Slashdot Mirror
Conflict of Interest May Taint DTV Delay Proposal
Anonymous writes "Ars Technica has discovered that one of the Obama transition team members advising on the digital TV transition has a conflict of interest that would benefit WiMAX carrier Clearwire over Verizon. 'Barack Obama's call to delay the DTV transition would affect not only millions of analog TV viewers, but also powerful companies with a vested interest in the changeover date — including at least one with an executive on Obama's transition team.'"
...Obama's not even in office yet and he's already got the beginnings of a corruption scandal going. I think this is a new record!
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Welcome to the new regime, which will probably end up as corrupt as the old regime. Two of his appointees are already under fire for questionable activities in their past. The most recent being the Treasury appointee who owed back IRS taxes.
But wouldn't it be more surprising if a team advising on the use of airwaves had no members with ties to companies who use airwaves?
Do you honestly expect Obama to hand pick his entire staff?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. As complicated as politics are and as interconnected as this world is, there's bound to be things that are overlooked. Of course, if you or I were becoming president, we wouldn't make such mistakes, eh?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
.... viewers switched over to support the economy (re: advertisers)?
Yeah. It's terrible when political officials in high positions make decisions that conflict with their real world corporate jobs. *coughcheneyhalliburtoncough*
Cynicism and complaint are the resorts of losers and followers.
You try governing sometime, and see how many seconds you last before your foot is firmly
lodged in your mouth.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I'm all for rooting out scandals and Truth, Justice, and The American Way, but when you run the government, you can either pick people who've done things, or who you really like. And people who have done things will have prior relationships with other people, organizations, and businesses.
Let's judge POTUS on what he does, not on what his contacts or their contacts might want.
Delaying the deadline is a dumb idea. We make deadlines so everybody can plan the switch. This transition has been planned for a long time. It's been heavily advertised. The switch will be painful for lots of poor folks who can't afford new equipment or who are bedridden and can't go shopping, but delaying the transition won't change that cold reality.
Keep the train on schedule, Obama.
Hay, at least it isn't Verizon. Everyone has been in their pockets, and we all know that if it were up to Verizon, there would be no WiFi, no WiMax, and we'd still be using unshielded untwisted copper pairs for our (AOL-based metered) Internet. In my opinion, someone with ties is fine, as long as it isn't Verizon. Anyone but them.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
That doesn't mean an issue does not exist. Just because some big company is going to benefit from a delay in DTV rollouts, does that mean we should cut off our nose to spite our face?
President Elect Obama has a reasonable argument that the market is not ready for DTV. I personally think that it will never be ready for the DTV changeover and that we'll need to do it the hard way anyway, but that's just my opinion. The government had a specific way they wanted this done. They have yet to achieve that goal.
Specifically, many consumers are still unaware of the changeover, or believe that they will need a new television or cable/satellite provider to continue receiving service.
Until the FCC gets much closer to achieving their goals for this changeover, Mr. Obama has a reasonable point.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
We've already ruled out the possibility that there _might_ just be a consumer-beneficial reason for pushing back the changeover date? I mean, because it's political, it _has_ to be so someone or some company can game the system and reap megabucks?
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
Having RTFA...
Salemme is not actually an adviser to Obama. He met with Senator Rockefeller and Tom Wheeler (one of Obama's many advisers) last week. He also donated some money to the Obama campaign. That appears to be the sum total of his involvement. Not very compelling evidence that he is behind the policy, if you ask me.
The assertion that he is a transition team member appears to be outright false.
People who haven't switched over yet probably won't ever do it, so just make the damn cut-over and wait for the inevitable news stories about people being left without TV. These stories are going to happen whether you make the switch now or 10 years from now, so just do it already.
The people that haven't done anything about this switch by now must never actually watch their TV, since we've been subjected to crawls about it for more than a year on every broadcast channel, so they won't care anyway. Either that or they've just been too lazy, in which case the only way they're going to actually get a converter is if they get kicked in the pants sufficiently hard by, let's say, having their TV stations go dark.
