Slashdot Mirror
SBC Considering Buying DirecTV
Guppy06 writes "Throwing their hats into a ring that includes News Corporation, Cablevision, and General Electric, this NYT article (yadda yadda yadda) reports that #2 Baby Bell SBC is interested in buying DirecTV. After federal and state anti-trust authorities shot down DirecTV's purchase of EchoStar recently, their purchase by a corporation that already has its own state-mandated telephone monopoly is... "interesting" to say the least. Those of us who dislike government monopolies are left hoping either News or GE wins this one (if a sale even takes place)." One of the other suitors for DirecTV has been Murdoch's Fox.
Rupert Murdoch owns News Corp of which Fox (the network with the Simpsons) is a part. News Corp also owns many newspapers, the Fox News Channel, and lots of sports stuff. Just a heads up Hemos.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Whatever you do, please allow illegal usage of your products available. Thanks!
Hey, if SBC will put another DirecTV satellite in the Northern sky, so I can actually GET direcTV, I'm down with it.
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
It's amazing that a company like SBC would waste money on an investment like DirecTV. Surely they realise that it will be a losing proposition? If it happens expect to see a major write down from SBC in following 12 months.
Some people never learn.
One of the other suitors for DirecTV has been Murdoch's Fox.
As stated in the story...we already know that.
Doesn't matter to me. Until they let DirecTV show the Big 4 networks outside of just a few markets, it is just not worth it to switch from cable and lose The Simpsons (or, insert your favorite fox,cbs,nbc,abc show).
WideOpenWest is a good example of what a cable company can do when you get RID OF SBC-like overhead. Background: WOW bought the failed Ameritech cable unit from SBC some time ago - now they are profitable and offer rates half of the competitors.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
It's the only way phone companies can really strike out at cable companies. Makes it interesting though...what if they did broadband bonding where you could get data down both the sat and the DSL line? This could certainly make inroads in the rural customer segment.
Those of us who dislike government monopolies are left hoping either News or GE wins this one (if a sale even takes place)." One of the other suitors for DirecTV has been Murdoch's Fox.
I sure hope that Fox gets it, because I can't imagine the horror of News Corp running things.
Either way, both choices beat the crap out of option (C) which is Cablevision buying DirecTV. That would be like Oil companies buying the first cold fusion generator only to hold the patent and not allow anyone to use it.
Ok, that anology sucked a little, mod me down :-(
If GE gets the buy of DirectTV it would only mean that they have another outlet for the NBC stuff besides Bravo, MSNBC, and CNBC. Just what the world needs, Friends and Frasier 24/7 straight to your TV.
Here in Indiana, we've gotten horrible service from SBC. Over the last 3 years I've probably had about a dozen service calls required for our phone service, all of which were due to their system (nothing wrong inside our house). Their technicians failed to show up when promised, and at one point we had no phone service for over a week (and no, there weren't any unusual circumstances like extensive storm damage in the area). Granted, a satellite system should be less service-intensive, but I'm a happy DirecTV customer who doesn't want to send another dime SBC's way!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I mean, we all know that the phone companies are the devil, and the government sucks, but who ever heard of GE's attrocious business practices?
I think Fox is owned by News Corp., so they wouldn't be "another suitor", and if I remember correctly, it was Echostar buying Directv, not the other way around.
posted via satellite
SBC wouldn't know how to treat a customer properly if their existance depended on it. Unfortunately they can pretty much do what they please, as they have near monoploy status now. I would hate to see Direct-TV fall to them.
As for me, I'm now in a baby-bell free zone, and love it.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
SBC = horrible. Horrible.
:(
Let's hope FOX is the winner. Yeah I might loose CNN or something, but if SBC gets my DirectTV I'll order Porn for the weekend and end up with soccer or something.
Grimwell - old, cranky, mean, obsessive
DirecTV is a great business. They are
sucessful pioneers, do good things and
make money. Why sell out? The management
and engineers of Hughes should say "no"
to a sale. GM stock holders should vote
no also. Just say "NO!"
I hate News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch. Like you, I hope that Fox gets it instead, and that News Corp and Fox drag each other through a bloody bid competition.
Oh wait, they just layed off 2000 people! That should do it, and still leave enough for nice bonuses for the top dogs at SBC. And they need those bonuses becuase its getting pretty tough living on a measley $18M a year. And now they want to deregulate digital lines in Texas so that all the surviving competition can be wiped out.
This is surprising that the Canada is way beyong the state in having phone company offering digital satelite TV.
Bell Canada is offering this service for years with ExpressVu. It is to be expected. The cable co. wants to enter the phone market (they are still far from achieving it) so the phone co want to enter the TV market.
These days, if a phone co want to get more money, they have no choice in exploring new markets. The land line phone market is already saturated and deregulation meant that they get less money than before.
I've had SBC downgrade my phone service gradually over the years. Can't complain about it: this company is not reachable by telephone. Can't even drive to their office to complain too: know one allowed in.
Can't get a competing company. SBC takes my service fees and uses them to lobby against allowing companies like AT&T to complete.
The states that regulate utilities should at least require the phone company to answer their phones....
Actually, Fox News is a centrist counterbalance to the left-wing bias found in CNN and MSNBC.
Just because SBC operates as a monopoly in many local phone markets does not make the entire firm a monopoly. If it acquired DirecTV it would defiantly have to be a competitive firm as it entered the Cable/Satellite market.
The real benefit I see to SBC in this is that they want to encourage people to have satellite tv since satellite TV subscribers usually have DSL and not cable modems. They may try and cut you some deal if you sign up for both, a "switch away from your cable company" kind of deal.
Another weird side not is that I've seen in Fort Worth where SBC provides "cable" service to apartment complexes but their "cable boxes" are really DirecTV receivers and they just have one dish for the entire complex (or area, I'm not sure) and split the signal from it up to all of the apartments.
...
People who live outside the US already know the joys of NewsCorp's monopoly on satellite broadcasting - they run the Sky satellite networks and in many markets (e.g. the UK), they are the only satellite provider.
Now, I have a deep and abiding dislike and mistrust for the News Corporation, so perhaps someone who actually lives somewhere under their monopoly can share their experiences?
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
"Oh wait, they just layed off 2000 people! That should do it"
What is wrong with that? If the company functions better without these 2000 workers, why not? The company is not, after all, a welfare agency set up to pay people for work that does not need doing just to feel good.
