Slashdot Mirror

YEA 293
NAY 129

The full breakdown, showing which way each representative voted, will be available at Roll No. 437 in roughly an hour, when the Clerk of the House posts it.

Section 802(a) provides:

(4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --

• 
  (A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was
  • (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and
    (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and

  (B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was

  • (i) authorized by the President; and
    (ii) determined to be lawful.

Copy the relevant portion of the message above and use the following link to send an email to your congress critter NOW.

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

Don't just bitch about it here, make it count.

The politicians probably don't read /. In order to make your position clear to your representatives, you can use this form: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/mcapdir.html

Email does NOT have the same impact as a phone call.

Implying that the Bush administration are a bunch of free market fanatics run amok is stupid.

This one is free. Further efforts to extract your head out of your ass are your responsibility.

but for reasons that should be fairly obvious, given the rules a Slashdot, I am not able to reply without resort to AC or creating a sock, and I hate socks.

Anyway, what is you definition of a handful? On one side: one is less than a handful; and on the other side: 66 is more than a handful.

cheers

Whether he believes the states should be involved in marriage or not, he still believes the states should have the power to do so. Read those first two sentences again: "I'd let California do what they want. And I didn't vote for the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, but the states can do it." [emphasis mine]

Also another quote, from his speech against amending the constitution, but for the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act:

"I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state's ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage."

The problem is that Democrats are not asking us how we feel about this. They are on the assumption that we want to simply focus on the election. But, my question is what if Obama doesn't win? Will McCain reverse the constitutional damage or take advantage of the "new rules". I think the latter. And I'm not convinced without a doubt that we will win, so our right to Impeach is the only way to get rid of these atrocious new presidential rights that completely disregard the Constitution. Or we are going to see this all over again with McCain and Iran 2009. And where is MoveOn.org in all of this...baking cookies? WTF? Call these people today and say you want to hold the president accountable for using our tax dollars to hire ex-generals to help build the case for war, wiretapping Americans, creating secret prisons, torture and most of all not upholding his sacred oath to protect the constitution. And you know what else, he LIED about it. It is our right to Impeach, so do it! Pelosi is wrong, this is not about revenge. This is about doing the right thing. Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-0100 Majority Leader: Rep. Steny Hoyer 202.225.3130 DNC Chairman:Howard Dean:202-863-8000 Judicial Committee Chairman: John Conyers: (202) 225-5126 And your local representative: http://www.house.gov/

Perhaps you should look beyond the party mindset. My passionate fondness for the doctor isn't because he's a Republican ('the new kind') but because he doesn't fit the mold of either party and, as has been said before, he doesn't fear speaking his because his arguments are based on reason, reasearch and principles.

I'm pretty aware of his past and voting record (more so than most I'd think) and whenever I'm puzzled by his vote (or even when they make perfect sense) I still try and find out about his particular motivations which always make perfect, logical sense. Perhaps you'd also like to know I read all his speeches and statements online which are in perfect accordance with his voting record. You should try reading some, perhaps you'll find them very revealing.

This video should be right up the street of the average slashdot reader: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5792391565012624048&hl=en (speech here: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr0522107.htm ) or his recent speech on the farm bill should demonstrate his principal standing and familiarity with the issues: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst060108.htm .

Here's a bill sponsored my Dr Paul I'm particulary interested in, in seeing passed: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_cr/hr3835.html H.R. 3835: To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers

Excerpt:
SEC. 4. TORTURE OR COERCED CONFESSIONS.

            No civilian or military tribunal of the United States shall admit as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion.

EC. 9. USE OF SECRET EVIDENCE TO MAKE FOREIGN TERRORIST DESIGNATIONS.

            Notwithstanding any other law, secret evidence shall not be used by the President or any other member of the executive branch to designate an individual or organization with a United States presence as a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization for purposes of the criminal law or otherwise imposing criminal or civil sanctions.

I'm not a republican supporter because it's the same as being a democrat supporter, supporting the same system which is so very flawed and which disgraces the country and treads freely on liberty. There's nothing wrong with being a libertarian either. What could anyone have against peace and liberty? I'm in fact very comfortable with people who call themselves libertarian because I know they have no inclination in telling me on how I should live my life.

Perhaps you should look beyond the party mindset. My passionate fondness for the doctor isn't because he's a Republican ('the new kind') but because he doesn't fit the mold of either party and, as has been said before, he doesn't fear speaking his because his arguments are based on reason, reasearch and principles.