Just get this crap over and done with so we can move on already.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Can anyone educate me on why a mandated cutting analog is a requirement of DTV?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Richardson, Geithner, TV scandal ...
Even "Whitewater" Hillary starting to look good in comparison.
This conflict is about TV and networking. The current conflict is about contractors who profit from war.
Both bad, one is worse.
Blar.
The "C" in Chicago stands for "Corruption".
The biggest reason for a delay should have been thought out years ago. You don't want people up on their rooftops in mid-February adjusting their antennas after the switchover.
Even if you do have a converter box, or and HDTV with an antenna, you still don't know what you will be able to receive until after the transition, because some stations will move their broadcast frequency. Also, once the analog broadcasts stop, you'll be able to receive some fringe signals that were overwhelmed by them.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
The "C" in politics stands for "Corruption".
Fixed that for you
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Do Hillary's scandals (real or not) only count for Bill, or does she get to be counted again?
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Yes it is. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest undermines the credibility of an organization. An actual conflict of interest prevents you from making good decisions for an organization no matter what. In any case a person in such a situation will do more harm to an organization than good.
On the other hand, it is pretty much impossible for a government official not to have a conflict of interest. Still, this is so blatant that it undermines the credibility of the administration.
My thoughts exactly. Short of mailing every household in the US a converter box, there is no way to avoid some people receiving a snowstorm.
Correction; even if they mailed every household in the US a converter, you will still receive complaints of people not being able to watch <insert-crappy-show-here>.
Slashdot is kind of like Playboy; we aren't here to read the articles.
The government is going to take heat on the switchover whenever it happens. Better to do it next month, and place the blame on former administrations, than delay 6+ months and have the blame firmly land on this administration.
I'm not saying there are no differences between the two administrations, but I wonder how many people who are casually dismissing this report would be howling with outrage if the article was about, say, Bush's choice for assistant director of the FCC instead of about someone on Obama's transition team.
the coolest club on
...it's still too complicated for a lot of people. Delaying the transition because some people aren't ready is ridiculous. These are the same people that won't be ready 3 months from now.
My mother-in-law is the kind that has never seen a link she didn't want to click. She managed to switch herself over.
Grandmother-in-law doesn't even have a computer and only got her first cell phone last week and she has managed to get switched.
Sorry, but the people that aren't switched in time can just pick up their landline and their phonebook and find somebody to complain to.
Government - If you think the problems we create are bad, you should see our solutions!
The more I follow politics, the more I realize that most people are in politics for the same reason: they think the government can help people. There isn't really a lot of disagreement at all. The main difference is the lies they tell to get into power, which is really a function of where they need to get elected.
This guy may have an interest in the outcome, but he and Obama have a point: the public isn't ready for the changeover, and won't be until those coupons are in their hands (and maybe not even then, but they'll have the coupon for the box and if they choose not to use it that's their problem). It sounds to me like delaying the changeover for a month or two to give time to fund the coupon program is in the public interest. It'll hurt some companies and benefit others, but it seems to me that the only problem would be if the government decided to not delay the change because of the effects on those companies if they did. Unless someone can come up with a good argument why having analog TV broadcasts go dark for apparently a significant fraction of viewers is in the public interest (I think you could make that argument, but it'd require things from the companies that they aren't currently doing).
What is this thing "digital TV transition" you guys are talking about?
Is there something I need to do? Like a plugin? Or my regular VLC, Azureus etc updates will take care of things?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Instead of having a hard cutover date, have the stations reduce their wattage on the analog signals over the course of several months. That way, instead of people loosing their signal, they will get a slightly degraded picture one month... then a slightly more degraded picture the next month, until it gets to a point where they realize that they need the digital converter box.