So you'ld rather have 500 channels of NBC programming instead? The network so slanted to the left as to be falling over? Can I have d. None of the above?
a corporation that already has its own state-mandated telephone monopoly is... "interesting" to say the least. Those of us who dislike government monopolies are left hoping
I tell ya what. Start your own stinkin' phone company.
Seattle's Best Coffee interested in DirectTV?
Soon Tully's will buy Tivo, and who the hell knows what Starbucks will do!!!
Phone: SBC
Cell Phone: Cingular Wireless (SBC Owned)
Satellite Provider: SBC DirecTV
Internet Provider: SBC Yahoo! DSL
When SBC Gas & Electric and SBC Waste Removal become a reality, I'll just start signing my check over to them.
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
Great service, great support.
We've got a T1 and ISDN circuit from them
Their long distance service is horrendously expensive, so we only use them for the circuits.
McLeod USA used to re-sell the SBC service around here. With them getting in the way, it was horrible. But lately, SBC has been doing 'buy-backs' and we're getting better pricing that McLeod gave us (Which was much better than what SBC originally offered)
SBC around here used to be Ameritech, and Michigan Bell before that.
As it stands now, HDTV remains somewhat on the fringes of the television market, but with each new digital TV, this remains less and less true. And those subscribers that have DirecTV that upgrade their sets have few options:
1. they will need an IRD (DTV "box") upgrade that runs about $500. Plus they will usually need a new dish and someone to come out and re-aim it for them -- the football dishes are no charm to aim and get all of the DTV satellite constellation.
2. when they do upgrade their IRD they get three HD channels -- and no local stations. They can only get HBO, HD-Net and Discovery Channel in HD.
On the other hand, terrestrial based cable systems have made up a lot of ground. They offer most all of the old analog-based channels that once distinguished DTV, AND they also offer ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, HBO, PBS in their HD offerings. Add to that a sub-TiVo POD, HBO on Demand.
That says to me that DTV faces a major competitive disadvantage in the future. The only way that they can add more capacity is to launch more distribution satellites, and until they do, they cannot begin to match the HD offering that Time Warner and others are offering today. As it is now, TW already has a better picture with less pixellation on ALL channels.
Whoever gets DTV had better be aware of this, or they will face a major uphill battle as the transformation of TV from analog to digital takes place.
Could this finally open up NFL Sunday Ticket? The NFL recently re-upped its contract with Direct TV to offer its subscription-based NFL games package exclusively to Direct TV viewers. There is something fishy about this arrangement as it is very clear that Sunday Ticket would be many times more profitable if it were open to other cable systems instead of the 10% or so of NFL fans that even have the option of Direct TV. I'll bet Fox would have something to say about it.
First, to clarify the present situation: GE owns Hughes Electronics/DirecTV. It is not considered a "core asset", so they desperately want to get rid of it. First, Rupert Murdoch bid on DirecTV, and planned on spinning off all of his global satellite TV assets into a new company, Sky Global, upon completion of the sale. Then EchoStar, owners of Dish Network, made an unsolicited bid that was higher than Murdoch's, and he decided not to match it. Eventually, the EchoStar-DirecTV combination was rejected on monopoly grounds, because the government (rightly so) recognized that if satellite TV assets are privately owned, there needs to be more than one owner; ideally three or more, but even two is better than one.
The SBC deal brings up a new set of problems. There is no more fear about rural consumers losing the benefits of competition, because SBC does not currently own satellite assets. However, due to having a government-approved monopoly over local telephone service, SBC has a unique advantage in that it can never die; it has a core business that practically everyone living in its target market needs, and that no competitor is allowed to offer. Thus, it can leverage its telephone monopoly to offer satellite service at a loss if its needs to, until other competitors are driven out of the market, and then drive prices back up.
There's a larger problem here that needs to be addressed, that of natural monopolies. Some services, most notably utilities that involve physical wires or pipes (water, oil, TV, phone, internet), are such that it would be absurd for two companies to compete in an open market. There is absolutely no reason why we should spend limited resources on building two sets of water pipes, or two sets of cable wires. Also, some of these services, especially oil, electricity, and water, are essential to life (modern or otherwise).
It takes the most die-hard corporate libertarian to argue that someone should be allowed to profit off basic human needs. And they'd be wrong. Municipal power companies have been enormously successful, if for no other reason than they have no profit motive; they only need to provide people with a useful service. All natural monopolies should be redesigned on that model. Whether city, county, or even state-owned, I want to see some (relatively local) level of government controlling electricity, energy, water, and telecommunications distribution.
Corporations are accountable to their shareholders. Their sole motive is to make a profit. Government is accountable to the people. Its motive is to provide for all citizens' basic needs, and (in our case) to ensure that corporations do not abuse their power. Which one would you rather control your wires?
Fox? Centrist?
Maybe if you are comparing them to Joseph Goebbels' Nazi propaganda machine.
Fox is Duh!bya's main cheerleader, and they love taking potshots at anyone even remotely left of him.
Fox, the media juggernaut (not merely the Fox News Channel, but taken together) is easily more rapacious and oozing with evil than any other media juggernaut. Why is the common Internet term for taking down a fan site called a "Foxing?" It's not called a Warnering or a Viacomming, it's called a Foxing.
And then there's the matter of Fox as a purveyor of bad taste. Joe Millionaire. Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire? Celebrity Boxing. Temptation Island. Married With Children...well, that was actually FUNNY, but that's beside the point. Fox is the worst offender in the "least common denominator" derby. I suppose that's to be expected from the company that owns the most "Sundays" (tabloid rags) in the UK and Australia, and runs the New York Post, a tabloid rag. I don't know if they own any of the nationally distributed tabloid rags in the US, but they certainly run the NY Post.
There are so many reasons to hate the News Corp/Fox octopus. Let's hope they don't get anywhere near DirecTV.
SBC advertises "infinite service" and I know what that means: ... rinse, repeat.
I've had to call SBC twice about billing problems of their own making. Both times Customer Service says "we can't help you" and transfers me to Collections and Credit who says "we can't help you" and transfers me to Customer Service
So can they give this infinite service for my TV dish too?
as a regulated utility, I believe that their profits are all so regulalted; 10% is typical.
