Slashdot Mirror
Obama & McCain Conflicting On Net Neutrality
longacre writes "For all their incessant bickering in the first two presidential debates over conflicts of interest and government regulation, PopMech columnist Glenn Derene is puzzled that the candidates have yet to be challenged on a vital issue directly related to both those topics: Net neutrality. John McCain and Barack Obama have stated elsewhere their opposing views on the issue, with McCain being opposed to Net neutrality and favoring light regulation of the Internet, while Obama is in favor of neutrality and seeks Government involvement. In any case, since there is no standard accepted definition of 'network neutrality,' until the candidates elaborate on their positions (which they both declined to do for this piece, nor anywhere else so far, for that matter), 'both sides can make a credible case that they're the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication.'"
Obviously. Both sides refuse to clearly state their positions so that they can define them... after the election.
"Of course we mean X. We always meant X. Why, did we ever say otherwise?"
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
This is a minor issue, not a vital one. I'm glad they don't waste debate time talking about it.
I personally am on the fence on this issue. As a libertarian, I am against government regulation and pro-free market and net neutrality seems to me to be a regulation against the telecom providers to do what they want with their lines. But on the other hand freedom of communication and open networks are definitely positive things, so I do wonder how an unregulated free market would handle this issue. It's somewhat off topic, but would be interested in your thoughts, especially if you also consider yourself libertarian.
Even if both of them were to give an answer it would be so vague that it would probably make no sense what so ever. Now if you go back and look at their advisors you may get a better idea.
McCain I blieve has former RIAA lawyer as his Tech Advisor
Obama has a professor from MIT as his
source from a prior slashdot article but it is to early and I haven't had my caffiene yet.
There was a slashdot article on the changes made to Obama's IT page after he joined up with Biden, who's a bigger opponent of Net Neutrality than anyone.
Damn, man get your facts straight before you post this crap.
Pax Vobiscum
Politicians typically utilize the most self-serving interpretations of their policies after the election, but my interpretation was pretty fluid on this subject.
I think this will play out as McCain wanting to shake down the pornographers and pedos, but also clamp down on anti-amerian sentiment on the net. Free speech has already taken a huge nosedive with the Bush administration at the helm. Many more years of that and everyone, not just the USA, is in trouble.
Obama seems to approve of funding to enforce net neutrality, something that maybe hasn't been considered. You have to pay people to go after those that would try to strip public privacy away or try to curtail democracy. Obama appears to want the USA to compete freely with other countries, but in a positive way. You can't enforce that unless you put money towards it.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
McCain: "against" Net Neutrality, in favor of "light regulation"
Obama: "for" Net Neutrality, in favor of "more Government involvement"
The positions look the same to me, with the exception that Obama is lying about his position.
Saying you're for network neutrality but want more Government involvement is like saying I'm for legalizing pot but I think that police need to step up their enforcement of people smoking it.
Both of them may talk about each other all the time. But they are never clear on what they *themselves* want to do as president. Both make ambiguous statements.
Regarding net neutrality, Obama is socialist, so he's talking about net neutrality.
McCain hasn't even used a computer, so he knows nothing about it.
slashdot rocks
Please, stop with politics. With all the radio and TV adds, I just can't take it anymore. Just send the 25% undecided their share of the campaign money, the highest amount wins. The older I get the more cynical I become.
Conservative, mod down for violating
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What's the Constitutionality of network neutrality legislation?
IANAL, but I think it would be a hard sell to Constitution-following legislators (oh, how scant their numbers are these days). I think there could be some applicability for the Interstate Commerce clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes), however intrastate networks would and should be unfettered by Federal law. It would be up to the several states themselves to enact neutrality legislation if they so desire.
Personally, I'm against Federal legislation for network neutrality, partially on principle, partially on the the grounds that I fear/know that the Federal government listens to lobbyists and corporations more than citizens who designed and currently use the thing.
