Who Really Deserves to Be President?
posted by Jason Swihart on October 25, 2007
In this month’s issue of Wired an feature titled “Campaign 2008: Webbiest Ever” highlights the six leading candidates’ pandering to geeks. Well, do they?
For your consideration now, our own “Textura Design Geek’s Voting Guide.”
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Valid HTML | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Valid CSS? | No | No | No | No | Hah! | Yes |
| Feeds | Atom | RSS | RSS | RSS | RSS (but buried) | RSS (but buried) |
| Valid Feed? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Average Page Rank | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 5.4 | 4.8 | 3.3 |
| Blog | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Gratuitous Use of Flash | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
| Text Inexplicably Embedded in Images? | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Server | Microsoft IIS 6.0 | Apache | Apache 2.0.52 CentOS | PWS 1.1.16 | Apache 2.0.52 Red Hat | Microsoft IIS 6.0 |
| Splash Page (What Year Is It Again?) | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| Coffee Mug | $12.50 | No | $10.95 | No | $10.00 | $10.95 |
So, there you have it: a totally impartial and unambiguous choice.
- Hillary Clinton image
- John Edwards image
- Rudy Giuliani image
- Barack Obama image
- Mitt Romney image
- Fred Thompson image
Comments (9)
other posts tagged:
Comments
Oct 26 | Doug said:
Rudy’s feed does not validate, yet he’s got a green box. Is that right?
Oct 26 | A Witness said:
What happened to Ron Paul? He’s blowing these others away on the web or anywhere for that matter. Wonder ‘witch’ Zionist org owns this magazine.
Oct 26 | Jason Swihart said:
Doug: To answer your question, all the feeds passed the validator I used but all had “recommendations” so I gave green to the two with the fewest recommendations: Rudy and Fred with one recommendation each.
Oct 26 | Jason Swihart said:
A Witness: Not sure who you’re accusing of Zionism, Wired or us. Either way, I didn’t know anti-semitism was one of Ron Paul’s planks, but thanks for enlightening us.
For the record, Textura Design (and our blog) is not a magazine. We don’t pretend to be journalists or impartial. We don’t even agree with one another.
With that, I’ll simply say that I omitted the Libertarian candidate because I don’t want to give credence to a party which seeks to co-opt the concept of liberty for pedophiles, drug addicts, White Supremacists, and Christians.
I can’t speak for Wired.
Oct 26 | Shana said:
“What happened to Ron Paul?”
Told ya, Jason!
Oct 26 | A Witness said:
Jason: Sorry I thought this blog was about the Wired article?
You might want to do some google searching and up your current education. Or maybe you have an agenda?
Ron Paul is a Rep. congressman out of Texas and is absolutely not anything that you have contrived in such words (planks,anti-Semitism,pedophiles, drug addicts, White Supremacists, and Christians. He is possibly our last chance to save this republic, anybody out there might just check him out for them self’s. Feel free to check out also what Zionism is really about and not just the political meaning.
Considering how incredibly accessible info on the net is, I am really amazed by how naive people using it are!
Heaven help us;)
Oct 27 | Jason Swihart said:
A Witness:
I think you’ll have to agree that a person can be both uneducated and have an agenda.
However, in my case, it’s only the latter, a fact I thought I made perfectly clear in my previous comment. Here’s my agenda:
To avoid giving recognition to any Libertarian candidate because I think their party is unworthy of consideration.
I will add this: to have a chance of saving this republic, he would have to have a chance of getting elected, and then he would have to have a chance of enacting some rational changes. We know that the former isn’t true and it’s very unlikely that the latter is true of a pro-life Baptist.
And, I’m not sure someone who thinks a magical ghost can help them has any business calling me naive.
Oct 30 | A Witness said:
Jason: Dr. Ron Paul is a “Republican presidential candidate” he was a Libertarian candidate for president way back in 1988 a different time from now. His supporters include not only Libertarians, Independents and socially conservative Democrats, but also white supremacists and 9/11 conspiracy groups & is getting the attention of all types. People of all walks of life that have checked his records see he’s not just talk. Yes he might not have a chance with the controlled media & the closed minds but he’s real not just bought lips. And yes he is pro-life having delivered over 4000 babies in his practice. And, do you really believe that this world was created by luck?
Oct 30 | Jason Swihart said:
Show me where he has disavowed connection to the Libertarian party and I will reconsider my evaluation on that point.
So, you support his anti-abortion position because he’s delivered 4000 babies. Presumably, then, you would support a pro-abortion candidate who had performed a sufficient number of abortions?
And no, I don’t accept your false dichotomy of a world created by magic vs. a world created by luck. The phrase “this world” is meaningless—it implies some alternative. But no matter how many Gods you imagine, you cannot get around the fact that the world exists. The answer to your implied question is: the world didn’t ever not exist. Nothing came before it, nothing is outside it, it has been here all along. It is the way it is not because of magic or luck, but because of causality.
This will be the last word in this line of discussion. I appreciate your enthusiasm, “A Witness” and thank you for raising some interesting points.