Let's face it, the very worst thing that could happen if the delay does not occur is that some people won't be able to watch TV. That's it. Not being able to watch TV is in no way an emergency of any sort.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Seriously! And what's the worst that can happen? Some people won't be able to watch TV for a while? Maybe they'll miss American Idol! Who cares?! It would probably be the best thing to happen to them. Television sucks anyway.
The government isn't actually concerned about these people. I'm sure it's more along the lines that the media companies are worried about missing advertising dollars from slightly lower ratings.
If you happen to live in some other area (especially many of the rural areas the government is concerned about) you've probably seen a minimum of changeover commercials.
Listen, they don't plant TV stations where there is no audience. If you are in a rural area, as I am, there are no local stations. We get the same TV stations that everyone else gets, just over cable instead of the air (mostly). The TV stations run the ads. The cable company runs the ads (and Suddenlink ads are the most irritating ads in existence). Even the furniture and appliance stores are running the ads. I have not found anyone that does not know there is a change coming for TV. The fuckers that stole my HDTV sure know there is a switch coming; they left all the analog sets behind. 2-17-09 is so close, let's just get it over with.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Didn't actually investigate how Obama rose to power in such an environment. They were too busy being cheerleaders for Obama's coronation - and investigating Sarah Palin's 16-year-old daughter.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
the only way they're going to actually get a converter is if they get kicked in the pants sufficiently hard by, let's say, having their TV stations go dark.
Honest question here: is the plan actually to have the stations go completely dark at the switchover date?
Wouldn't it make more sense to have those channels broadcast a continuously looped message that explains in detail how to switch over to digital TV? The message could be maintained for a month, say, after which time the channels would truly go dark to free up the bandwidth. Otherwise people who were not paying much attention will just think their TV is broken.
Even better would be a multi-stage approach; starting with occasional advisory ads and text-overlays (which I guess they are doing now?), then have every commercial replaced with an advisory, then have a perpetual "this channel will stop functioning soon!" overlay on the channel, then a continually looped message explaining the switchover, and finally the channels go dark.
I know that they "shouldn't have to" beat people over the head with this information--but the fact is that many people are probably still not aware that the switchover is going to happen, and could probably use some more insistent messages.
You don't get a deferred salary in a blind trust. As you say, nice try with the talking points.
The correct advisory for this kind of deadline is to have unaffiliated academics weigh in on the proposal and take this from a strictly neutral perspective.
And when these mythical people never appear out of thin air, do we get back to reality?
I dunno, with my converter box I now get about 5 different channels of PBS. For a lot of kids, PBS after school probably teaches them more than they learn IN school. What we need to get rid of is cable, with 900 channels of crap.
That President of the United States not be an entry-level job, and that the elect would actually have some executive experience to judge him on. Sarah Palin was too inexperienced having been a mayor of a small town and governor of a low-populated state (with an 80% approval rating).
Obama's executive experience in the public or private sector? The guy hasn't run a hot dog stand, let alone a major organization.
Hmm, a junior senator who hasn't even had a full term yet with a staff of 73 might not know how to run the most complex organization on earth with the most employees on earth? Who woulda thunk it?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
37 years ago, there was a very timeless statement made:
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Basically, politicians are all pretty much the same, in that their primary goal is to keep themselves and "their side" in power.
But wouldn't it be more surprising if a team advising on the use of airwaves had no members with ties to companies who use airwaves?
Yes, but don't you think there are probably a few people without such direct ties to any current company with such a clear motive for delay? Retirement brings a lot of perspective, and some distance from influence even though there are still ties to companies worked for previously...
Or, don't you think if you were going to have industry advisors active in the current industry you'd have a few so as to even out bias from opinion?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The channels aren't going dark, they will be broadcasting on different frequency bands. The looped message you suggest might be a good idea, but the reason the stations are being moved to different frequency bands is that the frequencies currently being used for analog TV will be used for other things. One of the big reasons for the digital TV transition is to free up the analog TV frequencies for radios used by emergency services. So, your idea probably wouldn't work because once the station is on a different frequency, other organizations are going to be needing that bandwith.
