts against piracy have won him respect in Hollywood.
Biden was named Saturday as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate. The Delaware senator has got a long list of credentials, including chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, membership on the Senate Judiciary Committee and experience on the world stage lacking in the top of the ticket. But the 64-year-old Scranton, Pa., native has been a strong advocate for U.S. intellectual property rights and an ardent soldier in the fight against piracy.
As a founding member of the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus, Biden has helped the lead the fight against countries such as China, Russia, Mexico and India that need stronger copyright protections.
"When somebody holds you up on the street and takes your wallet, we call it robbery," Biden said in May 2007. "And when somebody steals your idea and creation, we call it theft, plain and simple." The MPA has lauded the work of the anti-piracy caucus as being essential to motivating the government to action.
(From http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i67f2ad037eba0dd6e4821ce39ce827a3?imw=Y [hollywoodreporter.com])
Re:"Joe Biden has strong anti-piracy record" (Score:5, Interesting)
Look:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00001669 [opensecrets.org]
Examining the top industry contributions to Biden, there is a TV/movies/music presence there, but it's less than a 20th of his top contributor. Also note that the RIAA/MPAA doesn't even rate a mention in the individual company contributors.
Basically, it looks like he formulated that opinion on IP without ... outside help.
Re:Why I never trust "voting records" (Score:4, Informative)
How can you profess to be impartial when you use loaded language like that? Government intervention in markets is a good thing unless you like all your telephones rented from AT&T, or antifreeze in your toothpaste.
You're dead-on about lobbying groups, however. Most of them are corporate shills. Then again, consider the EFF.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll give you credit for consistency and civility. Nevertheless, I think you're describing a nightmare world.
You and I had counterparts that had this argument nearly a century ago. My side won, mainly as a result of things like The 1937 Elixir Sulfanalamide Incident [fda.gov] and The Triangle Factory Fire [cornell.edu].
Yes, individual liability would work in principle to discourage unsafe practices. But you ignore human psychology. Most people aren't paranoid enough to suspect they're being sold fake, shoddy, or dangerous goods. A
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay. Let's pass laws against being polite in bars, against driving safely, and against honoring contracts!
You don't mention
Some people just don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Biden wasn't nominated the VP because of his tech voting record. Just look at what the Democrats are talking about- Iraq, the economy, healthcare, the housing crisis, etc. Net Neutrality is barely on the radar, and you can be assured that NN isn't going to get a vote in the next two years (unless someone piles it in an omnibus) even with a Democratic majority.
Biden is a tactical choice to try to win the election; not a choice of "who would actually make the best VP once we win". All you have to do to realize that is watch Biden's acceptance speech, where he smacked the hell out of McCain. Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on politically; that "seven kitchen tables" line was gold. That's what Biden is there for- to attack McCain (and McCain's VP choice) while Obama is above the fray.
VPs are chosen as an attempt to win elections, not as an attempt to pick the best man for the job.
Re: (Score:2)
While I think you are correct that VPs are chosen to swing elections, I doubt they have ever swung an election. Their best use is as a bird dog. Want to find out if something will fly, sent in the VP with a speech. If it bombs, the VP takes it in the neck and you can move on to the next issue your pollsters say you believe this week. If it does fly, then you quickly take the credit by giving a speech putting your VP's speech "in context" and claiming victory with honor...errr..or whatever passes for politic
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, as an indication of just how badly McCain and the GOP is running their campaign strategy...
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/23/new-mccain-ad-gets-more-personal/ [wsj.com]
And guess who's speaking at the Democratic convention? Horrible, horrible move. If she chooses, she could tear McCain a new one for that ad.
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
also, it would make obama look very weak to pick the woman who continuously savaged him in the primaries as some sort of concession.
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's because Hillary really is a conservative, so they're okay with how she votes on certain issues. Make no mistake though, if she were the Democratic nominee for President or VP, she'd be declared the next coming of Karl Marx.
Much like all those Republicans who declared McCain a traitor to his party for the past 10 years, but now fall in line behind him (though they're right to do so; since McCain is now toeing the party line rather than holding "mavericky" positions.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The guy Kerry was thinking of making the Democrat VP ticket in 2004? (Which is why he was declared a traitor to his party...)