I'm pretty aware of his past and voting record (more so than most I'd think) and whenever I'm puzzled by his vote (or even when they make perfect sense) I still try and find out about his particular motivations which always make perfect, logical sense. Perhaps you'd also like to know I read all his speeches and statements online which are in perfect accordance with his voting record. You should try reading some, perhaps you'll find them very revealing.

This video should be right up the street of the average slashdot reader: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5792391565012624048&hl=en (speech here: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr0522107.htm ) or his recent speech on the farm bill should demonstrate his principal standing and familiarity with the issues: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst060108.htm .

Here's a bill sponsored my Dr Paul I'm particulary interested in, in seeing passed: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_cr/hr3835.html H.R. 3835: To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers

Excerpt:
SEC. 4. TORTURE OR COERCED CONFESSIONS.

            No civilian or military tribunal of the United States shall admit as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion.

EC. 9. USE OF SECRET EVIDENCE TO MAKE FOREIGN TERRORIST DESIGNATIONS.

            Notwithstanding any other law, secret evidence shall not be used by the President or any other member of the executive branch to designate an individual or organization with a United States presence as a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization for purposes of the criminal law or otherwise imposing criminal or civil sanctions.

I'm not a republican supporter because it's the same as being a democrat supporter, supporting the same system which is so very flawed and which disgraces the country and treads freely on liberty. There's nothing wrong with being a libertarian either. What could anyone have against peace and liberty? I'm in fact very comfortable with people who call themselves libertarian because I know they have no inclination in telling me on how I should live my life.

I not only wrote my senators, I wrote my idiot representative and told him where he could stick it. (not literally - that would get a poor response - but I did indicate just how upset with him I was)

Get your representative here...
https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

"The database does not include statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made".

PDF:
http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
Searchable database:
http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

The Downing Street memo observed that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. "

The intelligence agencies tried to warn that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was fabricating his testimony but the administration used the known-unreliable intelligence to persuade the public of an Iraq-al Qaeda link.

One of the delegates at the constitutional convention said that the President
"Must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, - in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him."

"The database does not include statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made".

PDF:
http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
Searchable database:
http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

The Downing Street memo observed that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. "

The intelligence agencies tried to warn that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was fabricating his testimony but the administration used the known-unreliable intelligence to persuade the public of an Iraq-al Qaeda link.

One of the delegates at the constitutional convention said that the President
"Must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, - in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him."

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93581

The agreement is designed to bar access to Web sites that feature child pornography by requiring service providers to check against a registry of explicit sites maintained by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

No, a "well-regulated" militia is one that is "properly disciplined", with no specification of by who or what. In that era, "disciplined" meant "skilled in the art of war". A closer modern analog would be "trained" or even "competent".

No, the militia in the Second Amendment includes both the organized militia and the unorganized militia: 10 USC 311

The Hatch Act is not as wide a blanket prohibition as it used to be. The Hatch Act reference URL given does not list NASA specifically as an agency On The List.

The closest I could see was...
    Senior Executive Service (career positions described at 5 U.S.C. ? 3132(a)(4))

    Is that the particular inhibition you were thinking of?

    Were you subject to it under the older, wider coverage? Or is NASA simply hidden in plain sight somewhere in that list?

You are giving numbers for the original 2001 bill.

The numbers I gave are for the 2005 REAUTHORIZATION, as indicated in the first sentence of my post where I stated "Yes, the Senate approved the reauthorization unanimously."

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll414.xml

Jul 29, 2005: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept. (This link then goes on to give the exact same numbers I gave for the House)

Perhaps you could read other people's posts a little better before you accuse them of being "wrong on all counts" and obtaining figures by having "pulled them all out of your ass".

Wrong on all counts. Did you ever even look at the actual numbers? It looks like you just pulled them all out of your ass.

Senate: 98 for, 1 against (Feingold D,WI)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

House: 357 for, 66 against.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml

One of the big concerns about the Chinese system is interference with the US and European GPS systems, and up until now there haven't been any set specs to start a meaningful discussion over.

Grandparent's point was that Feingold was the only Senator to vote against it. There were also 66 Representatives who opposed it (mostly Democrats, but yes, including Ron Paul.)

I agree, thank you scuttlemonkey.

TFS says that it is the House that should be contacted (rather than the Senate) and they can be found here

You are closer to the mark, but the figures should be clearly stated. Republicans have historically been slippery eels when it comes to properly assessing causality from their actions. Accepting Personal Responsibility is not actually a tenet of contemporary conservatives. It is instead a strategy that provides them with multiple opportunities to insult poor folk.