I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
Anyway I just got my converter box and I miss analog. I'm having issues with HD channels being converted to "standard def" resolution and my tv is making an extremely annoying "buzzing" noise on HD channels. It was snowing today and we lost our signal.
A lot of that is because the stations are not broadcasting anywhere near full power until the official switch occurs, or on the same bands because they would interfere with analog TV.
I've been using DTV for a while now and dropouts can be more annoying than snow... but with a good antenna OTA broadcasts are better than cable, and I get three digital feeds from a local PBS station where I used to have just one channel. I greatly prefer it overall.
If you want to look for a dark horse in this matter perhaps pushing for delay, I'd imaging satellite or cable providers might not be too keen on people having access to OTA broadcasts that show how good digital can really be and perhaps convince fewer people they need cable...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There is another problem though. I was a good little consumer, got my coupon, bought my digital converter box and tried to do the switch. Most of the channels don't get in on the digital box, only Public TV and the Spanish channel. To say it is very disappointing is an understatement, I was hoping to get improved reception, instead I find my selection to be much more limited.
I'm hoping that when the analog signal is turned off, I'll be able to get the digital signal in better, but I'm actually quite pessimistic about it.
For me the only downside is that I can't really use my computer and watch some silly nonsense on the TV while I'm doing whatever it is I'm doing. I was already watching more of the few shows that I actually am interested in on the Internet, than on the broadcast channels.
I can't afford cable/satellite right now (which means "my current priorities don't include cable/satellite in my list of expenses"), so I'm guessing I'll just learn to use my TV as a monitor for games and DVDs.
They've weakened the analog signal to the point where I get a lot of snow, currently (they mentioned on the station that they would be doing this in preparation for the switch), so I'm finding I put in a DVD of Road Runner or Ranma 1/2 and let it run while I'm messing with my computer. Better or worse than letting the millionth iteration or Seinfeld or the King of Queens run while I'm working? I don't know.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
So Cheney, who made millions at Haliburton, left the private sector for a $175K job simply to further enrich himself, at the expense of American blood and treasure (It's OK to make this devastating claim about Cheney, "but don't question a liberal's patriotism!!!!"). Not because, as a man who spent the vast majority of his life as a public servant, he wanted to help guide the country.
Nope, Darth Vader came to the VP office to make money. Let me get the chronology correct here.
1) Leave incredibly profitable private sector job to Become VP, knowing there would be a 9/11 leading to the concern over WMD and that Saddam would not comply with UN resolutions or IAEA inspections, that we would thus invade Iraq, and that Haliburton would become the military's main civilian infrastructure contractor.
2) Invade Iraq
3) ????
4) Haliburton chosen as main contractor by US military
5) Profit.
In other words, even if you impugn the man's character and motives, you still have to give him the foresight to predict all of this, as well as some shred of evidence that he actually influenced the contract selection process of the US Military. To date, there is no evidence - and a mound of contrary evidence - that Cheney had influence over Haliburton being chosen.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
To be fair, Obama's campaign wasn't really centered around "I'm going to vet every single postion I fill much more rigorously than anyone ever has before."
Since Obama has stated that he will overcome inexperience with a team of expert advisors on which he would rely more heavily, that in fact is directly implied. Or at least you'd hope it would be the case.
I actually think he's generally done a very good job with staff picks so far, but this DTV delay issue being so closely ties to both a major donor and company that would benefit, is very Chicagoy. Why he couldn't pick a few different people from the industry instead of just one...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And in fact it's problem #1. I think it's the same for journalism also.
It isn't the job of government to be helping people! It's the job of government to maintain freedom. In that environment, people will help themselves and each other.
If you're getting into government or journalism to "make a difference", DON'T. Get in to, respectively, preserve freedom and tell the truth.
The surprising (and I don't think thats even the right word - perhaps "wrong") thing is not that the airwave advising team has members with ties to companies who use airwaves.
