Slashdot Mirror

Considering that Democrats are now the majority in Congress, this bill would not have passed without their strong support.

You fail basic math. 181 Democrats voted against it. That's not "strong support" in any way. Unfortunately the Democrats had some defections. Results here.

The Republicans gave the bill almost total support. Without so many Republicans in the house, this bill would never have passed.

Did you really vote? If so it is a matter of record that the politicians can look up.

"You work for us."

They only work for voters and supporters. The best way to get your opinion heard is to vote and contribute to campaigns. BTW, contributing to the opposing candidate works too. Campaign contributions are a matter of public record. If you say "I will support your opponent in the next elections." they can check if you have ever supported any candidates before. If not they will treat it as an empty threat.

"We want you to tell the RIAA to f**k off."

Have you actually told your congressman this? I email my congressman regularly on issues that are important to me. I hope you do as well.

I recently put my money where my mouth is & emailed my rep, Jay Inslee. I honestly can't tell whether or not this is a stock reply (maybe I should encourage some friends to write him, and see the replies), but it shows that he at least acknowledges his constituents' communications. Also, it seems interesting how he notes that it would be beneficial to the music industry, but makes no mention of putting his constituents' best interests first.

As far as I can tell, the Intellectual Property Enhanced Criminal Enforcement Act of 2007 looks like some sort of mutation of the Intellectual Property Protection Act, as they appear to do the same thing, but IANAL.

Dear Mr. ______:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the administration's draft proposal for the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you.

I agree that it is important to keep the rights of consumers in mind as we work to address concerns from copyright holders about the unfair use of their intellectual property. It is my privilege to represent a region renowned for its cutting edge technology in Congress. Please be assured that I will continue to support innovation in this new era.

As you know, the Department of Justice has recently released a draft proposal for reform of existing intellectual property protections under US law. The proposed Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007 would expand criminalization of copyright infringement to include those that attempt to commit a crime, rather than just prosecuting those who actually complete the crime. The law would also permit wiretaps to locate and convict those who are "attempting" to commit copyright infringement. This bill is widely seen as being highly beneficial to the recording industry and would do a great deal to limit copyright infringement of musical recordings.

I also believe we need to allow for fair use of protected content while preventing illegal piracy. As new technologies are developed, we must work diligently to strike a balance between preserving fair use principles for consumers and protecting intellectual property. Unfortunately, I am not a Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, which has jurisdiction over this matter. However, as a Member of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, I will continue to look for ways to protect innovation in reviewing legislation that pertains to digital technology during the current 110th Congress.

Please continue to contact me about the issues that concern you, as I both need and welcome your thoughts and ideas. As a service to my constituents, I maintain a website which contains valuable resources and information on Congressional activities. Please feel free to visit the website at http://www.house.gov/inslee for information on recent issues and to learn more about the services my office provides. If you have not done so already, please visit http://www.house.gov/inslee/signup.htm to subscribe to my e-mail updates.

I encourage you to contact me via email, telephone, or fax, because security measures are causing House offices to experience delays in receiving postal mail. My email address is: Jay.Inslee@mail.house.gov. Please be sure to include your full name and address, including your zip code, in your message.

Very truly yours,

JAY INSLEE
Member of Congress

I recently put my money where my mouth is & emailed my rep, Jay Inslee. I honestly can't tell whether or not this is a stock reply (maybe I should encourage some friends to write him, and see the replies), but it shows that he at least acknowledges his constituents' communications. Also, it seems interesting how he notes that it would be beneficial to the music industry, but makes no mention of putting his constituents' best interests first.

As far as I can tell, the Intellectual Property Enhanced Criminal Enforcement Act of 2007 looks like some sort of mutation of the Intellectual Property Protection Act, as they appear to do the same thing, but IANAL.

Dear Mr. ______:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the administration's draft proposal for the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you.

I agree that it is important to keep the rights of consumers in mind as we work to address concerns from copyright holders about the unfair use of their intellectual property. It is my privilege to represent a region renowned for its cutting edge technology in Congress. Please be assured that I will continue to support innovation in this new era.

