Will Obama's DOJ Intervene To Help RIAA?

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Cloud, a Pennsylvania case in which the RIAA's statutory damages theory — seeking from 2,200 to 450,000 times the amount of actual damages — is being tested, the US Department of Justice has just filed papers indicating that it is considering intervening in the case to defend the constitutionality of such awards, and requesting an extension of time (PDF) in which to decide whether such intervention 'is appropriate.' This is an early test of whether President Obama will make good on his promises (a) not to allow industry insiders to participate in cases affecting the industry they represented (the 2nd and 3rd highest DOJ officials are RIAA lawyers) and (b) to look out for ordinary citizens rather than big corporations."

Comments

I hope so...

[Anonymous Coward]

but I think not...

Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[commodore64_love]

Let me get this straight. Obama, the man of the people, has a Dept. of Justice filing an amicus brief in order to HELP the extortionate RIAA win their case?

Oh Lord, I wasted my vote.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[srussia]

Oh Lord, I wasted my vote.

"Wasted vote" is a redundancy.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[phantomfive]

Not yet. Obama has lots of things to worry about, a big economic crisis, making government more open, a couple wars.......on the scale of importance of things this one is rather low. Heck, on my scale I'd rather have Obama worrying about the high rates of murder in Oakland, CA than worrying about an industry whose music isn't that great anyway.

So, we don't know if Obama has even looked at the issue at hand yet. All that has happened so far is that they've asked for more time to look at the issue, which is totally fine in my book. The ultimate tests will be what he eventually decides (assuming he actually looks at it; if he doesn't look at it, then we can't conclude anything about Obama except about his priorities), and who he lets work on it. If he lets the two DOJ officials who are RIAA lawyers take the lead in the case, then we can know he's a tool.

Which we should have already known. How likely is it that the Illinois political system can produce a politician untainted by corruption? We chose Obama because he is a step in the right direction, a step towards openness, a step towards making friends with the rest of the world, and I would even say a step towards cleaning up corruption (that's the point of openness, right?). We knew he wasn't perfect, that's not why we chose him. We chose him because we wanted a change in direction; that can take time, and won't all happen with one man.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[LameAssTheMity]

Voting for either "side" in this broken two party corporate governance is a waste, the best you can hope for is that the guy who wins will fuck you less than the other guy.

that is unless we take control of our federal government by utilizing our state power, but who really paid attention to the local elections? Last time I checked, they were installed by the same corporations/banks that paid for McCain AND Obama!

Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself at opensecrets.org

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[DragonWriter]

Let me get this straight. Obama, the man of the people, has a Dept. of Justice filing an amicus brief in order to HELP the extortionate RIAA win their case?

No, the Obama Administration's DOJ is considering filing an amicus brief supporting statutory damages even when they greatly exceed demonstrable actual damages. While that theory being struck down in the instant case might be bad for the RIAA and no one else immediately, if such a precedent were established, it would greatly limit the use of statutory damages in most of the places where they are used, which are often in places where the easily quantifiable portion of direct harms is very small, but the diffuse impact may be very large. This does not benefit only, or even primarily, big corporations, its very common in laws that principally benefit individuals against big corporations (like many consumer protection laws) and other powerful interests (civil actions under many civil rights laws).

Amicus briefs are often filed by parties whose interest in legal precedent that could be set is largely tangential to the interests of the parties in the case; if parties have a direct interest in the case, they probably ought to be intervenors, not amici.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama, the man of the people

When was President Obama ever a man of the people? Or are you talking about his marketing campaign?

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheGratefulNet]

it was never 'one man, one vote'.

but rather: one dollar, one vote.

get hip to how the world works, folks. this isn't a disney movie. the bad guys OFTEN win.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Palpitations]

Oh come on. I'm so sick of that argument. Every vote matters. I'm as fed up with mainstream Democrats and Republicans as anyone, both tend to have major flaws... That said, do you really think that McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are equal? Even if I don't agree with them on many issues, I'll take someone with a constitutional law degree over a senile old man and a far-right nutjob any day.

That said, I've voted for a third party all of my life. I've never lived in a swing state, so my vote won't change the outcome anyway. Does that mean my vote was wasted? Absolutely not! I vote for the third party that is most likely to get 5% of the vote, a requirement in order to receive matching funds during the next cycle (see the Public Funding of Presidential Campaigns Brochure). I recommend that everyone who lives in a solid blue or red state does the same. More voices and more opinions brought to the table will only help us.

Saying that every vote is wasted is absurd. If you don't care to educate yourself on the issues or involve yourself, that's one thing. By all means, stand aside and let those of us who do care take care of things. But if you give a damn, either stand up and be counted or shut the hell up.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[langelgjm]

No, the Obama Administration's DOJ is considering filing an amicus brief supporting statutory damages even when they greatly exceed demonstrable actual damages.

Not just any statutory damages - they're specifically looking at the statutory damages of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 504(c), not some other set of statutory damages. It says so in the linked PDF.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[bigstrat2003]

That said, do you really think that McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are equal?

Of course I do. They both had critical flaws which made both of them unsuitable to be our next president. Once we get past that, it doesn't matter what else you can say about them. They were both equal: really bad.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

We chose Obama because he is a step in the right direction, a step towards openness, a step towards making friends with the rest of the world, and I would even say a step towards cleaning up corruption (that's the point of openness, right?). We knew he wasn't perfect, that's not why we chose him. We chose him because we wanted a change in direction; that can take time, and won't all happen with one man.

Thank you.

He's made some very good pledges about openness and anti-corruption measures, so now's the time for him to live up to them.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[srussia]

But if you give a damn, either stand up and be counted or shut the hell up.

I'd like to shut the hell up AND be counted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-voting

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[macraig]

Oh Lord, I wasted my vote.

I told you it would be like this, but you weren't listening. You chose to follow the Pied Piper.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[elrous0]

Yes, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the millions of $ in campaign contributions the movie and music studios gave Obama during the election. I'm also sure that all those no-bid Halliburton military contracts didn't have anything to do with the Vice President being a former CEO and major shareholder of the company. And, of course, I believe that O.J. didn't kill his wife and that Barry Bonds didn't do steroids.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[macraig]

Have you not noticed or already blanked-out the fact that it was Obama's new administration that placed these RIAA lawyers in the DOJ in the first place? A Slashdot reminder of that fact was linked right in the article above.

You call it "optimism", but I call it "delusion".

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[LameAssTheMity]

I'm not sure runoff voting will solve the problem, for example: if I vote for the libertarian candidate and he's only got 1-5% of the popular vote, I sure as hell don't want my vote "redistributed" to the corporate shill who had 30x as many television and print advertisements.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Shakrai]

That said, do you really think that McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are equal?

I guess that depends on which freedoms you'd rather lose. If you'd rather lose your 2nd and 4th amendment freedoms then Obama/Biden is your team. If you'd rather lose your 1st and 4th amendment freedoms then McCain/Palin should have gotten your vote. If you'd rather not lose any freedoms then I hope you found someone else to vote for.

I'll take someone with a constitutional law degree

Who supported the FISA bill and wants to pass a dubious assault weapons ban? Interesting way to look at the constitution.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's made some very good pledges about openness and anti-corruption measures, so now's the time for him to live up to them.

Here's some background on Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10110922-38.html

Intellectual property piracy: "This is theft"
Less ambiguous were Holder's arguments for aggressive enforcement of U.S. intellectual property laws. In 1999, he joined the president of Adobe Systems at an event in San Jose, Calif., to announce that digital piracy had become a real problem and would become a "real priority" for the Justice Department.

"This is theft, pure and simple," Holder said at the time.

The Business Software Alliance, which counts Adobe Systems and Microsoft as members, applauded Holder's nomination this week. "He's smart, he's dedicated, open minded, he's very tenacious in pursuing the goals of the department," said BSA president Robert Holleyman. "We're very enthusiastic...He's a first rate choice."

Do not expect any change from the previous administration's stance on IP matters. It's going to be pretty much corporatist justice, if not more so.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Palpitations]

They both had critical flaws which made both of them unsuitable to be our next president.

Okay, let's say that we expect a standard of 10, that's what we consider suitable. Neither a 3 nor a 7 meet the standard. That doesn't mean that 3=7.

Nothing in life is perfect. Inability to compromise is the downfall of Libertarians and Greens everywhere. Both have some great ideas (in my opinion, anything those two group agree on is as good as gold - social issues mainly), but the all-or-nothing attitude that they share keeps them from being taken seriously.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[thedonger]

The problem isn't the two-party system. That is a symptom. We as a nation have allowed the federal government to assume more and more of our states' powers in return for pledges to "fix" various societal ills. We have all forgotten the intention of the founders/framers to protect us from an overreaching federal bureaucracy, either through laziness or lack of education.

I would much rather have my state and federal taxes reversed, i.e., pay thousands to my state but only hundreds to the fed, that way my money would work for me and those near me, rather than to help subsidize loads crap 3000 miles away. It would also take some of the power out of the US Congress and make state senators and representatives more important.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Lord Bitman]

Voting is not a contest, it's a statistic.
Every vote "counts" because every vote is a registration of a single person's opinion. America is set up to give the majority opinion a voice.

If you don't hold the majority opinion, you will not be represented. But that doesn't mean that the act of taking a poll to find out "what exactly IS the current majority opinion?" is itself invalid.

The idea that the votes of the "losing side" somehow count less is absurd whining.

Yes, this was also true under Bush.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[LameAssTheMity]

I agree with you about the two party system being a symptom and I did imply that state power was the solution to the over-reaching fed. A lot of states are actually declaring sovereignty:

(NaturalNews) Nine state legislatures have either passed or introduced bills intended to reaffirm their state's sovereignty as laid out in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution. Another twenty states are expected to introduce similar measures this year. While the ramifications of these resolutions are still uncertain, one thing is clear. People are sick and tired of the federal government's usurpation of power not granted to it by the Constitution. They have had enough of fear based economic terrorism and underhanded promotion of policies and procedures that bypass public scrutiny and the will of the people.

From http://www.naturalnews.com/025638.html

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Thinboy00]

The communist party compromised and supported the democrats, but who gets taken more seriously, the communist party or the green party?

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Palpitations]

I guess that depends on which freedoms you'd rather lose. If you'd rather lose your 2nd and 4th amendment freedoms then Obama/Biden is your team. If you'd rather lose your 1st and 4th amendment freedoms then McCain/Palin should have gotten your vote. If you'd rather not lose any freedoms then I hope you found someone else to vote for.

I'm a gun owning, cryptography loving, card carrying member of the ACLU. I'm against "assault weapon" bans, and feel that the 2nd amendment should only extend to nuclear/biological/chemical weapons (with reasonable limitations to keep weapons out of the hands of the clinically insane). I have been teargassed and pepper sprayed for protesting outside of a "free speech zone". I've been searched without probable cause while citing Terry v. Ohio - a case which ruled that cops can pat you down for weapons, but not search you further. If you bothered to read what I had written, you'd also see that I voted third party (Libertarian, in this case, even though I think Barr is a dick).

Who supported the FISA bill and wants to pass a dubious assault weapons ban? Interesting way to look at the constitution.

FISA was a huge disappointment. I was seriously considering voting for a Democrat for the first time until that vote was cast, it made me swing back to third party instantly. I never said that I'm all about Obama, just that I believe his administration is an improvement over McCain/Palin. As an example, just look at the nomination of Dr. Chu - do you really believe that a McCain administration would have made such a wise choice?

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Hordeking]

No, you counteracted mine. Thanks, Douche.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Hordeking]

So if Obama is the bad guy because he won, does that make McCain the good guy?

No. They're both corrupt, rotten to the core, and beholden to corporate interests. Also, they kick puppies.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[LameAssTheMity]

I'm not very sure of the details, but I was under the impression that some countries in Europe have a direct representation of power according to how many votes they receive. This style of governance is actually more how I would like to see the government run, for example, if the libertarian, independent, green, anarchist, or whatever party gets 10% of the vote in a state, that party should maintain at least 10% control over what happens there rather than hoping that they can beat the parties at large in the next election in the mob-rule style of politics that we have now.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[cayenne8]

"We chose Obama because he is a step in the right direction, a step towards openness, a step towards making friends with the rest of the world, and I would even say a step towards cleaning up corruption (that's the point of openness, right?)."