According to TFA, Obama, who wants to delay the DTV switch, is doing so (at least in part) based on the input of someone who stands to directly profit from having the transition delayed.
Why: It would seem that this Salemme guy is a Clearwire executive. Verizon, in an attempt to compete with Clearwire, spent $9.4 billion to be allowed to use the spectrum that analog TV is currently on. Obama, on the advice of Salemme, wants to deny Verizon use of that chunk of spectrum, preventing them from competing effectively with Clearwire.
The guy in question has made some campaign contributions (apparently around $17,000).
He has an impressive history in the industry and as a lobbyist in DC. The guy has been around, knows his technical info, and knows who to talk to in DC.
But.... He is not on Obama's staff. It appears that he was invited to some of the campaign parties, and that he has (post election) been invited to one or more meetings as a consultant with the head of Obama's Science and Technology working group. A group headed by Tom Wheeler, who has ties to a back bone provider that may have a better chance at profiting with no delay in the DTV conversion.
In summary, some guy who doesn't work for Obama has an opinion that might or might not lead to a more profitable situation for a company, and he has shared that opinion with someone who possibly has a different opinion that might or might not lead to a more profitable situation for another company, who works for a man that has an opinion that he has hopefully come to after listening to people with different motivations and goals, and weighed each of their opinions against each other and against what he hopes to accomplish while in charge.
I'm failing to see how this is at all "scandal". We already knew that Obama was soliciting advice from people who he disagreed with. The fact that he is talking to lobbyists from opposing sides of these arguments at least indicates that he is trying to get a better picture than what any individual (even those on his staff) are able to paint for him.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
"The latter are corrupt. The former are even more dangerous."
But they are all equally wrong.
So am I the only one who wonders what cool interference patterns we might be able to see if we hang onto our old analog TVs after the switchover, and try tuning in some of the new wireless network data they're going to be transmitting on the same frequencies?
So you're suggesting that Obama's experience is equivalent or less than Palin's?
That's exactly what I am saying. As for REI's "nice post" - which never addresses my issue that Obama has zero executive experience, either foreign or domestic and his largest staff was 73 people - I submit to you a quote from William F. Buckley (since we are apparently using the wisdom of others to make our points.):
"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
The same applies, even more so, to Columbia University.
Again, no executive experience. He is without a doubt the least-experienced person ever to be elected to the job. He was elected because he is likable and people feel good voting for a black guy, pure and simple. POTUS is not an entry level job.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The question makes perfect sense, as does the answer.
"Can anyone educate me on why a mandated cutting [of] analog [service] is a requirement of DTV?"
The transition to DTV frees up radio spectrum space currently used by analog. That space is very valuable, and has been sold/licensed for hundreds of billions of dollars. Those who will use the space have a pressing need to access that space ASAP - both to be able to use it at all, and to recoup their very large investment (every delayed day costs them millions in lost revenue).
Yes, technically, DTV can co-exist alongside analog TV. But as most broadcasters & viewers transition to DTV, maintaining that legacy service stalls other technical advancements (ex.: 4G) which would serve a whole lotta people for a whole lotta profit.
Translation: DTV requires cutting analog TV service because not doing so means you (and 50 million other people) don't get your 4G video cell phone just because Gramma wants to watch some podunk TV channel on her 1962-vintage television.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I wonder how many people who are casually dismissing this report would be howling with outrage if the article was about, say, Bush's choice for assistant director of the FCC instead of about someone on Obama's transition team.
Not many, because those of us who would bitch about Bush's choice for assistant director of the FCC are also likely to know how to read, and would have noted that the person in question is not on Obama's transition team.
paintball
At my work, I'm actually not allowed to have a vested interest in a competitor.