As you know, the Department of Justice has recently released a draft proposal for reform of existing intellectual property protections under US law. The proposed Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007 would expand criminalization of copyright infringement to include those that attempt to commit a crime, rather than just prosecuting those who actually complete the crime. The law would also permit wiretaps to locate and convict those who are "attempting" to commit copyright infringement. This bill is widely seen as being highly beneficial to the recording industry and would do a great deal to limit copyright infringement of musical recordings.

I also believe we need to allow for fair use of protected content while preventing illegal piracy. As new technologies are developed, we must work diligently to strike a balance between preserving fair use principles for consumers and protecting intellectual property. Unfortunately, I am not a Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, which has jurisdiction over this matter. However, as a Member of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, I will continue to look for ways to protect innovation in reviewing legislation that pertains to digital technology during the current 110th Congress.

Please continue to contact me about the issues that concern you, as I both need and welcome your thoughts and ideas. As a service to my constituents, I maintain a website which contains valuable resources and information on Congressional activities. Please feel free to visit the website at http://www.house.gov/inslee for information on recent issues and to learn more about the services my office provides. If you have not done so already, please visit http://www.house.gov/inslee/signup.htm to subscribe to my e-mail updates.

I encourage you to contact me via email, telephone, or fax, because security measures are causing House offices to experience delays in receiving postal mail. My email address is: Jay.Inslee@mail.house.gov. Please be sure to include your full name and address, including your zip code, in your message.

Very truly yours,

JAY INSLEE
Member of Congress

And so we shouldn't try?

I encourage you to begin intelligently and respectfully educating those within your sphere of influence.

One of the most sane, cohesive and coherent things I've ever heard from a politician came from Ron Paul. Yet what he writes seems to be a well known fact in any culture outside the bubble that most non-power-holding neo-conservative (brainwashed lemmings*) live in.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr07 1003.htm

(*I can say that because I was one.)

Senator Bill Nelson (D- FL) 202-224-5274 202-228-2183

http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Senator Mel Martinez (R- FL) 202-224-3041 202-228-5171

http://martinez.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAc tion=ContactInformation.ContactForm

Representative Tom Feeney (R - 24) 202-225-2706 202-226-6299

http://www.house.gov/writerep/ (use ZIP CODE 32899).

He is only for FairTax as a temporary means of income tax, until he would reduce government spending to where the IRS was no longer necessary. He is certainly concerned for the poor and middle class of this nation -- read his speech here on how our monetary policy taxes them excessively, and what he proposes to do about it. It has to do with returning the currency to a gold standard. By doing so, the government can't print money to cover its debts, and would be forced to spend wisely, resulting in smaller government, less taxes, and less inflation. Also see these videos (part 1, part 2) where he discussed monetary policy last week with Fed Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. Ron Paul knows his stuff and would be a tremendous asset for all of us to have in the White House.

quickly stripped of his committee assignments? he has been serving on the U.S. House Small Business Committee until last month, when he announced "he will take a temporary leave from his position" (full press release from June 5th, 2007 on his website at http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/la02_jefferso n/pr_070605.html) I have no love for former representative DeLay, and am glad that voters saw fit not to reelect him to the House, I only wish the people of Louisiana had sent Rep Jefferson packing as well

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets

instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

1. Contact your House Rep
2. Contact your Senator
3. Forward this article to your local paper.
4. Send it to your local radio station, especially any drive-time station.
5. And forward this to your local TV station, and national stations.
6. Write clear and concise e-mails about how bad this is to your friends and family urging them to do the same.

The Bill firstly has to be something that can get out of committee. The Bill was referred to the Cmte on House Administration, which consists of 6 Democrats, and 3 Republicans. Committee is where all the magic happens, with the main edits, and people check on whether its popular enough to get passed. If you think you've got good ideas for the Bill, read the Hearings and a href="contact the Committee members. If your ideas are good enough, you can change the minds of one of these 9 people, and have the law amended.