Goodness, I wish I had your youthful optimism about the world.

*Sigh*....well, just give it a few years, with experience and seeing how it all works, that optimism and hope for the world fades. Enjoy it while you have you illusions. After that, you learn to just look out for yourself.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[corbettw]

Libertarians who are willing to compromise their core principles are just Republicans, just as Greens who do so are Democrats.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Shakrai]

If you bothered to read what I had written, you'd also see that I voted third party (Libertarian, in this case, even though I think Barr is a dick).

Who said I didn't? I was responding to your statement of them being equal, not to whom you voted for.

just that I believe his administration is an improvement over McCain/Palin

If you asked me a year ago I would have agreed with you. Now I'm not really convinced of that. It seems to me that the Democrats are using the exact same playbook that Bush used ("Pass my legislation or catastrophe will strike!") and somehow keeping a straight face while doing so. From where I stand they aren't really any better and may turn out to be worse.

As an example, just look at the nomination of Dr. Chu - do you really believe that a McCain administration would have made such a wise choice?

I see your Dr. Chu and raise you a Eric "pro war on drugs/pro gun control" Holder ;)

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[rhsanborn]

I read an interesting quote by Alan Greenspan from his memoir, he said he wanted to make a constitutional amendment reading, "Anyone willing to do what is required to become president of the United States is thereby barred from taking that office." I think it should apply to most political posts...

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Palpitations]

He's made some very good pledges about openness and anti-corruption measures, so now's the time for him to live up to them.

It may or may not be a token gesture, but it certainly makes me smile to read the White House's new Copyright Policy:

Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[cayenne8]

"Here's some background on Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder.

Intellectual property piracy: "This is theft""

Heck if you 'like' Holder for those views, during the Clinton administration, he promoted that Free Speech should be limited . Heck, there are even videos of him on YouTube speaking about to this....

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[hedwards]

Um, considering the fact that most voters tend to vote against the winner of the US Presidential election, I'm not sure your argument holds much water.

Bush was elected without winning a majority and without winning the popular vote either. And the last recount in Florida was incomplete leaving the electoral win somewhat ambiguous.

Once in office he spent a lot time cramming legislation down the throats of those that voted against him. Sure technically he didn't, it was him and the Republican party, but still.

Now you're telling me that the votes against him didn't count less? I find that very, very hard to believe. Had the constitution been respected to any meaningful degree the losing side would have had redress for the abuse.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Artraze]

> I'll take someone with a constitutional law degree over a senile old man and a far-right nutjob any day.

This argument is rather long over, but I feel that it is worth point out the following:

McCain would have been a good choice _precisely_ because he was a senile old man.

Young people tend to be more easily influenced by their friends and popular beliefs (which are not those of the people in the pres. bubble). McCain had a history of doing what he wanted, and not so much what others wanted of him. He proposed all kinds of legislation that was against _both_ parties' desires, and were generally not supportive of corporate influence (thus the unpopularity). That is what got him the title of maverick, and what lost him the election.

Now, you certainly can disagree with his personal philosophy; that's easy enough. But to say he had no merit is quite inaccurate, especially since he probably had the best odds of not being a corporate sycophant.

That's not to say he'd have been the right choice or Obama was the the wrong one, but is to point out that dismissing him out of hand as a senile old man is rather... stupid.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[CodeBuster]

He's made some very good pledges about openness and anti-corruption measures, so now's the time for him to live up to them.

Yes he did, but as we all know the President of the United States is only one man; the demands upon his time and attention are formidable. There are bound to be issues that he delegates to subordinates who don't always act in ways promised by the boss. One might say that it was disingenuous to represent otherwise to the people during the election, but did anyone honestly believe that Obama would or even could keep all of his promises? Let this be a lesson to the blind faith Obama supporters out there; political promises are made to be broken.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[hedwards]

I'd hate to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment as imagined by the Republican party doesn't exist. Interpreting it as being a right to personal firearms without any qualifiers is unjustified. Felons, children and those not trained to use them safely not have any protections that guarantee them access.

The second amendment is the part of the constitution which guarantees the right of militias to bear arms in their own defense. The amendment does not at any point grant an explicit individual right to gun ownership. Interpreting it as such requires a purposeful misreading of the amendment.

It is also worth pointing out that the case law of the US doesn't support the particular ruling that SCOTUS put out last year. Just as the government has the right to make certain rules related to slander and false claims without running afoul of the first amendment protections.

But, I'm sure I'll be modded a troll, because hey it's not like that first clause is of any importance.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's pretty cut and dried, it applies to regulated militias. Or in other words it applies only to those that are in a militia for the purposes of civil defense. All other gun rights are based upon which ones aren't taken away in law.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[tsm_sf]

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act

Obama might be the first black president, but this will be his real legacy. That's not delusion.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[jedidiah]

One is just a little more incompetent and cowardly than the other.

You pretty much voting for "just another senator" either way.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Palpitations]

Who said I didn't? I was responding to your statement of them being equal, not to whom you voted for.

If you'd rather not lose any freedoms then I hope you found someone else to vote for.> I took your second quote to mean that you didn't read the whole comment that I posted. When I make politically loaded statement, I often have people only make it halfway through my comments before responding - that's one of the hazards of being a critic of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, and everyone else - you're always going to offend someone and have them jump on you before you can finish.

I see your Dr. Chu and raise you a Eric "pro war on drugs/pro gun control" Holder ;)

You've got a point there. Gun control doesn't worry me too much, even if a lot of Democrats want it, they're not in a position to make it happen right now... The backlash would be too much, there is no way they'd push for it. The drug war thing does worry me a bit. I'm hopeful that Obama will push back against the DEA and raids on medical marijuana, and get Holder in line. There have still been raids, but it's a bit too early to say that it's business as usual. Give it a few months, and if that's still going on, I'll be pissed.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

We chose Obama because he is a step in the right direction, a step towards openness, a step towards making friends with the rest of the world, and I would even say a step towards cleaning up corruption (that's the point of openness, right?)."

Goodness, I wish I had your youthful optimism about the world. *Sigh*....well, just give it a few years, with experience and seeing how it all works, that optimism and hope for the world fades. Enjoy it while you have you illusions. After that, you learn to just look out for yourself.

Well I agreed with that comment a hundred percent. And I'm 60. You can call my optimism dumb, but you can't call it youthful.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Palpitations]

Oh damn it. Please ignore the screwed up quote tags. It may be early in the day for most of you, but my schedule is reversed, so this is the time for drinking and being sleepy for me.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[jedidiah]

I'd hate to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment as imagined by the Republican party doesn't exist. Interpreting it as being a right to personal firearms without any qualifiers is unjustified. Felons, children and those not trained to use them safely not have any protections that guarantee them access.

Of course this is a false strawman. You are perpetrating the common caricature of the "gun nut".

People who fixate on "gun control" want nothing of the sort. They want to ban
guns outright buy are stymied by the current state of the law. They don't want
the moderate version of your little caricature.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Let this be a lesson to the blind faith Obama supporters out there

I think that is a 'straw man' argument. I have never met a 'blind faith' Obama supporter. There probably is no such thing, except for maybe a very small number of very dumb people. We are offered a limited number of candidates, we vote for the one we feel is best, and we vote for the best. That's it. Don't try to disparage Obama supporters by mislabeling them 'blind faith' Obama supporters.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[easyTree]

For fuck's sake it's "for fuck's sake"..

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Typo in above. I meant to say:

We are offered a limited number of candidates, we vote for the one we feel is best, and we hope for the best.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Hordeking]

One is just a little more incompetent and cowardly than the other.

You pretty much voting for "just another senator" either way.

They're both a little more incompetent than the other in ways different from each other. For instance, Obama is the one who'd be able to talk his way out of an Illinois corruption scandal and into a white woman's bed, and McCain would be the one perfectly capable of fomenting a bloody rampage out of soldiers in the field. But I wouldn't expect them to be good at the reverse.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[jedidiah]

This would be by no means a bad thing.

TORTS are supposed to right wrongs, not be a payday. So it is logical
and obvious that damages awarded in lawsuits have some relationship to
actual proven harm. That's that civil courts are for: to prove harm and
resolve the harm.

They aren't meant for social crusading.

Any ambulance chaser who isn't fodder for Lawyer jokes would tell you that.

If there is a public policy reason to FINE people and corporations then
the law should allow for that explicitly. It should not be done as a back
door hack for something that isn't meant for the use you're putting it to.

Want megabuck fines for piracy? Fine, make it a proper criminal offense with
the state being the only entity with standing and a proper burden of proof.

Something that is not serious enough for society to pay attention to and take
seriously should not have severe draconian consequences attached to it.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

TORTS are supposed to right wrongs, not be a payday. So it is logical and obvious that damages awarded in lawsuits have some relationship to actual proven harm. That's that civil courts are for: to prove harm and resolve the harm. They aren't meant for social crusading. Any ambulance chaser who isn't fodder for Lawyer jokes would tell you that. If there is a public policy reason to FINE people and corporations then the law should allow for that explicitly. It should not be done as a back door hack for something that isn't meant for the use you're putting it to. Want megabuck fines for piracy? Fine, make it a proper criminal offense with the state being the only entity with standing and a proper burden of proof.

Well said, jedidiah. Thank you. That is the issue that will be argued in SONY v. Tenenbaum, when the First Circuit sorts out whether the argument can be streamed over the internet. It is a very important discussion we need to have about the RIAA's interpretation of copyright law.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[baboo_jackal]

The second amendment is the part of the constitution which guarantees the right of militias to bear arms in their own defense. The amendment does not at any point grant an explicit individual right to gun ownership. Interpreting it as such requires a purposeful misreading of the amendment.

Sooo... Your interpretation of the Second Amendment is that nobody should be allowed to possess firearms, unless they're part of a militia. What makes a "militia?" What if I declare that I'm the founding member of the "1st Doohickian Irregulars," and go out and buy a tent and a machine gun? Is that OK in your book? If your answer to that question is, "No, because you're not 'well-regulated,'" then you'd better come up with a definition of what you mean by "well-regulated," and who checks my "regularity."

Your argument breaks down in the specifics. Either the second amendment affords all Americans the right to bear arms ("with restrictions," as Antonin Scalia said in the majority opinion of the D.C. gun ban thing a while back), or it applies to "militias." So, either we as a nation are doing this all wrong, or you're wrong. Which is it?

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[morgauo]

Poverty and War, boring, snore snore

These two issues are old news and have plagued mankind since civilization began. What issue doesn't get thrown on the back burner to wait for solutions to never come.

We will always have poverty, we will always have war we cannot lose those as much as we would like to.

If we don't hold our politicians accountable while we still have a democracy that allows us to do so we will lose that.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[KylePflug]

Where it matters? The communist party, because by compromising they have SOME representation, as opposed to none.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Raistlin99]

So the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, but the 2nd is a collective right given to a group?

You claim the first clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", overrides the second which states "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So People references militia in this situtaion but when the same clause is used in the 4th amendment it refers to actual individuals?

I'm going to disagree with the notion that the people who enjoyed the right to bear personal arms, who saw such arms used in the defense of libery, would then limit their distribution to a subset of people deemed "the militia"

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[j. andrew rogers]

While I am sure that it did not hurt Halliburton to have Cheney as Vice President, your argument is defective because Halliburton has been getting no-bid contracts for a very long time, including plenty of lucrative no-bid contracts under the Clinton administration. If Halliburton's contracting largesse is the result of malfeasance, then you will have to paint both Democrats and Republicans with that brush, as they both freely participated in that behavior in their respective administrations.