In The Senate, It was Roll Call 237 on October 11, 2002. The toal vote count was:
Yeas - 77 --- Nays - 23

The party affiliation breakdown was:

• Yeas - 48 R --29 D -- 0 I
• Nays - 0 R -- 22 D -- 1 I (Jeffords)

In the House it was Roll Call Vote 4455 on October 10, 2008. The total vote count was:
Yeas - 296 --- Nays - 133 --- NoVotes - 3

The party affiliation breakdown was:

• Yeas - 215 R -- 81 D -- 0 I
• Nays - 6 R -- 126 D -- 1 I
• NoVote - 2 R -- 1 D -- 0 I

• The Republicans voted affirmative 263/6
• The Democrats voted affirmative 110/126

This simplistic analysis does not show a very important consideration, and this is another instance of Republican weaseling from personal responsibility. It does not show clear statements made by Congressional members who stated that their vote was not al all out assent to war, but was instead a vote for giving the President power he could use as leverage on the Interational stage, to force Saddam into compliance, and in the event that all else had failed, war as a last resort. To assert that these persons diod no mean what they said is a very big leap out over the chasm of fatuity. Their error was having faith that a man elected as U.S. President, would possess the personal honor and integrity to not waste human blood waging an immoral foreign war, based upon falsehoods. They were very wrong, but that makes them dupes and rubes. Again, the Lamer of Two Evils.

GOP Bastards: the Natural Liberties you have stolen were in part mine. Give it back with public apologies for your crimes, and you'll no longer be counted as domestic enemy.

I don't know why, but they left out the contact link, where you could let Rep. Conyers know what you think of this bill.

You are making the incredibly naive assumption that the Congresscritters who would vote for legislation like that don't have anything to hide.

I think it is telling that the Republican Party uses their "Party e-mail accounts" instead of their government accounts. By promising to make it impossible to truly secure a system, Microsoft could be construed as a threat to the policy wonks who live in their Ivory Towers on Capitol Hill -- or at least the ones that do things that are corrupt (which I would argue is 40-60%).

Congress exempts itself from a lot of laws - link. Although the house.gov site puts a positive spin on this (news at 11), they're exempt from minimum wage, OSHA, the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA), and a lot of other ones.

Funny, isn't it? Congress is exempt from nearly all provisions of the "Ethics in Government Act of 1978."

We have at least one card carrying programmer congressman right now, Bill Foster, representing the 14th district of Illinois.

For what it's worth, the two times that I've emailed my congressman (Rick Boucher), each time I've gotten back emails that have addressed each of my concerns. Though I can't say if it was Boucher himself or perhaps a secretary, at the very least I know it was read.

I've had the good fortune of being represented by Capuano in Boston. He's great, because he maintains an electronic newsletter detailing issues faced by the House and his rationale for voting. Regardless of where you're from, I recommend visiting his site and taking a look at his "e-updates" to get a sense of the political process.

http://www.house.gov/capuano/

Awesome, awesome congressman.

While data for the last tax year isn't available, from 2000 the top 10% of all taxpayers paid 40.1% of the income tax paid to the Federal government, while those earning less than $20k a year represented around 5% of the total tax liability paid.

Even though the top 10% only represents 2.2% of all taxpayers, and those in the under 20% bracket represent over 30% of all taxpayers.

http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf

Now shut up.

I always called it "bullshitting."

This is slashdot, you need links.

Bullshit
Bullshit
Bullshit

Anything that staves off radio domination by Clear Channel is a good thing.

XM and Sirius are premium services and thus will probably could not have survived on their own.

XM radio helped keep people in New Orleans informed long after all the terrestrial radio stations were shut down. Yet Clear Channel tried to get legislation passed to prevent satellite radio from providing local weather and news information.

Why wouldn't these people do their planning outside of the government network, using email with encryption (PGP)? All of them could easily create Yahoo or Google accounts, or they could even create their own little domain name with their own server and run it all with encryption. Then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

From http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju58761.000/hju58761_0.HTM
"The Child Abuse Notification Act would require ISPs to report to law enforcement authorities any instances of suspected child abuse they discover or that are brought to their attention by customers. In addition, they would have to turn over any evidence that could be used to document these allegations. Importantly, this bill does not mandate any new or additional monitoring by ISPs. Moreover, ISPs would be protected from any criminal or civil liability if they, in good faith, contact law enforcement with information on possible child abuse."

