Slashdot Mirror

So Democrats want money for improved detainment facilities, additional judges to address the backlog of cases, and improved technology to provide a "virtual wall" in many locations, along with additional border agents? Hold that thought.

I would say Democrats want money for things like single payer and green energy (or big pharma and the entertainment industry, if you're more of a cynic), but it turns out that you're somewhat right -- "sensible immigration reform that keeps America’s promise" is the third point listed on the DNC's page itemizing their self-professed beliefs. Digging a bit deeper about what specific actions that might entail, I find this, but the closest reference to anything you describe may be "strengthening in-country... processing", which is quite a far cry from the explicit points you make. As such, I'm not sure if your claim about what Democrats want money for is entirely accurate. I don't doubt that some Democrats have wanted money for some of these policies in the past, or want money for them presently, and I also wouldn't be surprised if Democrats as a party were willing to support policies like this as part of a broader compromise with Republicans, but you're making a much stronger claim for which there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence.

First off, it was always a "scaled-down" solution - he never proposed a border-to-border wall fro $5.7BN, he wanted $25BN for a border-to-border wall, to be built over time - you know, the wall Democrats voted for in 2006.

Presumably you're referring to H.R. 6061, 2006's Secure Fence Act, which both parties supported, but which was primarily opposed by Democrats (it's not clear why you'd think it was most accurate to describe this piece of legislation as "the wall Democrats voted for" and not "the wall Republicans voted for", since it enjoyed much greater support on the Republican side of the aisle). Note, the Secure Fence Act only included $1.4B in appropriations funding for the eponymous "Secure Fence" which it authorized, so it's not clear how you can cite the tepid support Democrats offered this earlier legislation (13 years ago, mind you) as evidence of Democrats' willingness to spend larger amounts on border security, whether $5.7B or $25B. At best, it's evidence that Democrats are willing to tolerate a certain nonzero level of spending increases when it comes to border security, which is consistent with what we're seeing today -- Democrats have offered some $1.3B-$1.6B in increased border funding in the last month or so.

So Democrats want money for improved detainment facilities, additional judges to address the backlog of cases, and improved technology to provide a "virtual wall" in many locations, along with additional border agents? Hold that thought.

I would say Democrats want money for things like single payer and green energy (or big pharma and the entertainment industry, if you're more of a cynic), but it turns out that you're somewhat right -- "sensible immigration reform that keeps America’s promise" is the third point listed on the DNC's page itemizing their self-professed beliefs. Digging a bit deeper about what specific actions that might entail, I find this, but the closest reference to anything you describe may be "strengthening in-country... processing", which is quite a far cry from the explicit points you make. As such, I'm not sure if your claim about what Democrats want money for is entirely accurate. I don't doubt that some Democrats have wanted money for some of these policies in the past, or want money for them presently, and I also wouldn't be surprised if Democrats as a party were willing to support policies like this as part of a broader compromise with Republicans, but you're making a much stronger claim for which there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence.

First off, it was always a "scaled-down" solution - he never proposed a border-to-border wall fro $5.7BN, he wanted $25BN for a border-to-border wall, to be built over time - you know, the wall Democrats voted for in 2006.

Presumably you're referring to H.R. 6061, 2006's Secure Fence Act, which both parties supported, but which was primarily opposed by Democrats (it's not clear why you'd think it was most accurate to describe this piece of legislation as "the wall Democrats voted for" and not "the wall Republicans voted for", since it enjoyed much greater support on the Republican side of the aisle). Note, the Secure Fence Act only included $1.4B in appropriations funding for the eponymous "Secure Fence" which it authorized, so it's not clear how you can cite the tepid support Democrats offered this earlier legislation (13 years ago, mind you) as evidence of Democrats' willingness to spend larger amounts on border security, whether $5.7B or $25B. At best, it's evidence that Democrats are willing to tolerate a certain nonzero level of spending increases when it comes to border security, which is consistent with what we're seeing today -- Democrats have offered some $1.3B-$1.6B in increased border funding in the last month or so.

They even publish it on the web so that anyone who wants to can go out and see it. There's even a section specifically on immigration.

A platform is not policy. I see ten paragraphs of platitudes with a handful of concrete policies.

"The current quota system discriminates against certain immigrants, including immigrants of color, and needs to be reformed to the realities of the 21st century."

Great! Replace the quota system with what, exactly?

"create a path to citizenship for law-abiding families who are here," What is that path? Stay in the country? Leave the country? Probation? Existing system? New system?

"We should repeal the 3-year, 10-year and permanent bars"

Four paragraphs in and there's a policy! Finally!

"We must fix family backlogs and defend against those who would exclude or eliminate legal immigration avenues and denigrate immigrants"

How? More processors? Streamline the process? Make the process easier?

See the point? These are, mostly, platitudes. We can guess what the Democrats *want* What are they going to *do*?

Contrast this with the "Contract with America"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America#Government_and_operational_reforms

Agree with them or not, it's a list of *specific legislative actions*

In the state I'm from, both the Democrat and Republican running for governor say they will repeal an unpopular tax. It will reduce tax revenue by $200 million. Neither of them have any stated plan on replacing that revenue. That is how stupid our elections have become.

They even publish it on the web so that anyone who wants to can go out and see it. There's even a section specifically on immigration.

A platform is not policy. I see ten paragraphs of platitudes with a handful of concrete policies.

"The current quota system discriminates against certain immigrants, including immigrants of color, and needs to be reformed to the realities of the 21st century."

Great! Replace the quota system with what, exactly?

"create a path to citizenship for law-abiding families who are here," What is that path? Stay in the country? Leave the country? Probation? Existing system? New system?

"We should repeal the 3-year, 10-year and permanent bars"

Four paragraphs in and there's a policy! Finally!

"We must fix family backlogs and defend against those who would exclude or eliminate legal immigration avenues and denigrate immigrants"

How? More processors? Streamline the process? Make the process easier?

See the point? These are, mostly, platitudes. We can guess what the Democrats *want* What are they going to *do*?

Contrast this with the "Contract with America"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America#Government_and_operational_reforms

Agree with them or not, it's a list of *specific legislative actions*

In the state I'm from, both the Democrat and Republican running for governor say they will repeal an unpopular tax. It will reduce tax revenue by $200 million. Neither of them have any stated plan on replacing that revenue. That is how stupid our elections have become.

Democrats DO have a platform. Unfortunately, while Republicans hold the state houses, Congress, presidency, and now the Supreme Court, they are utterly powerless to make anything on that platform come to fruition. Any bills they propose just get squashed, never even coming to the floor to be voted down, even simple, stupid stuff that has wide national bipartisan support. (Such as DACA, since you rather helpfully brought it up.)

In such a circumstance, about the only thing they CAN do productively is to keep Republicans from passing yet more stupid legislation undermining our economy and freedoms, which is what they've been much more successful at doing these past couple of years than I honestly expected.

Nevertheless, there is still a clear Democratic platform. Seriously. They even publish it on the web so that anyone who wants to can go out and see it. There's even a section specifically on immigration.

Of course, that doesn't mean that every Democrat is in lockstep on every issue in that platform. We're not a hive mind, and there is sometimes ardent disagreement within the party over the nitty gritty details of how things can best be accomplished. For example, Bernie Sanders wants to have the federal minimum wage immediately go up to $15 everywhere. Hillary Clinton wanted to immediately increase it to $12 per hour, and allow individual cities where the cost of living is higher have the option of raising it higher as appropriate. Which way is better? I honestly don't know, I can see merits and downsides to both plans. But one thing I can say for damn sure is either plan would be better than the "Let's just leave it where it's been since 2009," or "Let's do away with the federal minimum wage completely!" plans that Republicans have embraced.

By the way, that Republican "Contract With America"? Very, very few of the items in that agenda actually got implemented. The dirty little secret that they didn't bother to tell anyone while they were hyping it is that the vast majority of the things on it would never get past the senate, let alone past a presidential veto. That whole thing was just a marketing gimmick. Yes, it was effective—if you define "effective" as getting people elected. But if instead you define "effective" as actually getting stuff done? Not so much.

Like it or not, that crown in recent history has to go to the Democratic Congress and Obama, who got the ACA passed. Like it or not, it was one of the most major overhauls of the health care system in our country's history. It was a huge undertaking, and even after it's been repeatedly undermined and gutted by Republicans, it's actually still helping people.

Democrats DO have a platform. Unfortunately, while Republicans hold the state houses, Congress, presidency, and now the Supreme Court, they are utterly powerless to make anything on that platform come to fruition. Any bills they propose just get squashed, never even coming to the floor to be voted down, even simple, stupid stuff that has wide national bipartisan support. (Such as DACA, since you rather helpfully brought it up.)

In such a circumstance, about the only thing they CAN do productively is to keep Republicans from passing yet more stupid legislation undermining our economy and freedoms, which is what they've been much more successful at doing these past couple of years than I honestly expected.

Nevertheless, there is still a clear Democratic platform. Seriously. They even publish it on the web so that anyone who wants to can go out and see it. There's even a section specifically on immigration.

Of course, that doesn't mean that every Democrat is in lockstep on every issue in that platform. We're not a hive mind, and there is sometimes ardent disagreement within the party over the nitty gritty details of how things can best be accomplished. For example, Bernie Sanders wants to have the federal minimum wage immediately go up to $15 everywhere. Hillary Clinton wanted to immediately increase it to $12 per hour, and allow individual cities where the cost of living is higher have the option of raising it higher as appropriate. Which way is better? I honestly don't know, I can see merits and downsides to both plans. But one thing I can say for damn sure is either plan would be better than the "Let's just leave it where it's been since 2009," or "Let's do away with the federal minimum wage completely!" plans that Republicans have embraced.

By the way, that Republican "Contract With America"? Very, very few of the items in that agenda actually got implemented. The dirty little secret that they didn't bother to tell anyone while they were hyping it is that the vast majority of the things on it would never get past the senate, let alone past a presidential veto. That whole thing was just a marketing gimmick. Yes, it was effective—if you define "effective" as getting people elected. But if instead you define "effective" as actually getting stuff done? Not so much.

Like it or not, that crown in recent history has to go to the Democratic Congress and Obama, who got the ACA passed. Like it or not, it was one of the most major overhauls of the health care system in our country's history. It was a huge undertaking, and even after it's been repeatedly undermined and gutted by Republicans, it's actually still helping people.

The Democrats are not supporting nuclear in Iran, they are supporting supervision so they don't make bombs.

What are they supervising? That's right, a civilian nuclear power program. So, you admit that the Democrats will allow Iran to have a nuclear power program. What does the Democratic Party say on nuclear power in the USA? Oddly nothing. I checked:
https://democrats.org/wp-conte...

Trump wants to kill the supervision so he can claim they have the bomb and start a war.

That's irrelevant to the discussion. Iran has been quite successful in killing the supervision on their own, if they won't play by the rules then they need to be punished for it.

Trump wants to see nuclear power grow in the USA. I saw that in the Republican platform document.
https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s...

Iran has been violating every rule on the supervision of their nuclear power program. The Democrats aren't stopping Iran from building nuclear power but they are stopping nuclear power from being developed in the USA. So, which is it? Does the Democrat Party support nuclear power or not? It's quite obvious that they don't otherwise they would not have held up the construction of radioactive material disposal sites, and of nuclear power reactors, for the last 40 years.

The Democrats seem to think nuclear power is fine in Iran, so why not here? If they believe nuclear power is too much of a safety risk here then they are evil bastards for setting Iran up for their own nuclear accident.

The words fucktard, libtard, fascist, communist, douchelord, corrupt, treasonous, sedition, etc. don't appear in this document either: https://www.democrats.org/part... - what is your point?

a government that is accountable to the public and a private organization that is not

Ah, a Democrat stating, leadership of the Democratic Party is not accountable to the Democrats... The desperation is palpable...

Why, then, if DNC aren't accountable to the members, have they fired Ms. Wasserman Shultz? Why are they apologizing?

Of course, as is usual with the crooked liars, the apology and the recriminations follow not the actual misdeed, but the getting caught.

When it comes to private organizations, members can accept the rules or vote with their feet.

The rules, huh? How about the nation's laws about classified information? Which NY Times broke back then — and not only got away with breaking, but was rewarded?

Other countries are acting and changing their policies, for example Germany.

Is that the same Germany that is replacing clean nuclear power with brown coal power? The same Germany that has some of the highest electricity prices in Europe and buys as much power as it can from nuclear powered France?

Even China is beginning to invest heavily into renewable energy.

Yes, the same China that intends to double current nuclear power capacity in two years and then double it again two years later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It's mostly the US with a republican dominated congress and their policy of denial that is doing business as usual. And many developing countries won't even think about going environmentally friendly as long as the US doesn't take the lead.

Tell me, what political party is in charge of the executive branch? Are licenses for nuclear reactors issued by Congress or by the executive?

Read the two party platforms and tell me which one gives nuclear power the best chance of growth?
Is it the RNC?
https://www.gop.com/platform/a...

Nuclear energy, now generating about 20 percent of our electricity through 104 power plants, must be expanded. No new nuclear generating plants have been licensed and constructed for thirty years. We call for timely processing of new reactor applications currently pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The federal governmentâ(TM)s failure to address the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel has left huge bills for States and taxpayers. Our country needs a more proactive approach to managing spent nuclear fuel, including through developing advanced reprocessing technologies.