For more democracy, please contact:
Chairman Rep. Robert A. Brady, PA-1
Ranking Member Rep. Vernon Ehlers, MI-3

Democrats:
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, CA-16
Rep. Mike Capuano, MA-8
Rep. Charles Gonzalez, TX-20
Rep. Susan Davis, CA-53
Rep. Artur Davis, AL-7
Republicans:
Rep. Dan Lungren, CA-3
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, CA-22

The Bill firstly has to be something that can get out of committee. The Bill was referred to the Cmte on House Administration, which consists of 6 Democrats, and 3 Republicans. Committee is where all the magic happens, with the main edits, and people check on whether its popular enough to get passed. If you think you've got good ideas for the Bill, read the Hearings and a href="contact the Committee members. If your ideas are good enough, you can change the minds of one of these 9 people, and have the law amended.

For more democracy, please contact:
Chairman Rep. Robert A. Brady, PA-1
Ranking Member Rep. Vernon Ehlers, MI-3

Democrats:
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, CA-16
Rep. Mike Capuano, MA-8
Rep. Charles Gonzalez, TX-20
Rep. Susan Davis, CA-53
Rep. Artur Davis, AL-7
Republicans:
Rep. Dan Lungren, CA-3
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, CA-22

The Bill firstly has to be something that can get out of committee. The Bill was referred to the Cmte on House Administration, which consists of 6 Democrats, and 3 Republicans. Committee is where all the magic happens, with the main edits, and people check on whether its popular enough to get passed. If you think you've got good ideas for the Bill, read the Hearings and a href="contact the Committee members. If your ideas are good enough, you can change the minds of one of these 9 people, and have the law amended.

For more democracy, please contact:
Chairman Rep. Robert A. Brady, PA-1
Ranking Member Rep. Vernon Ehlers, MI-3

Democrats:
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, CA-16
Rep. Mike Capuano, MA-8
Rep. Charles Gonzalez, TX-20
Rep. Susan Davis, CA-53
Rep. Artur Davis, AL-7
Republicans:
Rep. Dan Lungren, CA-3
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, CA-22

I didn't know South Carolina had such a big problem with drug smugglers, is it worse than COLOMBIA?

Well, the Air Force doesn't seem to be pulling up the DoD average, which is still an F on the 2006 Federal Computer Security Report Card. http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/Media/PDFs/ FY06FISMA.pdf

Overall, the report shows a slight (C-) improvement from 2005's dismal D+. But whatever "large US Governemt agencies" are doing, it doesn't seem to be enough. I know how joyous I was when my personal information escaped the Veterans Administration--along with that of about half a million others. http://techdirt.com/articles/20070214/064307.shtml

Nor has the Air Force been immune, though I haven't heard of a data loss there since the 2005 episode involving 33,000 officers. http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/securi ty/story/0,10801,104080,00.html?SKC=security-10408 0

Of course, for some serious good times, you have to read about the Department of Homeland Security having to report 800 security incidents (virus outbreaks, 'hacking' tools found on servers, breakins, etc.) over a two year period to Congress, as reported here on Slashdot. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/20/125 9219

I don't get to hear enough from DoD people who are down in the trenches (no pun intended) on a daily basis. That rather sucks, as I'm a security guy. Would you care to share any thoughts on what might be wrong? Or, if you're in an area where things are going well, what are you doing differently from those departments/agencies where things seem to be a complete mess?

As progressive and ahead of the curve as CA is in the environment, there are still some areas where the state totally caved to money interests.

And when it comes to the rights of individuals, CA can really suck. The voters gave the state the right to collect DNA information and enter it in a database upon your arrest, NOT CONVICTION. So your DNA goes on file even if you're wrongly accused. See any potential for abuse here?

Plus, don't forget the state is home to the MPAA, and the House co-sponsor of the Patriot act.

This sure seems to be another political move - with very little to do with the science or the budget. Check the house website Science Subcommittee, which seems to have more information about complaints to the administration than actually doing anything. Now - on the other end - yes, the President should fund it if he wants it. If he doesn't, then NASA should be focusing on other priorities. I don't fault the committee for holding him to the fire over that, they are right. I think exploration, by humans, SHOULD be a part of NASA and other space agencies around the world. Space exploration, even the Space Race of the Cold War, has been of benefit, even as just an opportunity for dreams and hopes.