Governments generally have a similar prohibition on having a vested interest in THEIR competitors: Other governments and organized crime. B-)
(Of course this doesn't affect your point about such conflicts of interest contributing to governments doing worse than private enterprise when attempting to operate businesses.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It's also hard to find experts in a field to hire for the regulatory board that DON'T have a history of employment in the companies he'll be regulating. (What kind of "expert" hasn't actually worked in the field, after all?)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
A big PS:
This is a severe error in judgement and a severe error in disclosure. It is a severe error in situational analysis.
Judgement, situational analysis and action plans (in this case, recusal or disclosure) are based on at least three things: education, experience and character (willpower and conviction). The first two seem to be not lacking.
Therefore, I correctly label this behavior as a character failure.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
The whole reason we frown on conflicts of interest is that a person in a position to make public policy should not benefit financially from that policy, lest he might do what is best for himself rather than what is best for the public good (this is also known as "a member of Congress").
But Cheney simply does not make military contractor policy, something watched like a hawk by the congressional armed services committees and their friends in the military and private contractors (i.e., the Iron Triangle). You'd have an easier time stealing a wildebeest from a pack of lions than you would poaching a major military contract from the Iron Triangle.
If you want to see a conflict of interest, look at the members of congress with naval contractors in their districts and states. Or better yet, how much money Obama took from the dreaded entertainment industry and how he ends up serving the MPAA and the RIAA. Or how his Transportation Secretary nominee benefited donors with his earmarks.
But when we have a politician with no policy-making role that effects his pocketbook, then there is no conflict of interest. That's why it matters that Cheney did not and could not make policy that rewarded him through Haliburton. It isn't a conflict that someone inadvertently profits from a decision of government which he did not make!
you instead resort to accusing me of equating him to Darth Vader, being aware of the 9/11 plot, planning to invade Iraq.
Your powers of extrapolation are... astounding.
No, I have just read the repeated posts here, on Dailykos, on HuffPost, alleging just what I "extrapolated." Several posters in this very thread have made similar arguments.
And I find it hard to believe that you are some fair-minded guy concerned about government propriety, who isn't trying to besmirch a live-long public servant simply because of ideology. I find it hard to believe because in a thread about an Obama conflict of interest, rather than being outraged by it, you bring up a tenuous at best conflict from a war launched in 2003 - by a Republican.
I wonder if I looked back at your posting history, would you be one of those who criticized the "but...Clinton!" crowd defending Bush?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
then a slightly more degraded picture the next month,
No no no... Cut off one broadcast station per month.
The last one to go will be the Home Shopping Network, and on the very last month, every other item they offer will be a DTV converter box.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
so just make the damn cut-over and wait for the inevitable news stories about people being left without TV.
Especially since the worst-case scenario is that someone will be left without TV for a little while. Yeah, they won't be able to watch the news, which is a sort of concern, but the news these days has limited informational value anyway.
...Same as the old boss.
The Who
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
38 years ago - Who's Next was released in 1971.
Here here.
To be pedantic, 37-1/2 years ago.
The single was released on June 29, 1971, and Who's Next was released on July 31, 1971.
So am I the only one who wonders what cool interference patterns we might be able to see if we hang onto our old analog TVs after the switchover, and try tuning in some of the new wireless network data they're going to be transmitting on the same frequencies?
I will not rest until I rickroll you on your tv that way ;-)
Argue with a liberal, he eventually will 1) call you names (dumb, racist, sexist, homophobe, greedy), or 2) walk away indignantly.
You libs just have to make a personal attack on someone who disagrees with you. So now I am a "extremely partisan nutter" for having the temerity to stand up for someone who has served his country as an elected representative. I am sorry you are so cynical that you think all politicians are evil, but I think Cheney has tried to do the best he can to protect this country
And take your supercilious "sic" and stick it up your ass. That was obviously a typo, Mr. High and Mighty, Oh-so-smart lib. Seriously, get over yourself.
But even his specific case aside, a lifelong leech on the public tit is a bad thing,
Right, a guy who was making millions in the private sector and comes back into government to make $175K is a leech. No, I think he came into government to help America. And oh by the way, the Cheneys donated millions to charity, including that $175K salary. The mainstream media's eight years of character assassination notwithstanding, yes I do believe he is a decent man who tried to do the right thing.