I would prefer to see an easily-joinable coalition of Internet-based companies and ISPs which democratically--one vote per entity--chooses regulations in an RFC-like manner and punishes with disconnection/shunning any entity which violate these regulations.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
The internet has the innovation and open communication precisely because it is the Wild West.
All the government lovers around here are simply wrong. The internet doesn't need more regulation. It needs to be left alone.
Any legislation proposed would be porked up with morality and do-goodery in addition to any possibly good technical standards.
Isn't it enough that all the wrong Democrats who have learned all the wrong lessons about the failures of the last 8 years get a filibuster-proof chance to ruin the economy and prove that Duyba is not the terminus of incompetence?
Do they have to ruin the internet at the same time?
And no this isn't a call for McCain who I won't be voting for.
Where I work, these are the primary concerns of your typical voter that is calling in:
Net neutrality? Huh. Not even on their radar.
This issue is difficult because it is about the freedom of people to exchange information vs the freedom of the market. But in the current situation I think it is one of the very minor points; ensuring that not too many people lose their livelyhoods is the big issue now and will be so for some years.
Typical...article going too far to look "balanced"...unfortunately, our standards for journalistic objectivity now require MSM to throw out all analysis and simply ask dimwitted questions and repeat the candidates talking points.
In this case, the article is really bending over backwards to make the false point that:
by saying that:
That statement is simply false. Of course anyone could quibble over the definition of any word ad infinitum, but the general idea is no tiered service.
This is where everyone who is in favor of John McCain flames me with how my links and definition of 'net neutrality' isn't exactly right..blah blah blah...I used to work in IT, and everyone...I mean everyone I worked with in our rather large company had the exact same basic understanding of 'net neutrality'...the wiki definition is as good as any and represents the general idea as it is understood in common usage
It's blatantly obvious that when it comes to net neutrality issues, Obama is the one who favors an internet unfettered by tiered service "packages" that do nothing more than deliver less for the same or more $$$. Why do we have to pretend that "net neutrality" is some nebulous, undefined thing that the candidates haven't talked about in enough detail...if you want more specifics, just look at the list of laws that have tried to promote net neutrality and failed, then look who voted for or against them
Obama is best for net neutrality by a mile...
Thank you Dave Raggett
Anyone else uneasy of the McCain/Palin ad above this story?
Considering that most voters don't even know what net neutrality is, and considering the other major issues that do make the headlines, it's very unlikely that either of them will spend any time on the issue now.
There are other serious issues of a technical regulatory nature that also deserve attention.
Decisions made by the Federal Communications Commission affect such things as diversity and competition in ISPs, cellular providers, and broadcast stations.
The ownership consolidation that has taken place in broadcasting has reduced stations' serving local community needs. The F.C.C. even did a study proving that and then buried the results.
Much of the questionable behavior that our elected officials engage in is tied to campaign contributions. Most of that cash ends up flowing to broadcasters.
If broadcasters were required to provide political time for free, as part of their trustee of the public interest license responsibility, much of the corruption-fueling money could be removed from the equation. Of course details on how time would be given out would need to be worked out to ensure fairness and to ensure that the LOCAL community voices (from the communities of each license area) are heard. As with news coverage, fair-balanced political coverage is also more likely with increased ownership diversity.
Open and fair media are essential to the proper functioning of a Democracy. We should all press for improvements in this area.
While it's interesting to know where they stand on the NN issue, do you really wanna tell me *that's* what will determine to whom you're voting?
because that might give something for an undecided voter to hold against them. And the news media is aiding an abetting - they can get more words out of a vague question than one that can be answered.
For instance, one of the topics where the candidates differ greatly is on firearms and 2A issues. But it has flat-out been ignored in this campaign. The liberal interpretation of this is that guns just aren't all that important with everything else going on; the conservative interpretation is that gun issues can only hurt Obama - there's a lot of pickup trucks out there with gun racks and union stickers - so the debate moderators aren't bringing it up. The more realistic interpretation is that guns have become like abortion - folks on both sides have hardened and are sure votes, and the general public has settled on a "fundamental right with restrictions" stance and just don't really care right now. They may care on an individual basis later, when Susie gets knocked up or Johnnie gets mugged, but as a whole the populace has reached equilibrium.