If this is correct in this case, if they lose say 1 million, then they can charge higher rates and end up make an extra 100,000 in extra profits.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
After federal and state anti-trust authorities shot down DirecTV's purchase of EchoStar recently, their purchase by a corporation that already has its own state-mandated telephone monopoly is....
I believe it was the other way around, EchoStar tried to purchase DTV. Small detail, yes, but worth pointing out.
puck
Surely you mean "lose" not "loose", eh?
Lose == not be able to acquire/find
Loose == not tight (adjective), unscrew or make less tight (verb)
See the difference? Good.
"Those of us who dislike government monopolies are left hoping either News or GE wins this one(if a sale even takes place)." -Umm...if you hate _only_ government monopolies, maybe there's some sense in that. But if you think there's a problem with unregulated monopolies you don't wanna be rooting for News Corp.; not that they are a monopoly, but they are an ultra-reactionary right wing entity. I always liked the Disinfo.com Fox News tee-shirts: http://www.cafeshops.com/cp/prod.aspx?p=disinfo.27 19244
Unlike most networks, FOX owns most of the TV stations that are affiliated with them
This is because about ten years ago Rupert Murdoch decided he wanted Fox to be on VHF stations exclusively, and set about buying his way into them. I can see why - I can't pick up UHF stations for shit in my apartment. I get to watch new Simpsons episodes if and when they air, but the *former* Fox affiliate still gets to air the syndicated episodes. And getting cable only solves that particular problem. The whole Time-Warner/FoxSports.net fiasco means that I'd get about 10,000 different ESPN's, but I couldn't watch The Best Damn Sports Show Period at any price.
Don't weep for my plight; I do enough of that myself.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
Hopefully this means they will stop their frivolous lawsuits against individuals. They are stong arming people into forking up $3,500 in 10 days, if they have ever purchased a smart card programmer. They know you can not get a lawyer for less than that to fight it or on such short notice. I hope they go under.
Um, how is this insightful?
Maybe it will slightly counter the leftist bias from ABC, NBC, CBS, AP, Reuters, and the other media outlets create 95% of all the news stories out there and yet fail to represent their viewers.
What Liberal Media?. Please mod parent -1 Troll.
you are in the market for it
you can get a waiver
you hacked it. I am not in any of the categories. "What you don't get is your local TV station's programming. So you miss your local news, and things like local information on the Weather Channel, as well as independent stations in your area. That's a long way from saying you don't get the Simpsons." If I went to DirectTV, I would not get ANY fox, abc, cbs, nbc. I ask them every month or two, and they confirm it. I'd rather get these east-west feeds anyway, as the local affiliates use bad equipment and pre-empt shows willy-nilly.
Since the local affiliates refuse to grant waivers, and we are not in one of the few markets that have networks on the satellite, i will not get Simpsons at all if I switch.
"All part of the Satellite Home Viewers Protection Act... More like the Big 4 Network protection Act!" It has nothing to do with networks. It has everything to do with protecting local affiliates. This "protection" should not be allowed, anyway. It is like passing a law to get rid of USA Today newspaper boxes in town to protect the local newspaper.
Wasn't this the plot of a James Bond movie?
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0120347
GM has been looking to spin off DirecTV for years now. They want to pare down to a core business (cars), that's why they sold the satellite division of Hughes. They were at first reluctant to let go of the rest, though many of us (I'm a stockholder) think the division wouild do much better on its own. It's certainly not doing well with GM; the stock has fallen for 2-3 years now. GM has appeared indecisive -- a problem with big automobile companies and another reason to pare down.
... depending on whether one wants to stay with the company longterm. I hope they don't screw their subscriber base that has taken so long to build. Murdoch does have a rep for greed.
Bummer the Echostar thing didn't fly. I think that honestly would have been good for consumers. It was the rural customers without cable alternative that were the primary snag, though you'd think something could have been worked out. I don't like the idea of one company owning both cable and satellite businesses.
Some time ago, Rupert's News Corp wanted to buy GM (the whole thing!) as a way to get to DirecTV. The price wasn't right IIRC.
That doesn't mean any old buyer is a good idea
What did the article author mean by "government monopolies"? I missed the gov't element here.
At my company we have SBC internet and webhosing. Their support for web access sucks to high heaven, but that is because they outsource it to another company who is incompantant. The webhosting is another outsourced service which I have been very happy with since I have to make the call when there is a problem or we make a change. I have yet to wait longer then 2 minutes unless there is a major outage, and then they have a recording saying what the problem is.(I think most of their problems are from their windoz servers, we use their Linux hosting.)
If SBC were to buy DirecTv, I would hope they used the same outsourcing stratagy that has worked for their webhosting. Their internet was so bad we cancelled a few weeks ago, and found out that the eaisiest part of SBC net access was the cancellation! What a precision team working in that department, it is such a shame thay are associated with SBC.
In the end it all comes down to what stupid desicion the new managment will make. And stupid managers are everywere!
no
Now, I have a deep and abiding dislike and mistrust for the News Corporation, so perhaps someone who actually lives somewhere under their monopoly can share their experiences?
To be honest, I actually like Sky's (in the UK) output. Other than the occasional price hike my main grumble is when they display a red button in the top of the screen to remind you that they have an interactive service - which often has little to do with the programme being shown (on Sky One at least, some of the other broadcasters who use the red button do so only when there is interactive content associated with programme). I don't see a need for the red button (we never needed to be reminded that teletext was available and most of the 'interactive services' are little more than a pretty version of teletext) but there's no way of permantly shutting it off.
As for competetion it would be nice, but there was competetion on satellite a long time ago (BSB), but they failed. There was again some hope that digital terrestrial tv (DTT) would provide competetion, but the first lot who tried failed, and now DTT is seen as way for people who don't want sky or cable to get a few extra channels.
All in all, while I think sky could be better in some respects, it's still pretty good and it could have been worse (BSB could have won and due to the technology used, it probably wouldn't have more than 10 channels - even if they switched to digital they still would only have had 10 transponders to play with). Anyway, it's not like Sky have a government mandate to force people to buy a subscription even if they just want to watch free tv (unlike a certain other UK broadcaster).
Tk
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Oh yes, the 'vast liberal conspiracy'
"What Liberal Media? [thenation.com]. Please mod parent -1 Troll." "The Nation" is an extreme left publication (one of those that actually lamented when the Soviet Union fell!). Just about all the media is to the right of them, and they consider themselves to be the center, so of course they think that there is no left-wing media, and even Ted Turner is a right-winger.
