Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: reagan.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to reagan.com.

Comments · 7

  1. Re: Bernie Wouldn't by pnutjam · · Score: 1 · on How President Trump Could Destroy Net Neutrality (vice.com)

    I wonder if I can just slap Trump on anything now, kind of like Reagen, it's no longer a "private" brand, it's America's now.

  2. It's starting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1 · on Several Western Govts. Ban Lenovo Equipment From Sensitive Networks

    Rush Limbaugh has been marketing this email company.

    Folks are starting to get concerned. And unfortunately, many (elderly) folks think that the this is enough to keep private.

  3. He's not the only one who distrusts Google by sorak · · Score: 1 · on Glen Beck Warns Viewers Not To Use Google

    Mike Reagan is also on the anti-internet bandwagon, introducing his own email. The reason is

    Well, every time you use your email from companies like Google, AOL, Yahoo, Hotmail, Apple and others, you are helping the liberals. These companies are, and will continue, to be huge supporters financially and with technology of those that are hurting our country.

    So, I am wondering if a segment of the right is going to dig in their heels and become anti-internet now. He's going so far as to expect people to pay $40 per year for an email address.

  4. Re:Rush Limbaugh by slackerfilm · · Score: 1 · on NASA Wasting Time and Money on Moon Landing Doubters

    He claims to be truthful, which for the most part he is. If he is not, he admits it freely, just like when he is wrong.
    Granted, he is an unlistenable, egotistical, smug, self riteous bastard; he is also funny as hell sometimes.
    I admit that I am not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination but, most conservatives know better than to follow Rush blindly. Especially in the last 4 years when he has been becoming more and more a farce of himself.
    Good conservatism is coming from Mike Reaganand Sean Hannity more than Rush any more but, the simple minded liberal keeps promoting Rush better than any conservative ever could.
    (think: "AW!! this tastes terrible!! Try it!!")

  5. Rohrabacher = patent goon by phr1 · · Score: 1 · on Experiences w/ Tech-Savvy Politicians?
    Here's an article from "Patent Lawyer" calling Rohrabacher a "hero" for fighting in favor of submarine patents. And here's Rohrabacher in his own words on get this, the Reagan.com site. This NAWBO page is also interesting: "Co-sponsorship [of HR 1907] by Rohrabacher and Campbell is quite a coup for the proponents of patent reform legislation given Rohrabacher's four year campaign to obstruct any reform of the U.S. patent system."

    Typing "rohrabacher patent" into Google finds any amount of other creepy stuff.

  6. Re:Understandable by CyberDawg · · Score: 2 · on Unwanted Linking

    Greenpeace should be very weary about corporations that are in reality environmental pigs, but try to obsfucate this by displaying the Greenpeace logo and link to their site.

    I presume you mean they should be "wary," although maybe they're just tired of it <grin>. Anyway, I disagree with what you're saying. Using Greenpeace's logo without their permission is a trademark violation, and it's against the law. That's very different than a link. If I disagree with an article on the Web, why shouldn't I be able to say, "I think this article is a pile of hooey" (including a link to the article I don't like)?

    I strongly feel that if information is placed on the web for public consumption (no login required), then anyone should be able to link to it from anywhere, as long as they're not claiming ownership of it. Heck, I encourage it! That's what the Web is all about! People keep asking you how to become a hacker? Link 'em here! You want people visiting your Web site to be able to learn about closed captioning? Link 'em here! Visitors looking for information about Scratch 'n Sniff Macintoshes? Link 'em here!

  7. Argh! Please, no loophole! by 1010011010 · · Score: 2 · on U.S. And EU Ready International Cybercrime Treaty
    Gee, I've always read it, "any thing in the constitution, or laws of any state, to the contrary, notwithstanding." Meaning, when there is a contradiction, the Constitution wins.

    However, I'm not not so sure that that means what I thought it meant, either way, due to the "notwithstanding." That word means "in spite of." Essentially, the constitution can be repealed via treaty if that's what it means, which scares me and pisses me off. People like Clinton study COnstitutional Law just to find loopholes in it and ways around it. Treaty would be the mother of all loopholes.

    The idea that nothing supercedes the U.S. Constitution is familiar; here's a couple of links I just dug up:

    http://citizens.reagan.com/rig ht/ no-irs/helms.htm
    Thus, when the United States joins a treaty organization, it holds NO AUTHORITY over us.We abide by our treaty obligations because they are the domestic law of our land, and because our elected leaders have judged that the agreement serves our national interest. But NO treaty or law can EVER supercede the one document that all Americans hold sacred: The U.S. Constitution.

    http://www.aei.org/past_event/conf12 09b .htm
    Critics, particularly those from the United States, stress the negative impact allowing treaty law to supercede domestic law would have on the constitutional balance of power and the federal checks and balances. Ultimately, as one observer note, they believe that allowing "treaty law to be superior to federal legislation (let alone to the constitution) to be dangerous to the idea of democracy and democratic representation of individuals."
    Regardless of whether the Constitution can technically be countermanded by treaty, the U.S. can simply withdraw from treaties its citizens do not like. The whole idea of surrendering soverign authority to unelected, unaccountable bureaucracies like the WTO, WIPO, etc. strikes me as highly distasteful, and even treasonous. I for one have no intention of obeying the "laws" made by faceless parties outside of my country.

    Can you provide an explanation of how treaties can supercede the U.S. Constitition as the supreme law of the land? Could the fifth amendment, for example, be nullified by treaty? Wouldn't that constitute a change to the consitution which the states would have to ratify?

    ___________________________