Or Net Neutrality is just too obscure for Jane "I just captioned my first lolcat!" Doe.
(Yes, that's an actual quote from my daughter. I died a little bit inside.)
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
That's just editorializing on the part of the submitter. In Obama's opinion statement the phrase "Government involvement" doesn't appear. So the submitter is "lying" or at least inserting their own spin on the facts.
We're all supposed to be scared of Government (with a capital G!), right?
This is what it says in his tech policy: "Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others." Go read it yourself: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf
PopMech columnist Glenn Derene is puzzled that the candidates have yet to be challenged on a vital issue directly related to both those topics: Net neutrality.
Hm, what a coincidence, I'm puzzled that they have yet to be substantively challenged on any vital issue.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
If voting could change the system it would be illegal.
His website echos what I've seen him state several times, that like most other issues, he isn't a fan of government regulation in business. I've yet to see him say he is anti-net-neutrality, or that he wants government regulation.
Obama was very pro-net-neutrality, so he gets points for that, except the stance disappeared from his website, so the promise is less clear. This is also a guy who promised to vote against the FISA bill over and over again, even the day before the vote, and then voted for it.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
By choosing Joe Biden as their vice presidential candidate, the Democrats have selected a politician with a mixed record on technology who has spent most of his Senate career allied with the FBI and copyright holders, who ranks toward the bottom of CNET's Technology Voters' Guide, and whose anti-privacy legislation was actually responsible for the creation of PGP.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html
Futurist Traditionalism
McCain favored such de-regulation that lead to the collapse of our financial markets. Now he favors the least regulation possible of the internet. Already the telecom companies have too much power and control. They can arbitrarily declare what content we can and cannot get to. They can arbitrarily throttle competitors. The internet should remain neutral and such laws need to be passed to ensure this. Sorry, Ma Bell, you cannot get an extra million out of us for a tiered service.
that would have made the stock markup FraUD debacle (see also: 401 Kaput) even more damaging to the innocent hard working american.
hey mr. obama, please let us know what you know/think about the 'weather' manipulation/cloud spraying. almost everybody has seen it by now, it's just not a popular topic, probably because it would raise the question of where the real clouds have gone, & if/when they're coming back. thank you.
We need standardized testing for candidates followed by day long situational tasks: give each candidate 8 hrs to review the same 10 proposals as if were a cabinet meeting. The candidate would have to prioritize and respond to each and the voter could get insight to their decision making process.
Evaluating a president on the ability to come up with 1-2 minute responses using a set catalog of themes prepared during debate prep does little to help an undecided voter.
We have a better process for college entrance exams and job interviews.
I think that the theory of allowing an unregulated free market to operate a public service has been pretty much tossed into the dustbin. "Run it like a business" is not really a positive thing to say at the moment.
therefore obama > biden. just like how JFK was, when he got the candidacy. the top guy.
policies and vision will be held by obama.
Read radical news here
one of the founding principles of the entire internet, the principle which allowed grad students to set up multibillion $ companies everywhere around the world, is a 'minor' matter ?
it is not. it is a foundation of the future. future is digital.
your vision is minor in contrast, apparently.
Read radical news here
To be perfectly honest, NN is on my top 6 list of issues I consider when selecting the candidate to vote for. I'm not saying it's my first or only factor/issue, but it's up there. So to answer your question... yes, and no.
Reply to That ||
As a libertarian, I favor completely unregulated network infrastructure in general. But there's one big exception: infrastructure that was built with, or is otherwise funded or supported, through government action.