Well, the sarcasm tags are missing from the entire patent system and see where that got us. Just because you would be able to figure it out doesn't mean any J Random idiot could.

Amendments are reuired to meet germaneness rules. However, if you try hard enough, you can make almost anything sound germane to a specific bill. For example, if you are working on the state budget, you could attach almost anything since the costs associated with it affect the budget. Highway bill - anything related to oil and gas and automotive industry. Heck, even air travel since widespread construction may change the number of people flying. If you are changing the deadline for election paperwork, almost anything regarding elections. Oh, elections might be electronic? Then software laws may be germane. See how easy it is?

You just pay someone like a lawyer or lobbyist to come up with a plausible connection to some bill that is about to be voted on and attach it.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has written an analysis of this bill that is very useful, quick to read, and well... correct.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005308.php

I have been following the issue of election theft and computerized voting very closely for years, and I say that this bill is our best hope of fixing the elections system. It isn't perfect but compared to what we have now it is an incredible improvement. I'm also not claiming that this will fix any of the other ills of our political system, but this is a critical element to saving our democracy. PLEASE PLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASE call or write your representative and beg, plead, implore them to support this bill.

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

What does it do?
Requires voter verified paper ballots. The physical paper ballot is the official legal record of the vote instead of some bits in a Windoze PC.

Requires manual audits of 3-10% of randomly selected precincts. This is by far the most important part of the bill because this is the tool that can be used to detect fraud. Note, audits are currently extremely uncommon even in the cases of recounts or close elections. In many cases audits are impossible because the data needed is lost in the electronic counting process.

Would require release of source code of some portions of the voting software to certain people. Okay obviously this is a compromise between opening the source, trade secret concerns, and the practical fact that MS isn't gonna release the source to Windows or Access, which many of these systems are based upon. Still if Slashdot readers don't get that this is a step in the right direction then no one will.

Let your representatives know how you feel... http://www.house.gov/writerep/

This spectacle allowed even liberal Barney Frank (D., Mass.) to hold forth as a fiscal conservative. "I have listened to many of my conservative friends talk about the wonders of the free market, of the importance of letting the consumers make their best choices, of keeping government out of economic activity, of the virtues of free trade, but then I look at various agricultural programs like this one," Mr. Frank said. "It violates every principle of free market economics known to man and two or three not yet discovered."

        He then delivered this zinger: "I have been forced to conclude that in all of those great free market texts by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and all the others that there is a footnote that says, by the way, none of this applies to agriculture."

The American people are nowhere near mature enough to be trusted with foolish ways to lose money! I, for one, demand that this motion be defeated by moralizing elites with the power to regulate our vices! Such measures always work as planned!

Congress didn't buy Amazon's argument that the failure of a defunct Jeff Bezos-funded company to award a $10,000 bounty offered by Tim O'Reilly for prior art that could bust Bezos' 1-Click patent was proof of 1-Click's novelty. The Commissioner for Patents, on the other hand, was duly impressed. As was one of his patent Examiners, who broke ranks from a less-impressed fellow Examiner and re-Examiner, to push through last week's issuance of U.S. patent no. 7,222,087, a 'continuation' of 1-Click which adds innovative claims like contacting the recipient of an order via e-mail or a phone call to obtain additional info.

Unless I'm mistaken, this person wasn't on the witness list for the "The Role of Technology in Reducing Illegal Filesharing: A University Perspective" hearing. The witnesses are not only listed on the website but also in the Hearing Charter. I've watched the entire hearing (there's a link to a Real stream on the website) and Safwat Fahmy was not in the video that I watched.

Am I missing something? Am I looking at the wrong hearing? Or did this person simply write a letter to congress and we've now given him and his company lots of free press?

Unless I'm mistaken, this person wasn't on the witness list for the "The Role of Technology in Reducing Illegal Filesharing: A University Perspective" hearing. The witnesses are not only listed on the website but also in the Hearing Charter. I've watched the entire hearing (there's a link to a Real stream on the website) and Safwat Fahmy was not in the video that I watched.

Am I missing something? Am I looking at the wrong hearing? Or did this person simply write a letter to congress and we've now given him and his company lots of free press?

Wikipedia's eugenics article defines eugenics as, "a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention." The purpose of your program is different, though: you aim to improve human behavior as opposed to the gene pool. Under this model, uncontrolled reproduction is a crime and the punishment is to have criminals' breeding privileges revoked for the good of society. If your real aim is to alter behavior and not the genetic landscape of the race, then why not use conventional punishments for "uncontrolled breeding?" Not to mention creating more positive reinforcments for "good" breeding? In the United States we consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment to cut off the hand of a thief. How is this different? And I think I've heard it before about how "humane" sterilization is...

In China, couples are limited to one child and that's it. I'm not sure I'd like to live under such a regime; there are reports of them performing sterilizations and forced abortions on those who break the rules... sounds rather par for the course in totalitarian society. The real bottom line for me is that forced sterilization is a critical component of any eugenic program--and much more palatable than "euthanasia." Good luck putting the genie back in the bottle if things get out of hand.

http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx ?committee=3

You hear of Pat Tillman? What is easier to believe, that he died gloriously in battle, or that he was killed by his own troops and this friendly fire got swept under the rug? Just because you don't believe in conspiracies doesn't mean they don't happen. Remember the thing about trees falling in a forest...? I can't imagine the horrors you might go through seeing the world as it is--fucking complicated. Go look up "simpleton" in a dictionary.

P.S. Well spent education.

Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives. (more...)

Are you kidding me? What responsibilities to society? Remember, this country was founded on the rejection of the stamp tax. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of taxes"? I don't think so. The problem is low taxes combined with high spending. Low taxes and low spending is good.

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation.

The ICC's decisions could theoretically overrule the Supreme Court. That's a threat to our national sovereignty. The UN has sometimes talked about a worldwide ban of guns and bans on other things as well. We provide most of the money for the UN, but it gives us little in return. China and Russia prevent anything of worth from occurring with the Security Council, and have you ever taken a look at the UN's "Council on Human Rights"? In 2003, it was headed by Libya-- yes, Libya headed the Council on Human Rights. This is a group of 47 nations-- most of which are themselves guilty of large human rights violations, because there's absolutely no minimum criteria (such as not being guilty of human rights abuses yourself) to be involved. It censures Israel and no other country. Not China, not Russia, not North Korea, not Iran, not any African dictatorship, not Turkey, not Pakistan, not the military junta in Myanmar-- nope, the only country that's ever had a resolution brought against it by this Council is Israel, and that's happened nine times with more on the way. When I found that out, I realized how worthless the UN is.

NAFTA is something that we fund that is basically a complete gift to Mexico. There are plans to build a 10-lane NAFTA highway between Canada and Mexico, seizing private property that happens to be in the way by eminent domain. Guiliani's law firm represents the company that wants to build it and other candidates also have business interests in the building of this highway, so you'll never hear them say anything about it. As he says on his website, the WTO and CAFTA would try to get Americans to get prescriptions for any kind of pill, including vitamins.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.ht m
" Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution-- which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade."

This is true, but he proposes no alternatives. It is VERY easy to talk about the war, but not easy to come up with suggestions. He needs to work on this. Knee-jerk opposition to the UN is a simple minded and ineffective foreign policy.

He does offer an alternative-- get out of these countries, stop occupying them, talk to the countries that we're having problems with and try diplomacy for once, while at the same time going after the terrorists who actually attacked us-- al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Again, like it or not, illegal immigrants do the work americans refuse to do. We cannot on one hand decry cheap labour and on the other hand demand huge pay increases for janitorial work. And how does he propose to secure our borders without TAXES? Yet another inconsistency.

He wouldn't get rid of all taxes-- he would spend less on policing the world and more on policing our borders. He would not be opposed to a guest worker program, I believe, if there was no social welfare in America (which is the true libertarian view). Perhaps that would someday be instituted (once they can not qualify for welfare).

The racist comments have been debunked. Most were written by a staffer that was later fired; other quotes were taken out of context. You can get more info here: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41 822

Besides, if he was a racist why would Ron Paul have suggested a black man as a possible running mate in this interview? The racist remarks expose is simply a smear tactic.

If you really want to know his thoughts on racism, read them in his column.
Excerpt: "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. "

"Well, really it just means that he's the only one who's willing to take the gamble that stating the truth won't get him eliminated from the list of candidates."

Ron Paul has made it a habit of telling the truth for years now.
Just read some of his weekly columns: http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm
Or his calling out the Federal Reserve
OR his EPIC: "Neo-Conned!"

He is not just saying the truth because he is running for President; he has always told the truth and he has my vote in the Primary and then the General Election.

In 1996, gay marriage was nowhere near as widely accepted as it is today. DOMA passed by 85-14 in the senate[1] and 342-67 in the house[2]. President Clinton -- a Democrat -- signed the bill into law.

As Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson has been a strong supporter of gay rights. He expanded New Mexico's civil rights laws to include sexual orientation, he extended health care benefits to same-sex partners of state employees, and he's on the record for supporting civil unions and gays in the military. In fact, he stopped DOMA-like legislation in NM by threatening to veto it.[3]

As for flag burning, Google turned up nothing about his position on this. Would you care to cite a source? I agree that a ban on flag burning would be ridiculous, but I also think it's pretty irrelevant to the big picture. Richardson's positions on Iraq, energy, foreign policy, trade, education, etc. are all dead-on and his record proves he can get things done. His ability and willingness to engage in diplomacy even with our enemies -- and his experience in doing just that -- is exactly what we need right now. Besides, flag burning has been affirmed as a constitutional right, and an amendment would obviously never be passed, much less ratified.

Meanwhile, other politicians won't even tell us their policies. Compare the "issues" section of Richardson's site with Barack Obama's or Hillary Clinton's. Notice how Richardson's site is full of specific action items whereas Obama's and Hillary's are full of wishy-washy "This is bad, but I can fix it. Really I can." statements.

Ron Paul stands for what a lot of people in America believe in.
Hear what he has to say, and let the facts speak for them self.

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)

Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)

Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)

Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)

Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)

If only he would explain how he plans to provide services for society and cut taxes.

Bull shit he is all for free trade. In fact he wants lower tariffs. I hate disinformation jerks like you. It's the reason why the wrong people get elected.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst060605.ht m

"We don't need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so."

Oh I get it, this is debate by quips! Let me provide you with fleshed out explanations.

Abortion: Ron Paul is most definitely pro-life. No question about it. He is against it because he feels that the unborn child is a human being worthy of the same protections as any other. Lest you throw out the old hypocrite canard, he is most definitely against the death penalty as well.

He has made it clear that the abortion is a state matter. So why the vote for partial birth abortion ban at the federal level? Because the current state of affairs HAS made it a federal issue! Ron Paul held his nose while voting for this. Let's say this was assault instead of abortion. Imagine there was a congressional bill banning a particular kind of assault. Would you vote for this bill even though it's properly a state issue? What do you do if you're a strict constitutionalist and fervent anti-assaulter? You hold your nose and vote for it! Just like Ron Paul did with partial birth abortion ban.

Next topic, defense of marriage act: Again, the quick quip rebuttal does no justice to his position. He does not feel that marriage is an institution to propped up and supported by the government. So how does gay marriage fit into this? Because at one level, marriage IS a federal issue. If one state allows homosexual marriages, do other states have to recognize it? That is the question. Ron Paul's answer is no. Individual states can legalize gay marriages all they want, but other states don't have to recognize it. The very link you provide explains this. It also points out that he is dead set against constitutional amendments in this regard.

There is no inconsistancy here. Why does he support the Marriage Protection Act? To "protect each states right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."

Oh I get it, this is debate by quips! Let me provide you with fleshed out explanations.

Abortion: Ron Paul is most definitely pro-life. No question about it. He is against it because he feels that the unborn child is a human being worthy of the same protections as any other. Lest you throw out the old hypocrite canard, he is most definitely against the death penalty as well.

He has made it clear that the abortion is a state matter. So why the vote for partial birth abortion ban at the federal level? Because the current state of affairs HAS made it a federal issue! Ron Paul held his nose while voting for this. Let's say this was assault instead of abortion. Imagine there was a congressional bill banning a particular kind of assault. Would you vote for this bill even though it's properly a state issue? What do you do if you're a strict constitutionalist and fervent anti-assaulter? You hold your nose and vote for it! Just like Ron Paul did with partial birth abortion ban.

Next topic, defense of marriage act: Again, the quick quip rebuttal does no justice to his position. He does not feel that marriage is an institution to propped up and supported by the government. So how does gay marriage fit into this? Because at one level, marriage IS a federal issue. If one state allows homosexual marriages, do other states have to recognize it? That is the question. Ron Paul's answer is no. Individual states can legalize gay marriages all they want, but other states don't have to recognize it. The very link you provide explains this. It also points out that he is dead set against constitutional amendments in this regard.

There is no inconsistancy here. Why does he support the Marriage Protection Act? To "protect each states right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."

Oh I get it, this is debate by quips! Let me provide you with fleshed out explanations.

Abortion: Ron Paul is most definitely pro-life. No question about it. He is against it because he feels that the unborn child is a human being worthy of the same protections as any other. Lest you throw out the old hypocrite canard, he is most definitely against the death penalty as well.

He has made it clear that the abortion is a state matter. So why the vote for partial birth abortion ban at the federal level? Because the current state of affairs HAS made it a federal issue! Ron Paul held his nose while voting for this. Let's say this was assault instead of abortion. Imagine there was a congressional bill banning a particular kind of assault. Would you vote for this bill even though it's properly a state issue? What do you do if you're a strict constitutionalist and fervent anti-assaulter? You hold your nose and vote for it! Just like Ron Paul did with partial birth abortion ban.

Next topic, defense of marriage act: Again, the quick quip rebuttal does no justice to his position. He does not feel that marriage is an institution to propped up and supported by the government. So how does gay marriage fit into this? Because at one level, marriage IS a federal issue. If one state allows homosexual marriages, do other states have to recognize it? That is the question. Ron Paul's answer is no. Individual states can legalize gay marriages all they want, but other states don't have to recognize it. The very link you provide explains this. It also points out that he is dead set against constitutional amendments in this regard.

There is no inconsistancy here. Why does he support the Marriage Protection Act? To "protect each states right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."

He is a constitutionalist, and is of the correct position that the federal government has no business in legislating anything related to abortion, gays and "all the usual stuff".

So that's why his name's on the list of yeas for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban and he supports the Defense of Marriage Act and Marriage Protection Act?

He's a bloody hypocrite just like the rest. Fuck him.

He is a constitutionalist, and is of the correct position that the federal government has no business in legislating anything related to abortion, gays and "all the usual stuff".

So that's why his name's on the list of yeas for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban and he supports the Defense of Marriage Act and Marriage Protection Act?

He's a bloody hypocrite just like the rest. Fuck him.

I remember back in the 80's when people first noticed that the FCC was serving the interests of companies more than the populace. Everything else that has followed since from fighting for the rights of large media companies to merge to seeking to suppress internet content at the behest of AOL Time Warner started then with Regan's appointees. Now the FCC openly behaves as a tool of the conglomerates. Or in the case of the illegal wiretapping, a tool of the NSA.

A similar lack of complaint was heard when the food and drug administration reevaluated aspertame for the third time and declared it safe despite their own warnings to the contrary see here. Thanks again Donald Rumsfeld.

Then the Food and Drug administration recently was accused of stepping down enforcement of many complaints and 'streamlining' the process of approval for the drug companies.