And I guess you'd prefer that presidents with little or no national experience (Bush, Obama) not seek the assistance of seasoned Washington insiders to counsel them (Cheney, Biden). Yep, we need inexperienced noobies (oh no, sic!) running the country.
What the hell is wrong with your parents, your educational institutions and yourself that you never managed to figure out such a simple basic fact?
Wow, nice ad hominem attack, so typical of a lib. You manage to attack my parents, UCLA, my law school, and my character all in one sentence. Audacious even for a liberal. I guess this is what Obama meant by the Audacity of Hope?
Just once, I'd like to meet and debate with a liberal who won't run to the gutter and make personal attacks, and could just disagree without being disagreeable. Just once.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Sorry bub, but if you voted for Republicans in any presidential election, I'll vote for Obama in 2012. But I am not worried that I will have to do that.
Wow, you don't actually realize that you're only proving my point quite clearly. Of course, I've never voted for a Republican. That doesn't make me a "liberal". All it makes me is "not a complete fucking idiot". I've never voted for a Democrat either. I don't like big government and I don't like wasteful spending. If I was a single issue voter on that ground, then obviously, I'd vote for the Democrats as they're the small government party out of the two, but I don't go for the lesser of two evils. If you don't realize that the Democrats are the small government fiscally responsible party out of the two, then you're an ignorant fool. all you have to do is run the numbers and quit swallowing propaganda. Put another way, all you'd have to do is think. You've made it abundantly clear that that isn't your strong point though.
There is a huge amount of space there. Everything except "extremist right wing nutjob" in fact. That's everything from the left fringe, through moderate left through the entire center, Classical Liberalism, you know the founding principles of this nation through the moderate right. That's, again, everyone except the lunatic fringe. That shows a very tenuous grip on reality, Sparky, so it's not worth trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. Reason is clearly outside you capabilities as you have proven here. Again, that's a logical conclusion, not part of the argument.
Liberals, especially the hard-left, do talk that way, at least from reading the two iconic left-wing Websites
LOL, when you lump Liberals and the hard left together it demonstrates complete ignorance of the political spectrum, which ignorance is typical of the far right fringe which is the realm of the Republican party.
2009 America is a lot of good things, but laissez-faire and small government it is decidedly not. And with Obama as POTUS and 58 or 59 senators and a majority in the House on his side, I doubt it's going to get more Classically Liberal any time soon.
You seem very confused. laissez-faire and small government is liberalism which is the center position between the big government left and the big government right. The Republican party is far right fringe, for the most part which is inherently anti classical liberal. It's corporatist rather than hands off. You really should learn what words mean before spouting ignorant swill. I mean when you have no knowledge of political systems apart from the ravings of fascist propaganda mouthpieces like O'Reilly and Hannity you should just shut up. Your idiocy is way to obvious otherwise.
Calling someone stupid and saying they have bad parents and being anti-American and a scumbag - merely because they have the nerve to disagree with you -
It has nothing to do with "disagreeing with me". It's spouting idiotic propaganda and lies which have been thoroughly refuted time and time again. You know damn well you're lying, or you're too stupid to pay attention to the world around you and merely spout nonsense that you wish were true in the face of every single scrap of evidence bar none.
If you don't believe me, go read redstate.org's or NRO.com's forums.
Then go read moveon.org's and huffingtonpost.com's forums and read the vitriol.
It's reasonable that sane, rational people would be the most pissed off given that the mainstream media and the government have conspired to spout little besides fascist propaganda while creating a police state and pissing in the face of everything good this country was once based upon. When the current president is, without a doubt, the worst traitor in the history of the nation and it looks like he'll get the same treatment as Nixon and Reagan, that is pardon for treason, it's perfectly reasonable to be pissed off. Obviously you think somehow you benefit for the biggest increase i