Some ISPs exist only because they have franchises with government and competitors are simply not allowed to exist, by government. Some (most? all?) have easements through private property that weren't negotiated with the property owners. Some have received immense public funds.
On top of that, there's already huge amounts of various types of regulations, and even special taxes in place.
The overall situation is already heavily non-libertarian and non-free-market.
When something already exists in defiance of the free market, it doesn't make a lot of sense to selective apply free market principles to a tiny aspect of it. Maybe if we were to nationalize these ISPs and then auction them off to private parties, and also repeal all the various laws that impose restrictions (and grant perks!!!) to these networks, it would then make sense to avoid regulating their neutrality.
But until there is a fair level playing field, and for as long as the owners of these networks are receiving special privileges from the government that a competitor would not also receive, I think it's perfectly fair to demand concessions.
We already have a situation where there is a hugely complex quid-pro-quo deal between these private parties and the government, so the net neutrality debate is mere haggling over the details of the existing deal. Completely canceling the deal is a valid approach and would bring us to a libertarian situation, but nobody is talking about doing that.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
But with Obama, you can actually watch him support Net Neutrality. Especially if you actually vote for him for president. With McCain, all you'll get is the short end of the stick: he's never even offered anything else.
I seem to recall that in the run-up to the primaries, Barack Obama pledged to filibuster any bill that included retroactive immunity for telecom companies. Now, I guess I must have the details wrong, but I was under the impression that he was a Constitutional law professor. What kind of Constitutional law professor mixes up "filibuster" with "eagerly voting 'Yea' after winning the nomination"?
This is an election year. Believe nothing that emerges from the mouths of Tweedledee or Tweedledum. If you want change or some form of improvement of our system, vote for a third party. They might not win this year, but if they pass various thresholds in this election, they'll have fewer barriers to entry in the next election. Who knows, some day we might have a better choice than the lesser of two evils.
If by "unregulated free market" you mean the housing market as distorted and leveraged by fannie and freddie backstops. And by "Run it like a business" you mean corporatism that has honest savers and workers who made sound decisions subsidizing the dishonest criminal failures who made unsound decisions rather than let them go out of business, then we all agree including McCain who supported this nonsense and Obama who actually did some arm twisting to convert several "no" votes to "yes" votes.
From John McCain's website: "John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like 'net-neutrality,' but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices. John McCain has always believed the government's role must be rooted in protecting consumers."
From Barack Obama's senate website: "So here's my view. We can't have a situation in which the corporate duopoly dictates the future of the internet and thatâ(TM)s why I'm supporting what is called net neutrality."
John McCain has put forward an excellent bill in the Senate called the Community Broadband Act of 2005, which Barack Obama has not yet signed on to. Interestingly, this bill is supported by EDUCAUSE and more than 40 education and trade associations, public interest groups, etc. This bill would protect the ability of local governments to provide Internet services to their communities.
(See another great Educause article entitled A Big Blueprint for Big Broadband
Though Obama hasn't signed on to the McCain community broadband act, he has stated that "Every American should have the highest speed broadband accessâ"no matter where you live, or how much money you have. We'll connect schools, libraries, and hospitals. And weâ(TM)ll take on special interests to unleash the power of wireless spectrum for our safety and connectivity."
When McCain voted for the bailout, it was like eating a live rattlesnake. When Obama voted for it, it was more like a eating an unseasoned potato.
There's no difference between them.
R2.0 (532027):
You didn't follow the ball.
Netneutrality.ca on the subject of Net Neutrality:
Obama will support funding to go after companies and organizations who would try to disrupt the freedoms of American citizens on the internet. That's my interpretation, at least. :)
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Sorry, but you are over-simplifying the argument. There is not just one definition of Network Neutrality, but three commonly-held definitions.
The main topic link to Network Neutrality on Wikipedia is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Definitions_of_network_neutrality The links you provided are to the sub-topic of Network Neutrality in the United States.