So basically ISP's can't be sued unless they are aware of the child pornography claims. That doesn't necessarily mean that you can be classified as an ISP in your case. I'm not sure where the line is drawn, but I'm pretty sure you aren't being counted in (NAICS 5172).

Now I think you are right about the possession part through, at least in the states. I looked up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography and found that "Canadian law forbids the production, distribution, and possession of child pornography", so you could be liable as a distributor if your network was used as a conduit.

puh-leeze, "corporate mouthpiece parrots GOP propaganda" would be a more accurate tittle.

Dear MoveOn member,

Good news! House Democrats stood up to President Bush and defended our Constitution last week.

Here's what happened: As a national security bill moved through Congress, Bush said Democrats would be helping the terrorists if the bill didn't include retroactive immunity for lawbreaking phone companies. Such immunity would mean a "get out of jail free" card for companies that helped Bush illegally spy on the calls and emails of innocent Americans--halting lawsuits currently being heard in court.

These lawsuits may be the only way Americans ever find out how far Bush went in breaking the law. Instead of caving in, House Democrats pushed back hard. Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared, "The president is wrong, and he knows it." And on Friday, House Democrats passed the security bill without immunity for lawbreakers and with new checks and balances on the Bush administration!

MoveOn members and other progressives helped make this victory happen. Tens of thousands of phone calls and emails--and hundreds of thousands of petition signatures--demanded that Democrats stand on principle. Over the course of several months, we kept the pressure on.

The fight's not over. All eyes now turn to the Senate. But when progressives win important fights--and when Democratic elected leaders show backbone after an outpouring of public sentiment--it's important to take a step back and celebrate. Together, our activism made a big difference!

Below are two articles describing our victory in the House last week. One ran this weekend in the New York Times. The other is by former prosecutor Glenn Greenwald, blogging about the victory at Salon.

Thanks for all you do.

-Nita, Adam G., Justin, Tanya, Anna, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Monday, March 17th, 2008

P.S. You can see how your representative voted here. A "Yea" vote was for the good bill and against immunity for lawbreakers:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll145.xml

EXCERPTS
New York Times: "House Rejects Eavesdropping Immunity" (March 14, 2008)

WASHINGTON--After its first secret session in a quarter-century, the House on Friday rejected retroactive immunity for the phone companies that took part in the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program after the Sept. 11 attacks, and it voted to place greater restrictions on the government's wiretapping powers.

The decision, by a largely party-line vote of 213 to 197, is one of the few times when Democrats have been willing to buck up against the White House on a national security issue. ...The House bill approved Friday includes three key elements: it would refuse retroactive immunity to the phone companies, providing special authority instead for the courts to decide the liability issue; it would add additional judicial restrictions on the government's wiretapping powers while plugging certain loopholes in foreign coverage; and it would create a Congressional commission to investigate the N.S.A. program. ...House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was sharply critical of the president's assessment that the legislation would not make America safer. "The president is wrong, and he knows it," she said on Thursday.

Read the full story here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/washington/14cnd-fisa.html

Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "House Democrats reject telecom amnesty, warrantless surveillance" (March 14, 2008)

As impressive as the House vote itself was, more impressive still was the floor debate which preceded it. I can't recall ever watching a debate on the floor of either House of Congress that I found even remotely impressive--until today. One Democrat after the next--of all stripes--delivered imp

Another obviously nerdy congresscritter is Rush Holt from New Jersey's 12th district. Holt's notable efforts (many of which have shown up on /.) include going after unaccountable electronic voting and advocating network neutrality.

After three years of studying at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Ehlers transferred and received his undergraduate degree in physics and his Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of California at Berkeley in 1960. After six years teaching and research at Berkeley, he moved back to Grand Rapids to Calvin College in 1966 where he taught physics for 16 years and later served as chairman of the Physics Department.

Al Gore alone is worth two hundred million these days, more than the entire administration combined.

All their interesting stuff went through private mail servers at the RNC to evade responsibility for document retention under the Presidential Records Act. The RNC systematically destroys its emails and Bush has even invoked executive privilege in ordering the RNC to defy Congressional subpoenas to produce them.

After they're done gutting FISA, they'll "reward" the media giants with tiered WWW pricing and the banning of "evil" protocols - just watch.

