Slashdot Mirror
White House: No Kerry Supporters at IATC Meeting
An anonymous reader writes "Time Magazine is reporting that the Bush Administration is removing U.S. delegates from the Inter-American Telephone Commission because they gave money to John Kerry in last year's election. A Bush spokesman admits it's true: 'We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that,' says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Employees of Qualcomm and Nokia are among those who have been removed from the commission."
I'd rather call them transparently corrupt. How about a rubberstamp government, like those we lately seem to be suggesting oughta respect democratic principles, etc. (so long as they represent the right democratic principles, unlike all those heathen socialists in South America.)
I'm one of those old enough to remember quite a few of Richard M. Nixon's shenanigans and I'm absolutely amazed how much dirtier this administration is and profoundly disappointed that people just don't seem to care. Heck, if Nixon were still around he'd probably get a Presidential Medal of Freedom for spying on americans and his groundbreaking work on coverups. Small wonder Cheney's threatening to get tough with dems in the Senate, they see what's going on and the priorities of the administration.
On the way in this morning I heard a blurb about an upcoming film Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room and it got me thinking about what a hatchet job was done on California Governor Gray Davis (while I'm not a particularly huge fan of his) apparently to lay the foundation for a republican challenger to replace a disgraced democrat, while the Dept of Energy and the president sat on their hands.
Where is the sense of outrage? I dunno, pass me another beer.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Seriously, these are the same folks who were willing to commit an act of treason to get back at someone who dared speak the truth concerning the blatent lies the President used to lead us into this mess in Iraq. Why should anything these people do surprise us anymore?
Everyplace you look in Bush's record, you'll see a constant pattern of lies, deception, stupidity, selfishness and tribalism. Bush Jr. has never, ever been about what's best for the United States or its people. Americans will be paying for this particular mistake for decades to come -- anyone who thinks that the seeds of anti-Americanism and economic ruin that these arrogant, short-sighted little men have planted won't come back to haunt us is a fool.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
The current administration values loyalty over all else.
The current administration brooks no dissent.
The current administration carefully scripts, stages and choreographs virtually every major public event.
The current administration is unwavering in their conviction and utterly unapologetic for their actions.
This is par for the course, folks. If you want a seat at the table, you're going to toe the line, period.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Ya know... I don't get into political stuff much, but this shit has. got. to. stop.
It really *does* seem as if we're becoming more Facist every day (look it up, it's not a troll)
I'm not up on US politics, is this a usual thing done by most parties when in government or is this something strange?
Sounds like Nokia isn't putting up with this. Their VP is totally correct- an international meeting on telecom is not a partisan matter.
Bush is biting the hand that feeds him and the Republican party. He will change his mind once the telecom companies start threatening to close their pocketbooks. If not, this will only help the Democrats in the future.
this isn't even surprising.
But I supported Kerry!
You are Free to do what we tell you.
You are Free to do what we tell you.
- Bill Hicks
There was a time when a change in political parties ment that the whole staff of the government changed... all the way down to mail clerks.
He would have had the FBI investigate them first, if he behaved like the last Democratic-Party president.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
No - but they would have said that it was Kerry sticking it to those evil campaign-contributing corporations.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
You mean like this?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is a fantastic development. Thank you slashdot! We've almost purged the country of traitors..
Would Kerry have kept Bush supporters on the same panel? I have to think not likely.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
Golly, the president doesn't want his rivals representing him. Oh, for shame.
Sounds like much ado about nothing if you ask me.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
The Cardinals reject non-Catholic candidates for the Papacy.
Consider the alternative - Send people who dislike the president out to do diplomatic work? Remember the media fiasco when Powell and President Bush merely made conflicting statements? It is simply not a good idea to look divided on issues when speaking on the international stage.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
...the George Lucas tragedies are merely on TV.
-Valiss
But who would want bipartisan support on the same committee? Democrats at the same table as Republicans? That's just crazy talk.
The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.
Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldn't have - we can't know. Even if Kerry would have had the entire IATC lined up and shot, it hardly makes this administration's actions okay.
Kerry's campaign spokesman Chad Clanton made an obvious threat against Sinclair Broadcasting after they announced they were going to air an anti-Kerry documentary.
Chad Clanton
"I think they're going to regret doing this," the Kerry spokesman warned before adding - "They better hope we don't win."
Big freakin' surprise. Political parties and politicians reward people that support them and punish people that go against them. Oooh! It's Bush so it must be evil!
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
God forbid these phones should fall under liberal control. They would start screeching hate at our troops and talkin porn to our kids.
Kerry wouldn't have done the same.
Find me ONE other instance of a Presidential Administration (other than George W. Bush's) denying access to an event based on which political campaigns people contributed money to.
This is a blatant violation of the first amendment. More discussion from this morning's thread on Ars.
Neither Reagan nor Bush '41 would have, either.
Hell, I don't think Nixon would have done this.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
GannonGuckert accessed the White House approximately 200 times over a twenty-two month period, simply using a day pass. That's twice a week for a two year period. This is fishy as hell. And ON A DAY PASS. If that's isn't regular access, what is?
The real question is WHY was he so freely there and WHO was behind this??
Secret Service Gave "Jeff Gannon" Unparalled Access to White House.
No two ways around it: "Jeff Gannon" is someone's (or multiple persons') Lewinsky.
Nothing else makes sense. The Secret Service cannot be that lax. He was being let in on days when there were no press briefings held and allowed to leave through multiple exits and without signing out (many long, sweaty romps, no doubt).
I'm cranking up the e-Rolodex and will fire this one off to hundreds of thousands, including every newspaper columnist and radio wag extant.
I bet this sick @!#$ is/was stretching Queen George, Rove, Scott McClellan and Ken Mehlman (and mebbe Andrew Card, who reportedly swings that way). No other story is hotter and more damaging to the Bush Admin than "Jeff Gannon."
From Americablog:
All FOIA Docs Here
Full analysis of Secret Service access logs.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
If we had a king, he'd have simply have killed all his political opponents.
God spoke to me.
'We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that
Sorry, this isn't a Bush thing. This is a political thing. Every Administration does something like this to a certain degree. I'm not saying that it is the right thing to do, rather it just happens.
Want to change things? Pass laws that prohibit political contributions from all business entities. Restrict contributions to individuals problems like this virtually vanish.
...Always at your service.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
"That Kerry wouldn't have done the same? "
There is no reason to think Kerry would bump technical experts from a telecom delegation because of party affiliation. Bush is the man know for valuing loyalty above competence not Kerry. Just look at Bush's nomination of John Bolton as UN Ambassador, or elevating Condi Rice to Secretary of State...etc, ad nauseam.
This is just another example of the Bush administration's partisan extremism. It is really, really hard to believe Bush hasn't been taken to task to live up to his "I'm a uniter not a divider" claim. While the parent can debate if Kerry might have done the same thing to the delegation, one point is not debatable: This was clearly not a move to "unite" the US.
I'll tell you that Nader wouldn't have done the same!
Just reading Slashdot presents an excellent argument for doing exactly what Bush has done. Why should the US send people that have such a bitter hatred for the president? Such inherant negativity can only be detremental to productive meetings.
Mind you, I don't know if the people removed were quite at that point but it's not hard to imagine. The poision runs deep here on Slashdot.
I'm more of a libertarian myself so don't even start in on me. I'm just calling it like I see it, and have seen first hand what bitter negativity can do in a group. For something like this the people need to be on the same page.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
America needs to pick the most qualified, most brilliant engineers it can to represent at these meetings. You can be the most qualified person in the nation on telecom, but if you supported Kerry, you dont belong according to the WH. It not even like this group manages aid or something, they fucking design specifications.
Politics is beyond ugly, its now officially fugly.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Back in my day, there was a word for governments which would do things like prevent opposing viewpoints from being heard at inernational conventions, or preventing opposing government officials from having substantial say in government affairs. Seems to me the US spent a lot of time making sure folks like that stayed on their side of the Iron Curtain.
Gosh, what was that word again?
Gotta tell you, between this sort of thing and nutjobs like Frist and DeLay, I've never felt more disenfranchised from my own nation. I used to be proud of America, even under other Republican presidents; the current administration has turned our nation into a joke of democracy.
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
Exactly. The difference with this campaign is that there is an extremely vocal contending party.
I do agree some what with their concerns, however this isn't something that previous administrations didn't do. Their complaining now because its working against their interests instead of for them!
Banning opposing sides at media appearances, town halls, press conferences, corralling protesters, censoring media...
I love America, but phuck USA, Inc.
When's this place going to balkanize anyway?
I'd rather call myself a Cascadian and stop getting hate when I travel.
It made the news because it's not how it was handled in the past.
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
Great, when are you leaving? You gotta sneak into Canada you know. Be brave, like the people sneaking here!
...Of Bush thinking that because 51% of americans voted for him, he can do whatever the hell he wants.
I am not surprised at all by the Bush Administration's decision, which is obviously politcal. What I AM surprised about is that they openly told the truth about their political filtering. Hmm..., maybe this is a trend?
Naaaahhhh....
Here
Read it. Its more informative that the short writeup above.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
sure. "Kerry wouldn't have done the same." You happy?
Kerry's campaign folk did not screen every attendee to his speeches to make sure they didn't support the other guy. But many Kerry supporters were screened and shut out of events Bush's campaign stops. Evidence points to the idea that no, Kerry didn't have the same problem with dissenters that plagues the current administration. I'd venture it's a good bet that "Kerry wouldn't have done the same".
In any case, why are we talking about Kerry at all? Let's concentrate on the matter at hand, which appears to be an administration that exhibits severe tunnel-vision and squelches dissent.
-Z
Like this
Not to sound redundant but I'm surprised GW doesn't have a little military outfit he totes around in. Hat, tiny dog, and all. What's next the Texas goose-step. Facism in its finest form. We're not publically executing those representatives or our own citizens yet, but I doubt that's far behind.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Anyone going to tell me That Kerry wouldn't have done the same?
Rather stupid generalization if you ask me. 'Because Bush would do it, of course Kerry would do it too'. Not likely. It's Bush and Co. that have the history of weeding out individuals that it deems 'unfit' for discussion of public matters. Just look at thier Social Security 'TownHall' meetings.
...just people who voted agaist Bush.
Liberal whiners!
Is that specifically tuned to fit the USA or is it really that bad? I knew it was bad, but this still shocks me.
The current administration values loyalty over all else.
The current administration brooks no dissent.
The current administration carefully scripts, stages and choreographs virtually every major public event.
The current administration is unwavering in their conviction and utterly unapologetic for their actions.
I would disagree with #3. If they are staging and scripting Bush, they are doing a horrible job of it. Bush is one of the few presidents I can remember who likes to lean in and start talking. And he gets roasted on tv, from the comedy central to the late night shows. But that has not stopped him from talking freely. If he was coached and staged, it would be a speech and he would be done. He would not be looking into space trying to find the word he is looking for.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Is this diplomatic work? I think you are stretching this quite a bit. These individuals actually represent the companies they work for, i.e. Nokia, Qualcomm, and not the "United States" at these meetings. No fair minded person thinks these individuals speak for the U.S. Government. It is one thing to reward those that support you, but it is another to punish those that do not. That is not a democratic process.
The risk of dissent against the current administration far outweights any value "experts" or "scientists" can bring to the table. Republican zealots have faith in the current leadership, literal faith, belief without reason, and facts that contradict the party line must be false.
People who disagree with the party line must be purged (even if they're highly valuable Arabic translators or CIA operatives) and those who tow the line are rewarded beyond their level of competence (Rice, Bolton).
We see this in how they treat science regarding stem cells, reproductive rights, evolution, and the environment. They routinely squash or discredit government funded science that contradicts their orthodoxy. Considering that they they're fighting long established scientfic and political reality (evolution and Marbury vs. Madison come to mind) it shouldn't surprise anybody that they'd exclude some telco paper pushers who might upset their love fest.
Of course one day reality will assert itself and they'll have to face the music. I'm just hoping it doesn't cost a few million lives.
-dameron
RTFA:
"anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say."
Sounds like an unprecedented abuse of power. Somehow, I suspect Kerry would have been a bit more of a pushover about the whole thing and left things as they were before.
Before you rant on in the lastest bash-Bush thread, ask yourself honestly: is this any different?
It is, and here is why: Members of the Cabinet, Ambassadors, Judges, etc. are all offices that the President is given the power to fill by the Consitution (provided the Senate gives its consent).
Deciding who is allowed to attend a non-political, non-partisan industry event based on their history of campaign contributions is not a power given to anyone by any law of the United States. In fact, the opposite is true: this violates amendment one of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees U.S. citizens the freedom of speech.
President Bush can certainly appoint whom he likes to those offices which the law allows him to, but he cannot "punish" people who supported his political opponents by denying them access to events for no other reason.
Mr. Cornelius: Stop posting to comments that have absolutely no connection to your comment you fucking karma whore.
That Kerry wouldn't have done the same?
Ok. Kerry wouldn't have done the same. Not because he's vastly more moral than this administration. Rather, because it never would have occurred to the Democrats to be this petty.
This administration applies loyalty tests to everything, including scientific advisory appointments and attendance at campaign events.
Disappointing, petty, and not even surprising anymore.
How does the Bush administration even have a list of exactly who contributed to the Kerry presidential campaign? That sounds like a second and maybe even third layer of corruption right there.
So then you're totally alright with the Republican administration's plan to start removing (the majority are Republican-appointed) federal judges because they're not Neo-con enough for the current Republican party too?
If their guy had been elected, a similar purge would occur going the other way.
Congratulations, your party is just as shitty as the other. Aren't you just so proud?
I'd like to believe that someone could start a third party that was somewhat sane, open to compromise, and totally honest, but it'd be like throwing people to sharks in today's climate, and even if that party could launch a candidate that was competitive enough, the media would kill it because it breaks their head-to-head competition ideals and they'd have to come up with new debate formats to deal with it.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
How is this flamebait moderators??
Please try to remember that "flamebait" doesn't mean something disagrees with your personal political viewpoint.
Agile Artisans
This is a post that has never been political...it has always been made up of industry experts, regardless of political affiliation. Important telecom companies are being blocked from involvement because their chosen delegates were Kerry supporters, even if they're the best for the job.
The wonks are the people who actually know how to make policy -- know what options are on the table, which of them might actually work, which have been tried before and didn't work, and so forth. In immense detail. If you read /., you are probably a wonk (or at least could be a wonk -- if you have a life, you aren't a wonk).
Hacks know one thing and one thing only -- politics -- and they do it 24/7. They are the kids who spent high school impeaching each other on the student council, and then got into college and did the same thing in student government. Now they have a real government to play with, and play they will. Nothing else matters to them. If you know someone who merely claims to read /., they are a hack.
The hacks have triumphed because of the "permanent campaign" that was brought about by C-SPAN and the cable news channels. If a politician thinks that it is vital to respond to everything within a single news cycle, they by necessity surround themselves with hacks -- wonks actually have to spend time learning things and thinking things through! Can't have that now, can we?
"All successful systems accumulate parasites" -- Hal Hixon
First, it is not like the USA has one genius engineer and 50 dumb ones. Chances are in the pool of all engineers, you will find republicans and democrats. All things being equal, are you suprised a republican president would not reward his supporters and shaft his detractors?
Someone could argue the Attorney General of the United States should be the best qualified lawyer available, but it is always political. Where is the line when you stop making a decision based on party affiliation?? Should it stop with the Department of Homeland Security?
I might be wrong, but I would have guessed before Clinton the highest office was a political reward, and the career beurocratic jobs were staffed with the best available. I think since Clinton, even those mid level jobs have become a reward/punishment.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
He wouldn't have done the same thing. Period.
Yes, perhaps important to get certain Homeland Security information out to the public. No, not important to increase the celebrity of Tom Ridge. Not a valid goal.
These twisted motherfuckers just keep getting more brazen.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
"Whore" is such a dirty word to use in describing someone who doesn't hold a White House day-pass.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Next thing you know you're going to tell me that he only listens to partisan scientists. Oh, wait... :P
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Koz has a interesting take on this too
it's a matter of degrees... and bush's needle is pegged in the red zone.
it wasn't always this way, just a few years ago our political parties actually had conventions that weren't foregone conclusions.
you are right that the trend is towards more consolidation and homogenization of "the message" but i do personally feel that bush takes it to the next level. with clinton you didn't see things like the jeff gannon incident or the armstrong williams incident. bush went so far as to have the public sign sworns statements that they were going to vote for bush in 2004 or they wouldn't be allowed in to his political rallies, something that has never before happened.
so don't tell me it's just business as usual.
Maybe you missed it, but we had an election. That election determined which administration will represent the country. Whether you like it or not, the administartion position is the official US position.
Thye filed this story from the "politics as usual dept" for a good reason. Because it IS the usual. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but it is. Postings made by the political class are handed out for political reasons. Doesn't always make sense but expecting political animals to hand out plums to declared enemies makes even less sense.
There was a time when it was understood that politics stopped at the border, but that time has long since passed. Both parties can share the blame for it, although personally I'd give it at leat 60/40 to the Democrats because a) they have been the party out of executive power for more of the last couple of decades and b) it really ramped up post 9/11.
If you want to just be an apolitical technologist then keep your damned checkbook closed. (Or at least stay under the reporting threshold) Money IS speech even if the 'campaign finance reformers' keep saying it isn't. You can't give a candidate thousands of dollars and then say you aren't involved in politics when they lose.
Democrat delenda est
Removal of the people who dared not support your politics from the realm of non-partisan matters is not good for the country. Its the action of an administation which shows all the qualities that the OP identified. Fortunately, historically this sort of arrogant abuse of power always comes around to destroy the offenders (assuming the democracy survives). It's pretty clear that's begun in America -- Tom DeLay's blatent corruption, Bush's record-low numbers, etc all prove that. Say goodbye to your majorities.
This must be what the president meant when he said that he would be a uniter, not a divider. The usual message: don't pay attention to what I'm saying because it's really just fluff for the media. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next Democrat-controlled administration. Will the tactics be the same, or will we really get a uniter?
Well, looks like we'll get conservative telecom representation for the time being. Whatever that means.
Hence this tactic, which I've heard used by Tom DeLay quite a bit. You tie legislative favors not only to donations to your party, but the absence to your opponent. Donate to a Democrat? Don't try lobbying to the Republican leadership in Washington right now. I read this as no more than that message -- we're in power, don't try to hedge your bets. It's worked on K Street, but Nokia may be another matter.
what a president can do during his second term since he doesn't have to worry about losing the next election?
Zap that comment ASAP! It humiliates liberals!!
... fascists also flex muscles in control of slashdot...
Lol... In other news
My question is, what exactly do they have to do to get an exception to Goodwin's law passed? I mean, so far we've got documented evidence of:
- Internal travel documents/no fly lists ("Transportation safety")
- Spying on your neighbor programs ("Information Awareness")
- Arresting people and holding them with due process ("The War on Terror")
- ...and occasionally torturing them (ditto)
- ...that sometimes leading to them dying (oops)
- Supression of dissent ("Free Speech Zones")
- Orwellean double-speak (see above)
- Supression of opposition (Locking the opposition out of the legislature)
- Arresting opposing party candidates weeks before the election (Clark & Badnarik)
- Manipulation of the media (including paying analysts to "support" their policies)
- Fibing to start wars
Ask yourself this: do you suppose the average Hanz Six-pack circa 1940 thought his country was anything like the country we now can't discuss without invoking Goodwin's law?Personally, I think they've earned an exemption...
--MarkusQ1. No, this is not a normal political thing, but totally unprecedented, as you would have found out had you bothered to read the article.
2. No, restricting contributions to individuals wouldn't have solved this, as the issue is exactly with individuals who as private citizens contributed to the Kerry campaign.
P.S.: Thanks to the mods for once again modding someone up who isn't able to RTFA!
Given that offtopic comments are often moderated harshly, it's hard to consider his actions to be that of a karma whore.
You can call him paranoid or offtopic, but he'd probably agree. And great-grandparent was offtopic too.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Well, all I can say is that when I buy a cell phone, I now have a list of "preferred manufacturers" ;)
Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
Do you think this is the Soviet Union? Disagree with the Supreme Ruler and become a non-person? Have you ever heard of the phrase "Loyal Opposition?".
It's my government too, not a government of, by, and for Neo-Conservatives. This is about a one party state and a the formation of a theocratic government.
You are about as libertarian as a tele-tuby. There are snails in my garden that have better political insite then you do. WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
Unfortunately, all of these apply to any of the previous administrations that I can think of. Insert "The Clinton Administration" in there if you want. It all remains valid. Or Reagan.
How is this flamebait moderators?? Please try to remember that "flamebait" doesn't mean something disagrees with your personal political viewpoint.
It is flaimbait because it is inflamitory, as well as incorrect. Who coined the term "vodoo economics" in regards to Reagan's "trickle down" theories? I'll give you a hint. They later gave him a job as the Vice President of the United States. They didn't have the "toe the line or you are fired" stance. They respected opinions they didn't agree with and could overlook differences of opinion.
Also, posting an opinion with no supporting evidence that is nothing other than "you are wrong because I think so" is flaimbait. A valid discussion requires examples - I presented of a policy disagreement that was tolerated, where was the troll's example? Oh, they didn't support their postition because they know it is wrong, but they don't like the opinion they were responding to, so they attacked it.
Learn to love Alaska
Who cares what Kerry would've done? Point is, Bush _IS_ doing it. Everything is so damn partisan these days.
Buckethead
Sombody needs to meta-mod the moderators.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
Tell that to the staff of the White House travel office, who had been functioning quite well through several administrations of both parties.
Until the Clintons came in, sacked them all, and replaced them with their personal friends from Arkansas. And then tried to drum up phony charges against the head of the office.
At least with the Clintons, their corruption is small and petty. Although I expect Hillary is eyeing bigger marks...
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
That Kerry wouldn't have done the same?
This is exactly the kind of thing I was saying in 1998. "But surely," I said to everyone, "Bob Dole would be enjoying fellatio in the Oval Office if he had won the 1996 election!"
See? I'm fair and balanced.
This is the same bunch that had enforcers scare people out of Wings Over the Rockies museum during a "town hall conference" (read staged event) because they didn't look republican. I.E. white male driving a Mercedes.
These guys are so desperate to keep up the smoke and mirrors act that I believe they'll stop at nothing. This comes at no suprise.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Let the GOP show us how red they really are. Hillary's ascendency began in 1992 and is still going strong. Geaux Hillary!
Bush/Cheney 04: A fox in every henhouse
Vonnegut: "What is the purpose of life? To be the eyes, ears, and conscience of the Creator of the Universe, you fool."
Right ON topic for the thread, if you regard the Subject line as indicidatve of the content that should follow!
YEAH! METATHREAD!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
When private citizens can nolonger support political parties, in fear of retribution from the ones in power.
This is no better than what mr. Putin has done to Yukos. (ironically, for which the Bush administration recently scolded mr. Putin)
Officially: "No comments"
These aren't ordinary hard-working people getting tossed on the street by a callous Bill and Hill. They are well-heeled high-tech execs who're discovering that if you try to buy influence by giving money to one candidate, you may lose influence with his relected opponent. Politics isn't a Sunday school picnic. Steve Jobs might take note. Gore's presence on Apple's board makes no sense othet than as a political payoff. The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet knows nothing about either technology or business.
It's alway refreshing to see Republicans display backbone. For too long they've allowed themselves to be bullied by self-righteous Democrats. Let's hope Senate Republicans show enough guts to end the fillibuster of judicial nominations. When I was little, Democrats used the filibuster to block anti-lynching legislation. (That's why the critical civil rights legislation of 1964 had more Republican supporters than Democrats.) Now Democrats use it to keep in power judges who want to keep lynching legal up to birth.
As they say, "The more things change, the more they remain the same.
--Mike Perry, Seattle, author: Untangling Tolkien
Every president before Bush *did* keep supporters on the panel regardless of their political affiliation. Check the link.
So, yes, it is different from what any other US president has done. And this organization was formed in 1923 so it is a clear and established precendent that Bush has broken. You might want to ask yourself why no previous president has ever done this. Aren't you the least bit curious?
IMHO, we're heading way outside of "politics as usual" here and in other recent matters in both the administration and Congress. But I guess some people will simply choose to be apathetic to it no matter what happens...
Sure, I'll (anonymously) stand up and say that Kerry wouldn't have been so tactlessly moronic to not keep at least a minority of "enemies" on the commitee, if for no other reason to avoid news stories like this.
They may not be criminals, but they sure do act like them.
Wow, you have illuminated the main point the Republicans have been trying to make for years. They have managed to instill such cynicism in the American people on purpose so people will be so jaded as to say such stupid and untrue things as "well, the Republicans aren't any worse then the other side."
But it's not true. The fact that you repeat such inane and untrue statements as in your post tells me that you've only followed sound bites for the last 4 years (maybe 20 years?).
How ignorant can you be when this is the FIRST time people were denied access to a IATC Meeting because of which presidential candidate they donated money to?
I think the Democrats did, back in 2000. But things still didn't work out in their favor.
Here we go, with the obligatory /. Two Minute Hate. Damn you, Goldst...err, Bush!
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Aside from being wrong with regards to Ronald Regan, its incorrect with regards to the article. If you had bothered to read the article, no president, Republican or Democrat, had ever had the unmitigated gall to remove engineers from an engineering commission.
Of course, given that the "Republican" party is looking to start removing federal judges from the bench (hint, a majority of currently seated judges were appointed by Republican presidents) because they're not neocon enough to let DeLay pass a law overturning death itself, nobody is really surprised.
the land of freedom and democracy
I was reading something recently that talked about business failures and how they are characterized:
The Presidency of George Bush was the first thing that came to mind. Surely, there is no better measure for how "free" a society is than the number of dissent voices that are active in government.
Wow. You really didn't RTFA, or you're just a shameless liar.
People are being purged from a completely non-partisan position. This is for a technical conference. There are no politics involved here. Whether or not someone likes Bush has no bearing on their ability to serve competently at this conference. NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING THIS EXTREME.
This isn't a good thing. Bush supporters should not be cheering this, it makes them look like brainless automotons who don't analyze a single aspect of the administration's polities yet stand behind them 100%.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
I have no mod points, but that is indeed an interesting point. Not only to they exclude people who should have access to venues (e.g. the article at the top of this thread), they let people go places they have no business going--and all, as far as I can see, based only on how much they like them.
I always thought of that being something that only two-bit bannana republics did.
--MarkusQ
"a similar purge would occur going the other way"
Did this happen under Clinton? No? Then how do you know this would happen under an elected Democrat? Oh, you are just a troll? OK.
I had some silly notion that this was a country and government for the people, not just for the right people. Silly me.
They aren't there to represent "the Administration", they were being sent to represent the country. You know, the United States of America? The country's telecom industry, but still.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
This is merely proof that the current 'administration' is not competent to handle the business of running a country.
This is but one example where partisan politics interferes with an issue requiring technical expertise, but given how boldly they have defended their position, then there are likely no boundaries to this kind of incompetence.
As soon as "are you a member of my club?" becomes more important than "can you help make this better?", revolution is around the corner.
eskwayrd = m^2c^4
This indicates two things: 1) That the republicans can do whatever they want, no matter how immoral or how illegal, and they can get away with it. 2) Partisan politics is being institutionalised. They are willing to take a short term loss (bad press about this story) to put long term pressure on supporters of their opponents. Their goal is to create a work environment where, to get anywhere you will have to be a member of the republican party.
Usually political parties only think forward to the next election. This shows tha the republicans have the goal of making it so they are the only party in america.
Yeah, like that's WAY different than previous Dem administrations have been. Tell me, during the 40+ years the Dems were in power, did they not value loyalty, brook no dissent, take no prisoners, etc.?
When the previous Bush administration chose to make a deal with the Dems on taxes you could have counted in MILISECONDS how long it took the Dems to shoot him in the back with the 'no new taxes' line.
The present Bush administration maybe have more refined techniques but please, at least be honest enough to admit that this sort of thing is EXPECTED now in politics from both sides...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
"call us nutty" is right! Someone expresses their opinon in a fair election and then is openly blacklisted from professional confrences.
That's something to think about when the political tide swings the other way -- it won't be pretty.
I see. So political affiliation==competency in your book? Remind to never hire you for any position of authority.
I went to the city because I wished to live without deliberation.
"There's a new sheriff in town boys... and y'all sent money to the wrong man. I hate to do it, but y'all gotta hang high. Get the rope Rummy ol' boy. Big Dick's gonna do the honors on this one. Get to slapping that horse's ass Brown Sugar... slap it like you slap mine... " -- W
Maybe underneath the plutocracy, there is still an unsmothered democracy that could still be coaxed to life?
If the Vice President of Nokia - a corporation based in Finland - can have input into who goes to the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission, why then cannot the President (publically elected offical) of the United States of America also have input?
CITEL,an entity of the Organization of American States, is the main forum in the hemisphere in which the governments and the private sector meet to coordinate regional efforts to develop the Global Information Society according to the mandates of the General Assembly of the Organization and the mandates entrusted to it by Heads of State and Government at the Summits of the Americas.
Says Nokia vice president Bill Plummer: "We do not view sending experts to international meetings on telecom issues to be a partisan matter. We would welcome clarification from the White House."
presidents elect YOU.
I just started browsing through this discussion at -1, to see if insightful conservatives with valid viewpoints were being squashed by slashdot groupthink.
They aren't.
If you can honestly defend this action, you have less critical thinking skills than a Jonestown suicide victim. It's not that big a deal, as I don't think it's going to kill too many people just because a few engineers couldn't make it to the meeting, but it is plainly and completely wrong.
If you can bring yourself to think that it is right, then you must correct your thinking. I am sure that I have similar backwards notions in other areas, and I would welcome such corrections from the right source. Some guy on slashdot is clearly not that source, so I'm not asking you to give me the benefit of the doubt. But please, consider that you might be wrong. Double check, just this once.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
A friend of mine is a staunch republican. His wife is a democrat.
He was yelling at me for supporting a party that couldn't get its act together enough to elect enough senators to block some of shrubs more stupid antics.
Rubber stamp, indeed.
You're right! It's crazy. How can this be called a democracy!?
My God people, this president received the largest amount of votes anyone has ever received. Ever. Period.
Why is it so hard to believe that maybe... you aren't the majority? (and please don't give me any crap about 'we are the majority... just not as many of us vote'... if you don't vote, you can't bitch. if you don't vote, *YOU* don't matter as a person in this country.)
But I mean really... I guess if the guy in charge isn't the one I voted for, we MUST be in a dictatorship...
I'm so tired of all of this bitching. Get over it. You're going to be miserable for the next 4 years. Deal, ok?
In 4 years... run somebody who can walk that conservative/liberal tightrope and then you get to be in charge and the Republicans get to bitch and moan about how the Democrats are turning the youths of America into Homosexuals. That's the way it works.
Nah, good kings who understand economics don't kill their enemies. They enslave them, to form the suppressed underbelly of society, that everybody needs and nobody wants to be.
Of course, we don't have slavery per se now, so we have to use the capitalistic equivalent: Reserve the lucrative jobs for loyal party members. And only give jobs to the disloyal when they come back begging on their hands & knees to clean our toilets for minimum wage. That, I tell you, is a job befitting supporters of the other party!
Gawd, I love the smell of delicately-toasted democracy in the morning, don't you?
"Because it IS the usual." /. about a dozen times now.
It isn't, as the article has clearly stated and has been pointed out on
"If you want to just be an apolitical technologist then keep your damned checkbook closed."
So, to clear this up, you are honestly suggesting, that technical experts have to give up their constitutional rights in order to be able to do their work? And this has been modded insightful?
That's just scary.
This is nothing new in regards rewarding loyalty and punishing dissent. But, it does illustrate the adminstration approach to dissent. Basically, it prefers to attack rather than to compromise
.Examples:
CIA agent reports no link between Sadamn and Nigerian uranium; reveal the agent's identity.
Need Iraq's oil but you don't want to deal with Sadamn; Invade Iraq.
Hate Democratic Senators filibustering your appointments; Remove the filibuster.
Don't like courts making decision on gay marriage; institute an admendment banning gay marriage.
When dissent is finally quashed, we can finally live in peace under Republican rule. Don't feel too bad though, I hear that an one-party dictatorship has worked well in China
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
... but not represent the people, or the country.
It's all too clear that this administration is totally self-serving, and cares not a whit for its real job.
Sorry. I'm ranting, but dammit they deserve every byte!
-- This
at an airport in Ft. Worth, Texas in front of a large crowd of supporters in the middle of the night, for a short speech. I got within five feet of the man. I didn't have to sign a loyalty oath to see him, I wasn't "checked at the door" for my party allegiance. I wasn't denied entrance because i'd given money to Reagan in the 80's.
This administration is the worse ever.
We haven't seen a man like this in the White House since Andrew Jackson.
These aren't judges, these are employees of the State department; a cabinet of the Executive branch. They work for and represent the President internationally.
Among the policies they discuss are related to security, and intellectual property rights. Belive me these can be VERY Partisan issues.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
If political donations were secret, then Bush wouldn't have enough information to know who to discriminate against. Secret political donations seem very analogous to secret balloting, which is commonly accepted as a good thing.
Officer Bar-Brady, I'd like to reinstate my previous declaration of Shenanigans...
but seriously I really do declare shenanigans on the Bush Administration. You really gotta love those guys, I mean, firing people for giving money to Kerry and acting as if, DUH!! you should totally be firing people for giving money to Kerry is total genius.
Has anyone actually checked to see if anything illegal is happening? I mean its totally skeezy and SHOULD be illegal, but I'm not entirely sure that it actually IS. lame as that is.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
People who think CITEL meetings are non-political in nature need to attend Clue 101 classes. These technical decisions represet billions in revenue, and it's all political.
And stop whining...it's getting old. You can't cry fascist everytime Chimpy McBushitler picks Whataburger over Burger King. Grow up.
Oh, and if you want to decide who gets to represent the Executive branch, try winning an election.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Well, it seems you're trying to get the groupthink going here...
Instead of telling us why you think this action is wrong, you've declared that anybody who doesn't think as you do must "have less critical thinking skills than a Jonestown suicide victim."
This was a troll, right?
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
If the commission went according to the popular vote in representing the American people, then there would certainly be Kerry supporters on the commission roster. The nature of our system is that only one president can get voted in, but that doesn't mean that that one president's administration represents ALL of America.
It would have reflected better on the commission had they chosen constituents more representative of the American people with respect to political bias.
I'd moderate down anyone who donated money to the Kerry campaign.
Riiight. So a small number of half-motivated rebels with handguns are going to overthrow a government with tanks, mines, fighter planes, bombers, spy satellites, ships, near infinite money to pay informants, and a large nuclear missle arsenal? Good luck. I think the 2nd ammendment has also failed to scale :)
The White House admits as much: "We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that," says White House spokesman Trent Duffy
So in a technical conference you want people concerned with giving current administration "a good look" (marketers, publicists) instead of geeky technicians who have deep social problems, but are absolute masters of their trades ?
And you admit to that candidly ? Well if so I'd like a fiery redhead girl at my office tomorrow, thank you. A stenographer of course, what did you think ?!! I don't do certain things I was born again in xmas or whatever I forgot the memo....
Anyway, I know it's schadenfraude but corporate getting some "shove it" from people they supported is par for the course they choosed to play on, instead of following the course of actually benefitting people who, in exchange, work better and buy more.
And i'd hate to put anyne that did otherwise in a position of responsibility.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Of course not. But there are a number of people here, presumably Democrats, using this opportunity to bash the Republican party from a high-and-mighty stance. They may be right, but they're not really any better.
I'm just wishing we'd switch to a fair election system so we can get out of the two-party stranglehold. More competition would be as good for the Presidential market as it is for every other market in the US economy.
...if we had a divider and not a uniter.
Well I'm glad someone actualyl called up the guy and talked to him to clarify that of course he was just a guy who donated a bit of money to the Democrats.
Oh wait? You didn't call? You don't know any more than I do? Then why is it not OK to speculate that was part of the reason?
I am not saying that these particular instances are OK. What I am saying is that tehre are a LOT of people on Slashdot that espouse such negativity that I honesty would not want them doing anything of import, or as I said potentially causing divisiveness in the ranks of the US reps.
As the engineers in this group would likley hail from the same mold as many Slashdot readers, it does not seem unlikely to me that some of them would also be as bitter and partisan in thier own way. And as I said I think that would be counterproductive to what is supposed to be a TECHNICAL meeting.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
It reminds me of the fire department in Fahrenheit 451 (responsible for burning books, and the houses that they were stored in).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I can't blame Bush for wanting to have supporters only.
Sure, this sets a nasty precedent for forcing corporations to support the "winning" president or get booted.
Every has missed the point. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to donate to politics. Let people do it on an individual level.
Campaign finance needs serious reform. This mess could have been prevented.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I have to think that previous appointments to this board were just as political as this choice, just not as overtly so. Were these people truly vital to this board? How many times had they been on before? How much will this hurt US interests if they are not present? This is the story I'd like to see but like most news we just get flamebait with little substance.
So the axis of the graph of who gets picked has changed a little. As least it's now more clear. And clarity is always good as far as I'm concerned, then you can be more rightfully annoyed with the selection process. Pretty bogus if it's just anyone who contributed to the Democratic party, but there might be more we cannot see.
I'm just trying to throw a little reason on the all-consuming hate other people bring to the party.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
(Almost) every post on this subject is symptomatic of liberal politics in the US in general. Of course, everyone knows things are bad, and we complain that they're bad, and we want things to change...but change them to what? There are no voices that are putting forward a convincingly different position, there's no one to rally around, no one who's offering a REAL alternative. Which is why the Dems put up Kerry in last year's election. "Anyone but Bush" obviously isn't good enough.
No, not a troll.
You're right, I didn't describe why the action was wrong. Many other comments on this story have done that perfectly well. Go point me to some effective refutations and I'll shut the hell up. I went looking and didn't find any.
I'm really just trying to call your attention to the possibility that your thinking may be completely wrong on this issue. If you can figure out why, then it may help you correct your thinking in other venues as well.
This issue is a convenient litmus test: If you don't see the problem with the administration's actions here, there is a problem with your eyes. No, that doesn't mean you're wrong about everything, and no, honestly, it doesn't mean you'd drink cyanide coolaid. That was hyperbole.
But it does mean that you're wrong right now.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
'The best way to get agreement in a group is to get rid of the people that don't agree with you. In fact, this is a great political solution that should be rolled out beyond trade representation groups.'
Just calling it like I see it. Fascism.
Getting rid of the opposition may be fine within a political party, but it isn't within government or pseudo-governmental bodies. Besides, how effective are organizations where everybody just agrees with the head? Yes-men-are-us is probably not who we should be calling to debate future plans.
Remember when Hillary fired everybody in the White House travel office? Hey, people want to have people around them who agree with them. Big fucking deal. Next . . .
wtf does their choice for president have to do with how they do their job? Sounds like Bushshit to me.
This is not even about scientists, it's about people on a standards committee. This is a really technical board and is more about engineering than science.
And yes, if someone is going to be hampering progress or weakening the US representation on this board I am all for them being removbed whatever the reason. Please keep in mind this is a TECHNICAL board. If they are not 100% behind what the US is trying to propose then in fact they do not belong on THAT board. If the US as a whole has a stance on positions they want to take in the meeting you cannot have dissenters present who will undermine the whole argument.
Once again, I DID NOT SAY these people were at that stage. I just said that being fellow engineers, like many Slashdot readers, there was a chance that indeed perhaps they did evidence the degree of un-thinking bush hatred that would make them unfit to serve in thsi technical capacity. The main story linked to was really just flamebait, so we cannot tell for sure.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
HAHAhaHAAHaHahahAHAHAhahaHAHAHAHAH!
*pant* *pant*
BWAHGAHaAHaAHHAHAHAHA!
*wipes away tears* Oh wow, I feel better now.
(tee hee)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There was a reporter in 2004 who went to a Kerry rally wearing a Bush shirt. He was allowed to enter, but warned that he'd be ejected if he caused trouble. The same reporter wore a Kerry shirt to a Bush rally and was immediately ejected.
Play Command HQ online
Sorry. I didn't know how to clarify that I meant specifically "Republican vs. Democrat".
There might be politics involved, but if the politics involved are based upon political affiliation, then the people assigned to the task are incompetent in the first place, regardless of who they support.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
With the way Bush operates, they could all have ended up in Guantanamo having dogs bite their asses.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I'd rather call them transparently corrupt.
Transparent is always better than obscure as far as I'm concerned. Do you HONESTLY think the people appointed to this panel before was not poitical in any way? Come on. At least know you know some basic criteria if you want to get on.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But damn, George. Stop dicking around like this. You're pissing all of us off. If you're not careful, Hilary is going to gain a lot of support in 2008, simply by your screwups.
And if she wins, we WILL be screwed.
Have you not seen negative people in a group destroy the dynamics first-hand? When you grow up and have to work in real companies you'll understand just how devastating that can be to productive work.
I'd rather be a little self-righteous than as nauseatingly arrogantly smug as yourself. So sure are you that you know EXACTLY what I am thinking. Hah!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If X candidate is accepting donations from an organization such as, say, the KKK, you'd probably want to have access to that information.
The way the country is going now you'd better watch out with all these anti-administration rhetoric posted on slashdot. Remember our motto, no opinion is better than the wrong opinion. So, shut your mouth and fall in line.... or else!!
I voted for Bush both elections because I liked his conservative stance. I have to admit though that I'm starting to get rather annoyed with the way Bush is acting lately. Repercussions for voting a certain way is simply nonsense and should not be tolerated. Lately I'm beginning to wonder if I should have voted the other way, and have seriously considered doing just that to even the playing field in politics. I don't like the power plays that are going on in Washington DC now that reps are in control (admittedly though I am a republican...) I'm sick of the strong arm tactics that are going on, and I'm getting fed up with the way these people are conducting business. I think next election I'll vote democratic... (yikes...)
As a Bush voter, I'd just like to say that I'm sick and tired of having to read these stories everyday about the President's pettiness, incompetence and lies. Don't you think I have enough cognitive dissonance already? I just don't know if I'm mentally capable of twisting my values system any further to justify his actions. It's hard work being a Republican, I tell you what. Hard work, indeed.
To my knowledge, no president in history, and certainly for the past 50 years, has done something like this.
Nope, Bush is in a low class by himself.
The world has seen many fascist regimes, Nazi Germany was only one instance. But even that extreme case had western defenders up to the war - King George, Henry Ford (iirc), the Kennedy father or grandfather (when ambassador to the UK), and more.
A few years ago Free Inquiry published a summary of 14 characteristics of fascist regimes. One copy here. I think you can make a defensible case for 13 of the 14 points, with the final item a false negative.
I suggest reading the full article for details, but for the impatient here's the keynotes:
The main exception I see is the supremacy of the military. This administration talks them up, but its actual treatment of our troops is contemptable. We've all heard of soldiers injured, discharged, then told to repay their enlistment bonus since they didn't complete their term of service. Or told to pay hospital fees while recooperating from loss of limbs. (The argument was that they shouldn't have gotten a food and housing stipend while living on hospital grounds but not in a hospital room, or something equally lame.)
Most disgusting has to be the recent bankruptcy bill. Somebody noticed that it did not include an exception for servicemen forced into bankruptcy as a consequence of being called to duty. N.B., under current law creditors are supposed to forego collections of any national guard troop called up. But the Republicans in control of Congress had some petty rule that they wouldn't accept any amendments to this bill and they gave the shaft to our servicemen.
(P.S., I know that the sexism point is debatable. We have Condi Rice.... but she's from the oil industry. A supertanker is named after her!!! Some people see covert sexism in the policy on birth control, abortions, even the refusal to accept court rulings on Terri Schiavo's desire to avoid a persistent vegetative state.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I'd moderate down anyone who donated money to the Kerry campaign. ...that's only because you're a fucktard.
If the Clinton Administration had really been as slick as some liked to claim, Linda Tripp wouldn't have lasted two days in the White House after the '93 Inauguration, much less long enough to make a name for someone.
Now, out in the western US, it doesn't always follow that you clear the decks in the bureaucracy when a new party takes over, but in places like New Jersey, it's standard practice. In the short run, I'm OK with the national GOP ratching up the winner take all policies in the Federal Government. Because as surely as God made hanging chads, a workable majority of citizens eventually get sick of which ever party is in power, and they make it known with votes.
In the long run, the logical conclusion is that the players so demonize their opponents that one will outlaw the other in the national interest, so here's to whatever eventually changes the logic.
Luke, help me take this mask off
In my country there is one thing known as "jobs for the boys", these jobs are usually very well paid and are key positions in various companys and "independent" organisations. Last governament appointed about 6000 of these jobs (my country has about 10 million citizens) the previous appointed 8000. Here is the norm that these kind of things happen eneryone knows that when a gov. changes, almost all off the top executives changes
Except that it's not about the Administration, it's supposed to be about representing the United States (and our telecommunications industry, in this case).
They may also need to be reminded that the President is supposed to represent US and we are not his loyal subjects.
Start Running Better Polls
You meant the Mexican-American war right?
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
The problem is the current system of voting (winner take all) is untenable. It always degenerates to two parties.
Campaign Finance reform is part of the equation, but having a system allowing you to vote for a third party and not "waste" the vote would lead to significant reforms as well.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Maybe a new version of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy will fall through a temporal worm hole right to the passage that says, "Their backs were first against the wall when the revolution came."
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
I guess they didn't want to take a chance getting stuck in a Motel 6.
Do something about it (www.aclu.org).
Agrippa, I'm sorry, but you are a FUCKING CUNT. Clinton's Social Security reforms had NOTHING TO DO WITH PRIVATIZATION. Do us a favor and go fucking shoot yourself.
Bitch.
Nice spin attempt. No mention of Reagan and Iran-Contra scandal either?
re: Bush's re-election - it depends on how much tinfoil you have, I guess.
You could go as far as claiming the vote was defrauded (which is plausible but a very very long shot).
Or you could step back and look at the moves the conservatives started making about 20 years ago. For the life of me, I wish I could remember the name of the paper I read about this. It was conspiracy theory lite, but well documented and completely plausible.
And even without the conspiracy undertones, the Republican party (and the neocons who control it) is very well organized, very well funded, and "on message" at all times. They're talking heads for Bush for the most part (with the refreshing exception of Voinovich-OH voting against Bolton) and the media organization they control is very, very impressive.
Fortunately, the left made great strides in matching the conservative powerhouse this year. Moveon.org, commondreams.org, and a core of very committed liberals (some read as: fanatical) have had great political effect. Sure, they didn't get Kerry elected, but it was f-ing Kerry against a MONSTER of dirty tricks, LaRove. Kerry had no chance. Clark would have been a better choice, or Lieberman. (I would have rejoiced for Kucinich, but he never would have won)
I don't like either of the two extremes, frankly. Give me reasonable centrists who can play the saxophone and fuck interns.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Listen folks, you don't like Bush and in your eyes he does nothing right, ever. Period. (to the less than 1/2 of 1% of slashdotters that this doesn't apply to, please disregard.) The administration has done the right thing here. Bush's long term vision of the industy isn't going to be well served by insiders. It would be like appointing Kofi Anon's son to represent the US at the UN. When you want to bring about change, you must select those capable of getting the job done.
Brilliance of the founding fathers... I forget, Devry doesn't teach history.
There were parties back then. Does Federalist ring a bell? And the anonymous bashing in the press was as rampant as any discourse today. Washington was accused of affairs, corruption, etc.
(P.S., I know that the sexism point is debatable. We have Condi Rice.... but she's from the oil industry. A supertanker is named after her!!! Some people see covert sexism in the policy on birth control, abortions, even the refusal to accept court rulings on Terri Schiavo's desire to avoid a persistent vegetative state.)
Just because a few points don't line up perfectly doesn't mean your point isn't valid. And the US military does get a lot of money, and a lot of use killing foreign people the government blames for its problems. The little guys in the military (regular soldiers) get shafted but that is completely in line with other government policies.
Anyway, most of the Christian fundamentalists who support the current Executive are crypto-sexists at best - they believe the Bible mandates a woman's place below her husband, even if they don't come right out and say it in so many words. And things like restricting access to birth control, sexual health information and abortion are all policies of that administration, and all are more detrimental to women than men.
Freedom: "I won't!"
I mis-read the post I was replying to. Mod both posts down.
:(
*trundles off to the pharmacy for reading glasses*
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
At the annual meeting of a Fortune 500 company in the late 1970s the speaker asked a darkened theater full of company officals "What is wrong with the United States?". The house lights came up and the large screen at the back of the stage contained 3 letters: FDR.
The founding fathers would have taken up arms in the street if they encountered the likes of a John Kerry on our shores.
So, the next time that a Democrat wins the Presidency and the First Lady has a whole swath of folks fired in the travel office just so she can install her own favorites, I guess y'all will cry out at the terrible injustice of it all.
Didn't think so.
You can't go to the meeting if you like Kerry...
You can't be a judge if you are religious...
You can't be in the Iranian military if you are a Christian...
You can't be a patriot if you don't like Bush...
(throws arms up in frustration) What a messy unfair world...
Maybe you missed it, but we had an election. That election determined which administration will represent the country. Whether you like it or not, the administartion position is the official US position.
We elect representatives in congress to represent our interests. The executive is supposed to be a check on legislative power, not it's own representative interest.
George Bush needs to remind himself that 44% of the country did not support him in the last election. 44% is a significant minority that needs to be respected. I applaud those in congress that are not willing to roll over to a very small margin of majority, and are standing up for the viewpoints of 44% of Americans.
That's what great about our system of government; a simple majority does not grant absolute power. The minority has enough power to stop the majority from abusing their power. Right now we're seeing a relatively small majority trying to flex its muscles and do away with 44% of Americans' opinions.
The irony is that the Supreme Court is the exact opposite of Congress in this sense. In Congress, you have the ability for a majority of citizens (those who elected the representatives) to do great harm to a large minority. In the Supreme Court you have a small minority with great power. This creates a great set of checks and balances. Something that frustates a party with only 55% support of the citizens that wants to force 100% of the citizens to do what it wants.
...so should we only hand out passports to people who voted Republican? After all, we can't have U.S. citizens visiting other countries and badmouthing the administration.
I'm sure we'll have all sorts of interesting dialogue on the social security problem (*snicker*) or stem cell research (*chortle*) or reasoning for going to war with a sovereign nation on sketchy evidence (later proven wrong or fraudulent). I'm crying because I'm so happy I guess.
Payback. Fucking boggling. "sure you have freedom to say whatever you want, but jackbooted thugs employed by the government might kick your skull in."
That's next, bub. And don't count on your guy being in power forever.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
This is an outrage. In fact, the attitude shown in the administration spokesman's comment is frightening. He discusses these engineers wanting to "kick us out of office" as if there was something sordid about it. The november election wasn't an attempted _overthrow_ of bush - it was the normal process of democracy that we engage in every four years (for the presidency).
Yes, he is corrupt beyond words to describe and is trying to implement a one party state. The damage this one administration has done to America's reputation around the world may never be undone.
This is what the majority of you voted for. Eat it in good health and try to remember your dissatisfaction if you get the opportunity to vote in the future.
And by the way, if you really do care about things, maybe you should start making noises about paperless no-recount electronic voting machines and messed up voter rolls NOW before you get the same again fed to you.
Just a thought.
One point that keeps triggering my sexism detector--look at the gender ratio of the people that have been found culpable in the prisoner torture cases, vs. the gender ration of those that have been publicly acquited.
Now compare these to the ratio for sex offenders in general.
Smells awful fishy to me.
--MarkusQ
Can anyone locate the telepaths we need to bypass the incumbent goverment's communications?
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
If
--MarkusQ
This administration never ceases to amaze me. What kind of administration would actually stoop to the level of sending only supporters to advocate its position at an international conference? I mean, what's next, the president appointing supporters and like minded individuals to cabinet level positions? Oh, the horror! When will this madness end?
What is Bush's "message" anyway? It's an honest question. A lot of people support him, but can they really make a thorough assertion of why? If a person were to write down this assertion and have someone else read it back to them, would it still sound as appealing?
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
I suggest you look up:
Richard Clarke
Rand Beers
Joe Wilson
George Tenet, John McLaughlin, Joan Dempsey, Robert McNamara Jr., James Simon, John Gannon and Charles Allen.
All of these were Clinton appointees that were rehired under the Bush administration. Every one of them was a mistake. Most screwed Bush to work for the Kerry administration. Some wrote "tell-all" books trying to bash the administration. One or two even tried to get Bush impeached.
I think Bush learned his lesson. He would have to be as stupid as you all say he is to keep reaching out to the other side!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I didn't realize that everyone who disagrees with Bush is a socialist/marxist.
No wonder Republicans are considered out of touch with America and American values.
Stop watching CNN
Time clearly has a bias in this article (and in general), so I would like to see another article on the subject by a major news source than this very short piece. And yes, I did read the article.
/. like Google and Apple vote 100% Blue (according to buy blue) and based on the comments above, it is noticeable why this is the case. By the way, Microsoft goes 57/43 Republican/Democrat and they of course get no forgiveness from many on /.
From the look of it, this meeting can affect security and other technological international decisions, and those who have supported Kerry might not represent the government's policies out of spite or simply because they aren't pro-US in policies. I do repeat, though, that more information would be useful before I make a definitive decision. Of course many have already had a predisposition about Bush, and already have their favorite list of bullet points and know they'll get their +5 Interesting yet again.
On a side note, it should be noted that some darling children of
I'll probably get modded -1 Flamebait for this, but oh well...
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
You might want to take a moment to remember Billy Dale, his fellow employees, and other innocent victims of Democratic purges.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
You know. I'm frankly getting sick and tired of moral relativists claiming that it's ok for Bush or the Republicans to be corrupt because Democrats might be corrupt to if they were in power.
What's wrong is wrong. There are no shades of grey here, not it's ok if someone else did it.
Your excusing bad behavior does not help encourage good behavior.
This is disgraceful. Our country is supposed to be about a government for all by all. Selecting party siding judges is one thing, but this is just wrong.
I hope a lawsuit against the admin comes out of this setting things right.
Party at O'zorgnax's Pub! Buy me a Slurmtini aye?
but then you'd have Jimmy Carter. And he ruined america by refusing to sell arms to bat-shit-insane muslim extremists.
I hope you're being funny. In any case you're providing a brilliant illustration of the present administration's special brand of "democracy".
The word to have tossed in would have been "partisan".
Politics is very much like religion.
Most people believe the same things their parents believed and will have children who believe it also.
It's the same with religion and politics. Mostly because politics comes down to "values" about what is "good" and "bad".
Most people I know who voted for Bush did NOT vote for him because they wanted massive debt, never ending wars and a polluted environment.
They voted for Bush because Kerry would make everything worse. Or because Kerry lied about Vietnam. Or because Kerry wasn't a good Christian. Or because Kerry was a liberal. Or because Kerry was a friend of Jane Fonda. etc.
In other words, they looked for some reason (however non-substantial) to "justify" their voting for Bush.
Bush's message is very simple. He's strong and good. The US is strong and good. Those who oppose him/the US are weak and evil. He will protect you. You need his protection. The bad guys are coming. They're coming real soon. THEY'RE HERE! TERROR ALERT ORANGE! They're gone now. But they'll be back. Maybe with nukes. Bush needs your support to protect you. He is willing to pay any price to protect you from the evil men out there.
Don't laugh. Read through the transcripts of the speeches over the years. Look at how often the "Terror Alert" went up at politically opportunistic times. Yet when was the last time you saw the "Terror Alert" go up?
It's all about fear and religion. The religion of fear. No matter how safe you think you are, you aren't safe enough.
And that message sells.
Even back in WWII it was practiced. Just keep telling the people that the bad guys are coming and that anyone who says differently is a fool who will get you killed or a traitor and supporter of those evil men.
That goes back to the witch trials. Satan has allies. People that look just like you and me. Any actions we take against them are "good". Even if we accidentally torture and kill an innocent person. Because we cannot risk losing this battle.
Bush and his cronies have been purging possible dissenters from Official Federal Events for years.
This is nothing new.
Do a google news search for the Denver Three -- ticket holders physically ejected from a social-security-privitization event by someone claiming to be secret service. why? someone reported a "no blood for oil" sticker on their bumber.
this is just one case. the proto fascists have been stage-managing every apperience like its 1984.
Wikipedia defines communism:
From "it takes a village to raise a child", how far is it to "it takes a village to build your living unit, defend against the counter-revolutionairies, and monitor your neighbor's activities"? (It takes PARENTS to raise children, btw)
1) Patriotism? Ask anyone who works on antiterrorism in the FBI what they could have done to the terrorists if they KNEW what the 19 hijackers were planning on 9-10. Nothing! The PATRIOT act changes that. It's not patriotism, it national security. If you don't like it, move to Sweeden... Oh wait, they have stricter laws against terrorism than we do! Maybe you should try Syria.
2) Propaganda? See above.
3) DMCA was supported by as many Dems (if not more) than Republicans. Wasn't the DMCA a Clinton thing anyway?
4) Anti-abortion = Totalitarianism? I had no idea were were under that form of goverment until the '60's. Roosevelt was a Tyrant? Who knew! Trying to keep video games that would make an X-rated movie out of the hands of 5 year olds is totalitarian? I guess Clinton was quite the tyrant also as he passed the Defence of Marriage Act, so don't lay this one a Bush's feet.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Soon it will be just like the old days. Join the party if you want a job.
I've never seen so many idealistic, head-in-the-clouds posts in one place on slashdot. Everyone here acts like there is absolutely no politics involved in the standardizations and rails on Bush for politicizing some egalitarian engineering meeting of minds event.
News Flash: lots of $$$ from standards to companies equals politics. The engineering is one thing, but the results of engineering mean you have companies and countries who win and others who lose.
You are exaggerating a little here. The latest numbers I can find have the the real US GDP at about $10.5 trillion with the national debt at about $7 trillion. That is nowhere near "many, many times our debt". And the economy looks like it is growing at an average annual rate of 4%; decent, but not spectacular. And recent news I have been getting from my broker suggests that the economy may be slowing down. I don't think your optimism is warranted from everything that I have been reading.
As for the rest of your post, I could nitpick some of your other points, but I'll just say that I agree that debt is not a bad thing if you can pay it back. The problem is that GWB seems to be trying to increase our debt as fast as he possibly can. Every time I turn on the television it seems like he is pushing through some new bill that saddles the federal government with more expenditures, many of them not related to the war or military spending. There is no way that your little supply side utopia will ever work if government spending continues to grow faster than tax revenues.
let me enlighten you about how it works. I am a part of the "evil" Bush Administration. I have lots of friends at the White House and Old Executive building. I have probably been over there 50 times over the last 4 years for meetings, tours, or just to visit friends; everytime on, you guessed it, a day pass. There are lots of people who can get you in on a day pass. But guess what, that won't get you anywhere near the west wing without an escort. I have left without signing out on several occasions - sometimes the badges don't work when you swipe out. It happens.
But thanks so much for playing. Is this the part where the "tolerant" left says the republicans in power are queer, like the dirt they did against Nader? I bet next you'll tell us that some of the White House staff are secretly atheist.
1. If we want to present a "united front," why not a front that shows the strength of democracy (which we are pushing throughout the globe), which is not only not threatened by the other colors in the political spectrum, but also dependent on it.
2. Are we attempting to be global "leaders" by dominating the entire world, or by fostering "global cooperation"? It would seem to me that the domination approach is quite aggressive and certainly not what I, as a citizen, think is a good idea.
Go find the discussions of the Founding Fathers on this topic. That's exactly what they had in mind if all else failed.
They'd had a certain amount of experience with "all else failed" and wanted to make it possible for the citizens to get rid of future oppressive goverments.
Check this out.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I'm guessing no.
Isn't this just a barely hidden way to use confidential voter information to discriminate against people who supported a different party?
This administration has done some petty, dangerous and even flat-out weird things. But this sounds like a legal scandal in the waiting. I mean frankly, it sounds outright un-American.
Quack, quack.
The U.S. Executive Branch: dominion over all
They disagreed? We can't have that in this day and age! Won't someone think of the children being killed by terrorists?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! I spat on my keyboard!
That this is why the vote of an individual in an election is anonymous.
His God got a Marvel comic book. I think that says it all, really.
Disregarding that, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to want the people representing the United States Government actually represent the positions of the Government at an international conference. One might also note that "It's (not entirely) about the standards, stupid!" The world in general is full of politics, even when it comes to technical standards and nationwide/international adoption of them.
So now that I have that done with (and even more karma down the drain), back to bashing Government with our tinfoil hats on full power.
"Ad infinitem et ultra!" - Buzz Lightyear
Are you also freightened that Google won't hire Republicans?
I suggest you read Slashdot
That's the dumbest sig I've ever read.
We are in the middle of a slow motion overthrow of the government. They are using the Boiling Lobster technique. You start with the lobster in cold water, then you slowly heat up the water. By the time the lobster is cooked it dosen't know it's dead. I can't tell you how much I loath the Good Republicans who say "it's not like the Communist Party in the USSR". The accurate version is "it's not like the Communist Party in the USSR YET".
As for the crap about only 34% of the Senate Republicans supporting the "nuclear option", that's typical example of changing the topic. It wasn't the 34% excluding Democrats from an international meeting, it was the executive branch of the government acting unilaterally. The same Republicans who complain about "political correctness" are the same people who justify the obscene applicaton of political criteria at every level of government action.
THIS IS MY COUNTRY TOO, AND I WILL NOT TOLLERATE YOU STEALING IT FROM ME. IF IT TAKES A GUN TO STOP YOU, SO BE IT.
Excuse me, if I sound crazy but maybe this has something to do with PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Mind you, they published a report calling for control of land, space and "cybersapce" and I'm guessing, they might just try and install some people who agree with their views...
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
Get of the consumer tread mill! Stop buying useless crap, and gaze blankly upon the newest tech or the latest drm enabled highly produced movie barely worth the money of a blank dvd-r! there are lessons in the command line, and in the beginnings of the net, they just got lost in the Flash...
This isn't the first time the Bush Adminstration has done this. There was another technical commission where a member was purged because the White House believed he had donated to Al Gore. Except he hadn't - he had the same name as someone who had. I'm sorry I can't recall the name or the panel.
We're pretty much at: "Well, it's nice that he won the Nobel Prize and all, but I see he donated $100 to a Democrat once. (Or heck, maybe John McCain...) So I don't think he's right for this board to investigate the nation's cancer effort... or a space shuttle disaster.. "
"They've got 'em and we don't" is just a whine and doesn't deserve to be treated seriously. If you don't like it, buy one while you still can.
Tech Public Policy stuff
How is the parent a troll?
Try reading just about any news outlet outside the US with respect to how the Iraq war is really going if you want to know how unstoppable the US military is in a guerilla war.
Tech Public Policy stuff
The fix now is the fix that's been done at every "crisis", a few minor tweaks (change the taxable base, change benefit amounts) and forget about it for another decade, everybody will be paid.
If NOTHING is done, the Social Security Trust Fund would have to start reducing benefits below it's projected level (far higher than today)in 2042.
The attempted move by the Bushmen to "fix" SS is an attempt to make it possible for Wall Street campaign contributors to Bush to cash in on pension fund management payments, and to dump liquidity into the stock market. Anyone who remembers the dot.bomb (is there anyone who doesn't?) should be able to figure out that one's core pension funds should NOT be in the stock market.
Margie Thatcher tried this in the UK during the Reagan era... now, even the Conservatives want to dump piratization for a US style SS plan.
Tech Public Policy stuff
It's GOOD to be King!
Or...at least a good time to be a Republican!
Every President installs his own people all over the place. Clinton did it, except he didnt have the BALLS to say he wanted his own people. He tried to have them fired or made to quit.
Look at the drop of the dollar against all other currencies to see what the world market thinks about whether the USA's debt is a good thing.
Look at the sudden move all over the world to diversify out of all T-bill holdings.
Look at the level of savings by individuals in the USA.
It's a known fact that the US consumes far more than it produces with the difference underwritten by private and public debt. Much of this money is going into financing personal consumption.
Any American who thinks this is a good thing... needs professional therapy.
Tech Public Policy stuff
you either with us or not with us.
terrorist or not..
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
US Constitution, 9th amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land, but the law of the land does say we have any rights that are not listed, and they are in effect also. (The infamous one being 'right to privacy'.)
The Declaration of Independence lists 'overthrowing the government' as a right, and hence it is one of those 'unlisted rights' that people simply possess. Not granted to us by the government, but merely possess by existing. However, in the US, all these mystical rights we have are acknowledged by the US government.
Ergo, the people have the right to overthrow the US Government, under the US Constitution.
Sometimes I have to wonder if people even read these things that created our government.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Posting this on /. is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? You could find a connection to science and technology in any political move, but I don't think this necessarily makes it appropriate for this website. It's sad when the /. editors abuse their positions to further their political ends. Whatever happened to unbiased journalism?
Oh men... Are we talking about the 21st century Republican Party government in the USA?!
Where I grew up, Communist used to do this...
If you like that, try his posting history.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
It's not; it's quite clearly satire. Damn crack smoking mods. Should've been +73, Funny.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
...if these delegates supported Kerry because of their commitment to telephone standards.
I don't imagine they did, so it seems supporting Kerry has poisoned their mind on every topic, including technical matters they deal with professionally. If phone standards can have a right wing slant, Bush will make it happen.
On the flip-side, I have so little respect for Bush that I can't take anything he says seriously, so it goes both ways.
I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
I was intending it to be funny, but I guess it wasn't obvious enough. Oh well, who cares about good karma anyway. ;)
Personally, I think what is being done is despicable.
Also, posting an opinion with no supporting evidence that is nothing other than "you are wrong because I think so" is flaimbait. A valid discussion requires examples - I presented of a policy disagreement that was tolerated, where was the troll's example?
At the risk of further Karma loss...
The original poster made the original 4 claims, while providing no supporting evidence, and no examples, and was modded to +5. I think that is very telling.
Perhaps it's just assumed that the claims are so obviously true for the case of Bush, that they don't need examples or evidence (but then one has to wonder why it's considered "insightful" if it's so obvious?)
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
"There are no politics involved here"
The LSD should wear off in a few hours, bud...
Thanks. --MarkusQ
In fact, we are growing right now at such a rate that today's billions will be a drop in the bucket tomorrow. This is due to sheer growth and expansion, not based on inflation.
Haha, he ha. Tell another one! Here: In fact, I am growing right now at such a rate that in 10 years, I will be 65 meters tall. That is due to sheer growth and expansion, not inflation.
Assumptions of eternal grow are moronic.
If anything, the fact that we can float such a huge debt and that our debtors are fine with the rates is a testament to the power of our nation.
That's true, and it's something to be ASHAMED of. Where I come from, "bullying" was still considered wrong.
The right is not allowed to talk about spin unless it's "we're sorry about all the spin".
re: Media manipulation - I'd check out the book What Liberal Media?. Solid book, solid research.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
"George Washington knew what he was talking about when he advised against political parties in his farewell address."
And in Communist Russia (or China), political parties really were banned.
I'm sure that's done great things for their economies and political system.
Although there is much to dislike about them, political parties or "factions," are absolutely necessary to participatory democracy. It's simply impractical to assume that people have the time or will to put in the effort to evaluate candidates individually.
Perhaps a parliamentary system with many smaller parties would be more effective, but Washington's and Madison's denouncements of political parties were just wrong.
It may not be a troll. But since there isn't a moderation category for True Believer, they did the best they could and modded it as a troll.
--MarkusQ
I bet next you'll tell us that some of the White House staff are secretly atheist.
Well, considering that a large portion of the American populace are atheists, it would be surprising if a similar percentage of White House staff weren't, wouldn't you agree?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Just wondering if all of the above posters are now sitting in Guantanemo Bay or if maybe their first amendment rights (and others) are more secure than they would have the (presumably international) audience believe.
To those who enjoy the spectacle of Americans hating America, just remember none of those sharing such strong opinions here do anything to change the system of corporate greed, political swindling and fundamental societal decadence that has become America.
Consumers lack the attention span for revolution.
Spot on, Sheldon.
The current administration has no place in a democratic republic. The Republicans of twenty years ago would/should be appalled by their behavior, and should switch party lines to vote these bums and their buddies in congress out. IMO, a large portion of the electorate has forgotten what they learned during high school civics. Their mindset is that it's better to win than to be right, and therefore winning licenses any policy whatsoever. Disgusting, really. Of my three closest Republican friends, one switched sides in 2004. A few more years of this crap and I'm sure one or both of the others will not be voting Republican in 2008 no matter who the candidate is.
I have a question for any "classic" Republicans -- small government, low taxes, strong military, isolationism, personal liberty, small federal budget -- reading this: How do you reconcile yourselves to the Bush administration? Have you left the party? Do you still vote Republican for the issues the party still endorses and just hold your nose for the rest? I remember voting for Clinton in 1992, seeing how ineffectual a president he was, and not voting for him in 1996. I assume others do the same when "their" party deserts them. Is this true?
Ahhh, whenever I feel like coming and hearing a bunch of people bitch and whine I can always be sure to get that when I stop by Slashdot.
Really, you guys are amazing entertaining.
I wouldn't spit on your corpse if it were on fire... but as previously stated, you are entertaining.
Richard Clarke
You fucking moron, Clarke served for several consecutive administrations, including Reagan and Bush I. Tell-all books?! They documented the incompetencies and crimes of the administration. You should be outraged at these as an American citizen, you dumb-ass GWB stooge. They tried to get Bush impeached?! This is fucking rich coming from the fuckers who actually impeached Clinton over a stray BJ. Bush's blunders have dirtied what the US stands for, have cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. That is his fucking legacy you disgraceful piece of shit. Those who were there to report his administration's crimes should be hailed as patriots, not gassed.
Whew, I feel better now. Any new BitKeeper news?
Ok then, how about we take this one step further. In order to provide productive learning environments free of 'inherant negativity' you should consider having seperate school boards for American children who's parent's support the Republicans and those who support the Democrats.
Then what about the libertarians? Where the hell do we go?
The thing I hate about either side is the seeming inability to follow a train of thought. The funny thing is that a very real example is right in front of you - people who make trouble in school are sent to "special" classes so they don't bother the people there to learn. Obviosuly these people are probably not going to be quite that bad, but again the whole point is that the US delegation should not be sqabbling about policy in front of other countries - they should work that out beforehand and present a unified front. All I am saying is perhaps that was not possible with these people. But you are operating on conjecture just as much as I am, at least my cases are all theoretical and I'm standing of the ground of reality while you take your flights of fancy into imaginary worlds of Evil Republicans vs. the Heroic Democratics. I've seen both thansk and neither side is sait or demon, as much as you might personally believe otherwise. I have gay friends (some republican and some democrats), some liberal and some conservative friends. They are all people dammit! You attempt to villify one group because of a half-baked story shows a real lack of mental fortitude that I suggest you address.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
they pulled on California.
Remember Newt Gingrich warned companies that they will be punished if they gave to the Dems. It didn't even matter if they also gave to the Republicans.
This administration forced lobbying firms to fire all Democrats or be shut out of the Capitol.
photosMy Photostream
Congratulations!
You're a moran.
Not that I am a bush supporter by any means but these people work for bush. They attemped to have bush fired. Bush fired them. When every president takes office he replaces people under him with people that he likes. In any company when a new boss comes in he will also bring people from his team. It's the same here. In any company if the employees attempted to get their boss fired they would be let go.
I don't know if this is right. How could I? I don't know any more about it than anyone else who is responding, which is very little.
Anyway, there are a lot more uninsightful attackers getting modded up than uninsightful apologists getting modded down. All of these complete morons saying this is illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, persecuting people, and all of this other nonsense. This is really a nonstory, at best. Oh my, they want people who like them to represent them. Big whoop. Who cares? What negative impact does this have, on anyone?
The original poster made the original 4 claims, while providing no supporting evidence, and no examples, and was modded to +5. I think that is very telling.
People found the idea interesting or insightful. A nearly identical post saying "everyone else would have done it" when everyone else had the chance to do it and didn't was seen as a troll. It revealed that you hadn't read the article and that you posted something that was factually incorrect.
Perhaps it's just assumed that the claims are so obviously true for the case of Bush, that they don't need examples or evidence (but then one has to wonder why it's considered "insightful" if it's so obvious?)
The first to point out the obvious is often labled "insightful." For example, Archimedes is seen as insightful for being the first to determine an easy way to measure the volume of an irregular object, Newton and the apple, Columbus and the fact that the Atlantic Ocean is navigable.
Learn to love Alaska
Think about what you're saying. You're saying that the US should present a unified position... which happens to be EXACTLY THE SAME as the position Bush wants to present - because he just gets rid of anyone who doesn't agree with him.
WRONG.
I am not saying the position is "whatever bush wants". I am saying that the unified US position is figured out by Bush advisers, then they go and stick with what that panel has arrived at - a subtle distinction to be sure but it avoids the "Bush as evil overlord" mental model you've constructed for yourself.
The reality is that going into a national forum, the US should have figured out what the position is going to be and stick by it. They should probably not send a few people who feel one way, a few another - then they will get steamrolled. Have you ever attended a meeting in your life? That's just how these things work.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It doesn't take yes-men to come to a unified conclusion. It's called compromise and people in the real world have to reach it sometimes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hmm, I hadn't heard of this before, but it's apparently true; it is referred to as the "Brooks Brothers Riot", google for that and you'll see a number of stories about it.
It is true that people are certainly free to dislike Bush. Indeed there are alot of things about him I don't like. There were some things I didn't like about Badnarick, and I'm sure there are things I'll dislike and complain about with the next president too.
But for some people it crosses the line from simple dislike and public discourse into unfettered demonization. In fact that happens all too often. Bush is just a man, John Kerry is just a man. People who villify either are just as bad in my book. It just so happens that Slashdot is full of people ready to villify Bush at the drop of a hat (actually all you need to do is mention there might be a hat).
I just inject a little anti-group think into the mix to wake a few people up to the path they are wandering down, where they cease to think altogether and just have knee-jerk reactions when Bush is mentioned. Look how quick my simply post was dogpiled on before you say there is no herd mentality at work here. Even otherwise intelligent Slashdot readers can be real sheeple at times and believe something when it suits a mental model they are loathe to readjust.
Open your mind when you read the story and read it with some criticality. Do you not think it's a little sensationalistic? There's just so little to go on it seems like it would be best to be at least a little cautious before getting all worked up.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So do you consider your $250 to be well spent now sir?
Point reinforced I'd say.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The fact (yes fact) is that the appointment to these boards is, has, was, and will be political until the end of time. So you are angry that someone has come out and admitted it?
You'd like for these appointments to be non-political. So would I. But since that cannot and will not happen I instead take some small comfort in the fact that some criteria for selection are at least known and now we can judge how fair that is. Let's see an interview with the ACTUAL people affected by this, not some AC source that SAYS all the did was donate $250 to the Democrats. Your firm belief in the infallibility of the established press is staggering.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
sorry my whatif parallel universe machine is broken right now so there is no way to tell what kerry would have done,that is just speculation.
The FACT is that bush has done it...
Thats the only FACT we currently have.
When more FACTS become availible we can discuss more.
Uhm, "less of a pushover" isn't the right word. The right (correct) thing to do is all EVERYFUCKINGONE to the conference/meeting/club/event/concert/metal show/place/whatever! with no regard to political view.
The right thing to do is allow whoever is appointed by the companies involved, whether it's the nazi party, or libertarian party, or republican party or whatever to do something UNRELATED to the presidential election.
Negative impact aside, it's the principle of the thing. I have no allusions about the corruption of previous governments, but for God's sake, at least they tried to maintain the pretense of honesty!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Reminds me of the White House travel office firings.
Of course this is just a meeting, not someone's career.
It's a pretty standard (and oft used) logical fallacy. The Latin term is "tu quoque", which translates to, I believe, "and you also" or something.
WARNING: If accidentally read, induce vomiting.
reminds me of wizards first law:
people believe what they _want_ to believe because they are afraid that its true or they want it to be true.
Yes, yes, yes -- the same arrogant argument. "We leftists are educated, enlightened, intelligent, and, above all, rational, while those who support conservatives are easily-frightened, easily-duped, emotional, hyper-religious SHEEP who bought the propaganda, drank the Kool-Aid, (insert your favorite cliche here)."
Translation: "liberals are SMART and conservatives are STUPID".
Well, please allow me to enlighten you. Believe it or not, many of us Bush supporters are highly educated, quite intelligent, scholarly, and are capable of recognizing propaganda for what it is. Maybe some of us recognized that the terror link to Saddam was just that, propaganda, but because we agree with GWB on most other issues we decided to let it go. Maybe some of us really do think that the Christian right are extremists, but we would rather talk to them and rein them in a touch rather than accept the alternative -- a totally secular, moral relativist society with no social norms whatsoever. That's not to say we all agree with him on everything -- far from it -- but by and large we take the good with the bad, and with him we largely feel there is more good than bad.
And maybe -- just maybe -- we know what Socialism is, what damage it has done throughout the world, and we collectively decided that we would fall on our proverbial swords rather than let it gain a foothold here. Just maybe we support Conservatives (and welcome the alliance of the religious right) because we face a common enemy (in most cases, enemies) on idelogical grounds -- Socialism, and the social and moral consequences it produces. Maybe we support GWB because we actually agree with him on ideological grounds.
Understand that for people like us, no amount of repackaging Socialism, secular humanism, or Communism-lite will work. We know them for what they are, we actively oppose them, and many of us dedicate ourselves toward rooting such efforts out and exposing them to the light of day. A great many of us voted for GWB because WE DON'T WANT SUCH THINGS. We are not going to wake up one day and say, "Wow, that (leftist politician) is really making some sense! Socialized medicine/income redistribution/high-taxes/other Socialist program is the way to go! All he had to do was say it in a way that I could understand!" Sorry, Charlie. We're smarter than that. We vote such things down because we disagree with them on grounds of principle, not because people like GWB "scare" us into it. You should go read some conservative forums -- Bush gets slammed pretty regularly, usually because he has taken some stand or made some statement that flies in the face of conservative (here it comes) principles.
Your rebellion would be taken out by a predator drone driven by a guy in a basement in Langley.
Relying on the 2nd to keep you free these days is just stupid. By the time enough folks join your rebellion to make a difference, there won't be any leaders left. When the 2nd was written, there wasn't much difference between a hunting rifle and the arms of the regular army, and there were no tanks, no helicopters, no fighter jets, and no drones. Not to mention that the Redcoats used outmoded and ineffective infantry tactics.
You would do better to participate fully in the current process & do what you can to keep the politicrats honest with peaceful means, than sit home cleaning your rifle waiting for your big video game's become real fantasy--because if time your little FPS wet dream comes true, thousands of people will be dead or about to die, for no good reason but that men and women who thought that the were good did nothing but clean their guns and hoard their bullets.
I can't believe anyone who talks like you do has any idea what a guerilla war is actually like for the guerillas and their families.
Yes, I am going to tell you he would not have done the same.
No administration in the past has ever done this kind of thing.
There's no reason to have thought that Mr Kerry would have started.
There's no reason to have thought that Mr Bush would have started.
But Mr Bush's administration has.
That's totally unexpected, and outside the American experience.
We should be amazed that this one administration has tried something so un-American.
- 32935
A friend of mine was in the army for 13 years. He is one of the kindest, gentlest guys I know.
One day we were talking and the subject of his previous career came up.
I said to him that I believed that if (Western nation) soldiers were ordered to fire on a group of women demonstrators, they'd refuse to do it.
He looked at me as if I was a retard, and said something along the lines of "Soldiers are trained to do as they're told".
I felt retarded afterwards, when I thought about our discussion.
I abandoned the Republican party sometime between 1995-1998. I'm not sure quite when.
What did it for me was the GOP's completely inept handling of the budget.
I'm not particularly enamoured by the entire Democratic agenda. But I'm absolutely apalled at how badly Bush has been for our economy. What scares me, is that they don't even know it. There used to be a time when the GOP could at least be trusted to recognize the truth, but today they just keep repeating their ideology lines and sticking their head in the sand.
This article here about denying access to a technology discussion conference because of party politics is just another nail in the coffin. You've got real problems when you stop acknowledging American potential, all for your petty ideologies.
Incompetent? I do not think that word means what you think it means. What it does tell us is that they have motives which should have no place in this meeting anyway, and should probably be prevented from participating, let alone allowed to be present without there being anyone to oppose them.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Mickey Kaus had something on the filibusters in the twenties and thirties that prevented the signing of anti-Lynching acts, which resulted in a lot of mob murders and set the civil rights struggle back decades.
More recently, Democrats were decrying REPUBLICAN filibusters in the 90's as Clinton's leglisation and appointments were bogged down. THEY considered the Nuclear Option, including Democratic Hero Kleagle Byrd.
Alone among the Founding Fathers, Jefferson's reputation as a man of the people has been enshrined in American popular belief. But when Jefferson made these pronouncements, two things were happening:
1) The French Revolution was creating the biggest political upheaval Europe had seen. Commoners were taking down the nobility and smashing everything associated with the rule of kings. Jefferson was a great admirer of Robespierre specifically and the Revolution in general, and he seemed oblivious to the carnage being wrought in France.
2) Jefferson was fighting against Washington and Hamilton, who felt that a strong central government was imperative in keeping the fledgeling United States alive. The Constitution was by no means a done deal, and the struggle between adherents of a loose confederation and proponents of a strong central government nearly made a Constitution impossible.
My feeling is that in Jefferson's romantic, naive appraisal of bloody, armed revolution is based on the fact that he lived his life in luxury. He never saw combat. He was treated like royalty and lived off the sweat of his slaves. So when I read passages from Jefferson about rising up and overthrowing governments in bloody revolution, I take them with a grain of salt.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
You're wrong. It's late where I am and I don't want to spend the next hour explaining in detail why, but sufficed to say, you are wrong.
Here's the short version:
Debt isn't always bad, but America's debt right now IS. As of 2003, the public (gov't) debt in the U.S. was 62.4% of the GDP and is growing. Tax revenues are at 50 year lows as a % of GDP while spending is up. America is consuming 6% more than it produces. All of this is entirely funded by foreign investment. These foreign governments have propped up the dollar to keep us buying their goods and prevent unemployment in their own countries (it would be dangerous for China's government if unemployment rose). This can't go on forever. A bubble has formed that looks like it may burst. Markets seek equilibrium and this one is currently seriously out of whack. Think overvalued stocks. At some point, the incentive to sell is too great and once one person sells, everyone sells to avoid being the last one off the burning ship. Consequences for our economy if foreign governments did this would include a dollar collapse, higher domestic prices, a jump in interest rates, a fall in prices of housing, a steep rise in household bankruptcies and, not least, a sharp US recession.
I have no idea why Republicans defend this president and his asinine economic policies. When will they realize that BUSH IS NOT A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE! He is completely unwilling to make the tough calls that cause some temporary pain but prevent future calamities. Seriously, quit reading whitehouse press releases and educate yourself about international economics and monetary policy.
It also is simply false. Under Bush, the US national debt has been growing much faster (by about 10% annually) than the US economy.
The critical parameter is the percentage of the GDP which has to be spent on paying interest on the existing national debt. This percentage has been rising sharply because of all the debt Bush accumulated during his first term. It will now rise again because interest rates are rising, all the while Bush is still spending, and spending, and spending more.
Thomas
A very bad comparison. A country is not a corporation. Employees may not have the right to get the boss out, but as a citizen you have every right to get the president out of the White House every 4 years. It's called the right to vote. It's called democracy. Look it up. They are guaranteed by the Constitution. If you don't see this, probably you also think that the Constitution is just an old, yellowed piece of paper. Should the Bush administration then be allowed to kick out all government employees who voted for Democrats? You can't work for DMV, DoD, DoE unless you vote the the president? Why not extend this idea even further to the primary election?
Even if you want to compare this to get the boss out, it's not a clear cut issue. Enron employees got their boss fired and they are protected because their boss did a very wrong thing.
If the appointments are political to work on policies Bush wants to set, no one would complain beyond the qualification of the appointees. Those appointee should have the same conviction to work on those policies. But this is on technical issues. There is no conflict of interests in this case. Bush administration is punishing people for excercising their right protected by the law. If the government is allowed to get away with this, then you can bet that GOP will clean up the next election, and the next, and the next.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
... when a Godwin's Law violation by an Anonymous Coward gets +4, Insightful!
Just wait and see.
Within a few year traitors that criticise the US government will be put in jail for 'unamerican activities' again.
The Home of the Free, seems to be turning slowly into something Saddam might have appreciated...
Kyokushin - ultimate truth from within.
If a new boss fired the managers under him, replaced them all with yes-men, and then took months off to go golfing while the company sank like a stone, then the boss would not only be fired, but might also face criminal charges by the board and/or investors.
Do you think an elected official should be just as accountable as a CEO, if not more so?
Even then its a very long term type thing although in a dozen years or so there might be enough candidates that are given serious attention to make some difference.
Guido von Guido (548827) wrote:
"Yes. For instance, you may recall that a large number of career diplomats were hired or appointed under Reagan and Bush '41 and were not fired by Clinton."
You may also recall that many U.S. Attorneys were hired by Reagan and the first president Bush over their combined 12 years in office and all 93 U.S. Attorneys working in the Justice Department were fired in a single day by Janet Reno on orders from President Clinton.
The spoils system is nothing new in the U.S. Those who claim that Bush's appointments to the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission represent a new fascist stage in United States governance need to learn some history and get some perspective. "Travelgate" ring any bells?
And it is not clear that Bush's appointments to the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission are awarded as spoils. The President is choosing people to represent to foreign governments the views of his administration on, according to the Time article, "important issues... telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations". Seems to me that the President has a legitimate interest in appointing representatives who support his own views, and not the views of his opponent who lost the election. Is it reasonable for a President to rule out political opponents for appointment to Secretary of State? If so, then what is wrong with the same practice when selecting officials for the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission? Winning the election means that you run the executive branch. That means you set foreign policy. That means that when choosing people to represent that policy to foreign countries you choose people who you can trust to advance those views, not people who oppose you and support the policies of your opponent.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Yes, I said TREASON and you need to hear it. This action is treasonous and your support for it is treasonous. This Administration is working hard to overthrow the rule of law and the principles of democracy and the Constitution. If that's not treason, I don't know what is. The Congress and the President represent all of their constituents, not just the ones who voted for them. Discrimination because someone excercised their right to support and vote for whom they please is an affront to democracy and American values.
Go look inside yourself and ask what kind of America you want to live in. One where you have to toe the party line? Or one where we're all adult enough to realize that we don't all agree on everything but we can still work together and respect each other.
If you have an American flag or anything with an American flag you should get it out of your house because you don't deserve to possess one.
The second amendment is more important because it establishes gun ownership as a right. Meaning, members of the militia can blend into the regular populace. In other nations undergoing violent revolt, gun ownership = rebel and/or death. In a US revolution, the availability of guns to all citizens provides something most rebels will kill for: plausible deniability. That is, truly, essential. Rebels have to blend back and forth into the general population at will. An outright ban on arms will make that, largely, impossible...I am not an idiot. A militia of that size could form, and would be legal
You're being totally unrealistic here. The moment there is a hint of armed revolt, the 2nd ammendment, and any other protections, would evaporate and be replace by tight repression. You would have precisely zero rights, let alone the right to carry an arm. After the first weapons amnesty where upstanding citizens could prove they were not terrorists your arm would be a liability.
In a state of civil war citizens rights are no longer sacrosanct. Hell, the US citizenry has given away most of their rights already, and said thank you afterwards, all in the name of perpetual war with a nebulous, often changing enemy.
A widespread revolt would eventually topple the government in the US, but not via the means you mention. The mechanism of government would simply fail if enough people went on strike/marches and refused to co-operate with law-enforcement.
Quite apart from all of that, would you like the kind of government/civil war your proposed scenario would install any better than Bush/Cheney et al? Almost *every* violent revolution in the world's history has installed a dictatorship - the previous US one was a notable, and noble exception.
While I really enjoy reading all the discussion, let me raise this point for you all US citizens, your right to own a gun doesn't mean a lot, you are by far overexagerating its impact, especially in days we are in.
Remember how East Germany was brought down, when the people realized they are not represented by their own government, and they stated "we are the people!".
You US citizens are in sleep, you are stressed with paying bills, watching TV or otherwise consume your emptyness away; and slowly you realize how degenerated your society slowly becomes, you have incompetent leaders, money driven political agendas, morality and ethics has become a christian fundamental trademark when morality is just an excuse to apply narrow minded and infant thinking, and ethics nothing than bent political and economical constraints.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
F*cking ignorant coward. I swear the whole Bush presidency must be one huge bet to see what the stupidest idea is they can convince people of. So let's take your straw men -- even they make Bush seem like "Milwaukee's Best":
Grant: war hero, a drunk, a failed president.
Bush: protected Texas from immigrants, coke addict and a drunk, a failed president.
Lincoln: freed the slaves, saved the union, log cabin to president
Bush: rendered "darkies", "the great divider", still playing with lincoln logs
And the anonymous coward actually thinks "kicking ass so people are AFRAID of the US" is a good thing; people should respect our authority not fear getting anally raped and electrically labotomized. Iraq and Afghanistan can be solved with an iron hand that comes down fair not one with a finger up their butt.
Iraq produced 1 million fewer barrels of oil per day than in 2002; 12% of our 2002 imports were from Iraq. That's a lot less oil and one less country to help lower OPEC's prices. And incidentally it's also about how much ANWAR would produce on a good day. So either ANWAR is no big deal or Iraq not exporting that oil is a significant loss of production. Not like it's the only reason, but it's there.
Okay I realize this is probably a lost cause since the AC is very ignorant (which he probably already knows since he posted that FUD anonymously). He probably grew up being 'whooped' by his father (an educated guess since he loves ass being kicked). But seriously, AC: you don't have to be ignorant and poorly adjusted. You can get help for these problems.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
the more I read slashdot, the more I think that it maybe ought to be \.
since the comments here often lean so far to the left.
Communism is only democracy of the workplace. Tyranny of the workplace such as the structure of Walmart, thats capitalism.
You have to be prepared to make offers in order to live in the land of the Free, right?
You have the best democracy (two parties invited only, paid by companies) and with over two million people in prison you're definitely going places.
Now, if a president wants to punish you for your votes and further restricts your rights, isn't that a small price to pay for liberty?
What I personally find hilarious is that so many people voted Bush for "moral" reasons. It would be even funnier if the consequences for the have not's weren't so dire.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What has G W Bush done? Invaded and destroyed the Taliban in a landlocked country 6,000 miles away with hostile to the US countries all around, and toppled Saddam Hussein who will never again menace us or his neighbors. Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon, Libya's renouncing it's (hidden) Nuclear Program, and Egypt and Saudi holding limited elections at all are directly a result of Bush getting rid of not one but TWO regimes that people in the region thought were UNTOUCHABLE.
I have this sneaking suspicion that you wouldn't be able to correctly identify any of those countries on a world map. I take that back, you may actually be able to identify the US of A. Maybe.
Seriously, why don't you worry a little more about the internal affairs. This may come as a surprise to you, but things are not going so well inside the US.
Domestically Bush is a dud, but in foreign policy he's been astoundingly successful.
Where the HELL did you get that from? I'm a US resident (that's not a US citizen, which means I'm from somewhere else, but living in the US now), and whenever I call back home that's not exactly what I hear. To put it very mildly. FYI: I come from a country that _used_ to be a very big supporter of the US. In fact, on paper it still is, but the sentiment of the people is not very promissing...
True, everyone hates us, but they hated us under Clinton, Ford, Carter, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1, all the way back to LBJ.
Is that right? Well, I should know, I didn't use to live in the US in those days, and this is roughly what I remember:
Reagan; actor; he's a puppet, but who cares.
Bush (sr); that dude is getting a little nasty, isn't it? With that war and all. But who cares.
Clinton; seems like a reasonable dude, AND he gets a blowjob; this guy knows where his towel is.
I'm not sure that people hate the US, but I'm pretty sure that there's a fairly disrespectful feeling about the current president.
The US Military is unchallenged, it's lethality and adaption increasing exponentially.
That's hillarious. Yeah, that's why the invasion in Iraq was such a devastating success. I don't by any means want to disrespect the people in the US army, but come on. You seriously underestimate the power of an angry people.
Gas is expensive because China is exploding economically. Stupid Chinese, wanting to live like Americans instead of the peasants in Burkino Faso.
???
Schools are failing because of diversity politics and a lack of accountablity, not to mention dysfunctional communities (see what Bill Cosby has to say)
Well, at least you are not alone in misunderstanding Bill Cosby's talks.
I'm not a worshipful fan of Bush
Riiiiiiiight.
Which is a good thing, unless you want the European approach (try and fail to prosecute terrorists, let them go and guarantee a rerun)
Please enlighten us about the 'European approach' a little more. Are you talking about the people in charge being warned with very specific memos before an attack, or are you hinting at how they allow people with opposing political views to enter technical comittees?
Damn, I fed a troll.....
Woo Hoo!
I've only read the appropriately modded comments because of my settings, but I'm impressed.
Normally when the comments get firey on the political front there are two sides with equal mod points and one side looks stupid. Both sides have information but one side has links and the others have wht their mate Joe told them down at the pub.
In this thread however, the non-stupid people seem to have risen to the top, making coherent arguments backed with information. I'm impressed by both the comments and the modding.
So, that's less depressing than the usual run of comments on political arguments. The subject matter however...
The communists were looking ahead when they went ahead with the revolution.
Once you have a working system it is best to be conservative and maintain the working system.
If anyone removes a balance of power such as Bush is doing it will only eventually swing the other way often further and more catastophically.
So much crock - so many dud appointments of late for brown nosers. Now that this dirty linen is out, the new stooges will have a difficult if impossible task of gaining 'respect', resulting in ineffectual representation of US trade policy.
Of course not.
Politcal Parties are like a baseball team. You pick one and stick with it throughout your life. You don't bother finding about issues, you just wave a flag and say Gooo Republicans!/Gooo Democrats!
Then sit on your ass and watch tv.
What you were saying was what the mass media was saying, right up until people were trying to escape Vietnam by clinging to the cargo skids of helicopters in the last panicked evacuation.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I thought alot about this and now I realized its not corruption, but extreme nationalism.
They want to be sure that the decision is made purely on political reasons, not on thechnical reasons. I.e base the decision on fatctors like: if a technology is to give advantage to france (becuase its Alcatel developed), if it give disadvantage to a specific "evil" country (france, again), or if wiretaps from echelon can give an edge.
So the Kerry contributions was only the common denominator that sorted the techies form the nationalists.
For hillarious conspiracy theories check out freeworldalliance.com, and then maybe do s/nationalist/illuminati/g on this message.
You are right in saying that "It's not that big a deal, as I don't think it's going to kill too many people just because a few engineers couldn't make it to the meeting"
n n. com/2003/US/02/06/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/
And indeed, almost noone on this discussion defends the president.
Bizarrely, a lot of people defend him even here when the president make more important decisions which are plainly and completely wrong, and also kills too many people.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030411213158/www.c
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
You see, we actually paid attention when news of one UN resolution after another came on TV over the years, to Saddam's expelling inspectors,
UN resolutions mean nothing. hell, conservatives say that all the time, so why are they suddenly a big deal? sh1t, israel has violated way more UN resolutions than iraq, but i don't see conservatives itching to invade tel aviv.
as to the inspectors, you need to check your facts. hussein never kicked out inspectors, clinton pulled them out before bombing the crap out of iraq in 1998.
so you see, the problem is, while you are ignoring the WMD and terrorist ties arguments, the things you are actually relying on are either incorrect or worthless.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
Clinton never would have been elected president if not for Perot. Perot stole 10% of the vote from Bush, giving Clinton the presidency.
... with the boogeyman of Al Q'aida to blame for our own financial and strategic (Iraq) incompetence.
You unwittingly make the point clear: Perot did not get Clinton elected. Perot got 20% of the vote, only half of whome supported Bush as their second choice. The other half supported Clinton as their second choice. Had he not run, the result of the election would have been the same: Clinton elected as president.
What Perot DID do, which was very important, was force both of the other parties to "walk-the-walk" with their rhetoric for balancing the budget. The Democrats weren't serious about balancing the budget, and neither were the Republicans. Bush senior wanted to pass a bill requiring congress to balance the budget, but only one that wouldn't take effect until long after he personally was out of office, even if he served a second term (which of course he did not). The Democrats weren't any better on that particular subject.
Enter Ross Perot with his "its time to pay the piper!" populist movement, and both parties fell over each other balancing the budget within the next three years. Deficits were reduced dramatically under an all democratic government (CLinton's first two years) and continued the trend under a split Republican-congress/Democratic-presidency, leading to the budget surplusses we enjoyed up until Bush Junior defrauded the electorate in 2000. After that all bets were off
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Well... lets come full circle, shall we? What happend the last time the people of north america felt like they were being oppressed by their government? Simple. They got their guns and took it out. That's what the 2nd amendment is for, remember?
The 2nd amendment is why we now now have "Homeland Security" and the "Patriot Act", 9/11 was just the smokescreen needed to sneak it in.
I'm sure if you'd have asked the Brit's back in 1776 they would have considered the Patriots to be terrorists.
It's funny how the side you're on is the "Patriots" and the other side is always the "Terrorists".
First they burn books, then they burn people.
No, its just the part where the tolerant left questions dubious visits to the White House - regardless of male or female.
.. and raises entirely legitimate questions on the double standards (favoritism Vs competence) exhibited by this administration.
let alone allowed to be present without there being anyone to oppose them.
That's a good analog to the important reason why criminal trials are required to have two opposing lawyers who are very partisan (as opposed to occasional suggestions to ban all lawyers).
It is inevitable that one side or the other will get the benefit of aggressively biased legal advice, so the surest way to approximate accuracy is to require both sides to have a lawyer, so there is at least a chance that the distortions introduced by one may be counterbalanced by the other.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The Clinton administration fits every one of those claims to a tee. In fact it is well documented that he paid off his dissenters (many of his former administration have been CONVICTED and for this kind of fraud too-- search google, it's not hard to find).
There are also many well-known, very scripted public events by Clinton. "Spontaneous solitary" walks on the beach at Normandy (where there just HAPPENS to be a convenient pile of rocks out in the middle of nowhere on the beach, that Clinton kneels down and arranges into a cross, with the convenient backdrop of a battleship in the background and a photographer who just so happened to be in exactly the right location for a perfect front-page photo), contemplative strolls through Arlington National Cemetary (again with a small flag conveniently lying on its side in front of a grave (but neatly rolled up) directly in his path, so that he can be seen on camera kneeling down to set the flag upright again), and of course the famous video of Clinton coming out of Ron Brown's funeral service, laughing it up with some of his friends, then you see his eyes glance at the camera and his face instantly turns into an expression of deep sorrow.
And as for being unapologetic... Clinton never apologized for any of his transgressions. He only regretted being caught.
Therefore, your "factually incorrect" claim is factually incorrect.
From TFA
The message is clear to industry: If you donate to the Democrats, you will be frozen out of any participation in the formation of public policy. If any of your representatives do, they (and your company) will as well.
This is designed to foster an environment where companies and employees are frightened, even forbidden, from making political contributions to anyone other than the ruling party. In a system where funding drives politics more than anything else, it is the final death knell of democracy and effective dissent. The only well funded party will become the Republican party, which is the whole point. The result will be a one party system that doesn't call itself a one party system, with enough token Democrats to befuddle the American people into believing they still live in a representative republic (aka democracy).
This is unprecedented, terribly dangerous, and unsurprising that it would be the Bush administration presiding over this change in affairs.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I can see why they did it. Just look at the continuous stream of off-topic bashing of the current political party here. Imagine if people like this got in there. Nothing could be done from all the bickering and whining about completely unrelated political viewpoints. Jesus. Good decision on their part based on the good show made by Democrats in this thread. Sheesh.
The Democratic party is much more inclusive than you may think. Look at Howard Dean's stance on guns, and he was one scream away from being the nominee. Or check out Mark Warner, governor of my own state of Virginia (I'm hoping he can pick up George Allen's Senate seat, and eventually make a run for the Presidency).
As for belittling those of us who DON'T own guns, do you seriously think that if a bunch of outraged liberals started a coup they'd accomplish anything besides gettings themselves killed? Well, they'd get one more thing accomplished: they'd also get EVERY talking head on the news to talk about the treasonous effects of liberalism. Oh, those liberals, we always knew they hated America--now here's the proof! Ann Coulter would suddenly be declared a genius.
(I think I vomited a little in my mouth just now thinking about that last one.)
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
...nothing but Econ 101 (taught by a leftist prof, of course) under your belt.
Republicans suck.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I can't tell if your use of the word 'regime' is sarcasm or ignorance.
...leftie douches you come across these days who claim to be "registered Republicans".
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." --Harry S. Truman
Visit the best Liberal Blog: DU
It's okay to kill someone, as long as you only kill them a little bit, right?
I mean it's not like stealing is wrong if you only steal little things, right?
In order to qualm the opposition, there shall BE NO opposition. After taking control of every governmental department, they will move on to corporations, schools and communities. Pretty soon there will be XXXXXXX-only restaurants, movie theaters and workplaces and if you disagree, you will be blacklisted too. This is a dangerous trend and if it continues, goodbye to 'freedom,' the ubiquitous word that doesn't have meaning any more. If for some reason, you change your mind about your party's actions, you too become the enemy. There is no room for free-thinking individuals when there is profit to be made.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Ok.....
I don't necessarily disagree with you that what Bush has done is wrong, but I didn't RTFA (hey, this is Slashdot!), so I can't really have an informed opinion.
But I thought I'd point out the "If you beleive X, then you must be crazy" type of fallacy, since you were the one that mentioned Critical Thinking Skills.
And, BTW, I love rhetoric and hyperbole. It's a time honored tradition of debate. Cheers.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
I'd like to believe that someone could start a third party that was somewhat sane, open to compromise, and totally honest, but it'd be like throwing people to sharks in today's climate, and even if that party could launch a candidate that was competitive enough, the media would kill it because it breaks their head-to-head competition ideals and they'd have to come up with new debate formats to deal with it.
:)
And even if they did manage to get past those obstacles, no one would vote for them anyway.
(well, maybe they'd get at least three votes--)
Meet the new sig, same as the old sig
Who hates Bush more... a) People around the world that have to deal with this idiot, and his crappy policies that have global reach or b) People in the US who have this guy representing our country around the world... and there is nothing we can do about it.
It has been said that the biggest contributor to the Gross Domestic Product, (a figure that tallies the amount of money moved around within the country,) is a terminally ill cancer patient with litigious tendencies.
Could we please find a better measure of the "health" of an economy?
The reference is from "I'm a Stranger Here Myself" by Bill Bryson. <plug variety="unsolicited">While he may not be considered by some to be the greatest arbiter of public policy, I find that he has a thought provoking view on many issues, and I recommend his books highly. Especially his audio books, he reads his own material very well.</plug>
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Early adoption has its benefits ;^)
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
FYI - From what I'm reading on the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission it is a part of the "Organization of American States" - kind of a UN for North and South America. That's how the State Department is even involved in this.
http://www.oas.org/main/english/
http://www.citel.oas.org/general.asp
I'm far from a Republican apologist, (Libertarian) but I tend to agree with the administration more than not. However I have a problem with both sides on this -
Those that are screaming about a fascist state are stretching things further than Gumby. The Religious Right wants a country similar to the 14 points, but its not (hopefully) going to get there any time soon. On the other hand, this is another notch on the Republican power consolidation bedpost that will get them burned and voted out eventually.
Do they have the right to do this? Absolutely, this is their right as the State Department to choose who they want to represent them in international meetings. And, despite the noise about it, I support the president choosing people that agree with him. Outside the White House he has 49% of the nation that thinks someone else would do the job better. I'd want some friends close too.
The formal system of checks and balances in the government - and the informal one in the media will prevent him from doing anything too stupid - John Bolton....
Now the more important question - Should they do this? No, I think it is much more important for the Government to be worried about national security, Social Security, Iraq, the national debt, and than a few geeks getting together to talk about telecom.
They aren't.
I think you are being presumptuous. They block your IP address or block you if you are registered and get moded down too much (not hard to get moded down). Some even joke about being moded down in their signatures. In political tests I score right smack in the middle but I know I'm careful about what I post here.
Before you criticize Bush's administration too hard, you may want to look at the last administration (or previous ones, it doesn't matter). Take health care reform for example. Bill had his wife - the first "Lady" run it, someone that wasn't even a government official, perhaps not even a government employee (Do they pay first ladies?). Someone that disagreed with her need not come into the city, nevermind be on her comission. The comission later collapsed under its own weight and obvious corruption. That was probably one of the biggest black eye's Bill got in his first term. There is also the case where Bill (or Hilary depending on who you believe) cleaned out the travel office. People that had been working there in that office since Kennedy was in office and even charged one of the men with felonies. He was later cleared of all charges. That scandel was known as travelgate. Lots of other examples but I hope you see where this is going. Same under Reagan, Carter, Johnson, even Truman and especially true under Roosevelt (aka King Roosevelt, talk about an iron grip!). This continues on back through history if you read old papers. Abe Lincoln was criticized I think worse than Bush is. They even went after his wife Mary. A Republican president that is universally recognized as one of the best we ever had.
That is, nothing new or different in what they are doing. No apology, this is business as usual in Washington. What is amazing is that America still gets stuff done and there is progress in spite of all of this through the years.
What I can point out is that Bush did keep on Mr. Norman Mineta who served under Bill Clinton as Commerce Secretary, he is now Bush's Transportation Secretary. He has allowed a number of Democrats/liberals/"progressives" (sometimes progressives are called socialists or communists) to serve that I though were not in his best interest. This is especially true in the State Department. When Clinton came to town he cleaned that place out and put his people in, Bush should have done the same thing.
"Now, if a president wants to punish you for your votes and further restricts your rights, isn't that a small price to pay for liberty?"
Can your choices actually be considered as 'free' any more when there are punishments/consequences attached to one or more of those two choices? How can one be told they are free to make the choices with the knowledge that they will lose their job if they choose something other than what their leader has. Isn't this an ultimate punishment? Take away your economic power to provide food and shelter for your family if you choose other than the directive? Are we blind to what is going on? Can't anyone see this is driving our 'democracy' into something monsteraous and that serves the purpose of only those who agree with the president, all others will be punished? The side of the fence that disagrees with Bush is getting smaller and smaller. Why? Because the price is to steep to stand against him. Where did my rights go? Why can't I disagree and not be persecuted for it? Is this the kind of America we really want? I certainly don't.
What principle was violated? What corruption? Who was being dishonest?
It is, however, persecution
No, it isn't.
If someone is kicked off, it is not a punishment to me, though it may feel like it, as exemplified by your admission that this has "very little" negative impact on anyone.
But that isn't the job of the committee members. Their duty is not to represent the administration. Their duty is to represent their companies and their nation.
I wasn't talking about their "duty." I was talking about what they actually do: they are de facto representatives of the executive branch, being appointed by the executive branch.
and rising a few cents every month.
unfortunately, history seems to have shown that the non-Republican majority, (when there is one,) is not very good at playing* like this.
I like to think that is because they are trying to maintain high ground, but I reserve the right to be disappointed.
*I have a personal pet theory that the political state in general is in such a shambles right now partially because there is the perception by the people involved in it that process is a game. Where once people compromised on issues as an effort to work out problems, and try to come to an equitable (or at least somewhat acceptable) solution, today compromising on issues is viewed like a game, similar to the scene in "Monty Python and the Life of Brian" where the hero ends up being forced to go through the motions of bargaining, because that. is. how. the. game. is. played. (I hope that I'm using that punctuation idiom correctly.)
It seems similar to the case of the "religion" replacing the "god" and nobody seems to have noticed.
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Why would I RTFA, as it's written by Time Magazine who is known to be heavily biased! (of course, I read it...) All media is biased. Whenever I read the New York Times, I need to counter it with other media coverage. Fortunately, I spend the time reviewing alternate view points to find the truth somewhere in between. Unfortunately, the truth is far from the middle. Most of the left's views can be shredded in the arena of ideas rather quickly. The left's views do not hold up to scrutiny. The more the right-wing pushes the left-wings buttons the more bizarre the left becomes. Just look at the so called 'constitution' or 'nuclear option' (take your pick) and as soon as the Republicans threaten to change the Senate rules (happens all the time, btw) to specifically prohibit Fillibusters on approving judges; the Democrats threaten to shutdown the government for the rest of the year. Then when the Republicans claim to have enough votes confirmed to pass the rule change; the Democrats are back peddling and trying to present a compromise! I sincerely hoped the Republicans pass the rule change. If the Democrats do try to shutdown the government, it will be they who pay a political price. It is already against the Senate rules to fillibuster on the approval of judges. There are only a few instances in the Constitution where one can use a fillibuster and the approval of judges is not one of them! Also, the Democrats are not even performing an actual fillibuster in the first place, a true fillibuster is when you keep talking on the Senate floor without stopping to prevent a vote from occuring. As long as you have the floor, you can keep it if you keep talking. It doesn't even matter what you say, as long as you keep doing it. The Democrats declare a fillibuster and then refuse to vote and go home. That's not a fillibuster it's a refusal to do their jobs and it's against the rules!
Those who do not read alternative viewpoints are merely sheep on either the right or left. You can't just come home from work and read only your local newspaper and watch your network news anymore. You are not getting the whole story that way! The media is getting their butt kicked in falling newspaper subscriptions and the networks nightly news ratings are dropping like a rock!
The Internet is quickly becoming the preferred news source. I haven't bought a newspaper in years. Why should I? I can get much more information and see all viewpoints simply by searching Google.
I read a whole lot of books. I've read Karl Marx, but I've also read the founding father's writings as well. I make informed decisions.
I voted for Bush, because when it came right down to it; Kerry was not a viable choice! Kerry's a compulsive liar. He will tell whatever group he's speaking to exactly what they want to hear. (yeah, I know definition of a politician). He changed his position so many times, my head was spinning! I am now glad I didn't vote for Al Gore either, he's become quite the nut case lately and to think he could have been president gives me indigestion! Dean is also a big nut... I would have voted for Lieberman had he been a choice. Having to choose between Lieberman and Bush would have been rather difficult.
Bush stood his ground and did not waver in his message. At least Bush had a message, Kerry had none. Bush is a great leader. What he says, he does and at the same time it makes a lot of sense. I don't agree with everything Bush does, but I agree with most of it.
I have no problem with the administration stripping known supporters of Kerry from a federally funded Telecom foundation. In fact, I would support a change of staff in the CIA and the State Department as well. There are a ton of lifer's in those two organizations who would stop at nothing to stab the administration in the back. The CIA is especially screwed up and I hope that it's restructuring over the next few years fixes the decades old damage.
D-:
Canada keeps looking better and better...
Yes, of course you are. And you only have to ask yourselves for validation of that.
"other issues" such as ... what?
Re-read my original post about "enemies" and how we must support our Leader to defeat those enemies.
Your "enemy" is "a touch rather than accept the alternative -- a totally secular, moral relativist society with no social norms whatsoever".
"Secular" and "social norms" are not mutually exclusive. They aren't exclusive at all. In fact, most "secular" states have the same basic "social norms" as religious states (no killing, no stealing, etc).
But that false dichotomy is exactly the behaviour I described.
Our Leader is strong and good. Those who oppose him are weak and evil.
Only by giving our Leader our full support will we defeat the enemy.
You might want to re-read my original post.
Again with the enemy SOCIALISM.
So, tell me what, exactly, is it about Socialism that makes it the enemy.
Otherwise, that falls 100% on the "support our Leader in all thing, defeat the enemy" jingo.
Again, the enemies are coming! Which was exactly what I said.
Maybe. But from your post, it seems that your "ideological ground" is nothing more (or less) than the enemy is coming.
You must DEFEND Conservatives against the ENEMY of Socialism (and no social norms, secular society, etc).
Yep. Again, Satan has many allies and many of them look just like you and me. We must find these allies before they destroy us. etc.
Satan ... allies ... look like us ... defeat the witches.
Support our Leader against the witches!
Okay, is it possible for you to make a political statement that is NOT something I've already covered?
The two candidates who got themselves arrested were'nt sought out by the state for detention to prevent them from participating in the process
They got themselves arrested as part of Performance-art protest
Dammit, I *want* viable, reasonable 3rd party candidates, not whiners who think the only way to compete is to be Extremo the Clown!!
There is a difference between politics and policy, and it is one that this administration has forgotten. Policy is a bottum-up decision making process based on unbiased facts. Politics is a top-down decision making process based on domga and belief. This President cares nothing for policy, only politics, which is evident in his inability to ever, EVER admit a mistake unless he can pin it on a subordinate.
This tactic is essentially parallel to Tom DeLay's intimidation tactics used against lobbyists. This is dirty politics at its worst. This is intended to make it hard for the opposition party to have any power by cutting off all of the richest funding through belligerent threats.
This is not just. People who truly respect freedom try to compromise with their opponents and not bury them without giving them a voice. The Republicans' naked greed for power is just disgusting.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
"Doesn't matter if we're dumb as a stump and show the world that the United States is a laughing stock," says Tom Duffy, "as long as the our representatives show the glorious Leader in a positive light, we're A-ok." The Republican spokesman then went on to chant continously,"The Leader is good. The Leader is great. We submit to the Leader as of this date."
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Yeah, McEvoy is kicking any Open Source supporters off his client list.
Which is why I find it funny that it's the Democrats who are the first to scream that we need paper receipts that tie back to your vote so that we can have electronic voting machines that are just as reliable as ATM machines. They'd be willing to give up the secret ballot, just because of an alledged 'fear' that 'republicans' are manipulating the vote?
I mean, I want to stop voter fraud as much as the next guy, but I don't think that giving up the secret ballot is the way to do it.
-BrentBlame America First
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
*Sigh* I've been reading Slashdot far too long.
So, what about Iraq violating those UN resolutions made them more of a threat to our nation's safety than North Korea violating all of theirs? Of the 17 UN resolutions that we used as justification for war, 14 were about weapon inspectors. Two were from 1990-1991 about the invasion of Kuwait and one from 1991 demanded a stop to the oppression of the Iraqi people. The one about oppression applies to other more threatening enemies like Iran and North Korea, non-threatening enemies like Sudan (were genocide took place), and many of our allies like Saudi Arabia and the Israelis (with respect to the occupied territories). It also applied in Bosnia which most conservatives pilloried due to it being outside of our national interest. If WMDs don't matter, especially if you say that we knew they had nothing, then violated UN resolutions don't matter either.
Good Lord, though, if you don't think that our administration lying is a bad thing, I don't know what kind of American you can consider yourself to be. Our President is supposed to be a representative of what the people want and not the man responsible for duping them into what he thinks they should want. What is wrong with conservatives today that they no longer demand honesty of their leaders? If you can't convince the people of what you want with legitimate, truthful reasons, then you shouldn't get what you want. That's how an honest, healthy, democractic republic is supposed to work.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The principle that non-political positions are filled via a meritocracy, not just favors to be given out to political allies. I'm not under the impression that this sort of thing doesn't happen, but abandoning all pretense of composure means rejecting the principle as valid.
There is an enormous difference between breaking the principles of society, and rejecting those principles as invalid. In the former cases, people at least acknowledge where the lines are, and if they overstep them, they know they are doing something wrong. In the latter case, people reject the idea that there are any lines, and that has enormous ramifications for the people who follow them.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The "NERD" Political Party wouldn't hold as it would quickly fall into infighting between vi, joe and emacs camps.
No, this is exactly the kind of explanation that I saw when I browsed at -1, and I include it when I say that there were no insightful, valid viewpoints.
All the things you say can be true, and this is still fucked. Your point does not speak to the issue. Yes, other people have been fired due to politics when perhaps they should not, and yes, other people have been kept on despite politics. Hilary Clinton's health care fiasco is completely irrelevant.
This is new and different. Still not a big deal, but different, and obviously wrong. If you're interested in spinning it any other way, you're off the path and into the woods already.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Look, if there were good evidence I'd be first in line at the impeachment party. But in this case the whole story looks pretty shady on the face of it. Why is it no-where else? And does that line sound like it comes from teh white house press room? Seriously?
You and many others are just far too gullible when it comes to these things. Show a little backbone and at least apply the most basic level of critical thinking when reading the news.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe some of us really do think that the Christian right are extremists, but we would rather talk to them and rein them in a touch...
You get right on that. Some of us Christians are tired of their continued support for expanding the death penalty (John 8), for cutting social programs meant to help the least amongst us (James 5:1-6), and for unjust wars that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians for the sake of national dominance and material greed (James 3:13-18).
We'd also like to see an end to the justification of the use of differing shades of torture and for cronyism. While you're at it, if you could get them to respect freedom, openness, and tolerance for their fellow brothers, we'd appreciate it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
That's fine to get riled up about the selection process. I don't like it either but frankly I've come to peace with such boards always being politically formed because that's just how humans are.
But everyone is aghast as if this is something new and not done since the dawn of time. That's all I'm saying, don't get mad at just one person, get mad at the stupid process that allows the panel to be selected politically. I'm not even sure how you'd go about affecting change in this case but perhaps you could write to the head of the organization...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sorry I'm not one of those posters that just folds like a card table when you get all blustery.
Perhaps in future arguments you'll find people that cower before you as you wish instead of actually trying to hold a rational argument.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You are correct, if these people would be less able to do their job due to their political beliefs, then it would not be punitive to bar them. That is plainly not the case. This is obviously a punishment. How severe a punishment is debatable, but not whether it is so.Good point. Maybe when we Democrats gain control again, we should fire everyone in the military that donated money to conservative causes, since they are de facto representatives of the executive branch, being commanded by the executive branch. That'd be a great idea. (And yes, illegal for other reasons. But wrong for the same ones.)
The only reason that this is ok with you is because it's your guys that made the fuckup.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
So you are responding to a post where someone lists the characteristics of a facist regime. You respond by confirming each characteristic, and furthermore say that each characteristic is a good thing. So you are essentially confirming that the US is (or is moving towards) a facist regime, and say it is a good thing! How was the Kool-Aid?
OK, I *hated* Nixon. But it was *OK* to hate Nixon - you were *allowed* to do it, and it wasn't politically or religiously incorrect the way disagreeing with Dubya is. And Watergate was an appalling violation of democracy, but it's nothing that Karl Rove wouldn't have done more competently, and Nixon didn't have his brother to count the votes in the swing states to make sure the result came out right (unlike Kennedy, who might very well have stolen the 1960 election.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
has alot more weapons now than the British had, it's really pretty silly to compare them. One Apache could take out your entire militia regiment. One AC 130 your entire division. There was nothing (not even a ship of the line) like that kind of comparitive firepower in the 1770s.
(which tactics allowed the British to win most of the battles of the Revolution, I might add)
Except Saratoga, of course, in which case judicious hiding behind trees and rocks by the Continentals won the day, and in the end it turned out to be the battle that mattered most.
In any event, it's not relevent now, the difference between a guy with a hunting rifle and a aguy in an M1 Abrams is several of orders of magnitude beyond the differenc between a guy with a musket and a guy in a (bright) redcoat(with an X over his heart) with a musket.
If you can't keep your vote with peaceful means, you'll find yourself in a "Free Speech" zone surronded by tanks and begging to be allowed to trade your rifle for something that might do you some good.
Like a flower.
The principle that non-political positions are filled via a meritocracy, not just favors to be given out to political allies.
You're looking at it backward. They aren't doling out favors or taking away benefits, they are looking for people who will represent their interests well.
If I am hired as a manager, and half my programmers are Java programmers, but I need Perl programmers, I'll replace the Java programmers with Perl programmers. This is not a punishment.
To look at it another way, anyone who wants to be on this commission enough that think of it as benefitting themselves instead of society etc., are not seeking to be on it for reasonable enough reasons for me to care. And no one who didn't think of it this way could think of it as punishment/favor.
The only question I have is whether this will impact the commission's efficacy.
The Bush League somehow thinks that our representatives at a Telecom policy-makers meeting are there to represent the Bush Administration, rather than representing US telecom and economic needs. It's not 100% orthogonal, but probably 90%. And many large businesses give donations to both of the Incumbent Parties, because the game is that that's supposed to grant you Access. If the winners are going to redefine the game after the election, they'd better realize that the people they're trying to extort may change their parts of the game as well.
Oh, also, the Bush Administration are a bunch of Yahoos, so if they don't like Google giving money to the Democrats, they can stop using Google...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
then what the [expletive deleted] is his motivation?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
But you obviously see something far more sinister than has ever happened in this country. Can you let me in on what that might be? It surely can't be the honesty of saying out in public that the administration did this for political reasons...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I tried to point out that it could have significantly more negative impact for those individuals actually kicked out of the meeting.
How? Only if they are participating in public service for selfish reasons in the first place, which tells me they shouldn't be on the commission in the first place.
This is obviously a punishment
You're missing a "not" in there.
Maybe when we Democrats gain control again, we should fire everyone in the military that donated money to conservative causes, since they are de facto representatives of the executive branch,
Good luck with that.
However, the most significant difference between the military and this commission points out what I've been thinking is probably at the root of this. If you are in the military, your political activities are restricted by the UCMJ. I've been kinda thinking that this may have started because a delegate of the IATC, or a similar commission, was using the opportunity to bash the Bush administration, or because there was some real fear that they either would do so, or that their existence on the commission as an opponent of Bush would be bad PR.
Further, the IATC delegation IS a political appointment, despite protestations to the contrary. What else can you call it? It's an unpaid public service controlled entirely by the President.
And this is nowhere near as bad as Clinton stacking the deck on the Bioethics commission, which was far more pronounced than anything Bush supposedly did to "attack" science. If you recall, Clinton was advised unanimously by his commission that there was nothing at all wrong with research cloning, something that is hotly debated by bioethicists. Bush's panel, while it leans right, has quite a bit of dissent on it, and Clinton's had relatively none.
The only reason that this is ok with you is because it's your guys that made the fuckup.
Too bad you haven't actually shown there is anything wrong with what happened.
. . . count this person as brainwashed by the yellow press.
This has been done by every administration since at least the Eisenhower era. I personally, when I worked for a NASA contracter, was excluded from multiple such conferences even though I had written the code and led the key project. That being Carter era to Reagan to Bush to Clintoon.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
OK, the lesson is loud and clear: Donate no money to political candidates or parties.
Considering the usual level of farsightedness, this should come as no surprise...
I'm repeating myself, but I realize there are large differences between the military and this commission.
The members of the commission were attending because their employers directed them to do so. This is a selfish reason, and still a good one that serves our nation and our government well.
Your criterion for describing this as a political appointment are arbitrary and irrelevant.
I will grant you that many of Clinton's actions, including the one you describe, were worse than this action by the Bush administration. What does that prove? By bringing this up, you increase my suspicion that your support here is purely partisan.Again, some of the people best suited for the job will not attend this meeting. That effects Americans a little, and those specific people somewhat more. Obviously this is not the end of the world for anyone, but that is the harm that was done. The bulk of the harm was done to people who donated money to the president's opposition, and there is no apparent good to come of it. Thus, punitive.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
This is new and different in recent politics, and is reminiscent of political machines where a change of administration meant that every appointment and government job was redistributed along party lines. So yes, in that regard it is politics as usual... fifty years ago and more. As far as I understand, Clinton may have played party politics when it had something to do with policy. This is certainly different in that regard, although I don't know whether I can excuse Clinton's behavior either.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
The members of the commission were attending because their employers directed them to do so.
Maybe in some cases, maybe not. I would presume often it is because they requested it of their employers.
This is a selfish reason, and still a good one that serves our nation and our government well.
Maybe in some cases, and maybe not.
Your criterion for describing this as a political appointment are arbitrary and irrelevant.
They are neither.
I will grant you that many of Clinton's actions, including the one you describe, were worse than this action by the Bush administration. What does that prove?
My main thesis: that this is a nonstory.
By bringing this up, you increase my suspicion that your support here is purely partisan.
Suit yourself, but what it really shows is that the attacks on Bush are purely partisan.
Again, some of the people best suited for the job will not attend this meeting
Like I said, you have not shown this. You have done well to assert it, but that is not the same thing.
Sure, in a stand up fight the rebels wouldn't have a chance. However, the military very heavily depends on the support of the civilian population. The US Military would barely be able to operate for two months without civilian support. Add in a hostile opposition on our own soil where many of the military members would be rebelling too(remember, they swear to "support and defend the constitution"), and it gets very, very ugly.
For example, a M1 Abrams is a very good tank. It also has less than a 200 mile range on it's internal fuel. You don't bother trying to stop the tank. You simply stop the fuel truck. Like anybody else, a soldier needs food, water, and shelter. Can you see how the citizens can stop the army now?
As far as hunting rifles vs M-16's, a M-16 is only effective out to about 300 yards. A scoped hunting rifle can reach much further, and blow through most body armor. There are more AR-15's in civilian hands than M-16s in military stock. Besides, to convert an AR-15 to select fire is fairly easy if you have plans and a machine shop, and are willing to ignore those laws. If you're willing to ignore the law, the US civilians could very quickly start churning out machine guns, grenades, mines, and RPG's.
I don't read AC A human right
They are irrelevant because even if you would like to call this a political appointment, paying $250 to the Democratic party is not still not a good reason to prevent someone from participating in this commission. Just like preventing your attendance at a multi-governmental commission on Perl interoperability based on your party membership would be wrong. (Sorry, that sentence sucked. I'm sure you understand my meaning.) I believe that would be punitive. You are right. I have taken it for granted that Verizon submitted a list of their best candidates, and that most of them were good. Do you feel it likely that support of the Democratic party coincided with the worst delegates for a commission on telecommunications interoperability?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
positions controlled entirely by the president are not necessarily political.
Yes, they are, actually.
paying $250 to the Democratic party is not still not a good reason to prevent someone from participating in this commission
In your opinion, which has not been backed up by any actual facts. It's begging the question.
I have taken it for granted that Verizon submitted a list of their best candidates, and that most of them were good.
No, you took it for granted that they would be some of the best people suited for the job, not merely that they would be good.
You're saying, "Their job is to represent the Republicans". We're saying, "Looks like they're just Perl programmers participating in the government."
Have I correctly boiled down the debate?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Hilary's health care is relevent I think, it illustrated as a famous example of how an administration shut out the other side and it is indisputeable (that was 12-13 years ago, do you remember back then?). Even today it is joked about by the pundits. I agree that it is very wrong at the beginning of an administration, perhaps not when a history exists (this guy likes to punch me in the nose, lets let him do it again, only an idiot continues to invite a fight).
I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to 'spin' this. I was very neutral in what I said, I indicted both sides. My other example about the state department is another example. So I had an example inside the Government and one involving entities outside of the government from the last administration. Perhaps I should include examples from the elder Bush, Regan, Carter as well? I even went back to Lincoln's time, 140+ years ago to show this is all business as usual. I would include URL's but news papers from back then don't seem to be online. Take for example the concern about amunition in the Civil war (which ones to stock for US rifles), then there was the railroad issue (guage, steel to use, other standards), fire equipment (hoses were unique to a city), and so on.
One big problem now as it was then is interests. That is always their concern. If you want to get something done, do you allow people you know full well have every interest in stopping you, into the decision making process? I think Time's article is biased and lacking - spin if you want to call it that. Why don't they tell us about those companies and people? Were they buttheads in the past or go with the flow? They may be the reason you don't have a nice HDTV set sitting in your living room today. In the case of Ibiquity (from the Time article), I understood that they are pushing their solution over the established solutions from Japan and Europe. Another case where there will be the US and the rest of the world, just like with NTSC and PAL. That is idiotic. I could be wrong about that so don't quote me. I do know that Cell signals are highly competitive and that was an issue in Iraq. Use the system in the US or the European system? Obviously we wanted our system. There is a big war looming for magnetic wavelength, a quest to turn every TV off at the end of the year (unless they are upgraded to HD signals or use cable) and use the bandwidth for something else. That is no small matter, it is a big deal and worth billions. If those companies are stopping them, that would be a good reason to stop them. It looks like they may also happen to be Kerry supporters and that is what Time picked up on instead of the real issue (Do you remember that Time made Hitler the man of the year?). Microsoft for example gives to both sides so they don't loose either way.
I think you are way off into the woods and eager to believe conspiracy schemes. There was a whole other group that liked to believe the same thing about Clinton. Vince Foster was murdered for example. Some people believed that Clinton woke up every day trying to figure out how to screw the US. That was a darn lie, it was every other day...just kidding.
Seems to be much ado about nothing, again.
If you think I'm the one out on the woods and you see something I don't, speak up. Don't be shy. You may say something that makes it clear to the rest of us. Maybe one day you will be a (good, noble, trustworthy) politician. No, I'm not trying to put you down by that remark. We need good people to be leaders, regardless of which side they are on. You too can look forward to endless hours of hard thankless work with lots of criticism no matter how you decide. In fact the right decision is often the least popular history shows us. You can be one, there are lots of spots opening up as the baby boomers retire/die. But don't answer yet, you also can get (vicious) criticism from your neighbors and even relatives and now slashdot and other online blogs/journals!
Have I correctly boiled down the debate?
No, because you're talking about 1. a paid job, and 2. a position where politics is irrevelant, but the qualification is based on political views.
Meanwhile, in the real world, we are talking about an unpaid position that is by definition a political appointment.
That is exactly my point . Just because it's a political appointment does not mean that $250 to the Dems is good criterion
No, that is not your point. You were not saying the criterion may not be good, you were saying it is bad. And you didn't back up that point, you merely continue to reassert it.
I couldn't care less what criteria the President uses as long as it doesn't negatively impact the country. He's the President, and it is his appointment. The rest matters to me not in the least.
The whole thing about people caring for personal reasons makes it all the more laughable to me, as a libertarian, because it just gives me another reason to think the federal government should have no business dealing with such things in the first place.
You may not be spinning this. My only point is that if you don't see a problem with this activity, you're wrong and you should double check your judgment. Figure out why you are wrong this time.
It sounds like you do see something wrong here, as well as seeing something wrong with Clinton's behavior. My indictment really doesn't apply to you, then. That's why Hilary Clinton's health care plan is irrelevant.
Yes, these guys could all be the worst candidates for their positions, but I doubt that the State Department is aware of their qualifications aside from the fact that they donated money to the Democrats. This doubt is based primarily on the quote from Bush's spokesman, not a conspiracy theory.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Possibly. I tend to think that neither should be related to Party politics, but then I'm not a member of either (or any) Party.
I know nothing about this particular conference, and frankly care even less. However, if it is like most inter-governmental meetings, it's just a press-the-flesh sort of thing - the real decisions have already been made elsewhere (though it is always possible that this meeting is the elsewhere on this particular subject).
If that's so in this case, then it isn't terribly unreasonable of the White House to want people that are ostensibly on his team to be actually on his team.
I quite understand your point of view. It isn't really all that new and different, though it is (perhaps) a return to something we rid ourselves of. Once upon a time, before Civil Service exams and such, every job in the government was handed out this way. "You supported the other guy? well, you're fired as of today, so I can make room for someone who supported me" was a way of life.
It still is in big chunks of the government (pretty much everything not covered by Civil Service, in fact). The last relics of Party patronage won't go away until some bit of it is abused horribly (this isn't such an abuse) - enough so that the public outcry causes Congress to move those relics into Civil Service.
At which point, we'll have a Bureaucracy for a government, rather than a Democracy or a Republic. So I think I'll just continue to support the idea that the President has broad powers to choose his own people for the Executive. Which does include meetings with other governments and their agencies....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
(where there just HAPPENS to be a convenient pile of rocks out in the middle of nowhere on the beach, that Clinton kneels down and arranges into a cross, with the convenient backdrop of a battleship in the background and a photographer who just so happened to be in exactly the right location for a perfect front-page photo),
Yeah, yeah. And that's bad, but Bush on the battleship in the Gulf is ok? It's all politics. That's what it is about. You'll have to come up with someone that Clinton sacked form a position never previously affected by presidential sway, when the sole reason given is that they supported "the other guy."
Without that, it all comes down to party bickering, which is a given.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm trying to find a list of the members still in the U.S. delegation as well as those added to replace existing members.
No one in the current administration will ever admit to having done anything wrong, correct a problem, etc. But the members of this committee are supposed to be engineers and/or scientists and well aware of the meritocracy that they are supposed to participate in. They need to be contacted individually and convinced to quit the delegation.
Also, anyone who accepted the post of an existing member who was kicked off should be well aware of how they got the position and should have already resigned by this point. If not, then people within the telecommunications industry need to know who they are.
Only if the administration cannot find people willing to participate in this farce will they be forced to stop. Otherwise it will be full speed ahead.
Sigs are for people who started using the net _after_ '86.
Come on, Bush didn't even do it. Do you really think he has nothing better to do than to decide the guest list on some piss ant conference?? Maybe his secretary rubber stamped it, but it would have been down to his vast staff who are payed to make sure the Republicans stay in office no matter what.
The sooner folk realise that political parties are just like big business who do whatever it takes to survive the better. Think marketing department, focus groups and sales team and you won't go far wrong. Can anyone say they wouldn't take a hardnosed decision for their own business??
If the democrats don't seem to be as dirty in their back office then in my mind that's just their marketing angle, which evidently wasn't as successful in the latest campaign.
The best we can hope for is that the Republican focus groups realise that the American public don't take too kindly to this kind of story and soften their PR a little.
I'm very successful in my profession. One of the reasons for that is because I don't think like most others do. I'm willing to consider other ways of doing something. I see that happening here. They can't get it done the old way so they are going to try something else. You seem to think that they should keep on doing the same old thing and nobody goes anyplace. The smoke and mirrors part is saying it is because of donations, they are Kerry supporters, and so on. That may be true and often is and that is why there is no movement in the first place. Kerry lost the election, that is in the past now. I think it would take more than the fact they were Kerry supporters or Dem donators to stop them. The country desperately needs to move forward. We have been held back way to long over stupid stuff. Others are catching up and will leave us behind. Maybe you are afraid of moving forward?
The good news is that somehow we all manage to live through it and life goes on.
Elsewhere in our discussion, I feel that I did point out several times why I think $250 to the Dems is actually a poor criterion, but my explanation had nothing to do with your definition of a political appointment. Sometimes you have responded with nitpicks that I do not dispute, and sometimes you seem to have ignored my points altogether. Whatever.Granted. If this used to be sorted by having all the telcos submit a list of their guys, why this isn't just dealt with by the telcos I have no idea.
We both have access to the same facts about the issue. I'll say again, that everything about this is to me, plainly wrong. All I ask is that if you don't see a problem, you should reconsider. If you've reconsidered, and read just a few of the arguments in this forum, and still don't see a problem with the administrations actions, I hardly think that my comments are going to correct your backwards ass. Like I said, I think this is obvious. I think you're an idiot just because you don't agree already. So we're not going to get anywhere.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
No one has asserted that they've had "lot of chances to cooperate and they consistently blew it". If that were the case, I'd agree with you. As long as it isn't, this action is obviously wrong. If I haven't convinced you already, I'm not going to. I'm just trying to point out that you might want to remove your head from your ass and look around. I really thought that my original post was a helpful suggestion.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Valdrax wrote:
"There is a difference between politics and policy, and it is one that this administration has forgotten. Policy is a bottum-up decision making process based on unbiased facts. Politics is a top-down decision making process based on domga and belief."
In democracies, political outcomes determine policy. You have failed to understand the central concept of democracy: We the people decide the policy by our choice of leaders through the political process of elections. In democracy policy and politics are not independent but are interdependent.
Valdrax wrote:
" Policy is a bottum-up decision making process based on unbiased facts. "
Facts alone do not suffice to determine policy. Facts can not determine outcome in the absence of values.
Valdrax wrote:
"This President cares nothing for policy, only politics"
Having expounded on your own make-believe division between the politics and policy, you then employ it to impugn the President.
Valdrax wrote:
"which is evident in his inability to ever, EVER admit a mistake unless he can pin it on a subordinate."
If you want to evaluate presidents according to the number of mistakes to which they have admitted while in office, go for it. You can post the list of presidents and their admissions in followup. But you are not serious. Until the crackpot left brandished that accusation against Bush it was never heard, and it is not used outside of those attacks. Nobody seriously believes that presidents are required to furnish the opponents with arguments against themselves. Your accusation is unpersuasive.
Candiate A admits two mistakes. Candidate B admits three mistakes! Therefore candidate B is the better candidate. Riiiighhht. No wonder you guys lost.
Valdrax wrote:
"This is dirty politics at its worst. This is intended to make it hard for the opposition party to have any power by cutting off all of the richest funding through belligerent threats."
The only evidence you supplied of "belligerent threats" is accusations by Democrats that Republicans make threats. You are supporting left-wing propaganda by linking to... more left wing propaganda. For someone who throws around the expression "unbiased facts" you seem remarkably short of them yourself. Are Democratic congressmen a good source of "unbiased facts" on Republicans?" If not, then why are you basing your argument on biased facts? Is it because you are being top-down and political and basing your argument and dogma and belief? Maybe you should try admitting to some mistakes.
Valdrax wrote:
"This is not just. People who truly respect freedom try to compromise with their opponents and not bury them without giving them a voice."
Liberals have been in power for so long that they can't come to terms with their own defeat. They have lost the election, yet they still feel entitled to set the agenda. When a winning candidate seeks to enact the policies on which he campaigned, you refer to that as "burying the opposition without giving them a voice." You have a voice. What you don't have is a sitting president and control of congress.
Valdrax wrote:
"The Republicans' naked greed for power is just disgusting."
Well by "naked greed for power" you seem to mean the exercise of governmental authority to which they are entitled as elected officials. That you find that disgusting is convincing.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Because you disagree, or because it's too close to home?
What does it say in the FIRST sentence?
The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations.
here is their site - http://www.citel.oas.org/citel_i.asp They have been meeting for years. So they did have plenty of chances, at least since 2003. So by what you wrote, you agree with me? Somehow I doubt it. It is never that easy.
Still think my head is up my ass? To the contrary, do you really expect to convince me with nothing? You seem to be saying these are bad guys up to no good... they just are. See, they kicked some guys off a commission because they donated $250 to the democrats and are Kerry supporters.
Uh huh. Real convincing.... NOT! I have donated more than that to Mount Vernon (George Washington's house in Virginia now run by a private women's organization, they put out nice calendars too BTW). Somehow I doubt my donations would include or exclude me from anything official. I have very good reason to think that by the way. If those companies feel they have been wronged, you can bet they will be in contact with their congressman. Sounds like no big deal but they do make a difference.
Looking for your name I found a number of citations from you. What do you mean by your original suggestion? It won't kill them to send the engineers? Let them meet without them this one time. It won't kill anyone to leave them behind and we may get something done, finally.
If I haven't convinced you by now, nevermind.
I'll say again, that everything about this is to me, plainly wrong.
... well, anything.
I'll say again, I can't see where anything wrong was done, and at worst it just kinda looks bad, but since it is about something that is of virtually no importance, I couldn't care less.
All I ask is that if you don't see a problem, you should reconsider.
I am waiting for someone to show me where there actually IS a serious problem I should look at. All I've seen are false assertions that it is unconstitutional, nonsensical comparisons to fascism and McCarthy, and tin-foil-hat-induced claims that this will have a "chilling effect" on
I think you're an idiot just because you don't agree already.
And I think you're retarded for continuing to assert there's something wrong without actually showing that anything -- anything at all -- wrong happened.
I do seem to recall he was complianing of "electile dysfunction" after the election...
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Why don't you start with trying to convince him that scientists writing about evolution should have access to government grants, and try to work your way from there?
Wish I had mod points.
I am too. It's wrong no matter what party does it. But nobody should be pointing fingers saying "see, here's what happens when you put that party in control of things" as if theirs were any better. Such behavior is not productive toward solving the underlying problem.
Please note that Pudge wants schoolteachers sent to jail if they mention sex:
Trying to get him to admit that witholding technie junkets on political grounds is wrong is probably going to be pretty hard.Why don't you start with trying to convince him that scientists writing about evolution should have access to government grants, and try to work your way from there?
And when he replaces an Ambassador with one of his supporters (every President does this - it's one of the best pieces of patronage left), this is also wrong? How about when he rids himself of the US Attorneys (another good piece of patronage, if you happen to be a lawyer), and replaces them en masse?
This isn't any more wrong than the above examples - the former of which is routinely done by all Presidents, the latter not so much, though Clinton did it.
Was I upset when Clinton replaced the US Attorneys with his own guys? Not especially.
Was I upset when Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan et al replaced large chunks of the Ambassadorial ranks? Not especially.
Am I upset over this? Not especially.
What this qualifies as is petty, not wrong. And it's only petty if, in fact, the reasons stated in the news article are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
And I suspect that there is a bit more to it than that. Because, frankly, I wouldn't expect the President to be more than marginally aware of this meeting, or its participants, in the normal course of affairs. Certainly, if *I* were President, I'd not pay attention to something so trivial - a mention in somme SecState briefing, a nod, and on to important stuff.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
No one has claimed that these guys have done anything wrong aside from donate money to Kerry. If it turns out different, then I'll agree with you. According to the quote from the White House, all they did wrong was donate money to Kerry.
Whatever.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Yeah, I was bailing anyway.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Well, no, I'm sure that GW was never aware of this meeting, and I'm sure it was just someone in the State dept. that made this decision. Again, frequently diplomats and US Attorneys have to carry out the President's agenda, and make political choices according to his policy. Swapping them out makes more sense to me than barring some of these telecom engineers. This seems like the only benefit to the administration is to punish people who supported Kerry.
But whatever. My point wasn't that this was a big deal. My point was simply that this could be a handy way for you to self-diagnose whether your head was up your ass, because it was plainly wrong. If you disagree, you've reconsidered your position, and you would like to keep your head where it is, that's your business.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Paper ballots have a record of your vote too, dumbass. Even with paper ballots, it's still a secret vote. What we need is for the electronic voting machines to have a printout that the voter can verify, then put in a sealed box that is treated just like the paper ballot box would be, and used as backup.
You don't seem to be aware of what a US Attorney is. US Attorney is the Federal version of District Attorney (DA).
I can't imagine how the President's agenda affects the Federal prosecutors, unless the President's agenda includes a lot of illegal activity....
My point was simply that this could be a handy way for you to self-diagnose whether your head was up your ass, because it was plainly wrong. If you disagree, you've reconsidered your position, and you would like to keep your head where it is, that's your business.
Nice to see someone who doesn't let their biases interfere in their life. So anyone who disagrees with you has their head up their ass "because it was plainly wrong"?
Well, it's your opinion that it was wrong. It is my opinion that it was more of the same ol', same ol'.
I even pointed out that I thought that sort of thing, when done be a President I disliked was no big deal. I notice that you excuse the Presidents on your side of the aisle who do similar (frankly, if this sort of thing were a big deal, replacing all the US Attorneys would be a MUCH more severe issue) things....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Bingo! Which is why I think it's stupid that Democrats what a paper receipt that voters would take with them that they could look up to confirm their vote later. I mean, if electronic ballots work the same way as paper ballots, why deprive people of the secret ballot. It just doesn't seem right.
-BrentPeople you get these appointed positions owe the appointer. If Pres. Clinton appointed these folks, then of course they support values and ideals that Clinton (and then Kerry) are likely to support.
BECAUSE THEY WERE PICKED TO SUPPORT THOSE IDEALS.
Now these guys/gals are under Pres. Bush's appointment authority, and they obviously do not agree with him. In fact they publically opposed him and his ideals. So as an *authority* figure, he removed them.
THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. Not just politics but real life too. You are in fact beholding to whoever is your *authority* figure.
Let's assume your boss is your *authority* figure. Now try disagreeing with your boss publicly. Do it once and you're in trouble. Do it three times and unless your boss is a moron you will be gone.
If you run your own company, and some one of your people start disagreeing with you, you'll be concerned and rightfully so. Is this person loyal? Will they follow your policies and rules? Will they steal from you and try to date your daughter?
If that person persists in his disagreemnt, it will eventually become insubordination - and out they go. If you are a Saint, they might last a while longer, but even God cast out Lucifer.
Don't get on his back because Pres. Bush is replacing these guys. Any leader, Pres. Clinton, Pres whoever, GOD it doens't matter - they want supportive people around them.
If you feel the need to disagree with your boss, do it privately and assure him/her you will respect and support their decision(s) even if you do disagree. And before you disagree, decide if you want to die in that ditch first, cause even one disagree can lead to an "unappointment".
Now feel free to heap scorn and disagreement with Pres. Bush, but he might be watching you! **Deploys tin-foil body suit**.
*click**beep**beep* Scotty, One to Mod up!
How exactly would paper receipts eliminate the secrecy?
They could be just as secret as the paper ballots. Voter sees the printout, verifies to him/herself that's what he/she voted for, puts it in the sealed box. Just as secret+anonymous as paper ballots that you put in the sealed box, except it's used as backup in case of computer malfunction or fraud or hacking.
- David
No, the "paper receipts" that I've heard argued for are ones that the voter would take with them. You know, put in your wallet and leave the polling place. Then later, that "paper receipt" could be used to confirm that your vote was really counted officially, or I've even heard some say that there could be a website that people could use to see that their vote was actually counted they way they voted.
See the issue there?
-BrentThe nature of politics is to Throw the Bum Out.
If the current party is corrupt, and given that the current party has no interest in throwing it's own bums out... the only choice we have is to place the other party in power.
It most certainly is productive, because it's the only way to address corruption.
Here: In fact, I am growing right now at such a rate that in 10 years, I will be 65 meters tall. [...] Where I come from, "bullying" was still considered wrong.
Boy am I glad you added that last part!
I don't want any 65m giants bullying me around! : )
You can't take the sky from me...