The three definitions are:
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Barriers To Entry
(that's assuming anyone is motivated enough to start an ISP so they can get a good Internet connection)
But you libertarians (I'm judging you by your response) say "But we'd remove the barriers to entry by doing away with all regulations!"
The problem is that when you turn the market into a free-for-all, the bigger and better-established companies rapidly outcompete the smaller ones, monopolies or cartels form, and they use their newly found free reign on everything to create new barriers to entry (say, heavily throttling inter-ISP traffic) which can't be broken down because there are no laws or regulations...and you're worse off than ever before.
Honestly one of the few political ideologies I just can't wrap my head around is libertarianism. One basic premise is good - minimize market regulations - but it's like you guys just want to do away with them all willy-nilly and you either don't think through the ramifications or have an incredibly simple and naive idea of what they will be.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
While I don't think it's fair to criticize either politician on their "stance" at this point in time, I would like to bring up a potential repercussion if ISPs are allowed/forced to censor their networks:
Imagine you find yourself unable to post emails or visit websites about any topic you choose. Ok, not too bad. You can still write letters and read books. Now imagine you pick up the phone to call someone and discuss something you've read, or written about. The call proceeds to connect and you being discussing the topic with whomever answered. You speak a specific word, which you know has been censored/banned from the internet by your ISP. Instantly a telco operator cuts in and reprimands you for speaking about that topic on their network and ends the call, cancels your service, and notifies the authorities of your suspicious activities.
Is "net neutrality" the same thing as saying: "the government and the telcos DO NOT have the authority to censor your speech?"
Does my freedom of speech extend to my digital presence?
Does my freedom of speech grant me the right to read anything I am "legally" capable of?
Do I have any rights to read?
Glenn Derene is puzzled that the candidates have yet to be challenged on a vital issue directly related to both those topics
Perhaps the candidates and their supporters are distracted by their retirement investments disappearing in the post-free/greed market meltdown?
Free market, to me, gives me the impression that I have a choice among many competitors. Unfortunately where I live this isn't true.
<cynic>There is a free market in real estate. Exercise your right to move your family to a location where those competitors operate.</cynic>
Actually, I think the gun issue is unimportant simply because neither side is going to have much room to work with it. Between the Heller Decision and the beating that the Democratic legislators took after the assault weapons ban there isn't going to be much traction for wide regulation.
Obama is likely to win at this point, he's going to have his hands full of other crap and if he plans on having a hope as a second term president he's going to keep his head low on the issue of 2nd Amendment rights until he gets re-elected. And even in that case he has to hope for a serious Democratic majority in the legislature or it's going to be a moot point. I don't really know if that will happen as it seems that neither party seems to be able to keep a solid hand on both the presidency and the legislature at the same time.
And even as pro-gun as McCain is I don't see him pushing any agenda he may have either. At this point gun control is fairly moderate compared to the days of Clinton (and even Bush Sr if you want to get into the technical elements of it all). Even if he does push in some direction it's likely to be considered too technical for the mainstream to ever get a hold of. It would make for good campaigning banter but the people on the street would likely never see the difference and it will be hard for the anti-gun culture to embrace as an issue between rampant misinformation and lack of knowledge.
I often vote based on the candidates outlook on the 2nd Amendment as a major point of interest and, while I'll be voting 3rd party this election, I don't really see a threat from the Obama camp unless he's looking to have an ineffective administration. McCain simply will not have the power needed to open up regulations further without being seen as an extremist.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Obama answerd this on MTV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd8qY6myrrE
John MCcain doesn't know how to use a computer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/mccain-admits-he-doesnt-k_n_106478.html
With everything going on seeing a post here about net neutrality makes me feel like I am a member of the NRA. Like this matters worth a spit at the moment.
So they can only answer what the left-wing moderators choose to ask or have asked.
Most people don't care enough about net neutrality stuff. If people really cared, they'd get their neighborhood wired up with fiber and have different providers compete for neighborhood business.