Signing Statements:

http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm

On December 20, 2007, President Bush signed routine postal legislation. In a "Signing Statement", the President claims Executive Power to search the mail of U.S. citizens inside the United States without a warrant, in direct contradiction of the bill he had just signed.

January 4, 08 Story:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003508676_mail04.html

House Dems Near Surrender on Bush Spying:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/house-dems-near-surrender_b_89726.html#postComment

Washington Politicians Are Gutting America Like A Fish:

http://whitehouser.com/politics/bush-fascism-failed-democracy/

Bush Legacy Already Established - Helen Thomas:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/15358518/detail.html

Nancy Pelosi:

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/

email:

americanvoices@mail.house.gov

(415) 556-4862

District Office - 450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102

Greetings:

I left you a voice message earlier.

There is an article at The Huffington Post:

House Dems Near Surrender on Bush Spying:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/house-dems-near-surrender_b_89726.html#postComment

If you read the comments, I think you might just begin to understand the movement that is starting to happen. I think all the Democrats you lead in the House should read this.
It's of things to come.
We have had it.
Democrats, and even a lot of Republicans are starting to wake up to the major damage done by this President, to our Constitution and our Freedom, and of the empty promises you, Nancy, made to those of us that put you there to represent us.
This Congress, lead by you, will be held responsible for idly standing by, and of recent, participating in the dismantling of our laws and accepted practices and replacing them with "mere precedent" and outright disregard for the rules of law, the ones we go to prison for, the same ones others are exempt from.
You and the Democratic Party will hear from us, we have, as a group, a starting list of 12 in the Democratic Party that will not be returning, as they are to be voted out.
The Republicans, double.

You have woken the sleeping giant that is the American people, and you all will be hearing from us and a growing number of voters across this country, that oddly enough depends on a manipulated election system we've all grown wise to.

A few weeks ago, we had thought you all had come to your senses by standing up to Mr. Bush and his group, but evidently, it was fake. We had, at one time thought that maybe you were waiting for the proper time to act. But you've decided which side you're on.
You all have failed to uphold your oaths.
We/I, have lost faith, so we shall act, and we will organize, and we will win.
Last chance has already past, and you all blew it to a lame duck President, no less.

SURRENDER DOROTHY

http://www.littlestuffedbull.com/images/comics/surrenderdot.jpg

mailto:howard.coble@mail.house.gov

Like the fact that he's pro-life. Or the fact that he wants to withdraw from the UN and reinstate a foreign policy that borders on isolationism. Or his 19th Century economic policies.

Well there you go.

"Borders on isolationism" is nearly a direct quote from the media, and false. Going after the terrorists directly (via Marque and Reprisal) while persuing diplomacy with foreign countries and encouraging fair trade and travel does not equal isolationism or even borderline isolationism. Ron's policy is one of non-interventionism, which is dramatically different. Here are a few examples that explain the difference. You claim people know Ron's message. In my experience, this is one of the most repeated falsehoods I hear.

And for crying out loud, you dislike the war in Iraq yet want to stay in the U.N.?! The U.N. is largely responsible for our involvement in Iraq! (see Resolution 1441) How can you condemn pulling out when they are an abomination that does nothing but threaten our sovereignty for the so-called benefit of the world ... and at our expense and reputation?


And what about Ron's economic policies are 19th century? Are you saying that Steve Forbes, who has praised Ron's economic ideas, also has the same 19th century mentality?

• Stopping the declining value of the dollar by printing more money?
• Less spending by the federal government?
• Ending over-regulation?
• Stop the wasted attempts to pay of debt and its interest with more debt?
• Providing tax credits to increase competition and new ideas rather than "writing checks" to the companies with the best lobbyists?
• Getting rid of the organization largely responsible for our economic woes - the Federal Reserve?

Oh wait, I bet you're referring to the "gold standard" myth. Though it hasn't stopped the media from twisting his words, Ron has stated more than once that he's not necessarily for a gold standard. What he does want, is to restore the value of the dollar and has suggested competing currencies (he even just made a speech in congress about this in the last few weeks) as one way to achieve that.

Ron's economic plan (if you bothered reading it), is clearly far from being 19th century.

Please tell me I'm wrong and you have a solid example of what you mean.

In any case, it is NOT the president's job to manage the economy! Nor should it be. He or she should uphold the constitution and let the market take care of itself (where possible of course, there are exceptions thanks to years of government involvement).