Or is it the DNC?
https://www.democrats.org/part...

That means an all-of-the-above approach to developing America's many energy resources, including wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas.

Wow, of the entire Democrat platform document nuclear energy gets a mention in one sentence. I did however see a lot of mention of preventing nuclear proliferation. No mention of building new reactors that I could see. They did seem concerned about the amount of nuclear weapon material and the desire to destroy it. Tell me, what methods would those be besides using that material as fuel in a nuclear reactor? Would not the desire to destroy nuclear weapons coincide with expanded nuclear energy? Then why be silent on using this material as fuel? I can only conclude it is because they have no intent to see this nuclear material as fuel. They will likely down blend it with natural uranium and bury it in steel drums somewhere in the desert. Which is fine I suppose. When the Republicans get into power at some future date then it can be dug back up.

The Republicans have a majority in both houses but a 54% majority in the Senate allows for all kinds of methods to hold up bills. A lack of a sympathetic POTUS means vetoes and lots of them.

Democrats held both houses of the 111th Congress and the White House, why didn't we see a nuclear power renaissance then?

It may seem odd, but most people in last election voted for Democrats, who have climate change as part of their platform.

In 2012, the first congressional election after the last round of gerrymandering, Democratic House candidates won 50.59 percent of the vote — or 1.37 million more votes than Republican candidates — yet secured only 201 seats in Congress, compared to 234 seats for Republicans. The House of Representatives, the “people’s house,” no longer requires the most votes for power. source

So blaming "democracy" seems a little odd -- especially since we're a Republic.

I wonder why they went organic as it makes no sense any way you look at it.

http://www.democrats.org

1. 1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes
2. 2. Eliminate the National Debt
3. 3. Eliminate Deficit Spending
4. 4. Protect Free Markets
5. 5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States
6. 6. Promote Civic Responsibility
7. 7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government
8. 8. Believe in the People
9. 9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics
10. 10. Maintain Local Independence

There's always a gradient on "Excessive". #4 sounds like it could be easily bent. #9 is wishful thinking.

That, as opposed to: Democrats or Republicans. It all sure sounds good -- I think I'll pay attention and do s'more research here. Seems like we also somehow need a verifiable (independent?) source that describes how accurate these all are to their specified ideas (and they all need a few specific goals as well.)

You can argue over implementation details and exact meanings, but it seem shard to argue with the ideas behind of most of these. And with ALL of the parties --- dare I say it: "Trust, but verify?"


And as for think of the children....

if you are now going to tell me that some races are too poor to have internet, im going to tell you that you are a racist

Lets ask the Democrats. "Those without photo ID are disproportionately low-income, disabled, minority, young, and older voters."

Would not the same argument exist for the internet, or is the internet a magical service that doesnt have disproportionate enrollment vs low-income, disabled, minority, young, and the elderly?

If there was a group or organization that opposed the ACLU in every case, that took the opposite positions, I would probably be willing to contribute a modest amount.

Here you go:

  Gifts to the United States
  US Department of the Treasury
  Credit Accounting Branch
  3700 East-West Highway Room 622D
  Hyattsville MD 20782

Also, don't forget these assholes. Really excellent work from all of them in combating the reckless and dangerous excesses of the Founding Fathers. No organizations have worked so tirelessly as these have to free us from the tyranny of freedom — to liberate us from the chains of liberty — as these wise and righteous men and women of authority.

As it is, the only civil liberties organization I belong to is the NRA.

Best of luck retaining the one amendment in the Bill of Rights you seem to think is worth keeping — enjoy your ridiculous fantasy, pretending that you'll be entrusted with one amendment after having cheered on the demise of the others. The Bill of Rights isn't a fucking à la carte menu; if one amendment is in danger, so are the others.

Once the Bill of Rights has been thoroughly subverted, suspended, repealed, and forgotten... much of the blame will lie with the self-absorbed, naïve, short-sighted partisans who thought they could pick and choose which parts were essential liberties.

What I did say is that there is little value in what the Tea Party stands for when you pin them down to specifics, and I stand by that.

The Tea Party articulated its positions in the Contract from America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_from_America

The Libertarian Party has specific, clearly articulated positions in its party platform on http://www.lp.org/

Compare those with the democratic party platform, which is quite a bit more vague: http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Also, nowhere do I say that the libertarian movement is irrelevant. You might have read into my calling the Libertarian party inconsequential. If you think they aren't, count their successes at swaying ideology or just winning major elections.

You keep playing word games, sometimes talking about the "libertarian movement" (whatever that may be), then whether the "Libertarian party" wins elections.