The article makes no sense to me. Not only doe it contradict McCain's own website, but why would a party (Republican) that opposes adding regulations and promotes free, unrestrained markets everywhere, want to implement anti-NN laws? Am I just being too naive?
I'm a Republican and I shouldn't be making this joke, but...
You know, its sounds like McCain is doing such a super job in the US Senate that we should keep him there.
This is my sig.
There are other runners besides war junkie and comrad obama, To many accept this standard when to many people can change it, its pathetic.
Actually, I think the gun issue is unimportant simply because neither side is going to have much room to work with it. Between the Heller Decision and the beating that the Democratic legislators took after the assault weapons ban there isn't going to be much traction for wide regulation.
Yes I agree it has become a "dead issue" for both parties. With the Heller decision, the right has largely won the debate. But I don't think the Republicans are going to want to press it anymore than that. Even the Bush administration was telling the Supreme Court that the wording of the decision should not go so far as to open the door for challenging the federal automatic weapons laws passed in the 80s under Reagan, and it didn't. Pushing for overturning those bans would kill McCain at the ballot box, since most people while they think handguns, shotguns, and some rifles are OK aren't going to want your average citizen to be allowed a .50 cal or an RPG. Only extremists (such as myself), would agree with that position.
Obama is likely to win at this point, he's going to have his hands full of other crap and if he plans on having a hope as a second term president he's going to keep his head low on the issue of 2nd Amendment rights until he gets re-elected. And even in that case he has to hope for a serious Democratic majority in the legislature or it's going to be a moot point. I don't really know if that will happen as it seems that neither party seems to be able to keep a solid hand on both the presidency and the legislature at the same time.
The gun issue is something Obama doesn't want to touch. It will only hurt him. But actually I think it would hurt McCain if he calls out Obama on it. Even if most Americans agree with his position, he would be seen as ignoring the countries most pressing problems (economy, war) in favor of an issue that has largely been settled anyway.
It's those strange lapses that are put off as "jokes", such as the "My Fellow Prisoners" gaffe that was on the tubes last night. It's the glassy stares, the "thanks for the question, you little jerk" moments that I am beginning to worry are more symptoms of someone who perhaps ate too much pasta from aluminum pots over the years...
Sometimes jokes are just jokes, but in pressure situations they're more often kind of indicative little insights that go past a person's conscious censors. For example, during the "you little jerk" moment on YouTube he said that his kids accuse him of being able to "hide his own Easter eggs".
What this tells me, the oldster, is that there may be a grain of truth to the fact that the race isn't really Obama vs. McCain any more -- the question I ask is "who would be the better President, Obama or Palin? Because that's what the race would resolve to if McCain really is running out of puff. I'd honestly worry about myself if I were in his situation, and my grandmother died at 112.
John McCain is thirteen years older than me.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
most people...aren't going to want your average citizen to be allowed a .50 cal
I don't know where you live but 50s are legal in the state of Pennsylvania.
But yeah, I feel that the gun control issue is going to be pretty calm for sometime to come.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
there is no guarantee that a person will live long, but live sanely. there are people who are going senile at a relatively young age, there are people who are living with sharp minds until the end of their long days.
but, this is presidency. noone can take risks. thinking that 'hey there are people living long and sharp' and voting for mccain, i guess would be a bit gambling. if he flips over in a few months, then a major country in the world will be in a position to be led by a woman who thinks that whole world will come to an end with catastrophes soon, but only alaska will escape the cataclysm and will be the refugee destination for survivors. this is a typical trait of doomsday cults. not good. definitely not. and thats without talking about how raw and clueless he is about anything serious.
Read radical news here
Nader. He is the cure for all things unspecified. .....Sorry I musta dozed off because I was in a parallel universe where I am employed, I don't hate everything and a real women wants to have sex with me.....theoretically.