"Corporations are accountable to their shareholders" That is only one third of the story, and as such is rather misleading. Corporations are accountable to their shareholders AND customers AND workers. Without all 3, the corporation will fail. "Government is accountable to the people." In theory, but since it has a monopoly on power, this just isn't the case most of the time. Instead, it ends up being like a corporation that isn't accountable to anyone.
He should have paid off Bush the way that gates. The only thing that I can figure is that W. is still trying to punish Colorado for Neils screw up years ago, when he helped steal 1 billion USD.
For those who doubt that CBS, CNN, etc are leftist, consider Dan Rather, the main mouthpiece for CBS News. In his spare time, he raises funds for the Democratic Party.
Im not sure if this was caught but the following is incorrect. "After federal and state anti-trust authorities shot down DirecTV's purchase of EchoStar recently" Echostar was going to purchase direcTV.
BERLIN (Reuters) - A flock of hungry ravens killed 19 sheep grazing on snow-covered fields in southern Germany, raising the uneasy feeling that the killer birds of Alfred Hitchcock's famous thriller "The Birds" have come alive. "There's a lot of snow in the area. The birds are hungry so they attack my sheep," shepherd Juergen Fritz said. "I have seen the Hitchcock film. But I'm experiencing it 'live'," he said, referring to the 1963 classic, in which aggressive birds tyrannize a village in the United States. Fritz said he was not able to protect his 500 sheep against attacks all the time. But even when he was with his flock, he was powerless when the ravens attacked. "The worst thing is that I can't do anything about it. You're not allowed to shoot the ravens because they are protected animals," the 43-year old said. Dietmar Ernst, a police spokesman in Loerrach, southwestern Germany, said he thought about 50 to 60 ravens living near a rubbish site had carried out the attacks on Fritz's sheep. "It's a full-blown attack on the sheep. They use their beaks, their feet. They pick out the animals' eyes," he said. He said such attacks were common when a large number of birds gathered in one area where they could not easily find food. "As soon as one starts the attack, the others all follow," he said. "But they're especially aggressive this year," he said. Fritz said he had experienced attacks by ravens before in his 30 years as a traveling shepherd, but never had he lost so many animals in the course of a fortnight. "I'm going to leave this area," he said, adding he had already lost about $2,000 due to the killings.
Regarding availability of networks and local channels on DTV - I've been a DirecTV subscriber for a few years now. Local channels (all networks and independents) have been available here for about 2 years, IIRC. This is about 65 miles from a major urban area, though it is a rural location - nearest neighbor's a dairy farm, and neither cable nor DSL come out this way. Before the local channels were available, there were national network feeds for ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and PBS. Regarding ownership of one of the major players (no, not Fox:) - current owner of Hughes is General Motors (GM) rather than General Electric (GE).
I live in Ohio and we have always been served by Ameritech. Shortly after SBC bought Ameritech, they started a round of layoffs. Of course, following the layoffs, was horrible service. We had the same story as the Indiana fellow above. However, our Attorney General did something about it.
Ohio took Ameritech/SBC to court and won a $130M settlement. However, the Judge suspended all but $10M pending SBC's improvement in service. They made the improvement and were able to avoid the bulk of the fine. However, they then turned around and started to advertise a "25% improvement in service". They did not mention that this was court ordered and was necessary to avoid enormous fines. They should not have been allowed to advertise this.
I really hope that they don't acquire DirectTV.
peptidbond I was crazy once....
T.R. popularized the phrase "Throw your hat into the ring", slightly adapted here as Throwing their hats into a ring. Your history lesson for the day.
moox. for a new generation.
1) GM owns DirectTV, not GE.
2) EchoStar tried to purchase DirectTV, not the other way around. Yes, EchoStar is smaller, no, that doesn't make a difference.
3) Murdoch's Fox is part of News Corp.
4) SBC is not a state-mandated monopoly anymore.
Why the hell did you have to start this thread? Take a look at Congress. There is barely any distinction between right and left anymore. Both sides pander to one or two separate interests, but for the most part, you can't tell them apart. Granted, the media doesn't want to show that because it doesn't make for good news and even less chance of a "scandal" or something to add "-Gate" to the end. Face it, this country is moving more and more towards the center.
Yeah, lose. Sorry. My wife is an English professor no less. I'm too busy making children to ask her to read over my /. posts though, so you'll have to forgive my poor typing.
RE: the other AC
Insightful? Got no clue. I paid the people with mod points to bump me. Somehow I'm going to acheive perfect karma and then take Bill Gates on kung-fu style...
Grimwell - old, cranky, mean, obsessive
When will telcos learn that branching out into other areas and buy buy buying isn't going to get them anywhere? They buy into things, they lose money and sell them off, they buy into things, they lose money and sell them off... unless there's some backroom accounting which justifies this crap, it seem pretty dumb, even to non-MBAs. SBC should perhaps take care of what they've already got before getting themselves into more complicated tasks (this comes to mind: the month it took SBC/PacBell to try to connect the phone line in my old apartment - in the middle of San Francisco - which they could never get to work, which pushed me into telling them to stick it up their arses and resorting to the use of a cell phone full-time)
RTFM; please, I beg you.
--If SBC buys DirecTV, I will cancel my subscription. SBC service SUCKS. (The Bell breakup was supposed to FOSTER competition and breakup the monopoly, remember?!)
--Seriously, I lived w/o TV for 2 years, I can do it again.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
"If the government controls basic infrastructure, they will tax it, because it costs lots of money to run, and they need taxes to cover the expense." They will tax it because they CAN, not because it is necessary. The taxes will go into slush funds to fund pet pork projects, pay raises for the rulers, and hiring of more unnecessary bureucrats. "I'm not a die-hard corporate Libertarian" Never met one of those. Libertarian philosophy is based on individual liberty, not corporate liberty. Of course, this includes the liberty of invividuals who choose to organize into corporations as well. This particular right of free association is repellent to some.