Most people with libertarian views don't identify as "libertarians" or vote libertarian, just like most "atheists" don't identify as such or go to atheist meetings and most homosexuals also didn't use to identify as "homosexuals" and didn't use to go to gay hangouts. People stigmatize the names of their political opponents and eventually people react by changing names.

Many people who hold libertarian beliefs vote Republican, represented by "the Enterprisers". For better or worse, they tend to be well-informed, well-educated rich white males, with a strong interest in macroeconomics. There's a smaller group of libertarian-leaning voters voting Democrat, mostly because they dislike social conservatism even more than progressive economics.

And these voters have an impact. They prevent social conservatives and progressives from succeeding as presidential candidates in both parties. And they have successfully pushed issues such as drug legalization, gay marriage, economic liberalization and free trade, etc. And as libertarian ideas succeed, they just get co-opted by the two major parties who pretend they really always stood for these ideas in the first place, leaving libertarian groups with the next batch of controversial ideas to push.

Sorry, but your analysis of libertarianism and its demographics are just out of touch with reality. The "Libertarian party" is inconsequential, but libertarian-leaning voters are a major political force in the US today.

Anyone else feel we are getting to the point where that needs to happen?

It looks like the answer to your question is no. I just went to four parties' websites, and none of them had any sort of inline gpg signature on the page. That kind of tech is unusual on the web, though, so let's look at one highly-broken but widely ubiquitous way for websites to have at least some attestation of who they are: https.

For some amazing adventures in mismatched certs, 404s(!), other brokenness, and even the CA "Comodo" raising its ugly head (did you think they had gone out of business?), try loading (shown in sorted order):
https://www.democrats.org/
https://www.gop.com/
https://www.gp.org/
https://www.lp.org/
You have to see it all to believe it. The one which "works" (no spoilers) still manages to be self-defeating and useless for identity-checking.

More than (I even included the biggest two third parties!) 99 of voters spoke: No, we're not at the point where any voter gives a damn if a party's site says who it is.

Actually, if you tell the executive branch, "Hey, a whole bunch of R-bags are being bought and paid for," you might see some investigation from a bunch of D-bags.

Of course, this could turn into a MAD type of scenario...

Try here and here.

Isn't it a little early to call something like this "the most extreme and influential crowdsourcing"?

I agree. I have no idea why this is on Slashdot. It's not technology news. It's not even news at all.

Back in 2008, Rush Limbaugh tried something similar he called "Operation Chaos", where he encouraged his listeners to switch parties and vote in the Democratic Primary to get Hillary Clinton to win and later to keep her in to lengthen the Primary. The idea was that whoever eventually won would emerge weaker and would lose to McCain. Also, Republicans believed that there were more registered Democrats because of Operation Chaos, and when the election actually happened, they would be revealed as actually Republicans and McCain would win.

As we all know, it didn't work. Obama beat McCain handily. So if Rush Limbaugh, who has millions of listeners couldn't pull this off, how can an unknown website do this?

Moreover, I think it's misleading to suggest that "Democrats" are doing this. I expected to see a link to Democrats.org or to at least a high traffic Democratic Party website, such as dailykos.com. But no, this site has so little traffic that it doesn't even have an Alexa ranking In fact, searching for sites that link to this domain reveal not even Democratic sources, but Republicans (freerepublic.com is the #2 domain in results), so clearly this isn't catching on with Democrats. Whois is masked, so we don't know who actually owns the domain, but it's just as likely to be a Republican astroturfing organization.

So, how did this end up on Slashdot? Was this some sort of paid placement situation or attempt by the domain owner to drive more traffic to the site? Some lame idea of saying that "both sides 'do it' and engage in these types of silly games? Somebody has compromising photos of CmdrTaco? I guess we'll never know.

Maybe we can finally get a party that is center-right

The US already has a center-right party. Recently, they have been quite pro big business, against government provided healthcare, and have emphasizes tax cuts as a part of any stimulus, which is willing to violate international law to uphold the war on terror and is right now fighting the courts to keep those darn activist judges from undermining DADT.

Come to think of it, I guess they drifted out to the far right too...

"Democrats are against freedoms too"

Freedoms such as Gay Marriage, supporting the rights of muslims to build a Mosque/Community Center, the rights of non-white people, freedom of reproductive choice... At least the Democrats do something to uphold those rights.

Unless by freedom you mean the 2nd amendment...

The Democratic platform is conveniently written down here.

The Democrats are a bit more diverse, as they really are a central party; they are left-leaning only in comparison to Republicans. Republicans have been on a tear for the last few years kicking out "RINO"s...

According to webster, Democrat is the term of someone who belongs to the democratic party. Since his post was about "a" democrat president and "a" democrat congress, he is correct.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democrat

Heck, their url uses democrats instead of democratics. http://www.democrats.org/

Why is it that Obama's Czars are news when his predecessor had more Czars?

Support your argument or withdraw it.

Wikipedia claims that Obama has 32 czar jobs at present... while Bush had only 31... while the DNC claims that Bush had 47... but then they are counting every person to sit in a czar job, even double counting the same job... and given the degree of turnover in this administration, President Obama may just find himself going beyond 47 here in the next couple of years as more Van Jones or Anita Dunn like people are brought to light.

Those on the left like to talk about how Bush was an imperial president and avoided so many of the checks and balances... and yet never consider degrees. In his entire term in office, Bush only created 5 czar jobs that did not require confirmation... while in the first 7 months of his time in office, President Obama has created 17.

The democrat party continues to act so incompetently that I find myself wondering why Republicans aren't in power.

"The democrat party"? Perhaps you mean "The Democratic Party", or "The Democrats"?

Yes, right-wing pundits and politicos have attempted to re-label them with the less-euphonious "Democrat Party". It is, simply, incorrect, and anyone engaging in that usage disqualifies themselves from being taken seriously by intelligent adults.

(For the record: I am not, and never have been, a member of either the Democratic or Republican parties.)

I've checked the offending page http://www.democrats.org/page/invite and they have added a CAPTCHA. Hopefully this fixes the issue.

It appears their mail server is run by XO Communication

http://www.democrats.org/page/s/techproblems
http://www.xo.com/forms/Campaign/Care/ContactCustomerCare/ContactCustomerCare.aspx

The democrats.org technical support website doesn't have a captcha either. Maybe /.ing them with requests to fix this lack of security will raise their awareness. This sort of thing is unacceptable and needs to be fixed.

Their support website is: http://www.democrats.org/page/s/techproblems

http://www.democrats.org/page/s/techproblems

Spam the shit out of their inbox, and tell them they look like a bunch of douches. I did. 50 million emails should be enough for the densest of democrats, so get started. Of course, they are all engrossed with the memorials for the rat bastard from MessyTwoShits who dropped dead recently - the one who murdered his pregnant girl friend. It may take a few days before they get back to business.

Comparing Alaska to the other 49 states, which also don't have a federal capital located in them, would be more meaningful, and on that measure Alaska is pretty pork-infested.

Look at the charts I linked to. It shows the Federal expenditures for all 50 states. Alaska is 34th. Here's some more information about Alaska .

When you just look at the size of Alaska, I think that trying to spin $197 million dollars in earmarks as excessive pork is not going to work. Alaska is so huge geographically that most people will realize how silly that idea is the moment they see a map.

Impeaching the bastard would do wonders for our political system, regardless of how much time he's got left.

That is a point that is too overlooked these days. In order to restore the checks and balances, Bush and Cheney much be impeached before leaving office. Failure to do so sets the precedent that a sitting president can ignore limits to his power and order his staff to ignore Congressional subpoenas And after do so, that President can still complete his term of office. Allowing Bush and Cheney to go impeached finishes the process of turning the Constitution into "just a g*d dammed piece of paper" Bush hating isn't just about the temporary damages that occur during his presidency, but the lasting damages, like the destruction done to our rights and our Constitution. Bush hating is about the amount of freedoms we have lost because of his presidency and how it is very difficult to regain lost freedoms without bloodshed.

Actually, the Democratic Party as a whole has quit. It was announced fairly recently: http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/06/democratic_part_10.php

It's the Democrat party, not the Democratic party, but that's a common mistake people make. Ironic that the party that claims to champion Democracy relies on party elders to choose their Presidential Candidate (Superdelegates).

You are wrong. The official name of the party is The Democratic Party, as can be seen on the headers (not the URL) of the DNC Web Site. The only place where the party (as opposed to its members) has been referred to as the Democrat Party has been in conservative propoganda.

It's the Democrat party, not the Democratic party, but that's a common mistake people make.

I'm sure one could forgive the GP for making this mistake, as it appears the party has it wrong themselves...

We've got 6 or 7 parties. We've got the:

Republican party:
http://www.gop.com/

Democratic party:
http://www.democrats.org/

Libertarian party:
http://www.lp.org/

Green party:
http://www.gp.org/index.php

Socialist party:
http://www.sp-usa.org/

Constitution party:
http://constitutionparty.com/

If you look at the platforms and positions of these parties you'll find a lot of diversity of opinion. Unfortunately, only the most popular positions of the first two parties listed will ever be likely to see the light of day. If only there were some way to change that...

The Democratic Party. I wouldn't put it past them to try if McCain looks like he's on the ropes!

I've got it pretty good. With only a two-year degree (in computer-aided drafting!), I'm making significantly more than the first Google link for "computer programmer salary" says I should. I've been working for the same company for 12+ years, with management that knows how to handle the business side of things, a team of subject matter experts that handle the customer side, and all we have to do is code. Topping it all off, it's a vertical-market tax software product, so it's not going anywhere until death & taxes are abolished.

Of course, at 41, I'm halfway between "wow I'm grown up now" and "gee I'm old now", so it's high time for a midlife crisis! I'm pretty sure that someday I'll quit and start my own business. Not something in this industry, though. I love my job, but I'd like to do something a bit more directly beneficial to society. Time will tell what happens, but I'm currently thinking about opening a day care center, and when it's successful, going into politics (though I'll probably have to take practicality over idealism if I want to actually get elected). But I've got sense enough to wait until my kids are out of school before making any big changes.

The one thing I do know is that I'll never get to "retire" in any sort of traditional sense. As Fate would have it, I spent 20 years married to someone who didn't understand the value of living within her means... not surprisingly, I got custody of the credit card bills. I'll be working till I die... heck, if things go as planned, I (or at least my remains) will keep working full time even in the hereafter, thanks to Dr. Gunther von Hagens!

Congress is 0-23 in attempts to do anything at all about Iraq.

You guys have both missed the real criminals ....

http://www.gop.org/
http://www.democrats.org/

of which the other two organizations you mention are wholly owned subsidiaries of these two, as is the other legislative and judicial branch are, along with most of the smaller regional syndicates.

If we can have taxpayer funded universal highway maintenance, why not taxpayer funded universal health care?

Hm. My Constitution reads, The Congress shall have Power ... To establish Post Offices and post roads.

It's also worth noting that the interstates (at least) were presented as being, at least in part, for national-defense purposes (moving troops and equipment around the country, etc.). It may have been a fig leaf of an excuse, but at least it was an attempt at proving that it was within the Constitution.

The Evil Party has gotten rather brazen in recent years; they're not concerning themselves with constitutionality at all, but instead are pushing us ever closer to that tipping point where the majority votes to out-and-out steal from the minority. They're demonstrating the dangers of mob rule, and the reason why I could never be a democrat (either little-D or big-D, as if there's any difference).

Dick Wolf, the man behind TV's Law & Order, is neither a penis nor a lupine. Likewise, Donkey Kong is not a donkey. The name "Donkey", which could be a derivative of Duncan, carries a connotation of stubbornness. See also Snopes: Donkey Wrong.

For donkeys, see Kicking Ass: The Democratic Party's Blog and History of the Democratic Party.

Dick Wolf, the man behind TV's Law & Order, is neither a penis nor a lupine. Likewise, Donkey Kong is not a donkey. The name "Donkey", which could be a derivative of Duncan, carries a connotation of stubbornness. See also Snopes: Donkey Wrong.

For donkeys, see Kicking Ass: The Democratic Party's Blog and History of the Democratic Party.

I for one am leaving the DNC feedback on their feedback page:
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues

Here is what my feedback looked like:
I think it is a serious mistake for the DNC to closely associate itself with the RIAA. The RIAA is despised in more technical literate circles, and increasingly at universities for their questionable legal maneuvers in their holy war against file sharing.

Close association with the RIAA reinforces stereotypes about the DNC being "no different" then the RNC as both are "owned by corporate interests". Please reconsider the decision to appoint Jenni Engebretsen to the Convention leadership team. I'm sure she is a great lady and did wonderful things for Kerry/Edwards, but I have serious problems with the morality of her employer. Her involvement at a leadership position casts a shadow over the entire Democratic party in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others.

Thanks for your time, a few links about the RIAA follow.

http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/07/04/13/162 5218.shtml
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061219/121441.s html
http://www.riaaradar.com/
http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-a merica/worst-company-in-america-2007-final-deathma tch-244408.php

Can someone explain what "democrat" means when used as an adjective? I've heard a similar term "democratic" used as an adjective. Maybe the adjective "democrat" means "the person saying this should get their head out of the punch bowl and stop drinking the kool aid."