The liberal interpretation of this is that guns just aren't all that important with everything else going on; the conservative interpretation is that gun issues can only hurt Obama - there's a lot of pickup trucks out there with gun racks and union stickers - so the debate moderators aren't bringing it up.
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality. If the media thought Obama would be hurt by it, they'd be beating it over his head like a drum, not ignoring it. This is because the media loves a horserace, and since Obama passed Hillary in the primaries they've been highly negative towards him. All the while the 2nd place candidate gets a free ride - like Hillary's Bosnian Sniper Fire fable, or McCain's association with John "the Catholic Church is the Great Whore" Hagee.
No, the real deal on gun control is that: 1) gun control is tied hand in hand to violent crime rates, so as crime has fallen, so has gun control as an issue 2) the NRA is a hack organization. They fought against Gore, Kerry and to some extent Obama for supporting gun control, yet gave a complete pass for George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani.
"If the media thought Obama would be hurt by it, they'd be beating it over his head like a drum, not ignoring it. This is because the media loves a horserace, and since Obama passed Hillary in the primaries they've been highly negative towards him."
I'm not sure what media you are viewing, but most of what I'm seeing is that most of the media is fully in the Obama camp - I don't even think they are trying to hide it anymore. For instance, yesterday on NPR, Obama "revealed" his plan to change bankruptcy law, while McCain "trotted out" his plan to buy individual mortgages - and then proceeded to beat on McCain for his plan, while not even making commentary on Obama's.
As for the NRA, you say "to some extent Obama". Have you been following the election at all? The NRA is beating on Obama mercilessly, including TV ads which the Obama campaign threatened to sue TV stations over.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
"I don't know where you live but 50s are legal in the state of Pennsylvania."
Actually, Cal. 50's are legal in most states, I believe California being the only exception.
True story: Ronnie Barret, maker of the most popular .50 Caliber rifles, attended a hearing for California legislators where a State Police rep held up a Barret firearm as an example of the types of weapons that should not be allowed into civilian hands because there is no purpose for them other than blah, blah, blah. Barret gave his testimony, but the rifles were banned anyway.
Fast forward a few months - Barret receives a rifle into his shop for repair from the California State Police. It happens to be the very same rifle held up by the rep at the hearings. Yes, the police were holding out one of their own weapons as an example of items that should be banned.
Ronnie kept the rifle (I think - he may have returned it since) and wrote an open letter to the SP stating that he would not do business with a state agency that would deny it's citizens the very same firearms that the police find so effective. He has not sold or repaired another rifle for he State of California since.
Oh and the standard military "sniper rifle" is a Remington Model 700, of which there are millions in teh hands of deer hunters all over the US. Have fun banning those.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Just look at the donor statistics.
Thanks for the story, that's the first I had ever heard it. It gave me a chuckle.
But I agree with Barret in this case. The police are strictly a peace keeping force. Why should they have more/better firepower than I do as a civilian who also has the right to self-preservation?
And the term "sniper rifle" is such a hard one to get people to get their heads around in the proper context of the art of a legitimate sniper. Any sniper who's worth the title is going to be effect with just about any functional rifle once they get to know the ins and outs of it. It's not the tool, it's the body behind it.
Maybe that would be a good idea for the banners to do sometime (taped, of course, for public consumption): Give them these evil weapons and see how well they can do with them and then give commonplace or third rate weapons to trained individuals and see how much more effective they are. It's always nice to have the best tools but it's nothing compared to having the best training.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
"And the term "sniper rifle" is such a hard one to get people to get their heads around in the proper context of the art of a legitimate sniper."
Another favorite is "high powered assault rifle". By definition, "assault rifles" fire low to medium powered cartridges. It's like accusing someone of being a criminal mastermind on the basis of their status as a "high functioning" Down's syndrome victim.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I'm not sure what media you are viewing, but most of what I'm seeing is that most of the media is fully in the Obama camp
As I said, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality - your talking point was fully debunked months ago. More recently, look at the debates - viewer polls show blowout losses for McCain and Palin, yet the pundits try and spin them as some sort of tie, same as they did in 2000 and 2004.
For instance, yesterday on NPR, Obama "revealed" his plan to change bankruptcy law, while McCain "trotted out" his plan to buy individual mortgages - and then proceeded to beat on McCain for his plan, while not even making commentary on Obama's.
The fact that McCain has no idea what the hell he's doing might have something to do with that. "Hey, I'm gonna spend my campaign to to to Washington to help out. Except I actually keep campaigning for a day before strolling into the Senate. Then I don't say a word throughout the meeting, until wrecking it at the last minute with an "alternative proposal" from House Republicans. And I still haven't read Paulson's plan four days after I've received it, even thought it's only three pages long. Then I'll flip flop on my statement that I wont debate until a bill has been passed."
As for the NRA, you say "to some extent Obama". Have you been following the election at all? The NRA is beating on Obama mercilessly, including TV ads which the Obama campaign threatened to sue TV stations over.
Yes, the NRA. In 2004, gun nuts would talk about how they couldn't vote for any candidate that supported gun control. Kerry was obviously out, but so was Bush for saying he "supported existing gun laws and would resign the assault weapons ban". NRA members either stayed at home in droves or voted 3rd party, throwing the election to Kerry.
Oh wait, you mean they voted for Bush en mass like the pathetic hacks they are? Like how Giuliani even spoke at the NRA, which should have been like Dick Cheney speaking at a peace rally?
Ah, yes, I forgot - Obama is perfection incarnate, so any criticism of him is by definition "bias". Likewise McCain is evil on a stick, so unless the media is crucifying him 24/7 they are coddling him.
Keep singing, canary - by the time you stop, others will have figured out who Obama really is, but you'll already have been thrown aside, you purpose served.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Translation: all your talking points have gone down in flames, so you just blather some random bs and declare victory. You didn't even notice that I hadn't linked the right "Cenk on CNN" clip.
Now that his sweaty pants heart throb - Sarah Palin - has been found guilty of abuse of power of office - McCain has to swig - er, sorry, swing - into actionJacksion mode.
Sources inform that McCain's wife has already financed a shooter-team (A-Team) to murder Barak Obama, wife and kids (especially the kids as she hates them the most). She has also financed another shooter team (B-Team) to kill A-Team. Once McCain is President, he will execute Ececutive Order to kill B-Team by Secret Service Ops.
In related news, NATO announced that it will start targeting Talliban drug Ops.
However, Telliban drug Ops finance the Bush Executive Office budget ... er ... these people should at least get their stories stright before launching local genicide operations ... er ... ethinic cleansing ... er ... in the Name of the White Faget God Jahova Jesus or what ever the loute goes by these days for Christ sake, do these people have a brain (?), rather does McCain have intelligence, other than his penis.
Oh dear, the Palin thingy is just too much.
No, no, no... I know network neutrality is one of the internet's most important quality.
But don't we all want AS LITTLE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT AS POSSIBLE (at least in terms of technology)? We want a FREE internet, and laws (by definition) restrict freedom. Laws make things more complicated, and I KNOW there's a market for non-neutral internet, as seen with "family-safe" isp's.
There really should be an independent board for certifying isp's as net-neutral -- think "Certified Organic" food, but only "Certified Net-Neutral ISP."
This would define "net neutrality" once-and-for-all and help consumers like myself, who would NEVER pay for non-neutral internet.
I can't find anything like this, so I think I'm going to create it. I just bought 'net-neutral.org' but I can't afford to grab the similar domains (I'm starving college student studying abroad with a 2:1 currency conversion). I also (for the same reason mentioned above) don't have much time.
So if anybody would be interested with helping or heading this project, or could tell me I'm wasting my time and the government IS the right place for this, I'd really appreciate it.
My email: bumgutts@cox.net
PS: sorry if this is considered spam... just trying to help