Pro-life is his personal view, not his federal policy. His position is to get the federal government out of moral issues such as this one. While I don't agree with his personal view necessarily, moving the issue to local government (where people have more of a say) is a fair and constitutional compromise.

Regardless, the issue of abortion is nothing more than a diversion from the real problems we face. It's a talking point to make people feel good about themselves. Choosing a president based on this issue, when the federal government has no constitutional abilit

Like the fact that he's pro-life. Or the fact that he wants to withdraw from the UN and reinstate a foreign policy that borders on isolationism. Or his 19th Century economic policies.

Well there you go.

"Borders on isolationism" is nearly a direct quote from the media, and false. Going after the terrorists directly (via Marque and Reprisal) while persuing diplomacy with foreign countries and encouraging fair trade and travel does not equal isolationism or even borderline isolationism. Ron's policy is one of non-interventionism, which is dramatically different. Here are a few examples that explain the difference. You claim people know Ron's message. In my experience, this is one of the most repeated falsehoods I hear.

And for crying out loud, you dislike the war in Iraq yet want to stay in the U.N.?! The U.N. is largely responsible for our involvement in Iraq! (see Resolution 1441) How can you condemn pulling out when they are an abomination that does nothing but threaten our sovereignty for the so-called benefit of the world ... and at our expense and reputation?


And what about Ron's economic policies are 19th century? Are you saying that Steve Forbes, who has praised Ron's economic ideas, also has the same 19th century mentality?

• Stopping the declining value of the dollar by printing more money?
• Less spending by the federal government?
• Ending over-regulation?
• Stop the wasted attempts to pay of debt and its interest with more debt?
• Providing tax credits to increase competition and new ideas rather than "writing checks" to the companies with the best lobbyists?
• Getting rid of the organization largely responsible for our economic woes - the Federal Reserve?

Oh wait, I bet you're referring to the "gold standard" myth. Though it hasn't stopped the media from twisting his words, Ron has stated more than once that he's not necessarily for a gold standard. What he does want, is to restore the value of the dollar and has suggested competing currencies (he even just made a speech in congress about this in the last few weeks) as one way to achieve that.

Ron's economic plan (if you bothered reading it), is clearly far from being 19th century.

Please tell me I'm wrong and you have a solid example of what you mean.

In any case, it is NOT the president's job to manage the economy! Nor should it be. He or she should uphold the constitution and let the market take care of itself (where possible of course, there are exceptions thanks to years of government involvement).


Pro-life is his personal view, not his federal policy. His position is to get the federal government out of moral issues such as this one. While I don't agree with his personal view necessarily, moving the issue to local government (where people have more of a say) is a fair and constitutional compromise.

Regardless, the issue of abortion is nothing more than a diversion from the real problems we face. It's a talking point to make people feel good about themselves. Choosing a president based on this issue, when the federal government has no constitutional abilit

(c) Ask Mr. Brennan to "settle".

If you think this issue is important, you should write some letters. Today, I wrote both my Senators, my House Rep, the FCC, and my cable company. Personally, I am appalled at this douchebaggery. Someone else said it best: selective throttling is censorship. It is therefore a violation of the First Amendment. Also keep in mind that some would-be ISPs are the same folks offering illegal wiretaps. Lastly, as consumers we *must* demand better. I live in Los Angeles, one of the most urbanized areas in the United States and, in my neighborhood, Time Warner is my only viable option for high speed internet access. It's just plain wrong. We must demand better.

Find your Senate rep here:
http://www.senate.gov/

Find your house rep here:
http://www.house.gov/

You can comment on the FCC proceedings here using proceeding numbers 07-52 and 08-7
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

I would highly encourage use of snail mail. It has greater impact when bags of mail arrive in somebody's office.

And I'm not even being pedantic here. The 12th district is on the northern part of the peninsula.

Congressman Mike Honda is the representative for most of "Silicon Valley" which includes San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino -- the 15th District.

Now, if you want to cover Google and Stanford, then that's the 14th District -- which includes Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Redwood City -- and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo is very much alive. :)

Silicon Valley is well represented already.

And I'm not even being pedantic here. The 12th district is on the northern part of the peninsula.

Congressman Mike Honda is the representative for most of "Silicon Valley" which includes San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino -- the 15th District.

Now, if you want to cover Google and Stanford, then that's the 14th District -- which includes Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Redwood City -- and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo is very much alive. :)

Silicon Valley is well represented already.

Go here http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015/ Find out how your senators voted, then contact your Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm/ You can also contact your Congressperson: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml/