Slashdot Mirror

Perot did not hand the election to Clinton, however Nader did hand the election to W.

http://mydd.com/users/diamondjay/posts/getting-the-19921996-elections-right-ross-perot-did-not-change-the-outcomes

hey ya know what? Why yes it does because hey, what do ya know, there is scamming in the sulphur trading too. Surprise surprise. And I bet if you follow the money guess who'll be making out like a bandit? what stocks does Thatcher hold? Where are her investments? Follow the money friend.

Negative, cutting taxes INCREASES revenues because it allows more capital for investment and grows the economy which results in greater revenues. Do you think when stores run sales they do it to lose revenue? No, they do it to increase revenue by getting more purchase activity. Largely the same concept.

Read history, cutting taxes increases revenues, especially in the mid term (1 year plus).

Oh my. This argument was old 50 years ago.

Laffer Curve

Claim That Tax Cuts "Pay For Themselves" Is Too Good To Be True Data Show No "Free Lunch" Here

tax cuts raise revenue completely debunked

We need to increase the taxes on the highest 1% to about 60%.

The middle class is being fleeced something terrible. The super rich have all the money and the poor/middle class have all the voting power. It is a sad thought to me that people are so sure they are going to become one of the super rich that they let themselves be used and abused the way they do.

They put Obama in as the Dem candidate, but, VOTERS put him in office, and I stick by my assertions on the Independents.

And who made up the vast majority of the VOTERS who put him in office? Democrats. And there is this fanciful idea that "independent" == the large middle between the Democratic and Republican parties, and that's just not the case. You have people who can't make up their minds, people who don't care about politics at all (but need to be categorized), conservatives who are consistent for two seconds at a time and thus can't vote GOP, and people who are pissed off at both parties for reasons both justified and not.

Wow..what polls are you getting this from??

The reputable ones. On the page they say "almost half" but it's actually 59%. LA Times: 53%. Hell, even a majority of Republican voters support a public option when separated from the lies about "Death Panels" and Concern trolling over the deficit which, funny enough, was never a concern with Iraq.

Not a single poll I've seen say the majority of US citizens want the public option

Maybe you should get out more; the reality-based community is a nice place to visit.

From what I've seen from multiple polls from multiple sources, it is quite the opposite of what you say.

That's because your poll is from Rassmusen, who are noted hacks.

Sure, I know one can search and find special polls and stats that will argue for any side of any case, but, from what I've seen, there is just not a majority support of the single payer option at all in the US.

The funny thing is that batshit crazy, immigrant hating, fascist, warmongering corporatist right wingers in other countries wonder what the hell is wrong with American conservatives for opposing single payer. For reasons like....single payer is the most fiscally conservative policy possible. The entire existence (and massive profits of) the health insurance industry depends on taking your premiums while doing their best to deny your claims. Which is why Medicare spends about 2 cents on the dollar in administrative costs, compared to 30-35% for private insurance.

And I thought conservatives wanted to hold onto their money...

You seem to think something is wrong with people protesting Obama's policies?

You seem to ignore that these protesters were didn't care about Bush doubling the national debt, lying us into a war, and shredding the Bill of Rights? You have Republican Congressmen calling for violent revolution, yet never gave a shit about NSA wiretapping?

One of the most glaring problems conservatives face is the complete inability to be consistent for two seconds. The other problem is that they are utterly divorced from reality. What SNL said: you guys can't complain about how Obama is a socialist, because he hasn't done anything yet.

I saw plenty of protest (and yes, some VERY distasteful things said too)

LOL. Not only are they not on the same page, they aren't on the same planet. Where were the liberals burning and hanging GOP congressmen in effigy? Were Democratic voters showing up to rallies headed by VP nominee John Edwards, yelling "kill him" about Bush? Republicans mocked liberal celebrities for saying they would leave the country if Bush was re-elected, yet were openly calling for secession the month Obama took office.

This large middle class tax cut you mention....where and when exactly did this occur?

Originated in the US? It is well documented that the first few known cases were from Vera Cruz Mexico. http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-25-swine-flu-smithfield/ http://www.mydd.com/story/ http://www.google.com/search?q=swine+flu+veracruz&afid=5052&s=&search=. Although the pig farm it may have originated on is owned by a U.S. company and is reported to have deplorable conditions.

these bonuses are required pay and they were not performance based. Why are people calling them bonuses then?

Because Wall Street firms categorize them as bonuses so they can claim impermissible tax deductions and cheat the system.

It's not as bad as you think. It's worse.

It's not just FISA, there's also the death penalty for child rapists (is that "progressive"?), pulling out of public financing, and even being inflammatory on abortion despite being pro-choice in the past.

I think I agree with the Huffington Post. Is this the guy everybody got excited about?

Individual rights to privacy have nothing to do with what we have or do not have to hide. Individuals' rights to privacy derive directly and unequivocally from the rights to free speech, association, freedom from undue search and seizure, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, which we have already seen to be an accurate description of unjustified wiretaps. Vegans, and all others who refuse to harm the innocent, are indeed a threat to some, but they are a fair-and-square, perfectly legal and non-violent threat to those who have power they don't deserve and lack the intelligence, integrity and discipline to earn. I simply have better things to do with my time than speak to or associate with the busybodies who have nothing better to do with their time than spy on anybody who is not a barbarian. What I have or do not have to hide is not subject to discussion because I refuse to communicate with anybody who thinks of individual rights to privacy in the idiotic context you just espoused. I hope your earlier remark about humor applies to that comment as well, because if you were serious about not worrying about government employees recording my phone conversations without due process, you're an utter waste of skin.

Considering that there are fewer than 7 billion humans alive, quite a bit I would say - if either party represented tens of percent of humanity that would be staggering and they would in fact be the only sides worth mentioning. Or are readers supposed to be psychic and guess that you meant a small number instead of a large number?

In point of fact, I would be surprised if either party represented in close approximation the beliefs of many more than a few dozen million humans, a much smaller percentage than even your "corrected" completely made up guess. There were (for example) 44.8 million self-described Republicans in the US in 2004, or roughly .7% of humanity and roughly 15% of Americans (which is around 1/7th).

But hey - it's just numbers, right, and can't be as important as rhetoric?

Tell me, why is copyright infringement prosecuted while fair use violations are OK? Why isn't there a thing such as "fair-use infringement?" If I can infringe on someone's ability to copy a work why can't they infringe upon my right to fairly use it? Basically DRM is like making your own set of copyright laws and change them whenever it strikes your fancy. In fact I would go to say that DRM imposes anti-competitive, even criminal restrictions on market transactions. Big media companies make a standard and impose it on all their members and then anybody that wants to participate in the market has to pay huge fees to these conglomerations. So indeed these are wonderful innovations. I just wish some people would read the innovation called the Constitution once in a while...you know..the people that keep trying to modify it.

I can't remember where I read that some RIAA exec said that downloading music is not a form of free speech or civil disobedience. Oh yeah? Yes it is. It just became both since what I just said was ILLEGAL.

Oh and just a reminder, 1984 is copyrighted until 2044.

No. The situation hasn't changed at all. This is still right-wing talk radio's dream come true. If she wins the primary, she'll turn out the conservative base in droves. She can seriously damage the chances of down-ticket Democrats in state & local offices by turning out the voters most likely to simply check off Republican down the line.

Hell, many grass-roots Democrats don't like her either. Count me with them. I find her an unpalatable political oppotunist who often stands for fear-driven issues that make me sick. She's also a DLC Democrat (a member of the pro-corporate, pro-lobbyist wing of the party). Worse, I fear she may suck up a ton of money that could go to good candidates, and I think she has a chance of winning the primary with absolutely zero chance of winning the general election.

The woman is pure politcal hemlock for the Democratic party.

This link http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/15/155547/607 has even more information on it.

From the complaint of those against the bill

So even they admit it's not at all about political commentary, but about inciting people to action! From the bill

In other words, if you get paid by a tobacco company and you post a blog asking your readers to call thier congressman and get him to vote to reduce cigarrette tax and your site is usually viewed by more than 500 people, you need to register.

However, if you are an avid smoker and you ask your readers to do exactly the same as above, you don't have to register.

By the bills definition

So what they are saying is if you get paid to artificially create or enhance (yes, I know you are not forcing anyone so they still have free will) a grassroots lobby. They want to know about it.

This sounds fair to me, afterall a million people who start complaining about a government policy of thier own accord are very different from a million people who do the same becuase a website told them to.
(In case you are wondering what the difference is, a much larger ratio of those who read the website will make the call giving a skewed view of public opinion)

I'm not "wigglin'" around anything. You accuse me of not having facts and yet you have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, Mitt Romney does not own a majority stake in Clear Channel. He was the co-founder of Bain Capital in 1984, but has long since divested any interest. The other partner in Bain's acquisition of Clear Channel is Thomas H. Lee Partners, which is a heavy donor to the Democratic Party. In other words, this whole "Mitt Romney owns Clear Channel" meme is unadulterated bullshit. How is that for facts, or don't facts count unless Al Frankin bequeathes them to you?

Secondly, you're the one who referred to a small market radio station's 11th place ranking as "_top rated_". Sure, it's the top rated talk radio, but so what? Clear Channel isn't in the talk radio business, they're in the radio business - they thought they could get a better market share from a sports network, and they're probably right.

As far as the "boycott" of advertisers, I couldn't find any "there" there. It looks far less like an organized boycott and far more like a bunch of advertisers who know how to read the Arbitron ratings. There was the "ABC Memo", but that memo could be read a couple different ways, so without more than that it looks to me like yet another case of paranoid leftist fantasy.

You would be a lot more successful debating somebody who doesn't know how to use Google.

I'm surprised I don't see a link to the original story yet, so here it is:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/24/122153/98

From the story:

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl, --AZ-01: Rick Renzi, --AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth, --CA-04: John Doolittle, --CA-11: Richard Pombo, --CA-50: Brian Bilbray, --CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave, --CO-05: Doug Lamborn, --CO-07: Rick O'Donnell, --CT-04: Christopher Shays, --FL-13: Vernon Buchanan, --FL-16: Joe Negron, --FL-22: Clay Shaw, --ID-01: Bill Sali, --IL-06: Peter Roskam, --IL-10: Mark Kirk, --IL-14: Dennis Hastert, --IN-02: Chris Chocola, --IN-08: John Hostettler, --IA-01: Mike Whalen, --KS-02: Jim Ryun, --KY-03: Anne Northup, --KY-04: Geoff Davis, --MD-Sen: Michael Steele, --MN-01: Gil Gutknecht, --MN-06: Michele Bachmann, --MO-Sen: Jim Talent, --MT-Sen: Conrad Burns, --NV-03: Jon Porter, --NH-02: Charlie Bass, --NJ-07: Mike Ferguson, --NM-01: Heather Wilson, --NY-03: Peter King, --NY-20: John Sweeney, --NY-26: Tom Reynolds, --NY-29:

It's not slander and insulting if it's TRUE.

You can see the links here.

The Republican governor is just covering his ass. Republican Wynn, who's ahead in this typically "messed up" Maryland election, is virtually bragging that he cheated, on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Even better, check this out. This Timothy B. Lee guy is apparently also a big supporter of Intelligent Design. Excellent. I think this confirms I'm on the correct side of the issue :)

Some bills have had language that sort this out very well (see the Markey amendment that was shot down on Thursday night), while some haven't really covered it. Others still have completely taken the wrong stance, and completely misinterpreted the point of Net Neutrality, in an effort to shun out any talk of it. (see Gonzalez's amendment - a poison pill that shows a clear misunderstanding of the issues.)

There has been some talk about wording, but it all gets dicey. Right now, the COPE bill gives the FCC the necessary mouth to adjudicate hearings about Neutrality violations, but it doesn't give the FCC any teeth to enforce punishment!

It's ridiculous. But there has been some talk.

And CNN is publishing industry press releases as news, but hey, what's new?

Notice no disclosure that he's completely freaking paid for by the telecom industry, who do you think Public Strategies' clients are? And "Hands off the Internet"? That's an astro-turf campaign, noticed the crappy wanna-be underground looking propaganda that's been popping up on blog-ads, that's them. More info at DailyKos.

Editor's note: Mike McCurry is a partner at Public Strategies Washington Inc. where he provides strategic communications counsel. He is a co-chairman of Hands off the Internet, a coalition of telecommunication-related businesses. McCurry served as press secretary to President Bill Clinton from 1995 until 1998.

More coverage by kos, john marshall, la times, matt stoller.

This is just like the telcos claims over open access. Every regional telco has been granted monopoly status for years, we the users paid for that infrastructure, and we'll use the same model in the future if need be. These claims of eminent domain are horseshit distractions. They were when they strangled and drowned the CLECs and they are now as they try to do to the Internet what the cell companies have done to wireless. I don't use my phone other than to talk, data services currently lack value over the cell networks in the existing price structure. They want to impose the same pricing structure possibilities on their segments of the Internet. Just like access to the copper, they want you to pay for what you've already paid for. Mike McCurry is getting paid to help these people steal from you; for this payment, he's trying to convince you that being stolen from is in your best interest.

These assholes will kill the goose that laid the golden egg if allowed. Support Save the Internet, don't let them do it.

Stop them cause Mike McCurry is a Jeff Gannon-wannabe manwhore.

I think you might be confused, and talking about the Ultimate Flame? That wasn't really Zuniga's complete answer. It was a joke.

As to controlling our anger, I sort of agree. But I also understand perfectly when people reach a tipping poing and get emotional. This article starts with "That's it. Burn DC to the ground. " but becomes a very well-argued piece.

Old people are so cute when they talk about the Internet- they still think it has the same distributed network topology as it did last century. Yes, the Internet routes around damage. But this isn't going to be the Internet anymore, pal. They're talking about running heart monitors on this thing. You can't do that on the Internet as designed- you have to fuck it up and turn it into something else that doesn't behave like the Internet at all. If you don't like it you're free to take your servers and RFCs elsewhere and form your own network using no corporate fiber resources of any kind. But you shouldn't have to do it. Through corporate subsidies, your tax money has partially gone into creating this Internet, and it's about to be lost in a massive giveaway with no public discussion at all. In fact, so far the only corporate contribution to the debate has been a carefully crafted astroturf campaign that tries to confuse everybody about who is on which side of the issue. The astroturf campaign's tag line is "don't regulate the Internet"- in other words, don't reintroduce net neutrality via statute, now that a regulatory agency has destroyed it as a corporate favor to the telecommunications industry with unknown long-term repurcussions.

Nowadays the telcos control all the backbones and are in a good position to turn this whole thing into a pay-per-view monstrosity. The Bush FCC issued a horrible decision a year or two ago that would basically make this legal, by removing enforcement of the rules regarding net neutrality that have been governing the development of the Internet for decades. (Rules that you are taking for granted in your post.) The Supreme Court affirmed the legality of the FCC decision. What will be the effects? No one knows. The telcos haven't acted on it yet. They have announced ambitious business plans to convert the Internet into something resembling cable TV. But since fucking up the Internet apparently involves a huge capital outlay, they will only do it if they have a guarantee that the net neutrality rules will stay gone. Otherwise they might enounter regulatory resistance as they start to screw it up and millions of people start complaining.

So that's why we have a bill winding through Congress right now that will provide this guarantee to the telcommunications industry, banning the net neutrality rule forever, and leaving them free to fuck with the Internet as it exists without exposure to regulatory risk. It's going to be their little plaything to do with as they wish- the public subsidies that went into it for decades nonwithstanding. That's why you're hearing about this all of a sudden. This isn't something that "can just be routed around"- the way routing is done is about to change.

I guess that we may call you a liberal, then?

No, you just can't call him a reactionary, facist wingnut.

"Moderate" or "pays attention in class" will describe him nicely.

Who still uses Perl for web stuff?

Ohh, I don't know... how about Amazon and Salon? Kuro5hin and all the other Scoop based sites like DailyKos and MyDD. And now that I think about it, MovableType, TypePad, and LiveJournal are all writen in Perl.

Hmm, I wonder if those bloggers might have posted any response to this story? After all, they've only had 12 hours so far today. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/14/02014/6287 , http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/13/231623/665 , and http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/004427.html

I seem to recall Bush being far more verbally capable in the first year or so; now, not so much.

Mm, and I meant to link this, too. http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/8/20/213846/709
There's plenty to choose from.

I searched around some more for other U-3 through U-6 employment figures. This site and it's accompanying U-6 graph were very helpful. http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/9/7/13239/74113

I have no doubt Bush will win. However, I think it'd be funny to see Kerry win and screw things up even worse...resulting in all the liberals having to eat their words (oh, right, they never do...it's always the Republicans fault somehow).

If this was a likely outcome, then why is it that for at least the last 50 years, the economy has *always* been better under Democratic presidents?
The stock market does better.
Job growth has always been better.
The gap between the rich and the poor has shrunk due to everyone doing better. Contrast this to the situation under Republicans where the rich get richer at the expense of the poor and the middle class shrinks due to them becoming poorer.

See the chart?

The simple fact is that given this track record it is the fault of the Republicans that the Republicans' policies never work as well as the Democrats' policies. Were it a one off thing, it would be debatable, but it is absolutely consistent.

Trickle Down/Voodoo/Supply side economics is an absolutely failed theory that only a few crank economists ever believed in in the first place. It just so happened that they tend to benefit the already rich at the expense of everybody else.

Those are the facts.

The only people fighting for Bush are freedom hating traitors. How would it be possible for anybody else to support him? His policies of deceit and fascism (Yes, fascism. Look it up, that is what he whole heartedly supports. Enron writing our energy policy? That is a canonical example of fascism at work.) are ruining our economy, our reputation and our country.

So, no, we won't have to eat our words, because liberal policies are what created America, they are the basis of what this country stands for and they have consistently proven to be a good way to grow an economy.

He'd probably win Compared to the stiffs the the Dems will be running.

Though I have mod points, and am mostly agree with your post, I am obliged to point out that Howard Dean is not quite stiff. Unkown yes, possibly liberal ; but stiff no. In the past 10 years since he became governor, my home state of VT has added a 100 million dollar surplus, health care for all children as well as licensed civil unions (gay marriage by any other name).

It is also worth noting that his forst term began not with an election, but with the death of governor Snelling, when Dean was Lieutenant Governor.

And as I'm sure is quite obvious from Seanator Jeffords defection from the Republican party two years ago, Vermonters don't care too much for W.