"Fox is Duh!bya's main cheerleader, and they love taking potshots at anyone even remotely left of him." Dubya? That discredits you surely as the right-wingers who call Clinton "Slick Willy". The president has a name. Use it, Mr-Limbaugh-of-the-Left. "Fox, the media juggernaut (not merely the Fox News Channel, but taken together) is easily more rapacious and oozing with evil than any other media juggernaut" How so? Rapacious? Their ratings are way below their competitors, and they have fewer stations besides. In fact, Fox News presents left-wing views better than CNN. Look at Crossfire, for example. There, the left is represented by Carville and Begala (Lord Voldemort and the Human Matchstick, respectively). They are human cartoons, paid party flacks who make sure anything they support lacks credibility. On Fox News, however, you have O'Reilly, who can criticize the right with credibility (as he is a centrist and independent). And Alan Colmes, a quite capable mouthpiece, because he refuses to tell lies and insult and can make his arguments stronger as a result. Finally, you have their media analysis show with strong-left types from organizations like FAIR (Jeff Cohen) represented. CNN represents the far-left with Reverend Jackson. 'Nuff said. The "both sides" thing on Fox News applies to left AND right. The paid party flacks and the racist crook on CNN make the left look pretty bad.
Avoid liability from frivolous lawsuits, of course.
"Free association" has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with it. The members choose to join (from workers to shareholders to customers). "I agree with the original reply. Show me where, given a government with a monopoly and a corporation with the same monopoly, the government will abuse it to a greater degree than the corporation, and you might have a case"
Health care, post office and many more. The abuse is MUCH worse with government. The government will jail you or kill you unless you cough up $$$$. That is a form of armed robbery.
However, it should be pointed out that the monopoly by the private business is bad too. That too often is a result of intervention by government in the free market (imposing regulations that make it impossible for anyone to compete).
"I have at least SOME say in what the government does; I prefer that my right to vote be guaranteed by the Constitution rather than my portfolio, thank you very much."
Less say than with a corporation. You still have to pay $$$ to the government whether or not you support it. With corporations, you can just refuse to participate (without being forced to leave the country).
Free speech is to be defended, be it left or right....or even centrist (which Fox is). Therefore, I root for them.
Bummer the Echostar thing didn't fly. I think that honestly would have been good for consumers. It was the rural customers without cable alternative that were the primary snag
Oddly, those are the customers who are most avidly bitching about the blockage of the merger -- if they had been allowed to merge then the resulting company would have enough bandwidth to add pretty much every local in the US -- thus serving the rural customers better (since right now only the top markets get locals). Most rural customers don't even have the right to receive the national feeds because their local OTA signal is good enough (and, honestly, it probably is... but most people don't want to deal with antennas and the muxing necessary to do it right).
Personally, I'm happy to see that they didn't merge, because I do believe we need competition in the sat. broadcast arena, particularly against the cable companies. Of course, I also don't want to see either News Corp or SBC buy DirecTV, since both have a very bad reputation for customer service and decent business tactics. I'm pretty certain that either one would run it into the ground.
Internet Provider: SBC Yahoo! DSL
How was the changeover? I'm debating whether or not to go from straight SBC DSL to SBCYahoo!DSL. I guess I want to know whether it's worth it to do it now or wait until the email "Congratulations, you are now an SBC Yahoo! DSL customer"
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
The nation as a whole did not lament, but "The Nation" magazine did express sorrow at the fall of the USSR. The wording was something to the effect that the USSR looked after oppressed peoples.
DTV is one of the best utilities.
SBC is one of the worst.
I actually had SBC doing customer service for DTV (complicated arrangement reselling video service to my apartment building, and renting on-site service from Pac Bell, of all things).
I would call SBC only during bankers' hours, get nobody who knew how DTV worked, take days trying to get an answer, and not even pay my bill with a credit card. I could call DTV, not mention SBC, and get things done in seconds, 24/7.
They are polar opposites in terms of customer service, and clearly it's because one values it and the other considers it a costly disease.
I was considering getting DTV at my house, but now I will hold off until I find out if this deal goes through, because DTV with SBC on it is utterly not worth the money.
the switch away from your cable company deal isnt as appealing as it might seem. I have comcast cable in my area, and it sucks. Thats why we switched to DirecTv years ago, and are quite happy. However, for internet, we have comcast cable internet, and it works quite well. As bad as Comcast may be, its cable internet is far better than the DSL around here. Guess who's dsl that is? Yep, SBC.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
Ohio AG: We got a ruling that says if you dont improve your service by X% amount, you can't report your profits to SBC, your parent company.
SBC/Ameritech: Consider it done!
Needless to say, here are my experiences with SBC/Ameritech in the last year:
Scheduled appointment to get resedential phone line installed in new home build. Missed appointment by 2 months. Called, bitched, nada. Filed complaint with PUCO (Public Utilities COmission). Phone line installed in 2 days.
Co-worker's SBC DSL line hangs his internet connection whenever he picks up the phone to make a voice call. SBC claims it's not a problem.
Friend got SBC/Yahoo! DSL service through promo. When he talked to SBC, they said he was close enough to the CO that he could get 1.5/384, instead of the standard 768/128. Service started on 768/128 speed. Called and now is told he can't get the faster speed. Upload rate is more like 80k a second to *anywhere*.
SBC started printing 2 different 'amount due' figures on each resedential phone bill. This has to confuse older people.
SBC is running radio ads now bitching about how Sprint/MCI is lobbying them out of long distance service in Ohio. SBC effectively crippled CoreComm from offering reasonable service here.
After moving to my house and getting a phone line installed (the 2 month wait), I could have gotten SBC DSL service. I waited 4 months to get cable modem service. When a geek will wait for broadband, you know something's not quite right ;)
If you buy a DirecTV unit, you're supporting [cstrecords.com] warfare... 'defense' contractors" The DoD does a pretty good job of preventing wars and ending them. Consider Iraq. When you get right down to it, the Saddam vs Iraq war has been on for years. He kills on average several tens of thousands of Iraqis each year (through starvation, chemicals, and good old fashioned shoot-em-in-the-head). This does not include the many Iranians, Kuwaitis, Israelis, and Palestinians also killed in the "Saddam vs..." war. If Bush and places other than "Vichy" France and "Nazi" Germany have their way, he will end this war in a matter of days with the DoD's help.
Echostar was trying to buy (or merge... whatever) DirecTV, no vice versa.
Fox's telling both sides is not right-wing pap.
Basically the rednecks in the bible belt are not only too poor to benefit from the Bush tax cuts
If they pay taxes, they benefit. Regardless of whatever bigoted stereotype you use.
The Bush tax cuts are fair and proportional for all taxpayers. (Realize the fact that the rich are a tiny minority of those who benefit, and after the tax cuts are over they still pay a much higher % and total amount)
Crimy, they could at least throw us a bone with some Chance or Community Chest cards.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Echostar i.e. Dish Network, wanted to purchase DirecTV, not the other way around.
What about 4DTV? It's at least enough of a competitor to keep prices in check I believe.
However, to trully compete with the cable companies, they needed to merge. Right now most customers (that can get cable) don't want to switch to Satellite because they can't get any Network Stations. I know numerous people that would switch to Satellite, but never will because we're like the 120th largest market. Neither DTV nor Dish will carry that many locals anytime soon.
SBC is the most inept group of idiots on planet earth. They can't keep a DSL line operating properly to save their lives. I've DOCUMENTED dozens of cases where end users had nothing but months upon months of problems with SBC/ASI.
The line quality is poor, the quality of service is POOR, the support is POOR. You can NOT get anyone on the line that has anything close to a clue and you spend hours and hours each month on hold fighting with them about OVER BILLING issues.
It's common to get charged for additional DSL accounts on your phone bill, then you get charged for installation on the non existant account, then they charge you for repairs to the ghost account, and so on. When you call and spend hours fighting with them over it and getting shuffled all over the place, they finally promise to take care of it but when your next bill comes you find that ANOTHER account got added on.
It's like a dog chasing it's tail, there is no way you can win with these idiots.
I have three customers (I work on PC's) who called SBC when they could not connect.
(The problem was the SBC went down, NOT the customer. Had the customer waited a few hours the system would have come back online.)
SBC told them to disconnect their NAT routers and install their trashy CD. When these people followed SBC instructions verbatim, their computers were left in an unusable condition.
When they send out some "terbaccy chawin" redneck with his butt crack prominently displayed to repair the damage the phone support people caused, the computers would not even boot up anymore. The end result is that the end user would lose everything on the hard drive because the "tech" would so badly damage the system that he would end up sticking the OEM CD in and wiping everything out.
These people have NO business touching computers or anything else.
They can run wires, "Uh, red wire to red terminal, green wire to green terminal..." but that's the limit of it.
I personally had nothing but total hell with these people with a DSL account at my office, it took me a year to get them to stop billing me for it AFTER they disconnected it. They were charging me for FOUR (4) DSL accounts at my office at the rate of $600 a month when I only had ONE (1) account at the $79 a month rate.
They did the same thing to me at my house, I had DSL there and they were charging me $300 a month for TWO (2) DSL accounts that I did NOT have, I only had ONE (1) account at $49 a month. It took a year to get them to stop billing me. I've never gotten my money back either. They would cut my phone off when I would refuse to pay the over charges, so they robbed me.
They did the same exact thing to another man that I know. Over billed the hell out of him and never gave him his money back.
These people are criminals, they are the Al Capones of the communications industry. They are common thieves, thugs, criminals.
It's no wonder they have all their offices out of state and in big brick buildings with high security.
I personally would strangle a few of them if I could get my hands on them. They have to hide like that because they know that MOST people would strangle them (or worse) if they could get to them. I remember about 25 years ago they had open offices with human beings, you could go in and sit across a desk from a real person and talk nicely with your bill(s) in hand and get things straightend out like civilized people.
Their hiding in brick buildings is akin to a mugger wearing a ski mask when he robs you..
God forbid these idiots consider operating a satellite system, they can't keep a simple DSL system operating properly or provide any manner of support for it.
If SBC takes control of DTV you can expect satellites to rain down from the skies. They could fsck up a wrecking ball with a rubber mallet.
And as it stands, DTV security is an absolute joke, they are hacked 6 ways to Sunday, pretty much free satellite TV for anyone that wants it. Let SBC have a whack at it and the entire planet will be watching DTV for free!!
SBC/ASI/DTV ??? Get your hard hats out and some satellite crash insurance...
DirecTV was NOT trying to purchase Echostar. Echostar was trying to merge with the up-for-grabs DirecTV. Echostar initiated the deal.
Don't be ridiculous, *of course* you can trust them to do the right thing... I understand they might even have created Al Gore.
The deal between GM and Echostar fell thru.... in such a way that Echostar is out a serious amount of $$. :)
Depends on which corporation. Many, like CNN, CBS, etc, push left.
"mis-reporting and bias do not 'screw-ups' make... did anyone tell you the us is setting deficit records while planning to unilaterally Invade another Country"
The first claim is all over the news. The 2nd is a lie, since the U.S. has dozens of allies in its effort to retaliate against Iraq's aggression. Unilateral means something. Is this "unilateral" something you read in Indymedia or something? They like to make up stuff for fun.
"do you *read* any foreign press?
Yes, of course.
if you dont, your as ignorant as the rest of the yankees who only read the Corporate Media
Do you mean corporate media such as The Progressive" and Alternet ? You might as well factor out the term "corporate" since almost all media outlets, left and right, organize into corporations for liability protection reasons.
Idiot though I may be, they "Score" me with their content, not their marketing.
I challenge you to find a significant difference in FOX's news coverage from CNN, MSNBC, or other mass market crap. They all cover the same bullshit.
MSNBC? They fill their schedule with hours-long celebrity profiles. Hardly worth mentioning as news channel. CNN? More of an old school left-wing outfit (as Ted Turner founded it).
"Case in point: All the fucking kidnapping stories. Did you know that kidnappings have been dropping steadily since the 80's?"
Yes. This fact has been reported on Fox News.....
"But coverage goes up, up, up, because it's great human interest or some other bullshit. And of course, all the news outlets incestuously copy each other.
You may not like it; I may not like such stories, but the audience does.
". And of course, all the news outlets incestuously copy each other."
D'uh! As if CNN is going to decide to cover strikes in Brazil all day because MSNBC was covering the shuttle explosion first. Realize that news is news.
>What Liberal Media? [thenation.com].
A lot of people mistake the media for being liberal. When they are really democrats of all colors and shapes. A lot of people still think democrats are liberal when there are probably only a handfull of liberal democrats in office. The democrats and republicans both support dismantling "progressive" social programs such as medicaid to the poor. The only diffrence is by degrees and truth be told it aint much.
"Fox's idea of telling both sides is to tell you why the Republicans are right and then tell you why everyone else is wrong."
Actually, they present both sides and let the viewer decide. Or you have commentators who attack both the left AND right.
"Whenever a left wing idea is raised on Fox the presenter immediately shouts it down or pour derision on it."
Only on some shows. And on these shows, the right-wing ideas are shouted down from the other side also.
Right wing loons like Ann Coulter are treated with absolute respect however.
That statement actually shows more about your own bias, Zeinfeld, than it does about Fox News Channel.
"The fact is that right wing idealogues are so intollerant of any other ideas..."
Which shows they have no power at the Fox News Channel, where non right wing ideas are all over the place.
"Thats why they have to have their own parallel media where the range of views is Bill O'Riley to Rush Limbaugh and the standard of journalism is set by Matt Drudge."
Bill O'Reilly is actually a staunch independent. Rush Limbaugh? Finally you name someone who is right wing! However, he is not on the Fox News Channel. Drudge actually has very high standards of journalism. He reports things the others filter out for fear of offending someone. But we digress: Drudge has not been on Fox News Channel for years.
Which leaves only one of the guys you named actually having anything to do with Fox, and he is a moderate (O'Reilly)
Rupert understands that producing 'news' for such people is a lot cheaper that real journalism.
Which is why he spends the money for real journalism.
"One shouting head, no matter how well paid is a lot less expensive than a news staff."
Which is why he has news staff AND shouting heads. (lots of news staff and several shouting heads, in fact)
http://www.bigclassaction.com/class_action/complai nt_form_directv.html
It is no secret that CNN has been moving rightward to try to stem the flow to Fox.
They still have a long-way to go, they are still staunchly left wing. Their main way of immitating FNC is to add more swish-sounds on headline appearances. The chose to alter their look and sound, not their content.
However CNN is not prepared to become a full time Republican propaganda machine
What is propaganda? Information you happen to disagree with and want censored? That is the typical usage of the word in these debates. In any case, FNC is not an arm of the GOP, so if CNN became Republican, it would still not be like FNC.
"it can see why the head of news should not be sending Karl Rove political advice on dealing with the media."
How would you like a nice list of CNN guy Ted Turner's strong involvement with left-wing candidates and causes? He just gave a big partisan speech either today or yesterday.
This is not for lack of trying, their current project is to smear Kerry in case he gets the Democratic nomination for President.
Kerry's own worst enemy is himself. Accurately reporting and presenting the facts on someone is not a "smear". Perhaps you work for his campaign? In Kerry's favor, he hasn't claimed yet to have created the Internet. Maybe he did invent ketchup instead.
Remember the old slogan, "If PBS doesn't who will"? Well, the answer is Discovery, TLC, Bravo, History Channel, A&E, Bio, and the list goes on. (MacNeil)-Lehrer News Hour? Used to be just about the only one. Now there are hours of the stuff. Redundant.
PBS is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Government-controlled media is not something that is desirable.
Besides, it is welfare for millionaires (Bill Moyers, who blasts extreme political rhetoric while gets rich on public funds, the Barney guys who use governmend funding to market their lucrative products. Zero out the money and send it to soup kitchens instead.
"Strange how Mr Anonymous defends the republican echo chamber against the smear charge by repeating yet again a notorious GOP smear"
What Echo Chamber? I've not defended it, or even mentioned it. Is it like the Star Chamber? Away with the straw-man arguments.
GOP smear? Actually, it was something Gore said. Exact quote: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". Of course, "Create" sounds more like artwork or godwork, and "invent" is more like Edison. But the difference in meaning here is very minor. Admit it. Gore looks like exactly the same dolt with either one he says.
He claims he invented the internet? True. He claims he invented the environment? That is a stretch as well. But not true.
"It was a GOP press release that made that claim by deliberately taking a quote out of context."
The quote is from CNN. The context supports the quote. Please investigate this, as you are talking about something you know nothing about. Unless you claim that Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer is a GOP show!!!
"As for working for a campaign, it is strange how GOP Anonymous Cowards appear to try to shout down any disident views."
Shout down dissident views? No. Present facts to counter your utterly invalid and uninformed views driven by ideology instead of facts?? Yes. (I couldn't shout you down even if I wanted to; this technically cannot occur on Slashdot.
"Typically, when government takes over a "problem" they tend to make it much worse."
Thank you very much for a well-worded critical analysis that dares to look past the assertion "The rulers say they rule in our best interest, and we must believe them".
"Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead."
He said it, and he is wrong. Plain and simple. Do the math, check the history. The Internet was invented long before Gore was ever in Congress in the 1980s, and it first got the name Internet back in 1974.
"Over here in the US everyone thinks he is a right wing nut"
No, only a few on the fringe think he's a nut. The rest hardly know who he is or do not care.
"because that is the group he supports with the New York Post, Fox News etc. with their ludicrous hard right biases."
With Fox News, it is relative lack of bias.
However in other markets Rupert is pro whatever party is in power provided they are responsive to his commercial interests.
Which typically means the groups who don't like censorship, since Rupert is in the free speech business. Nothing bad about that.
"Rupert backs Tony Blair in the UK despite the fact his Labour party still calls itself socialist and is well to the left of Ted Kenedy."
Blair is actually a commendible centrist. He has stood up for workers in his traditionally anti-worker Labor Party. Blair for example thinks no one should be forced to join a union, while the Labour Party favors forced membership (as do the Democrats in the U.S.)
He is anti-union and anti any government attempts to enforce anti-trust regulations.
Great! He sides with the workers then. Unions have way too much power; in the U.S. as many as 1/3 of union members are members because the government has forced them to be.
"So while Lott, Guiliani, Rove and co are trying to push DirectTV into his grasp they should be careful what they wish for. They would not be the first set of right wing ideologues Rupert has dispensed with."
Lott? He's out of it now. Guiliani? He's actually a left-winger in the country (but only right-wing in NYC political realm).
"He would replace O'Riley and co with Noam Chomsky if he though that is the way the political winds are blowing."
Chomsky is a Stalinist, an anti-semite, a racist, and someone who believes in strong totalitarian government. Fox would put him on only if they want ratings as low as MSNBC, which has an only slightly different figure on against O'Reilly.
"Rupert is a grade one shit, he has absolutely no interest in the well being of any country other than his own which is not the UK, US or China, it is Australia, and don't believe that purchase of a US passport changes that."
He is actually a fantastic global citizen, helping everyone get high-quality news an entertainment (I know, it is a stretch to call Joe Millionaire that. But remember Simpsons and X-Files). The media spectrum is much richer for his participation, and in places like the U.S. his addition of alternative voices to counter the media mainstream.
"Correct but out of context, the true quote begins, 'in my time in Congress'.
...started a war but failed to finish it with the capture of either the Taleban or Al Qaeda leadership
I quoted the full context, which makes Gore look worse if anything.
A congressional initiative is a funding initiative.
So? He funded development of the existing Internet. He did not create it. You are trying to defend him by changing what he said.
"The Internet was invented by Vint Cert, Tim Berners-Lee, myself et. al. The Internet was created through a government grant which Gore took the lead in getting funded."
No, it was created in the early 1970s before Gore's involvement. Check the dates! Your error is in inserting Gore Zelig-like into a historic event he was not involved in.
Gore's quote was deliberately and maliciously taken out of context by the GOP.
No. the quote is taken IN context by a wide variety of sources. I can list them from you. Not one of them is the so-called Grand Old Party.
"The very fact that you keep trying to peddle such smears"
Before you dig your hole deeper, read Gore's quote and look into Internet milestone dates.
"shows how little confidence you have in both your arguments and the empty suit you call a President."
Empty suit? That is kind of a vague insult.
"It also shows how willing you are to deceive both yourselves and the voters."
Read the exact quote, and try again. Where is the deception? The quote, by the way, was found in a Wired-related site.
"the problem is that Bush simply has no credibility and that is the result of his own deceptions and evasions."
Actually, he is much more truthful than the previous guy.
In two years the failure in the Whitehouse has turned a historic budget surplus
Talk about spin! The economy and defecit problems started in Clinton's last year. Bush has been trying to undo them, but has until now been blocked by Tom Daschle's attempt to damage the economy by making Republicans look bad at the polls.
It took the U.S. longer to get the WW2 leaders, and they weren't even hiding. There is no failure here; Taliban nests keep getting cleaned out.
"lost a majority in the Senate through sheer incompetence"
Huh? Everyone left and right acknowledged that Bush's campaigning gained his party a Senate majority.
and alienated every other major power with the sole exception of the UK.
With France and Germany making very wrong decisions, with friends like that....
"About the only campaign pledges he has kept are giving out huge tax 'cuts' for the hyper-rich"
Actually, his tax cuts go to all taxpayers. Only a fraction of them are rich. Also, after the cuts, the rich still pay a disproportionatelyhigh percentage and total and total proportion of taxes. Your statement is intentionally misleading.
He has kept plenty of other promises as well, such as nominating judges that protect rights, cutting off funding to the overseas abortion industry, signing initiatives to protect workers from the depradations of union thugs, nominating people who are actually qualified for cabinet positions, weighing in against the University of Michigan's racist admissions policies. The list of truly progressive and positive decisions by this President goes on and on.
With this last election, the Congress now represents the public interest, and will be much less obstructionist when it comes to moving the country forward. Despite the Honorable Jim Jefford's lack of principle.
"...which are not really cuts at all but transfers of the tax burden to future generations"
No, they are cuts. Not a transfer anywhere.
Suit ain't empty. Get used to it, the popular president we elected is in it. Don't here Bush blame the Daschle very much; he is not big on such blaming. But it is obvious what Daschle is trying to do: wreck the economy as much as possible so the president's party will lose at the polls. Oppose anything that will help the economy and instead support watered-down efforts that will really do nothing except create "class warfare": divide and conquer. That is his strategery. Now he will have a tougher time and have to fillibuster in order to wreck things.
"Bush can't even keep his Harken oil lies straight. One minute its the SEC lost his filing, the next it is his lawyers to blame. "
Probably both are true (easily possible for lawyers to bungle and cause SEC to lose filing). He's been quite forthcoming and honest about the Harkin thing, which is why it is ancient history, gone over and dismissed during the Texas years.. It is not like he is obstructing justice by witholding documents subpeaona'd in a criminal investigation....
"Perhaps those lawyers were also to blame for the gap in his military records when he went AWOL for 14 months?"
Except he did not. Bush served his country during the Vietnam War. Like a huge number of people, he served stateside. Unlike a certain someone who actually went to England during the time and demonstrated in favor of the Soviets.
"It takes a very special type of coward to manage to both dodge the draft by getting Daddy to pull strings and then actually desert to boot."
Except he served, and did not dodge, and did not desert. He served just as Gore did. Both of them did serve, but both of their fathers made sure they did not see combat.
George W Bush is a brave man. It takes one to serve in what has to be the most dangerous profession (consider the % of presidents who get killed in office. hard to top that!). Clinton, despite his wrongheaded cowardice at the time of the war, was also a brave man to run twice and face at least two assassination attempts.
Yet another GOP fib, first off the President lost the popular vote, secondly he was the one who went to court to steal the election by stopping the votes being counted. The man is a fraud, deal with it.
As for the opinion polls the failure in the Whitehouse claims not to govern by, Clinton was actually more popular at this point in his term, despite the Lewinsky scandal. Bush I was phenominaly popular and look where it got him.
He's been quite forthcoming and honest about the Harkin thing, which is why it is ancient history, gone over and dismissed during the Texas years
He has refused to answer all questions on the Harken scandal. Every question has been referred back to the SEC 'investigation' run by his Dad's appointees.
And the reason we are going back to Harken is that Bush made his money at Harken through precisely the same fraudulent stock and accounting tricks used at Kenny-boy Lay's Enron.
Bush served his country during the Vietnam War. Like a huge number of people, he served stateside
His commanding officer states that he did not report for duty, there are no records of him serving anywhere else. That is called being AWOL.
One would think that the GOP would have at least given you instructions on how to sign up instead of having to be an AC all the time. As it is it looks like I might be having this argument with myself as a way of bringing to people's notice the corruption, cowardice and incompetence of the failure in the Whitehouse.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
You get porn on DirecTV???
Who knew life could be this funny?
The universe, they said, depended for its operation on the balance of four
forces which they identified as charm, persuasion, uncertainty and
bloody-mindedness.
-- Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...