Now this. Realistically speaking I would hope that sooner or later events like this, you know large companies committing fraud and spying on people for money, lying, etc. and being given only a slap on the wrist, would say piss people off so much that they would Write their Congressional Representative, and Their U.S. Senator, and even The President. A few e-mails saying, either this is a government of by and for the people or we'll vote for someone else. A few e-mails saying, I pay my taxes why are they being spent to harm me? A few e-mails just reminding them that we are paying attention. Lacking that they can do whatever they want and we're no longer the greatest nation on earth.

No, you are mistaken. He also was one of the few who voted against the Iraq War. In general, he supports a total non-interventionist foreign policy.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr09 0402.htm

I just need to voice my thoughts out loud. Feel free to correct me on anything.

Title 18 (18 USC), Chapter 73 has a lot to say about what penalties someone will face for deleting anything that may be evidence in any Governmental department investigation (section 1519 makes for particularly good reading), and the 'deleting' of emails that were meant to be sent from .gov addresses (but instead were illegally sent from and to websites set up by Donatelli Group, the same organization that set up both the 2004 Bush re-election site, the Republican national Committee site, AND the Swift Boat 'independent' sites) certainly constitutes that. But this isn't my point. Although having emails like this one (that have the Trifecta of Jack Abramoff, using government facilities illegally for partisan reasons, and asking people to direct official emails illegally to a non-governmental email address for government business because "there could be lawsuits etc.") are certainly fun bedtime reading. If only because it makes you wonder what lawsuits Bush-Cheney were avoiding by leaving the email servers clean of incriminating evidence.

And the talking points now seems to be fogging the issue isn't my point either. Even though it's true that Gonzales could have said "I let 'em go because I can, end of story", and that would have been OK. But he didn't... under oath, he said all eight were fired for poor performance, and records later showed the fired people had (for the vast majority of them) excellent performance reviews. Not just 'meets expectations', but 'exceeds expectations'. It was just that one of them had managed to get people like Duke Cunningham convicted and palms were sweating, for example.

No, the fascinating thing for me is the scale, the person, and the timing of it all. Not just one email, but five-hundred. Not sent to an email address that bounced the emails back to sender as undelivered, but sent to a person that has so far batted 1.000 on his investigations of an Admin that has batted .000 in all major issues that have come to a head (sorry for that analogy ... for those non North American Scum, let's use a cricket analogy and say the reporter has hit six sixes in an inning against opponents that were all out for a duck when they were at bat). And the emails didn't just arrive in dribs and drabs, but landed like manna from heaven, all late one night as offices in Washington were dark, just as the story was starting to cool because of the lack of emails.

Sounds to me like we have a Deep Throat type of leak at the White House. In years to come, the books written by people on the inside will talk of the air of paranoia in the Halls of Power as the top-feeders demanded to know who was where at the time the emails were sent.

That's the big story right now. I bet the air of paranoia setting in the Halls of Power right now has been cranked up to 11. That's the angle I want covered. In years to come, when someone writes the book on what happened, I want to know how much shouting there was (I'm guessing "a lot").

Listen, if we want to beat this thing, write your representatives in Congress and make sure they understand the Will of the People. Also, I skimmed over the proposed legislation. Apparently it affects *all* forms of copyright infringement, including counterfeit prescription drugs, etc, not just MAFIAA stuff. But the wiretapping is kinda spooky, as if I don't have enough to worry about already with the Bill of Rights shot to pieces. Good thing I still have my gun... and I plan to keep it.

http://www.senate.gov/
http://www.house.gov/

Let's get this thing. Here's a PDF of the proposition: http://politechbot.com/docs/doj.intellectual.prope rty.protection.act.2007.051407.pdf
- CautionaryX

But, how many have called their Congresscritter to let them know how they feel about this?

If you don't know yours, you can go here to find out...it's less likely to be a frustrating experience than using this web site.

Unfortunately I feel it's unlikely to make much difference in the long run, against the moneyed lobbyists fronting for the copynazis, but it's always good to go on record as a voice of sanity.

Copyright infringement should *not* be criminalized to an extent that allows asset forfeiture to be part of the legal remedies.