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Because she is loathed by the critical "undecided" voters. Most of Hillary's people will vote for Obama anyway, and there's no point in courting the "Hillary or nobody" crowd.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because Hillary would have come with Bill, and that would have been very awkward, not to mention the number of people who hate the Clintons.
I think there's a bit of acrimony between Obama and HC from the primary, besides.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Because having Hillary on the ticket would have also solidified the right-wing whackos who are only lukewarm on McCain to vote for him as a vote AGAINST Hillary, who they see as some kind of antichrist figure?
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
Because she could not graciously concede, once it became apparent to all who understood delegate math, that she would be unable to get enough delegates for nomination. Instead she had to bitterly and derisively, carry on until the last possible moment. Which is entirely her and her campaigns right, in my opinion. But I suspect that from the view of the Obama Campaign and the Democratic party, she put herself before her party and so lost any rational claim to be V.P.
Also, for those who can understand electoral math, the bitter holdouts are not as important to winning the election as the non-party voters in key battleground states.
Quite literally doesn't matter (Score:2, Interesting)
If the only alternative is McCain and $haircut, then Obama and LITERALLY WHOEVER gets my vote.
This is the power and the glory of the two party system at work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the only alternative is McCain and $haircut, then Obama and LITERALLY WHOEVER gets my vote.
This is the power and the glory of the two party system at work.
You should note that when you vote for the (slightly) lesser of two evils, you are voting for the two-party system by doing so.
Re:Quite literally doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue that it's not a slight difference, but past that: There's a time for idealism and a time for pragmatism. In 2000, I went idealism and voted Nader. I won't be making that mistake this time around.
All of them voted for (Score:5, Informative)
All of them voted for the I-CAN-SPAM Act, except Obama. Obama didn't vote for the I-CAN-SPAM Act because he was not there to vote for it.
Biden Voted Against FISA Amnesty (Score:5, Informative)
When FISA came to a vote as HR.6308 [senate.gov] on July 9, 2008, Biden voted against it, Obama voted for it.
Who wrote the summary? Fox News? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are a couple of basic facts omitted by the submitter: Obama got a 50.00% rating and McCain got a 31.25% rating.
Given that that information was available via two clicks on the same page that yielded Biden's rating, and given that the positions of the presidential candidates is a lot more important than the positions of the VP candidates, one has to wonder why the submitter didn't find those details worth mentioning.
Additionally, Obama made it very clear before he announced his choice of Biden that he wanted a VP candidate who would engage him in discussions about issues, disagree with him, and challenge his assumptions. Here's an example, in Obama's own words:
I apologize if this reduces the number of McCain troll points [johnmccain.com] for somebody interested in getting some McCain campaign schwag.
I added the bold text for emphasis in the Obama quote above.
Another thing: a voting record is useful for evaluating a congresscritter, but not via a simple number. It requires more careful analysis. This is because a congressvarmints will sometimes vote for positions he opposes when the defeat of those positions is assured, but the positions are popular with the congressvarmint's constituents (or the opposite: vote against a position he supports when passage is assured without his vote). And while both members of the House of Representatives and Senators both do that, Senators have yet another trick because of the existence of the filibuster in the Senate. An example is Senator Joe Lieberman, who voted with the Republicans for cloture (i.e., to end the Democratic filibuster) on the nomination of Samuel Alito the Supreme Court. Since it was known that the Republicans had enough votes to rubber-stamp Bush's nomination of Alito, the vote that mattered was the cloture vote. After that, Lieberman cast his vote against confirming Alito, so he could tell the voters in Connecticut, an overwhelmingly Democratic state, that he had voted against Alito. If you were just to look at the confirmation vote, you might think Lieberman had been against confirming Alito, but on the vote that mattered, he voted with the Republicans.
And another thing... 2006? (Score:3, Interesting)
John McCain could have a COMPLETELY different rating by now, because there's almost no substantive issue on which he hasn't reversed his position at least once in the last ten
Why is CNet writing a voting guide anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are legitimate reasons to vote against Internet gambling. There are legitimate reasons to vote against H1B visas. There are legitimate reasons to vote against free trade with China.