Heh! Not really. This last election was all about fear mongering. The dems gained seats in the legislature entirely by talking about how people should be afraid of the other party being in control. They certainly didn't win seats by actually spelling out contstructive, real-world things they'd actually, successfully do that would actually be helpful in any way.

I don't think you are being 100% honest in saying the Democrats didn't present anything they planned to do. Pelosi had a rather prominent and publicized platform for a Democratically controlled house. The party website spells it out.

Whether they will be succesful is not something they can guarantee since they could not achieve a veto-proof control of the legislature and the current President is from the opposing party

I think the GP post was being a bit unnecessarily partisan, but I don't think the tone of discussion is improved by endulging in more partisan attacks.

In fact, just yesterday they made it clear they were already going to break one of their loudest campaign promises (to implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission).[snip]Say you don't know exactly what I mean.

I don't know exactly what you mean.

Can you site some sort of reference for this? I'm guessing by the way you phrase the above assertion (i.e. "they made it clear") that it was not an overt statement to the effect of "we are not going to implement all of the recommendations..."

I, personally, am happier hearing that people went and just voted according to whim than hearing that people went and voted straight ticket (I find the odds of each candidate at all levels of government for a given party just happening to line up with your opinions on each issue at each level of government to be quite low).

Have you thought very hard about what you just said? Because with only a handful of candidates (at the most) available to choose from in any particular race, I guarantee that none of them will line up with your opinions on each issue. By such criteria, no one would ever vote for anyone except for the candidates voting for themselves.

The problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the nation is governed. It's governed between the elections, not by the elections. The point of voting is not to get someone into office who agrees with you, but to get someone into office who is more likely to be influenced by you when you contact them later about your most important issues.

With that understanding, the straight ticket can make a lot of sense, if your pet issue is addressed by the national platform of that party. When that's the case, the party platform becomes a club you can wield against your elected officials. For instance if the most important issue to you is keeping abortion legal, it makes sense to vote straight Democratic. Pro-choice is in the Democratic Party Platform.

Get this story out of the tech sites and into the major media outlets:

Media contacts:
* Contact CNN: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/ (viewerservices@msnbc.com letters@msnbc.com)
ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Reference/story?id=54216
CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_for m.shtml
* Contact the DNC: 202-863-8000 http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
* Complain to the FCC: 202-418-1440, phone; 202-418-0232, fax.
* Yell at the NRCC 202-479-7000
* 1-866-OUR VOTE and get in the database if you get this kind of harassment

To all the Republican apologists here on /. telling us Dems and liberals to "just get over it," why don't you put yourselves in our shoes for just one second, and ask yourselves how YOU would react--given the VERY same exit-poll contradictions and other voting discrepancies throughout the country--if a President Hillary Clinton were now sitting in the White House.

If Hillary had run, and had bigwig friends at Diebold and ES&S bankrolling her campaign, you'd bet YOU'D put a stink up about it, too--and believe it or not, so would I. Election tampering is very wrong on BOTH sides of the aisle, and should NOT be tolerated in what we purport to be the "freest" country in the world.

In addition, I am sick to death of hearing the meme from the Faux "News" viewers that Dems have no plan and no ideas. If you'd actually *listened* for 30 minutes to a Democrat's point of view--or even gone to the party's Web site and read its platform, you'd learn that the Democrats DO have positive ideas for change AND for national security. Thing is, you'd never know that by the way Republicans have infiltrated mainstream media and stolen the collective megaphone all for their own narrow "ideas," like banning same-sex marriage, torturing unconvicted prisoners, and violating other human rights.

OTOH, Democrats right at this moment are working their asses off for universal healthcare, a fair minimum wage, workers' protections, empowerment of the working classes, and equal rights for not only all Americans, but for all people.

Re: terrorist threats and the best way to handle them: law enforcement--along with special intelligence and border/port security--is and always will be the BEST way to imprison and punish these terrorist CRIMINALS, as evidenced with the most recent British terrorist attacks and threats. Democrats realize that terrorist thugs will always threaten us, and military solutions are not the answer. If the British can use law enforcement and a sane foreign policy to stop not only the IRA terrorism that has been plaguing their nation for decades--but now also al-Qaeda attacks--why can't we? Democrats realize, like the British, that TRUE homeland security begins AT HOME.

The mass media--and by virtue of it, American collective thought--has been hijacked by the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing organizations who aim to influence American opinion and poison minds (like yours) with conservative drivel. If you're intelligent enough to be posting at /., which I'm assuming you are, then turn off Sean Hannity for just a second and see what the opposition has to offer--you'll find it really isn't all that frightening, but instead empowering.