CNet is a news site. It shouldn't try to push a political agenda, even one that it thinks its audience shares.
If Obama wins then ... (Score:3, Informative)
... that makes Biden [wikipedia.org] the President of the Senate [wikipedia.org]. So if there is a tie in the Senate [wikipedia.org], he gets to break the tie [wikipedia.org], as Cheney [wikipedia.org] has done 8 times so far. What we need is enough pro-technology senators to ensure this doesn't happen. Still, he will be able to do a lot of damage with his powers to control the agenda. So what Obama [wikipedia.org] needs to do is keep him busy on foreign affairs trips, sending him overseas, to keep him away from the Senate so the President pro tempore [wikipedia.org] can take control.
Lame, lame, lame (Score:3, Interesting)
This anti-tech/pro-tech chart is stupid and arbitrary.
According to the cnet's chart, anyone that's against piracy is anti-tech? Anyone that's for anti-porn filters in shcools is anti-tech? Complete bullshit. I'm sure almost everyone that voted for DCMA and internet filters consider themselves pro-tech, and have reasonable arguments despite being in disagreement with slashdot doctrine.
Same goes for most of the other bills that cnet arbitrarily decided would represent "tech" and arbitrarily decided whether yes or no on each issue was pro or anti tech.
Does he support increasing number guest workers? (Score:3, Insightful)
That is probably the biggest issue facing tech workers.
I know where McCain stands. McCain wants to rip the lid off any kind of a guest worker cap.
I get the idea that Obama wants to do the same, but Obama is not as brazen about it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm from Delaware (Score:3)
And one of the most striking experiences of my political existence was listening to Biden deliver a speech only days after 9/11. I was a member of the Green party at that point as well as a college labor rights group. We'd made signs talking about how we were paying the Afghanistan government over $1 billion a year to stop drugs. We figured, being a senator, he'd just forget to mention it. Instead, he gave a 10 minute lecture on how the state of things came to be, including the billions in funding.
Biden is the chair of the foreign relations committee and was the chair of the judiciary committee. Look at this guy's votes and actions on women's rights, gitmo, FISAA, the US's role in the UN, and Bosnia. And he knows more about these than the senator in charge of commerce knows about "tubes".
Biden's first and foremost a diplomat (a strong internationalist...not a "coalition of the willing" kind of guy) and defender of civil rights/liberties -- Jesse Jackson even went on record saying his "clean" comment regarding Obama didn't make him a racist because of his strong leadership on the issue in the past. He's not well educated on tech law, but -- be honest -- how many of you could tell me who the president of Georgia was before this recent fiasco? Biden knows him on a first-name basis. Because that's his job and I dare say he does it well.
As a geek, tech is important, but isn't foreign policy and the US standing in the world more important this election? If you had a choice between hiring an expert in one or the other this election, which would you choose?
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:5, Funny)
You're welcome to, but I never really found either of them particularly attractive. And I suspect my girlfriend would have a serious objection, too.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Conversely, I would contend that if we don't do them, they will do us. Are you a "pitcher", or a "catcher"? :-)
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:5, Funny)
You're welcome to, but I never really found either of them particularly attractive
Obviously you've never seen Senator Obama wearing his charisma +10 tie. I suggest you turn on the TV ;)
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not flamebait. There's a good 5% of the voting public feel exactly that way about these two. And they have very good reason. While their position on "high" tech is interesting and all, when you starting asking the real questions, it boils down to their position on our rights to use that tech as we see fit. Because none of them are "against" technology. We have to watch how it will used against us. So the questions become something like, Who's going to to reign in the FBI and their wiretapping? Who's going to stop the TSA from damaging [aero-news.net] our airliners, possibly causing a real disaster? When are we ever going to see real adherence to the Bill of Rights? Not that we ever had, but it's about time we make a real effort. If we want to see truly rapid development of high tech, we have to ask when are they going to put an end to near infinite copyright, and the idea of software patents.
Well, from both of these guys we are getting negative responses to all these questions and more. We are going to get more of the same thing that we have been getting since long before we were born.
So the AC is right
Fuck McCain
Fuck Obama
The only thing I could add is "!"
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:5, Insightful)
They have to follow the Constitution before they can follow the Bill of Rights.
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:5, Insightful)
...the system proved once again that it is an abysmal failure in promoting good leaders.
No, we have proven that we are abysmal failures at seeking out good leaders. It is we who are so easily distracted by their shiny trinkets. It is we who act so helpless when only we can make the needed changes.
Next time, vote your conscience.
I agree, but most are voting for the guy who brings it home. The system ain't broke. We are. We created this system, and we continue to feed it. Most are just just not uncomfortable enough to do anything about it. Lack of empathy and downright hate play a huge part.
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:5, Interesting)
Being a citizen is hard work if you do it right, and if you do it right you can have influence beyond your own vote.
Which doesn't mean waste your time arguing and confronting people, it means drawing them out about what matters to them and pointing out how the candidate you back can help. It means researching the under-reported local races and sharing the results with neighbors who want to vote but don't know the candidates. It means making get-out-the-vote phone calls, and registration drives in friendly territory.
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the main problem that's being talked about here stems from a near complete lack of critical thinking [wikipedia.org] among the American public, which is why I think election campaigns are lower-levelled and politicians can get away with anything, i.e. "my opponent = Paris Hilton", "my opponent = terrist", "my opponent = cliché angry black man". I think that's pretty much the root of all evil the USA, a lack critical thinking, which makes the American public believe things that European publics would just scoff off, and that's why you realise you got owned when it's way too late. To put things in perspective, while both the American and the British government were for the war in Iraq, only the American opinion was favourable to it, while the majority of Britons were opposing it from the start. The very fact that the evolution and climate change debates are even taken seriously by most Americans is I believe a clear indicator of that intellectual gap between this country and most other countries you can decently compare them to.
I think it all mainly stems from the quality of education in the USA, and I think every cause of the current and future downfall of the USA can be traced back to educational issues.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently, you have enough money to afford luxuries like a computer and an internet connection....
Or access to a public library.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a really good solution is to use Instant Runoff Elections [1]. Then you can choose the candidate tha
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Saying there were only 5% of the voters dissatisfied with the choices seemed way too low to me.
Note the "Neither [ucsb.edu]" column. Occasionally it dips down to 4%. I believe you are making the assumption that these two are somehow different from each other. I can assure you, they are not. They represent the same interests of power. If one votes for a person they are "dissatisfied" with, then they really aren't dissatisfied. It is nothing more than passing the blame.
You're right about the sameness of these candidates. We basically have a corrupt one-party system disguised as a 2-party system. And I wasn't making any such assumptions, just pointing out that they both suck, and a lot of people feel that way.
That poll shows nothing but which candidate people think is the lesser of 2 evils. Asked to pick between the two choices, most people will just pick one, rather than trying to stand up to some kind of ideal that they are convinced will simply be ignored anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I say this as a guy with a Libertarian Party card in his wallet -- Bob Barr is worse than either Obama or McCain. He's fucking crazy -- seriously.
This is my major problem in this election.
I don't like Obama. His messages of "hope" and "change" seems to be hoping you don't realize the only change he wants is Democrats in office instead of Republicans.
McCain I have other issues with. He gets a little credit for knowing his weaknesses, but not enough.
I'm looking for a 3rd party candidate that isn't a complete
Re:NOTA (Score:5, Insightful)
our votes don't really count under the farce that is the electoral college.
Your vote counts just fine for selecting the electors from your own state. Lest you forget, the United States is a Republic made up of 50 states that retain their sovereignty. One of the points behind the Electoral College and US Senate is to prevent the domination of small/sparsely populated states by large/heavily populated ones.
You can have a debate about the wisdom of such a system but calling it a 'farce' seems to convey a pretty poor understanding of our system of Government. It's part of the Constitution. If the Electoral College is a 'farce' then I guess the Bill of Rights is as well.
Re:NOTA (Score:5, Insightful)
An electoral college that doesn't represent the popular vote is little better than establishing a monarchy by divine providence.
Repeat after me: The United States is a Republic. 50 Sovereign States get votes for POTUS. How you can compare this to a monarchy established by "divine providence" is beyond me. Your state gets X number of votes in the electoral college. Your vote helps to determine who those votes go to.
You can complain about the system or point out flaws but the comparison to monarchy is just absurd.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)