In fairness to Halliburton, one of the reasons they get these types of no-bid contracts from dozens of governments around the world is that there are very, very few companies that actually do what they are doing for these governments on the scale they do it, and Halliburton has specialized in filling that particular demand. Realistically, for some of the contracts that Halliburton gets there are no legitimate competitors and everyone knows it, making a bidding process a bit of waste, particularly if the matter is urgent. On the upside, there are now a couple different other companies trying to move in on Halliburton's business.

I have never understood the obsession with painting Halliburton as the ultimate Republican evil instead of a much more accurate shade of gray that both Democrat and Republican administrations shovel money to that sometimes gets these contracts because there really is no reasonable alternative under the constraints. We can't fix the world if we are in denial about the reality of it, and Halliburton is just another big government contractor like numerous others that was well positioned for the kind of contracting work that resulted from the nominal War on Terror.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Chosen Reject]

Heck, on my scale I'd rather have Obama worrying about the high rates of murder in Oakland, CA than worrying about an industry whose music isn't that great anyway.

Sincerely, why? The rates of murder in Oakland, CA are an issue for the people living in Oakland, and maybe for the people in California. On the other hand, the statutory damages from copyright are a federal thing. I'd rather the people of California be concerned about the problems in California and the people at the federal level be concerned with federal level things.

So, really, why is it that you want the PotUS to be concerned about murder rates in one city over worrying about the constitutionality of federal laws? Why is it that you want the head of the Executive Office to be concerned about a local issue rather than whether he will be true to his own promises that his appointments won't be involved in the industries they previously represented? Please explain.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[hairyfeet]

It is just two sides of the same coin and it has been for a long time, probably since WW2. When you vote it is nothing but Coke VS Pepsi, since both sides have gotten their bribes....er, lobbyist money before you ever get to make a choice. That is why we need a new system, perhaps letting us have multiple choices so that those that feel they "waste a vote" by voting third party would get a say?

And on a slight OT note, it kinda saddens me how Bill Hicks has been dead over a decade and his words are if anything more true now than when he uttered them. How I miss the truths spoken by Hicks, Kinison, Pryor, and Carlin. they had the ability to focus like a laser right through the BS and make the lies so clear. I haven't seen any of the current comedians that could cut through the BS like those four could. And it looks like we could really use them now with the shine falling off of Obama and the ugly truths beginning to show behind the pretty lies.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[thedonger]

policies and procedures that bypass public scrutiny and the will of the people

Aside from that I find the clear logical argument that even with a non-corrupt federal government, the needs of 300 million people averaged out means less bang for the buck on a local or individual level. In a way, one can think of the single queue vs. multiple queues problem: One long queue with several nodes averages out to less wait time per person, but eliminates the possibility of a group of people benefiting from finding themselves in a fast queue among a multitude of slower ones.

I can extend that thinking to grouping every three queues into one, analogous to sharing the wealth on a local level while maintaining an acceptable level of sovereignty from the federal government.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[mrchaotica]

Does that mean you show up at the polling place and then abstain from everything, turning in an empty ballot? I hope so, because otherwise your act is indistinguishable from apathy.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[nurb432]

Depends, do you prefer socialism? if so, then you got exactly what you voted for.

This is only the beginning. In this society the little people are just in the way.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[lgw]

Those 10% representatives would still need to get somehting done once elected. The major parties would simply tell them "vote with us on *every* vote, or you get no committee seat". The major parties have done this to their own members, so it's not like they'd blink at doing it to outsiders.

Unpopular positions don't survive democracy. That's sort of the point of democracy - to make the plurality opinion always win.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Hordeking]

They both had critical flaws which made both of them unsuitable to be our next president.

Okay, let's say that we expect a standard of 10, that's what we consider suitable. Neither a 3 nor a 7 meet the standard. That doesn't mean that 3=7.

Well, to conservatives, Obama was a 3, and McCain was a 7. To liberals, McCain was a 3 and Obama was a 7. So if you add each one up, you get 10 for each, so it all works out and they are the same, in opposite ways.

Nothing in life is perfect. Inability to compromise is the downfall of Libertarians and Greens everywhere. Both have some great ideas (in my opinion, anything those two group agree on is as good as gold - social issues mainly), but the all-or-nothing attitude that they share keeps them from being taken seriously.

No, their downfall is not being able to break enough people away from the main parties, because those said individuals don't want to waste their dilute their vote and potentially have "the really bad one" win (ie I don't like McCain, and I really like Ron Paul, and I really, really hate Obama. If I vote for Paul, McCain has one less vote, and Obama might win a plurality, so both my guys lose). It's a problem with the voting system.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheGeniusIsOut]

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's pretty cut and dried, it applies to regulated militias. Or in other words it applies only to those that are in a militia for the purposes of civil defense. All other gun rights are based upon which ones aren't taken away in law.

This correction is the way I have always interpreted the 2nd amendment, since a militia is not a standing army but a collection of citizens, the People, who in times of need must be able to defend their homes/communities/State. This clause in the US Constitution exists because it is the duty of the People to prevent the government from becoming corrupt and possessing too much power. The first course of action should be the ballot box, failing that then the jury box, and finally the ammo box if all else has failed. The US was founded in revolution, and the founding fathers believed strongly that We The People should be capable of revolution when the tyrannies of the government grow to unacceptable levels with no other recourse. These days, it would take a good deal of hardship and corruption to get the average American to accept the need for revolution, since those are rarely stable and comfortable events, but we may get there before too long.

Thomas Jefferson summed these sentiments up nicely,

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[shutdown -p now]

Also, they kick puppies.

No, only Obama does that. McCain is a dog person, so he kicks kittens.

(Bush? He kicked both, and hamsters to boot)

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[hvm2hvm]

No, the bad guys won a lot earlier on the power ladder. What you see is in the Government is the best of those bad guys.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[shutdown -p now]

Libertarians who are willing to compromise their core principles are just Republicans, just as Greens who do so are Democrats.

No, they are both just realists.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[DwySteve]

Heck, there are even videos of him on YouTube speaking about to this....

Quick! Censor those! His opinions can't be allowed to see the light of day! They're too dangerous!

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[cjb658]

Oh Lord, I wasted my vote.

If it makes you feel better, I voted for Bob Barr.

But I live in a blue state, so it's not like it would have mattered anyway.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[cjb658]

Hopefully, the clowns in D.C. won't try to circumvent it.

[/pipe dream]

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[aurispector]

No politician can get anything done without support from his political base. We have two main camps-banking & big oil vs media and the lawyer lobby. Neither camp represents my interests. Obama is no different than any other democrat - Biden is especially cozy with the big media lobby. They're getting the ugliest stuff done first so everybody forgets in time for the next election how their rights got sold down the river.

All the fucking idiot liberals with stars in their eyes now begin to be educated in the ways of the world, in that they were played like a violin for the election and are now being cast aside like a used tissue. Of course, the right does the same thing. Enjoy your day.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[R2.0]

Welcome to Slashdot, where "Yes, We Can" becomes "We Did What?"

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Gizzmonic]

I agree with you in principle (I favor individual gun ownership), however, the 9th and 10th amendments apply to a group as well...collective rights of the states, and the people.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Gizzmonic]

Young people tend to be more easily influenced by their friends and popular beliefs (which are not those of the people in the pres. bubble).

Got any evidence to support that assertation? Didn't think so.

McCain had a history of doing what he wanted, and not so much what others wanted of him. He proposed all kinds of legislation that was against _both_ parties' desires, and were generally not supportive of corporate influence (thus the unpopularity). That is what got him the title of maverick, and what lost him the election.

Actually, what lost him the election was moving far to the right of his original positions in order to appeal to the far right in the Republican party. In other words, he was willing to "do what others wanted of him."

That's not to say he'd have been the right choice or Obama was the the wrong one, but is to point out that dismissing him out of hand as a senile old man is rather... stupid.

You won't even stand behind your original point? Then why post this drivel? To make yourself sound smart? My friend, you've done quite the opposite!

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Hucko]

Who is Bill Hicks and what did he say?

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[ekhben]

American politics are remarkably polar. There are inexhaustible supplies of people willing to assign all blame for every problem to one party or the other, and very few people willing to realise that any politician who is not willing to sell America for a few thousand dollars can't afford to run in the media circus that is a U.S. election.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[CrimsonAvenger]

No. The President does not "have a" Department of Justice. They are two of three distinct autonomous branches of government. I'm not saying Obama is without influence but don't conflate the judicial and executive branches or assert that they are controlled by a single individual.

Umm, no. The Justice Department isn't the Judiciary, it's a branch of the Executive. Specifically, it's the federal government's lawyers.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[CodeBuster]

I am going by the reactions that I saw in the town hall meetings, including the recent one in Fort Myers, were people were asking him to pay their bills, get them a job, and generally solve all of their problems. You are correct that this is not "everybody" who voted for Obama, but there certainly was a lot of "irrational exuberance" IMHO, displayed in the media reporting of the party conventions and town hall meetings. I suppose I was just frustrated with all of the apologists out there.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Hucko]

Heh, I reckon that every 3rd or 5th election we need an option of 'None of the above' after Australia's last two election. Perhaps a 'No confidence'.

Something is needed to show the parties that they aren't heading in directions that their constituents like. Of course I may well be wrong and they simply wouldn't be used by the citizens.

I came to this conclusion after reflection on my voting history and discovered every time I have been voting against something rather than for something. A case of lesser evil.

Anyway, neither has a chance of getting onto our voting system.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[macraig]

Exactly how is that HIS legacy? BUSH signed it into law, and John McCain was also involved. It passed UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate, so even the usual partisan bickering didn't apply. That all happened in 2006! Even the follow-up to it also had John McCain's name on it as well as others. That was truly a community effort, not something for which His Highness Obama can take unilateral credit.

Sorry, pal, but your counter really really sounds delusional.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[enrevanche]

AIDS and Herpes are both "really bad" but their not equal.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[BoberFett]

There's nothing real about spending trillions of dollars we don't have by both parties. In fact that money is the exact opposite of real.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[andy_t_roo]

yes, its the golden rule - he who has the gold, makes the rules

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[rossz]

I would much rather have my state and federal taxes reversed, i.e., pay thousands to my state but only hundreds to the fed, that way my money would work for me and those near me, rather than to help subsidize loads crap 3000 miles away. It would also take some of the power out of the US Congress and make state senators and representatives more important.

I've been making this argument for years. No one listens.

Most of the federal government exists in violation of the Constitution. Since the Constitution specifically states that any power not granted is denied, agencies such as the Department of Education should not exist.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[gfxguy]

Agreed... there's a set of principles that each party has. Violate those principles, and you no longer represent that party.

The republicans and democrats have long since betrayed their core principles.

Compromise = nobody is truly happy.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Teun]

For example in The Netherlands we have a representative democracy.
Does a party get 10% of the vote, they get 10% of the MP's.
With the number of parties we have you can only get a majority government via coalitions in the parliament.

This works fine when you have the Legislature (Parliament) in charge like over here.
Or like in Denmark where they often have a minority government that needs to find a (ever shifting) majority for every law they propose.

But the moment you have (effectively) a 1 man government like in the USofA or France you need a different system to get to a majority.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Eskarel]

I think the bigger problem is the US voting system. Barring the a major change in the political landscape(and I mean major) no US third party is ever going to get enough votes to actually win.

In the currrent US voting system, that is without run off voting, that means that every time you vote for a third party instead of for the major party which you prefer you essentially vote for the major party you like least.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you want to have third party representation in the US federal government, then you need run-off(probably instant run-off) voting. You still end up with the same two parties, but because you get to order your preferences(or allow your party of choice to negotiate where their unallocated preferences will go) then you can safely vote for a third party and hopefully influence the direction your major party of choice takes in the future.

It doesn't guarantee anything of course, but at least you could vote for your third party of choice without ending up with the practical government you didn't want.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[WalksOnDirt]

I voted third party (Libertarian, in this case, even though I think Barr is a dick).

I did exactly the same, and with the same attitude. We are too few, though, and I am in despair of ever seeing any improvement.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[nog_lorp]

And, what do you know? People from those town halls were getting jobs and having getting housing thanks to Obama! Sounds like well placed faith to me!

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[registrar]

The bad guys often win when it's "one person, one vote" too. Frankly, lots of voters are fools and they often elect really bad guys [citation needed].

[citation] For example, Italy. The USA. Probably every decent and honourable society has had a rush of blood to the head, and (often under a little stress) elected or approved foul leaders.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[CodeBuster]

I wonder if that angry guy who worked at McDonald's for the last 4 years got a pay raise or a better job; perhaps Obama offered him a job in his Administration? I don't know him of course, but after seeing him speak for 30 seconds on national television in that town hall meeting it was fairly obvious to me why he has been working a McJob for the past 4 years. There are many people out there who need more job training and better education, and investing in them would be more worthy than many other measures in that economic stimulus bill, but we cannot simply give the guy working at McDonalds a non-merit pay raise without giving everyone else the same type of raise and even if we did the guy working at McDonalds would eventually be hurt the most by the resulting inflation. Everyone wants more income and better jobs, but few are actually willing to do what is necessary and improve themselves in order to earn that better job or additional income. There is no free lunch after all.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[daath93]

then you'd better come up with a definition of what you mean by "well-regulated," and who checks my "regularity."

While I don't want to be the person to check your regularity, I might recommend a diet that is high in fiber.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[notwrong]

Are you sure that a country that has repeatedly elected one of the richest men in the world as Prime Minister is a good example of a one-person-one-vote outcome as opposed to one-dollar-one-vote?

I don't disagree that he, or several of the others are 'bad'. I just think that when someone is an immensely wealthy and powerful media baron, you can't really discount the impact of that wealth and media power on their political success.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Hucko]

Not the correct answer. How do I know which quote to use which will make my original pp make sense? From the list that GP posted i gathered that it was some two bit comedian. Whoop te do dah.

"I believe that God left certain drugs growing naturally upon our planet to help speed up and facilitate our evolution."

"I'll tell you, too, that's starting to depress me about UFO's, about the fact that they cross galaxies, or wherever they come from to visit us, and always end up in places like Fife, Alabama. Maybe these are not super-intelligent beings, man."

"It's just a ride and we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money, a choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your door, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one."

"The world is like a ride in an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time and they begin to question: "Is this real, or is this just a ride?" And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, "Hey, don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride." And we kill those people."

Bill Hicks

None of them seem relevant without distortion. Well, maybe the last one at a pinch.

Leads me to think maybe I have the wrong Bill Hicks. Thus my question.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Shakrai]

Gun control doesn't worry me too much, even if a lot of Democrats want it, they're not in a position to make it happen right now... The backlash would be too much, there is no way they'd push for it

I don't think they care about the backlash. The only reason I don't see it happening is that a lot of the Democratic gains have come in gun-friendly areas (VA, CO, MT, NC, etc) and their own membership might wind up voting against it. Personally I'm more worried about Albany than Washington -- us New Yorkers are fucked -- but I guess that's my problem and not yours.

There have still been raids, but it's a bit too early to say that it's business as usual. Give it a few months, and if that's still going on, I'll be pissed.

It'll still be going on. There's too much investment in the "War on Drugs" to turn back now. No politician is going to lose votes by going tough on drugs. Until that changes we can look forward to more raids on those evil cancer patients and 8-time gold medal winners.....

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[hairyfeet]

And George Carlin also did sex jokes, your point? If all he did was politics you'd have Rage Against The Machine with a laugh track. Type "Bill Hicks politics" or "Bill hicks marketing" or "Bill Hicks corporations" if you want to see the political stuff. I put a link in my post with the relevant one to the discussion. If you would like it again here it is.

Or if you want to see how he is being ripped off now that he is dead, type in "Bill Hicks VS Dennis Leary" to see how Leary has stolen a good chunk of his bits from Hicks. He just can't do them as good.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Hucko]

And the alternative was...? Do you really think your (USA) McCain would have a better record after 1 month?

In Australia, I voted Rudd last year. I hate some of the things he (the party, that is) is doing. But he is still better than our alternatives. *shudder*.

Besides, if McCain had got in, we would have had people running around saying "McCain, you've done it again..."*

* An advert in Aus for a package vegetable company. Not sure of their origins/base.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Yuuki Dasu]

Of course this is a false strawman. You are perpetrating the common caricature of the "gun nut".

People who fixate on "gun control" want nothing of the sort. They want to ban guns outright buy are stymied by the current state of the law. They don't want the moderate version of your little caricature.

The brutal irony here is that you, yourself, are guilty of the exact fallacy you're calling out the GP for. The fact that you can denounce the GP for focusing on the extreme fringe cases and then, with barely pause for breath, explain that everyone against you is an anti-gun extremist is really breathtaking

Regardless of where we, as a society, decide is proper to draw the line between what we legally permit in this debate, please understand that opinions on this (as in any subject) lie on a vast spectrum. There's a middle ground between banning BBs and allowing personal nukes.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[arekusu_ou]

You didn't waste your vote anymore than usual.
Your vote wasn't to GET Obama into office.
Your vote was to keep McCain and Palin OUT of office.
Unless Obama turns out to be the biggest fake in the world, nothing he does in the next 4 years can be half as scary as what McCain and Palin could have done or 1% as scary as what Bush did in his 8 years.

Although judging by his track record over the last few weeks, he's making good time getting there.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[SL Baur]

Well, to conservatives, Obama was a 3, and McCain was a 7. To liberals, McCain was a 3 and Obama was a 7.

Except that it wasn't quite like that. McCain was a 3 and Obama was a 1. That was from some issues oriented poll I took at the start of the primaries that rated candidates based on 10 statements on 10 different subjects.

The only thing I agreed with Obama on was getting the US military the hell out of war and he's backtracked on that.

This is going to be worse than Bush who actually ran on a decent platform, only to do a total 180 once he got elected. An example of a promise gone bad: I wanted the US out of the World Court, because it's just plain bad law, not to give the US military the go-ahead to torture prisoners. You Obamites will go through the same thing.

President Reagan did some wonderful things while in office, but he was also responsible for expanding the War on Some Drugs and creating Civil Forfeiture. Impeached ex-President Clinton had a bad first two years, but after he got side-tracked by the first opposition Republican House & Senate in half a century, and then later by his appetite for sex, actually settled down and had a fairly decent administration, as things go in the US.

Gridlock is Good. Maybe the best system would be an anti-parliamentary system where the head of state is chosen from one of the opposition parties.

It's wonderful to see Obama sticking to his campaign promises. Jamming through a 1000+ partisan "emergency" spending bill that no one was given time to read (and signed almost half a week later) is certainly Change We Need.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[SL Baur]

No politician can get anything done without support from his political base.

THE reason why McCain lost, but go ahead.

We have two main camps-banking & big oil vs media and the lawyer lobby. Neither camp represents my interests. Obama is no different than any other democrat - Biden is especially cozy with the big media lobby.

I'm not sure I see it that way. The big media lobby was in the tank for Obama.

They're getting the ugliest stuff done first so everybody forgets in time for the next election how their rights got sold down the river.

Yes, agreed. Impeached ex-President Clinton did the same thing. It's telling that his Porkulus bill was 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the size of Obama's.

I'm trying to recall what President Bush did for me in his first few months in office and cannot recall anything.

I hope the Obamites are as happy with their President as those of us who mistakenly voted for Bush are with him.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[SL Baur]

McCain would have been a good choice _precisely_ because he was a senile old man. ... dismissing him out of hand as a senile old man is rather... stupid.

Totally agree.

I would add to your list of arguments:

* A Vice President Palin would have made for most entertaining news.

* An opposition Democrat congress would have made for some slowing of the advancement of federal government power.

I am betting the Democrats learned something from 1993, 1994 and it won't be so easy next time to restore a balance of power.

Sigh.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[macraig]

I'm a virtual socialist, but McCain doesn't make me shudder any more violently than does Obama. They're both bad leaders. I don't trust either of them. I trust people like Kucinich and McDermott.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Scrameustache]

That said, do you really think that McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are equal?

Of course I do. They both had critical flaws which made both of them unsuitable to be our next president. Once we get past that, it doesn't matter what else you can say about them. They were both equal: really bad.

One promised (in song!) to start a war with Iran and one promised to try not to.

I like the one that won't go looking for any damn excuse to go to phase three of the take over of the middle east (1-East, 2-West, 3-Center).

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Scrameustache]

Of course this is a false strawman. You are perpetrating the common caricature of the "gun nut".

People who fixate on "gun control" want nothing of the sort. They want to ban
guns outright buy are stymied by the current state of the law. They don't want
the moderate version of your little caricature.

I see you're an expert in false straw men.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Hucko]

Ah, my point was to the AC, not you. Searching (google is a stupid verb) doesn't render my question invalid. I'm behind a school's filter, YouTube not allowed. So I apologise to you for not having that nugget in my first question.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Hucko]

So USA does actually have alternatives? Sigh... That is really sad for Australians. I thought we were in good company.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[macraig]

I'm just hoping that Kucinich runs again in four years.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Hucko]

Yeah rub it in...

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[V!NCENT]

That doesn't outrule that he is about to be doing a lot of good things... Things in this world aren't always as black and white.

Just saying...

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[sumdumass]

It was never neither. Quit attempting to apply some romantic dream you have about how it should be. The president of the United states was originally supposed to be decided by the states in a manner they chose, not by a vote by one person. The senate was originally comprised of people chosen by the state, not the people. The house of representatives was supposed to be the only vote the people got. We have since then made the senators and elected post but their structure is still surounding that of the state's choice.

It was never one man one vote on the federal level.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Sj0]

I'd have to disagree with your premise. I've been called a "far right wing whackjob", and McCain Palin simply didn't jive.

Bush in 2000 ran on a platform of smaller government, humble foreign policy, reducing spending and taxes. He ended up increasing budgetted spending more than any president in history, adjusting for inflation, and increasing debt mroe than any president in history adjusting for inflation, and increasing the size of government (he doubled the size of the department of education).

McCain and Palin gave lip service to conservative ideals, but never gave any indication that they actually planned to follow through. By contrast, Obama was obviously progressive, was heavily in support of an Keynesian stimulus, and reversing some of the more blatant regressive actions of the Bush administration. Part of the "change" was transparency, not saying one thing and doing another.

The choice was between the socialists who would spend lots but hate ethnic groups and homosexuals, and the socialists who would spend somewhat less and don't hate ethic groups and homosexuals. As a far-right whackjob, my choice would immediately be Obama, because I don't hate ethnic groups and homosexuals, and I'd prefer going with the party history shows will spend less(Remember history? Conservatives used to look to it for answers.), since there was no real conservative party on the bill, just the big socialists who hate minorities and the lesser socialists who don't.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[macraig]

No rubbing, honest, my hands are tied behind me (like most Americans). I think we both live in countries overdue for revolutions.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[hairyfeet]

No prob, maybe I can help you out. Ever try Anonymouse? It is what we used to get around the filters when I was in school. In fact I used to make $2.50 a pop showing the facebook addicts how to get around the filters so they could get their fix. Knowledge is power, and profits.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[CodeBuster]

if you think that any president no matter his political beliefs is going to destroy it while that's true is fooling themselves.

Its too late to avoid that destruction now. Indian and other foreign drug companies rip off our new drugs, the Chinese and more than half of everyone else around the world uses proprietary American software without paying, and the music business is sliding down an ice covered slope at terminal velocity. The least that Obama could do on the copyright front is to reign in Biden's RIAA friends at the DOJ before they bring in the legal equivalent of the tactical nuke with federal government involvement in more spamigation and new felony copyright infringement lawsuits against ordinary people who are already reeling from the down economy. If Obama lets this one simmer on the back burner it could explode into the worst PR mess he has seen yet when the RIAA and the DOJ start tag-teaming the working class American family.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[ShadoHawk]

I rather enjoyed Robert Newman. Not trying to twist anyone's view. I just found it entertaining and gave something(s) for me to look into. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Sj0]

GET OFF MY LAWN!

You damn kids, you're not even worth talking to until you hit 120.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Kharny]

Why can't the USA use the same system as practically every European democracy? Vote nationally, and each party gets a percentage of the power based on their total vote percentage.

This "winner takes all" system that the us has makes absolutely no sense.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[jandersen]

get hip to how the world works, folks. this isn't a disney movie. the bad guys OFTEN win.

Nope, this is not the way the world work everywhere. Maybe in America, but not everywhere else; there are several nations on this planet where governments have gone against the interests of big companies simply because they believed it was best for common the people. Amazing, but true.

Apart from that, give Obama a break - he is the president, not the bloody Messiah. He can only do what reality allows him to do and in the real world things take time. And in the real-world America, big money and religious interests weigh far too much, that's true; but you only have yourselves to blame. Looking back on history, one can see that the American people has been able to change things on several occasions, against the will of those in power, but it takes an effort, so go out there and make a difference instead of just sitting around being gloomy.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[jabithew]

This clause in the US Constitution exists because it is the duty of the People to prevent the government from becoming corrupt and possessing too much power.

That seems to have worked out splendidly for you guys.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[hairyfeet]

I found a bit of the transcript, so here you go:-"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'"

There is of course a LOT more to the bit, but that encapsulates it quite nicely. I hope that this and Anonymouse helps you get to enjoy Bill and his wickedly sharp wit a little bit. If you get a chance watch some of his videos or listen to one of his albums. He truly was right up there with Carlin and Pryor but the cancer robbed us of him before the world got to see him shine.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[CountBrass]

The on consistent thing about Obama is he is great at doing U-turns. Saw it during his campaign so it's no surprise to see it now.

And, in this particular case, did you really expect anything else after his DoJ appointments?

Obama is in the *IAAs' pockets.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[jonaskoelker]

Holder> "[piracy is theft]"

The Business Software Alliance, which counts Adobe Systems and Microsoft as members, applauded Holder's nomination this week. "He's [...] open minded"

Let's see; by towing the party line he gets called open minded. I'd be interesting in finding out if he's open to the idea of coming up with a payment scheme that lets everyone make all the copies of published works in science and the useful arts they want, such that the sciences and the useful arts are still viable areas of profession.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Pictish Prince]

I voted third party (Libertarian, in this case, even though I think Barr is a dick).

I did exactly the same, and with the same attitude. We are too few, though, and I am in despair of ever seeing any improvement.

I also. I held a faint glimmer of hope for Obama until Emanuel appeared on the scene.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Spazztastic]

No prob, maybe I can help you out. Ever try Anonymouse? It is what we used to get around the filters when I was in school. In fact I used to make $2.50 a pop showing the facebook addicts how to get around the filters so they could get their fix. Knowledge is power, and profits.

SmartFilter blocks it under "Suspicious Web Reputation" where I work (PA School district).

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[edward2020]

Give him a break? You do know that the DOJ takes its marching orders from the president. While Obama is certainly not the messiah it is certainly not too much to ask that he abide by statements he made about conducting policy and decision-making. So far, I've been unimpressed with Obama. From the "OMG! sign this bill quick or you're not an American" rhetoric, the vaunted vetting process, lack of transparency, or this shit about the RIAA. Another year or so of this and we may look back fondly on our previous overlord.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[edward2020]

Maybe cause we don't want our government to grind to a complete standstill everytime Capitol Hill cocks get their feathers ruffled. Now, not really wanting to get into the pros and cons of proportional voting versus 'single member district plurality voting,' I just don't think that's the root of our problems.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[MetaPhyzx]

Considering most of the major wars since that time were initiated from a European perspective, it shouldn't seem so bizarre.

This isn't a slam or dig, just a note to remind us all that because you don't agree, you don't have to demean.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[FTWinston]

No offense taken, and none intended either; its just such a different world view to by own that I have simply never been able to comprehend the reasoning behind it.

My understanding was that this wasn't to do with war, but internal conflict. Specifically The State vs The People, and Good People vs Criminals. If you'll tolerate the stereotyping, I'm imagining that americans don't all own guns in case the commies show up anymore?

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[jandersen]

Yes, give him a break. I mean, how long did it take before people stopped fawning over GWB and his shallow posturing? As I recall, about 6 or 7 years - until people realized how much crap he had landed us all in with his uninformed decisions and tunnel vision. And how long has Obama been in office? Just over a month. I mean, aren't you a little bit fast on the trigger? I can only conclude that you either expect him to possess god-like powers or that you don't want him to succeed, because common sense says that if you are new on the job, you need at least a couple of months to really settle in. So give him a break.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[edward2020]

I don't think your memory is serving very well. If you'll recall, there was a lot of anger over the 2000 election. Only the rally 'round the flag effect kept him from catching more shit early on.

Settle in? One phone call from him could end this. The only mitigating factor in his favor is if he knows this is occurring in the first place. And judging by his DOJ picks and Biden's history of pimping for the RIAA, its hard for me to accept that this one flew under his radar. Once again, I don't think it's too much to ask that he stick to what he said. Also, I hope you're not suggesting that since he's new in office that we leave our critical thinking at the door. Hopefully, as I think you're getting at, his performance will increase. Regardless, I feel no special loyalty to politicians of any stripe. They took the job and they can take people bitching about them. In fact, one could make an argument that bitching (especially in great numbers) acts as feedback to the blackbox we call the White House.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[jweller]

Oh I don't know, considering how nobody really mentioned the Keating 5 during the election, and taking a look at his wife, I'd say that McCain was able to talk his way out of a scandal and into a white woman's bed with no problem.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[geminidomino]

I notice there's no change.gov-type site for him to learn (and ignore) what's important to "the people" anymore. He's got his golden eggs, fuck the goose.

Anyone who voted for him for any other reason than political party has been soundly and masterfully(splorf) scammed.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[geminidomino]

No, he'd be better.

Imperious Leader, however, would fuck up all their shit.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[geminidomino]

Actually it's "for pity's sake"

It just got dirtier.

This is slashdot. Whenever anyone here gets fucked, it's for pity's sake. ;)

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[geminidomino]

That's essentially what I did. Went in, skipped the votes for office, and just voted against some particularly onerous state constitutional amendments (including Amendment 2, Florida's analog to Cali's Prop 8).

His water-walking Holiness showed his true face with FISA.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[xrobertcmx]

I'm not sure if your argument fully stands up. My understanding from the few classes I took a year or three back really left me with a different view. Firstly, at the time this amendment was written the world was very different and the need for a well regulated militia was very real. State and local militias ended up being the first line of defense for their communities as the Army would take a week or so to show up. Second, firearms where a daily necessity for individuals who needed them to put food on the table. Harris Teeter, Safeway, Wegmans, and Whole foods didn't exist yet. Lastly we also should look at the technology involved. A firearm of that time could be fired 2 or 3 times in one minute by a trained professional. When I carried an M249 back in my infantry days that I was good and could actually fire only a single round at a time. I however much preferred to lay down 5 to 7 round bursts. All that aside, I have no problem with gun/firearm ownership, but your average redneck doesn't need an SKS or a 50 cal to bring down some dear.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[geminidomino]

No one believed he could keep all his promises, or even necessarily that he'd even have time to try to keep all his promises.

As opposed to making time to actively break his promises?

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[chrish]

See Plutocracy. See also Oligarchy.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[HiThere]

No. Sorry, but McCain was so much worse that Obama was, indeed, the better choice. Even though this (probable) action doesn't surprise me.

Anyone who bought the hype should, indeed, feel disappointed. Obama isn't what he promised to be. Why are you surprised? But he's an improvement over Bush.

I've never supported Obama. Well, not since the first three months of his campaign, as I saw his stance changing. But he's better than the alternatives were. Probably. Almost certainly. But only "almost".

FWIW, the Democrats may be better than the Republicans, but only in some ways. And neither have to good of the citizenry as their goal. This isn't a comment about Obama. He may, actually, have the good of the citizenry in mind. But he weights things differently than you do, so he won't reach the same conclusions, even with the same evidence. And he doesn't have the same evidence. He is given information that you don't see, and he is shielded from things that stare you in the face. There are probably at least five levels of intermediates between anything that you say and what he experiences. Only something that appears important enough to all five will even impinge on his perceptions. And he's running on overload...which always degrades one's performance. Expect things to get worse as time progresses, though he's likely to learn to avoid the most egregious errors. I.e., things he decides were errors.

Sorry, but a president can't be responsive to the citizenry. A simple systems analysis should tell you that. He can be responsive to polls...but every poll I've seen has been slanted in one way or another by the agenda of the preparer.

I think Obama is trying to invent an internet based substitute for political polling, but I'm not sure. And I have no idea if he realizes how easily internet polls can be manipulated.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Beelzebud]

when Obama achieves failure like Bush did, I'll regret my vote. I don't see him coming anywhere near that level of incompetence and failure yet though.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[HiThere]

There's also the question as to exactly what is meant by the term "militia". I would suspect that at the time it referred to any group of citizens who gathered to practice group action at least occasionally of a military nature. As such I suspect that it would include any gun club. Given that definition, the right of individuals to own weapons would be required. And thus the rest of the amendment follows.

I'll admit that I'm not certain what the term "well-regulated" means. I'm fairly certain, however, that it didn't imply government sanctioned. These were people who were in revolt against their current government...well, who had been quite recently. And the "Bill of Rights" was included *because* many of the founders didn't trust the government they were about to establish. It's possible that they meant to imply that it (the militia) had a formal set of rules.

OTOH, I doubt that this is a reasonable item to have in our current constitution. My objection to those who override it is that they are just ignoring the constitutional mechanism for correction of obsolete portions. It should be done via constitutional amendment, not by this jimmying of various legal backdoors.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[ravenshrike]

And if we hadn't passed the 17th there would be a hell of a lot less laws on the books because the Senate and House would not have nearly the same aims, which means there would be quite a bit less government intervention.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Reziac]

Furthermore, it would be the same as claiming that the 1st Amendment only applies to people chanting in unison, not to individual speech.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[ravenshrike]

Um, you do realize that just because the 'people' won, doesn't mean that the good guys won. Populist bullshit like that is what got us into the current financial mess.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Reziac]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6252365.html

Can you imagine stuff like this going on if everyone were armed?

Can you imagine it becoming utterly routine when everyone is not? (Gee, sounds like an Iron Curtain country to me...)

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[HiThere]

IRV is better than the current system is damning with faint praise.

OTOH, I prefer Condorcet over either. Still, IRV is VASTLY superior to the current system.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Reziac]

I dunno... have you considered a second childhood? ;)

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[HiThere]

If I recall correctly the problem was that the ballots wouldn't fit correctly into the machines. This could have been a simple mechanical design problem. It could even have been intentional sabotage. Blaming it on "incompetent voters" sounds to me like careful buck passing.

Yeah, I've done a stint on Help Desk. And my wife it totally mechanically incompetent. (Well...not totally, but close.) And I still think that this kind of localized problem is more likely an indication of mechanical problems. If it were incompetent voters the distribution of errors wouldn't have been so geographically concentrated.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[coolsnowmen]

I actually cared about the outcome of the recent election, but if I ever don't think my vote will matter, then I might just do that.

Though, Electronic voting makes that less interesting.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[HiThere]

It's probably a result of the electoral process. In any case, it's certainly taken advantage of by various parties...not ALL unscrupulous.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[geminidomino]

I was wrong. I stand corrected. Concerns voiced.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[commodore64_love]

Everybody always says third parties don't have a chance, but they forget that the Republican Party was a third party in the 1840s and they rose to prominence (pushing the Whigs out of the way).

And the Whigs were also a third party, and they rose to prominence in the 1820s, pushing the dominant Federalist Party into extinction. Someday we might see a new third party rise-up and killoff either the Dems or the Reps.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[commodore64_love]

>>>The second amendment is the part of the constitution which guarantees the right of militias to bear arms in their own defense.

The U.S. Supreme Court judgment in 2008 completely and totally disagreed. They affirmed that the right was an individual right, for the purpose of individual defense, or to overthrow a tyrannical government (as happened in 1776 to 1783).

And what is the militia? "The militia is the whole of the people." - James Madison, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson. So according to original intent of the lawmakers, the militia includes EVERY person, not just those in uniform. Every person has a right to hold a gun. That right may be restricted (i.e. not for children), but it can not be taken away from a rational, reasonable adult citizen.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I doubt that this is a reasonable item to have in our current constitution

"The strongest argument in favor of the second amendment is that it is inoperative... until the leaders try to take away the other amendments or rights." - Thomas Jefferson, Founder of the Democratic Party.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[commodore64_love]

>>>So basically, for americans to be 'free' - they have to have a bloodbath from time to time? This gun stuff always seems really bizarre from a european perspective.
>>>

Yeah because the Europeans have had 500 years of peace, and never had to take-up arms against their own leaders in order to reclaim their individual freedoms and human rights.

Oh. Wait. Never mind.

By the way, the American ideals arose from European ideals. Individual rights, self-government, elimination of the classes (no nobility), and government exists to serve the people (not the other way round) are ideas that find their genesis during the European Age of Reason and Liberalism (1600s-1700s). And that was derived from earlier Greek and Roman thinking from the second to first century B.C.

Americans are merely living the ideas Europeans gave us, but sadly, Europeans have forgotten.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[sumdumass]

I would say that would be a good thing wouldn't you?

I mean the federal government wasn't originally supposed to be this monolithic institution except when facing foreign nations. Outside of a few things the constitution specifically allows for and prevents, it was supposed to allow the states to govern themselves however the states see fit. The 17th was more or less an effort to de-emphasize the state's direct powers in influencing the government by taking their vote or influence away.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be federal government laws, nor am I saying there shouldn't be government intervention. I'm saying there shouldn't be near as much as there are today. I remember something Nancy Pelosi said, and Mrs. Clinton also parroted to some degree. It was when confirming supreme court justices and went something along the lines of this, "this is a serious process, we can have a court that keep making the laws congress passes unconstitutional". The idea there is that the laws would be unconstitutional based on who is sitting on the bench not because of what the constitution says. That's what has become of this nation where a government was created by a document that said what it can and can't do. This people said, your can govern by these powers and be bound by these restrictions and the rest is up to the states but if at any time it isn't enough or is too much, we can change and correct the document by an amendment process. Now it's whoever sits on the supreme court.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[commodore64_love]

>>>No offense taken, and none intended either; its just such a different world view to by own that I have simply never been able to comprehend the reasoning behind it.

The other rights such as free speech, trial by your peers, privacy, ownership of your body, and ownership of your body's labor (money, things) mean nothing if there's not a gun to defend it from the leaders. Without the right of self-defense or collective-defense, they leaders may ignore all the other rights.

As Democratic founder Jefferson said, an armed populace keeps the leaders fearful. And honest. Or at least, more honest than if they knew citizens were disarmed and powerless.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheoMurpse]

I was under the impression that the choice was:
1) Let your economy crater now with 90% assurance.
2) Have a 75% chance of saving your economy via credit now with a 30% chance of it being cratered because of the credit in the future.

1) 90% assurance of failure
2) 25% + 75%*30% = 47.5% assurance of failure

And I'm being extremely generous to the possibility of future failure. It's a simple mathematical weighing.

Personally, I believe the assurance of (short-term) success through credit financing is more like 90%, and the possibility of failure in the long term because of the credit is more like 15%.

Obviously, it's a gut feeling. But I'm purposefully inflating the odds of our economy failing long-term because of the stimulus package. But my choice is pragmatic.

Please post your disagreements. However, judging by your statement that

[t]here's nothing real about spending [money] we don't have

I'm assuming you don't believe in taking out loans period. No? Or just large loans?

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[BoberFett]

So your solution to an inability to pay your bills is to take a loan to pay the bills?

All of those people who can't afford their mortgage should just take out a loan to pay the morgtage?

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheoMurpse]

Could you tell me who the best president in history in your opinion is? Do me a favor and exclude Washington from consideration, just for the sake of inquiry. My personal favorite is Washington, but that's because everyone after his was a politician with non-minor flaws in their politicking.

I'm just curious if you've ever been satisfied before, or if you have extraordinary standards that are impossible to meet politically.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheoMurpse]

People who fixate on "gun control" want nothing of the sort. They want to ban
guns outright buy are stymied by the current state of the law. They don't want
the moderate version of your little caricature.

As Yuuki Dasu said, you've just committed a strawman fallacy. For example, I own guns yet favor gun control. I favor mandatory safety locks, mandatory background checks, closing the gun show loophole, banning certain weapons (quick, give me a 2d Amendment argument why nuclear weapons should not be permitted arms but AK-47s should be), and have toyed around with the idea of gun registration (although I'm trying to think of a technological solution that only allows owner lookups once the guns have been seized, in order to protect privacy--I imagine some sort of uniform public key/hash thing would work for that as gun serial numbers).

But I fucking love guns. They're awesome.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[mrchaotica]

Though, Electronic voting makes that less interesting.

You should still be able to abstain (or do a write-in) with an electronic vote.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheoMurpse]

The Fourth Amendment doesn't afford an individual right. It's operates solely as a restraint on the behavior of police. This is why searches performed in pursuit of a warrant that doesn't actually exist (but the police believe exists) are constitutional.

The happy side-effect is that you typically have a right not to be searched without warrant.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheoMurpse]

If I had 300M people living in my mortgaged house, and not paying the mortgage would make them all homeless, then hell yes I should do everything I can to keep that house.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheoMurpse]

A Vice President Palin would have made for most entertaining news.

A war between Russia and the US is hardly what I would call "entertaining." But then again, I live in the US.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheoMurpse]

I wonder if that angry guy who worked at McDonald's for the last 4 years got a pay raise or a better job; perhaps Obama offered him a job in his Administration?

According to the Daily Show, he was hoping to become a DJ. He got an internship at a radio station.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheoMurpse]

If the murder rates are responsive to an increase in illegal immigration and interstate drug and gun trafficking, I'd say it's a federal issue in some part.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[coolsnowmen]

Yes,
    I didn't say I thought it would be harder, just less interesting. Meaning, there is something poetic in slamming a door, storming out, and thumbing your nose at the process by turning in a blank ballot. I feel that some of that is lost with electronic voting as computers have little appreciation for drama and poetry.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Chosen Reject]

If that were the case, then I would be fine with the PotUS or congress worrying about illegal immigrants and interstate drug and gun trafficking. It would have to be Oakland, though, that figured out why their murder rates are high and then make the appropriate federal authorities aware of it. In this case, Obama still shouldn't be worried about murder rates in Oakland, but about the illegal immigration.

So Oakland looks into its rising murder rates, decides it is because of illegal immigration and tells Obama and the Congress. They work to reduce illegal immigration either through the passage of new laws or the enforcement of existing laws. The feds can track their success only by the lowering of illegal immigration, not by whether or not Oakland's murder rate goes down, thus they are still not worried about Oakland's murder rate, only about federal issues.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheoMurpse]

Of course you're ignoring the Necessary and Proper Clause to the point of making it seem like an open and shut case.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[FTWinston]

Its kinda impossible not to sound glib in saying this:
So you're saying that europeans have moved on, but americans are stuck in the past?

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[FTWinston]

Only... the guns don't seem to be used to get rid of greedy leaders. You wouldn't stand a chance, in all probability. When they are used, they're used against other citizens. Isn't that messed up?

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[aevans]

Where? You mean like Norway?

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[aevans]

Obama was easily an 11 to most liberals, and McCain was never more than a 5 to most conservatives.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[aevans]

Then your non-vote was counted for whatever party rules the state you're in.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Kashgarinn]

"People who fixate on "gun control" want nothing of the sort. They want to ban
guns outright buy are stymied by the current state of the law. They don't want
the moderate version of your little caricature."

- Um, no.. that's what you'd like to think, not what most people for gun control really want.

I've never understood the argument that because you think that when people want gun control they want a total ban on guns, you think it's better to take the complete opposite, and just as insane position that everyone can have a gun.. for free.. get one for your kids.. 1/2 price off ammo at walmart.

Either extreme is stupid in regard to guns, Most people want intelligent restriction to guns, and arguing that you're against the idea of gun control "because the people aren't really saying gun control, they're saying ban" is putting lies into the mouths of others to excuse your extremely negative view of gun control.

I'd encourage you to look at the merits of the proposition, and not at what "isn't" being said, as you're making that up all by yourself.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[geminidomino]

Then your non-vote was counted for whatever party rules the state you're in.

Florida. Swing State.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[geminidomino]

Could you tell me who the best president in history in your opinion is?...I'm just curious if you've ever been satisfied before, or if you have extraordinary standards that are impossible to meet politically.

I'm sure they are, and they damn well should be, as far as I'm concerned. Having standards that are possible to meet politically is what got us into this mess of "Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich" to begin with.

But to answer your question, Thomas Jefferson.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[thedonger]

...if you can answer that to the satisfaction of both "sides"...

I am not interested in satisfying both sides. In real life both sides don't get satisfied. They can't. Unless they are satisfied with "Abortions for some; miniature American flags for the rest."

They claim the "Will of the People" in their effort to restrict the rights of the minorities.

Citation?

The federal government can and should uphold the rights granted to individuals where states overstep their bounds.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[edward2020]

I hope you're joking. His change.gov site was far more extensive than merely a 'contact us' form.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[hairyfeet]

Bummer. I assume you do have home Internet access that isn't filtered though, yes? Then its VPN FTW. Simply VPN to your home machine and you can do what you want by using your home connection as the gateway. I had a Linux instructor that had to go that route because one of his favorite sites for Linux news and tools was labeled by some BOFH as "possible source of hacker tools/activity" But not to worry,where there is a will to waste time watching stupid videos there is a way!

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[HiThere]

You've gone to the original sources, which I haven't. But I still think that it's not appropriate for dense cities and a gross disparity between military power and civilian power. It assumes that an area is self-sufficient, and no city is. They could just cut off power and water, and the city would be destroyed as a habitable area within a week.

I'd replace it with an amendment that specifically authorized groups of citizens to gather and plot ways of overthrowing the government. NOTE: plot, not act on those plots. Not murder, steal, or otherwise commit criminal acts except as such might be necessary in order to plot. One would think that this was covered by free speech, but court decisions have occasionally seemed to indicate that it isn't.

P.S.: And another amendment, separate, that one cannot contractually waive constitutional protections or guarantees. I think this is still generally presumed, but given the way things have been going, lets make it explicit. There are a lot of rights that were taken for granted by our forefathers but which legal shenanigans have limited or removed. It should only be done by due process, meaning constitutional amendment. If they can't get the agreement required for a constitutional amendment, it shouldn't be changed. But repeatedly it has been, by shifting the interpretation of the words to something really unlikely.

P.P.S.: And another amendment should be that corporations are not persons and not citizens. That their charters to operate exist only so long as recognized by the governments in the places where they do business. (Not have business presence! A corporation's right to do business in, say, Kansas should be dependent on the government of Kansas. If a corporation has a web page that sells gizmos, its right to sell gizmos in Kansas should be dependent on it's being recognized as a legal corporation by Kansas. Otherwise it would need to sell gizmos via another company that was not a corporation (and where the owners did not enjoy the kind of legal immunity that the stockholders in a corporation enjoy).
(This could get very messy, and needs to be stated VERY carefully, which I haven't done. Perhaps there isn't a good way to say it, and a fall-back position is necessary.)

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Spazztastic]

VPN and SSH tunnels are detectable by most modern intrusion detection/prevention systems.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[HiThere]

No. I did hear it reported that way in the media. I also heard it reported other ways. I heard various stories that appeared to make it seem intentional sabotage of voting in poorer areas...and it may have been.

But I'm willing to presume that it was mechanical error. I know that some elderly people were confused, but it's also true that I know that some blacks had the polls shut early while they were standing in line to get in. I'm presuming that both problems were inadvertent and relatively localized. But I received more different reports of discrimination in poorer areas than I did of elderly people getting confused. If you want me to consider them as systematic problems, then would need to feel that the election was intentionally thrown to Bush.

However mechanical errors are also a possibility.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[geminidomino]

Yes, but I said that there was no way to voice our concerns. On that, I was mistaken and admitted as much.

Do I think it will be any less ignored than change.gov? Nope. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, either.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[HiThere]

People are generally pretty good at ranking what they like. That's all that's required of the voters for either Condorcet or IRV.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[atraintocry]

Bill Hicks. He was a comic. He was subversive. He's dead now. Chill.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[atraintocry]

Ron Paul's approach to government, Bush's approach to military.

Like peanut butter and jelly! Mmm, now that's the taste of armageddon!

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[atraintocry]

We had the modern day equivalent of a bank run. It happened in hours. The failure already happened. And we are in the position of being forced to finance the idiots that caused it, because otherwise no one will be able to get a loan.

If anything your odds show an unwarranted sense of optimism.

But I agree with you. Not that there isn't a whole lot of pork in the stim package, but hell, at least something's being done. I wish we'd wasted this much time deliberating preemptive war with Iraq.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[atraintocry]

You seem to think money on the scale of the US economy like money on the scale of a house mortgage. It doesn't. At all.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[atraintocry]

Sorry, I just accidentally the whole thing.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[SL Baur]

A war between Russia and the US is hardly what I would call "entertaining."

Brzensky can handle that all by himself, or were you born yesterday and do not know who Zbigniew Brzensky is?

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[rossz]

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Perhaps you missed the important parts which I've highlighted for you. That clause does not grant any additional powers. Ergo, it is an open and shut case.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheoMurpse]

No, it's grants any additional powers necessary to carry out the enumerated powers. Otherwise, the N&P Clause would be a redundancy (why say they have all powers necessary and proper to carry out the enumerated powers if those powers are already enumerated?).

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[rossz]

No, it does not grant new powers. For example, creating the Department of Treasury is legal and proper and not a new power because the Constitution says the federal government has the power coin currency, etc. The Constitution says the Feds deal with currency and the necessary and proper clause says it's ok to make laws to enforce that power. Simple and to the point.

Without twisting clauses like this into entire new meanings, explain how the Department of Education is legal.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheoMurpse]

Riddle me this: is the Air Force unconstitutional since only land and naval forces (not air forces) are mentioned? Do we need a constitutional amendment in order to use airplanes in the military? Recall that Congress gets the power

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;

Once you've answered that question, let's go from there.

Note that the "armies" line directly precedes the "navy" line, implying that "armies" refers only to the army and not to all armed forces. Not to mention the other subsections specifically mentioning "land and naval" (but no air).

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[phantomfive]

OK, I'll reply.

First of all, don't change my words. I said I'd rather have him worry about the high murder rates in Oakland than the RIAA prosecuting file-sharers. That is different than what you implied.

Why would I rather have Obama worry about the high murder rates in Oakland? Because I'd rather have everyone worry about that (and Obama happens to fall into the set of everyone). It is a much more important problem. If we were to worry about things that actually matter rather than distribution systems of certain media, or non-payment by certain college students, the world would be a much better place.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[phantomfive]

Why do you think war always will be a necessity? The vast majority of people don't actually want war. If we all band together, it can end.

At one time, people thought that Kings had divine rights, and they followed the king blindly. Then one day they woke up and realized they don't need to be serfs. Now democracy has spread throughout all the world. It can happen with war, too.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[rossz]

The Constitution specifically states that the job of the Federal government is to provide a military. I don't consider the AF to be outside this Constitutional power. But if you want to be anal about it we can say it's a violation of the Constitution and pass an Amendment to make it legal. I didn't say most of the government agencies aren't necessary. I said they exist in violation of the Constitution. The proper procedures to make it legal have been bypassed.

Actually, I do believe most federal agencies are unnecessary and should be left up to the state or local governments. That doesn't diminish my argument that proper procedures have been ignored. Personally, I believe it argues in favor of proper Constitutional scrutiny. Education being a prime example of the federal government overstepping their Constitutional authority and subverting local governments. Education should be left up to the city or county (not even the state, in my opinion).

Then we have the commerce clause used to justify everything under the sun. States who wish to legalize medical marijuana are fighting the feds, who use the commerce clause as justification for their interference. Stopping the use of pot grown locally for a local cancer patient. The commerce clause doesn't even enter the picture. I'm neutral when it comes to medical pot. Here in the San Francisco Bay area fake prescriptions for pot are easily obtained by perfectly healthy people, but I see the need for it for chronically ill people.

If the "thing" in question does not cross state lines, the Feds have no business interfering unless there is a violation of another part of the Constitution (e.g. civil rights).

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[TheoMurpse]

The Constitution specifically states that the job of the Federal government is to provide a military.

Where? I see "militia," "navy," "land and naval forces," and "arm[y]."

No air force. So when you say you "don't consider the AF to be outside this Constitutional power," you're playing the same "living Constitution" game that you decry.

And if you deny that the AF is permitted by the current Constitution, then we have a problem: you and I have fundamentally different axioms of constitutional construction. Not that we have different conclusions. Our axioms of construction are different. Feel free to persuade me that my axioms are wrong, but it's likely wasted time. If three years of law school haven't convinced me otherwise, I doubt you will.

One more thing: What do you think about "speech" in the First Amendment? Does it protect sign language and things you write in your diary? Can you be arrested for things you write in your diary? Because the dictionary definition of "speech" requires vocalization.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[Chosen Reject]

[Murder] is a much more important problem.

I can't argue that murder is a much more serious and permanent thing to happen to a person. However, it is a local problem that the people of Oakland should rally behind and fix. Let's have federal people worry about federal things, and local people worry about local things. The constitutionality of federal level laws is one of those things that a federal level person such as the PotUS should be more worried about. At a more personal level, Obama should be worried about whether he will keep his promises.

[D]on't change my words. I said I'd rather have him worry about the high murder rates in Oakland than the RIAA prosecuting file-sharers.

Don't change your words. You actually said you'd rather him worry about Oakland's murder rate than "an industry whose music isn't that great anyway". The article isn't about the RIAA, it's about a trial concerning the constitutionality of federal level laws _and_ whether Obama will keep his promises. The "industry whose music isn't that great" is merely a player. The article isn't about the industry, it's about a trial and promises. If I had taken what you said literally at face value, I would have passed it off as a non sequitur and off-topic. I assumed you were being on-topic however. And that is different than what you are now implying.

Re:Obama == Bush (corporate friend)?

[morgauo]

War is not a necessity, we do not need war. War is inevitable. Whether it be a president, a dictator or a tribal chieftan any sizable group of people will put someone in control. Then, when groups meet the leaders will send their pawns to go fight. This is human nature.

War is too powerful of a tool for governments to ever let go. War is a means of obtaining what one wants without making it themselves. War is a means of instilling fear in your people, or hatred of the enemy thus keeping the people looking to the leader for protection and keeping their attention off of the leaders' own evils.

People banding together has not and will not eliminate war. Just look at the 60s. How popular was it to protest the Vietnam war? We didn't get an end to war out of that, just some good music, a lot of pot and the hippies who later turned in their ideals and became the yuppies.

The serfs did not wake up one day and throw off their monarchies. The monarchs became to secure in their positions. They allowed some families to become richer and more powerful then they were. These families along with some free minded "serfs" (there are always a few rare ones) stirred up the people and eliminated the monarch threat to their own position. Now they exist today in the form of the corporations and political parties which are slowly chipping away those freedoms returning the "Free World" to our more natural less free state.

Democracy is not a new idea which is suddenly sweeping the world. Democracy has existed at various times and places such as Ancient Greece and Rome. Yes, some parts of the world are currently becoming more free but surely by the time that the current dictatorships, monarchies, etc... are all replaced with democracies many of the existing democracies will be replaced with dictatorships and monarchies.

I only hope that mankind starts colonizing frontiers on other worlds before society on this one becomes so tightly controlled that natural selection starts taking away our brainpower and makes our descendants collective like ants. That I'm convinced is the future on this world. Only in open spaces where we can expand too thin for central control does human nature tend towards freedom.

Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[elrous0]

Come on, really?!? Believing Obama isn't in the pockets of Hollywood (incl. the MPAA and RIAA), trial lawyers, and the unions is as naive as believing Goerge Bush wasn't in the pockets of Wall Street, big oil, and the bible-thumpers.

Every politician is someone's bitch. Hollywood most assuredly produced the carton of cigarettes to buy Obama. And you can bet that they expect results.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[furby076]

The thing is, he is president right now, he could say "Thanks for the donations...SUCKERS" and then vote for the people. A popular president not getting re-elected is highly unlikely - even if he doesn't have a huge donation base...he has the WH megaphone for free (or at least free for him).

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[Captain Splendid]

It's the same media who's played down the tax scandals that have plagued Obama's picks and who have been spinning Obama's blatantly partisan politics as being "the GOP's fault."

Look, I know it's the summer of '94 all over again for conservatives, and your juices are flowing with insurgent glee, but the "liberal media" myth has been pretty thoroughly debunked and is, in fact, as old as the nostalgia you're currently experiencing.

Oabama's got enough real deficiencies and faults that we don't need to be wasting time making shit up. Thanks for playing! Sign in next time.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[elrous0]

No he can't. He not only needs those donations for his reelection in 2012, but his party needs them for Congressional elections in 2010, 2012, and 2014. Thumbing his nose at them would not only jeopardize his election efforts, but the future of his party's long-term relationship with that particular sugar daddy.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[jmorris42]

> Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

80% of Slashdot bought into HopeyMcChange's schtick. It is going to be fun (in a tragic comedy sense) watching the disillusionment after a couple of years of increasingly violent denials that Yup, he is just a politician.... and while possessing great oratary skills not all that bright in the end.

But to put off that awakening watch the NewSpeak in the media as they try to explain away the fast breaking campaign promises. Bipartisan, open, new politics turned out to be inviting the opposition over to watch the Super Bowl while Nancy is writing the biggest pork bill in history behind closed doors and then passing it on a straight party line vote before anybody could read it. "Welfare check" has been redefined as a "tax cut" even though many of the people who will be getting checks already pay no taxes. And we aren't even at the one month point yet, this train wreck still has 47 months to go, wait until foreign policy disasters start piling up. Iran is likely to be the first, but several more are racing for the honor.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[Jason Levine]

And even if he didn't need the funding (he did pretty well with the grassroots stuff) and didn't care what the Democrat Party leadership said, he's still face pressure. Democrats would either a) stick with Obama and lose funds and seats to the Republicans b) Abandon Obama to keep their funds/seats. In either case, he'd be facing a more hostile Congress. This would mean less promised change would get enacted (even if he honestly planned to do everything, there's only so much you can do with a hostile Congress). As he wouldn't have changed things as much as he promised, he'd face a tougher challenge during reelection (thus needing Entertainment bucks more thus more likely to cave in).

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[khallow]

He could do that, but why would he? As long as it remains Bush's fault that Obama, "regrettably" has to vote for the bills that he "can get" not the ones he would "like" to have, he doesn't need to "vote for the people".

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[seriesrover]

Well when the press overwhelmingly describe themselves as liberal (or slanted in a particular direction) its a serious concern: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1919999
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1001/campaign-media

The problem is, that those that are liberal think of themselves as centralists \ moderates to validate their opinion and that becomes pervasive in their reporting. Now on the left we have MSNBC with their inspiring "worse, worser, worsest" mantra and on the right we have the ever forgiving O'Reilly from Fox. There's also Rush on the right but on the left is Rather, Bill Maher, Moore and a whole slew of other commentators. And in pop culture, SNL \ Daily Show \ Colbert Report \ The View as obvious examples, that are so left leaning. Was there a Lil' Clinton show on Comedy Central that I missed? Perhaps they're going to be adding Lil'Obama...'cos if they weren't biased they'd have done it right?

So you can bleat on all day until you're blue in the face about the liberal bias "myth" but it doesn't make it any less true. Now obviously anyone is entitled to their opinion, that I'm ok with - just don't tell me its not biased.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[cyberchondriac]

but the "liberal media" myth has been pretty thoroughly debunked and is, in fact, as old as the nostalgia you're currently experiencing.

Uh, no, it hasn't. Let's stop the denial already, this is silly. The big media is not as blatant about it as Fox is, it happens more subtlety - or more slyly, is perhaps the better word, but it's real. I see it more in the papers than the big 3 broadcasters though. It's done via story priority, (stories are upfront or buried) it's done through the particular wording used in headlines, keywords that trigger images and responses, used to try to shape public opinion. It's almost subliminal, and in some ways, it is.
The mere fact that newspapers, as a whole, as an entity, endorse candidates should tell you something (and notably the majority of endorsees are in the democratic party). How can you say an entity that endorses a political candidate is neutral? In fact, I don't see what business newspapers have endorsing anyone anyway - for either party.
But, just as a recent example, how many people knew Obama's brother George was busted for marijuana possession just a few weeks ago? The local paper (Philadelphia Inquirer - a pretty much left-leaning paper) buried it on page A6, a tiny little 2 paragraph blurb at the bottom of the page. I'm a little surprised they reported it at all. Okay, so maybe his nobody brother in Africa isn't front page material, but page 6?? The same thing happened with Gore's son's DWI years back, it was buried too. But when the Bush girls got involved in what amounted to basically, typical college antics that nearly everyone has engaged in at some time (underage drinking), the media was all over it - front page news.
And sometimes, the bias is more blatant. How about Rolling Stone's complete character assassination of McCain last October? There's "dirt" on Obama too (as there is on any politician - or human, for that matter) but they didn't even attempt to "provide" that "service" to their readers by unearthing any of it. Rolling Stone isn't the New York Times, true, but nevertheless, it has a readership of millions, they're part of the media, and it's perfectly reasonable to believe that article helped to sway many voters in various capacities. There are neutral media out there. Just not many.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[Penguinisto]

Say what you like, but somehow I don't see the Republican Party being Big Media's champion anytime soon...

Seriously - have you actually heard the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity speaking on the subject of "Hollywood", "pop music", and "The Liberal News Media"?

It's possible... but the odds are about as likely as my winning the Powerball Jackpot tomorrow night... e.g. 'not frickin likely'.

/P

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[corbettw]

Not to mention, the guy's only 47 years old. He's going to have this job until he's at most 55. That means he'll have another 10 years before he can sit back and collect Social Security. Do you expect him to torpedo his chances of getting a decent job after he's done with government service if he pisses off lots of rich people in the private sector?

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[Vancorps]

I don't get it, where do you people get that everyone thought of Obama as a messiah? I don't know anyone that did and I know a lot of people that voted for him.

No one in their right mind thought Obama would solve all the problems but that he would cease the landslide that Bush was causing and so far this seems to be true with the closing of Gitmo.

Of course Gitmo isn't closed yet so the jury is still out there.

As for the stimulus bill you seem to be confused about who's pushing for what. The vast majority of Americans are asking for a giant pork bill. Whether that is good or bad for the population should be debated heavily as there are far reaching consequences to borrowing that much money which was previously something the former administration liked doing. Obama never asked for 800 billion, that all came from Pelosi as you say and I've seen a number of republicans acting quite childishly about how it is being developed without their input. If they didn't act like such babies about it I'd be more inclined to believe them or at least feel bad for them since it's good to have opposing viewpoints in a debate.

Of course the idea of borrowing several billion dollars to give people a tax cut is also quite absurd as we have to pay that money back somehow which will be in higher taxes down the road. This is of course what the republican agenda is all sore about right now as they want more tax cuts.

I think we can all agree that fear and panic are emotions that should not be involved in bill making especially with a stimulus bill as large as the one on the table. It's forcing all of congress to move too quickly and they will end up making even more poor decisions. Remember, congress had an even lower approval rating than Bush did and for good reason! I wish I could say Pelosi was helping to change that but she is just as ineffective as the republican she replaced.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[ianare]

That would be political, and possibly literal, suicide. You don't piss off the mafia(a).

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[Chris Burke]

Maybe it's because I already knew he was a politician, and knew he was in bed with the media companies, that this isn't very "disillusioning" to me. I never thought of him as perfect, or "the messiah", or anything like that. He's a politician (*spit*), and a flawed man, and I never agreed with all his ideas and certainly never believed he'd live up to all of his promises anyway. And yet, that's exactly why I voted for him, because actual "ideal" candidates who would never go back on a promise (i.e. never compromise) would never get elected and would never get anything done. All I wanted was reasonable, practical levels of change that would actually happen.

Because of that, one month in and I can look at everything he's done, good and bad, and say it's going even better than I could have expected. Obama sides with the RIAA? Yeah, there's 10 demerits. Obama orders Gitmo closed? That's plus one thousand merits. Sorry, those are my priorities, and I question the self-proclaimed open-eyed realism and pragmatism of the nay-sayers who seem to react with "Oh he's done one thing I don't like? Well Hope and Change was bullshit!" It's as if you're implying that you wanted or expected perfection and when *gasp* it doesn't happen it justifies some kind of "everyone is equally bad (by not being perfect)" mentality.

The stimulus package is an interesting case since it involves flaws on many angles. Even the Republican Congressmen had to admit that Obama reached out to them more than has been done in the past, and they did get some of their requests into the bill (like more of those "welfare checks"). Yet it wasn't Obama who made the House Republicans vote along a strict party line. Yeah he could have kept trying to mollify them after that, but bipartisanship is a two way street. Or three way, since the congressional Democrats also have to play ball and it was Pelosi who decided to flex her party's congressional muscle and keep the Republicans from really influencing the bill. I have to wonder if she really thinks her party can keep riding the bump in approval ratings they got from Obama's election, while simultaneously stymieing his efforts to bridge the aisle. Maybe once they're back down in the teens they'll wake up.

So yeah, I wonder who's going to be more disillusioned? Me, who is getting even better than I expected so far and would be ecstatic if it continued for another 47 months? Or you, if the "train wreck" you predict never occurs?

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[GooberToo]

Bullshit.

All you have to have is a brain stem and the ability to actually observe news. The news coverage is and has been very biased and supportive of Obama to the exclusion of everyone else. There have been several exposes done on the quality of news coverage provided to Obama and McCain during the election and the difference was night and day. McCain had to practically chain a reporter to cover him, his position, or event. On the other hand, reporters had a hard time getting to the presses to cover Obama because they couldn't let go of his teats. The Daily Show did an excellent job of contrasting the differences in media coverage.

GWB also has a lover affair with the press when the war started. Ratings spiked. But once he could no longer assure the press' safety in a war zone, go figure, the press quickly turned on him. After all, you can't spike your ratings on a war you can't cover in the field. Once the press realized this, they immediately turned. Lies, both indirect and direct, from the green zone are also well documented. The press is fully aware they misreported lots of information but they never bother to correct it.

Simple fact is, the news is considered entertainment now and as such, they are squarely in media with all that is entertainment in America. Its almost impossible to find unbiased political news. If you really haven't figured this out, you are a puppet, regardless of your political affiliations.

You're only protection from the bias crap that is presented as news is to watch all sides from many different news outlets, especially those from other counties, and figure out the truth is really somewhere in between. As most people are too lazy to do this, it is after all lots of work, most are happy to be spoon fed lies and pretend they are well informed.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[curunir]

The thing with the "Liberal Media" myth is that there will always be examples that you can cite to back it up. And there are also examples you can cite from news outlets that show a conservative agenda...and from almost any news source, not just Faux News and its ilk.

The bottom line is that the media is corporate, not liberal or conservative. Almost every decision you see news papers, websites and television programs making can be explained by either corporate interest or an attempt to gain viewership/readership. It isn't about whether Gore's son or Bush's daughters got in trouble, it's because a guy getting a DWI is boring. Attractive college-age girls partying heavily is much more likely to make people (especially men) watch. Rolling Stone is also a good example of this. Their readership is primarily younger people who like popular music. Is it any wonder that they trashed the 80-something candidate that was running against a candidate half his age? They know their demographic and so they cater to it. As far as endorsements go, I fully agree with you that an unbiased news organization should not be endorsing any candidate. But when they do, people tune in or buy the paper to find out who they endorsed.

When news was the province of 3 nightly news programs on the major networks and one or two major papers in each city, there was less competition for people's attention. People in the media prided themselves on journalistic integrity and educating their viewers. But in the internet age, news programs have a lot more competition. There's 4-5 channels in the basic package I get that are dedicated to nothing but news. Every local station has an online site and there's a ton of news sites on the web. So much so that there are news aggregation sites like Google try to sift through the multitude of sources to help people find what they want. And to top it all off, there's now an army of independent bloggers that seem to be beating all the established players to each story. The point of all this is that they can't help but alter their content in order to compete. The tease for the nightly news always boils down to, "How some is stealing your money" or "How you might die" and the like. The old mantra of "If it bleeds, it leads" has been expanded upon to include any of our base desires and fears.

Yet somehow Republicans and their supporters keep trumpeting the liberal media myth that has been drummed into their heads. The pundits give them plenty of examples of this being the case. Why they do that can be adequately by the above paragraph. Listeners/Viewers/Readers love to hear about how everyone is biased against the poor GOP so they tune in. The unbiased media has been replaced by a media that is still unbiased in the traditional sense of Democrat/Republican, but is hyper-concerned with attracting mind share in order to drive up revenues. They'll report on anything that will make us pay attention to them.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[jmorris42]

> Of course the idea of borrowing several billion dollars to give people a tax cut is also quite absurd..

No, it's worse. We are in a crisis which everybody agrees is a credit crunch, credit isn't available and it is causing pain everywhere. So what is their answer? Borrow a Trillion dollars and give it to every democratic wish list item ever floated. The problem was the housing bubble (chiefly caused by Democrats, even Bill Clinton fessed up on that one) blew out and scuttled the banks who had written all the bad paper the government insisted they write. So we blow through a Trillion dollars on nothing likely to stimulate the economy AND do nothing do help either housing or banking in this Porkulus bill. Nope, housing will be taken up in yet ANOTHER half trillion (will be another trillion after the bacon grease lubricates the skids enough to pass) and after the tax cheat finally gets a plan to blow through the remainder of the TARP money Congress is already getting ready to pour yet more money into nationalizing the banks. This bill was just paying off The One's political debts.

> This is of course what the republican agenda is all sore about right now as they want more tax cuts.

Not just any old tax cuts. We want to stimulate the economy. We want tax cuts that will get the biggest bang for the buck, and if we are lucky/wise they would be revenue positive. Bush's tax cuts were, Reagan's were, Kennedy's were. The Laffer Curve[1] is real and we are way on the wrong side of it, we could cut many taxes quite a bit before we moved to the side where cutting tax rates cuts revenue. What we need now is a massive but targeted tax cut to generate enough new wealth that we can paper over the banking fiasco. The government can't create wealth, it can either take it from some and give it to others, while destroying a fair chunk in the conversion, or borrow it and cause new problems in the credit markets.

[1] Only a fool would argue with the basic logic of the Laffer Curve. The only puny argument would be that we are on the good side of it, but history rebuts that so completely even The One didn't attempt it. Nope, he said that even if raising taxes REDUCES revenue it is the right policy because of his perverted notions of 'fairness.' Translate what he said as "Wealth envy is a cornerstone of the Democrat Party and I will not disappoint the base on that one."

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[AngelofDeath-02]

Don't you get paid for life once you serve a term of presidency? Unless you get Impeached or something anyway.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[Captain Splendid]

Simple fact is, the news is considered entertainment now and as such, they are squarely in media with all that is entertainment in America. Its almost impossible to find unbiased political news. If you really haven't figured this out, you are a puppet, regardless of your political affiliations.

I said as much in another reply. Guess you were too lazy to read it.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Not to mention, the guy's only 47 years old. He's going to have this job until he's at most 55. That means he'll have another 10 years before he can sit back and collect Social Security. Do you expect him to torpedo his chances of getting a decent job after he's done with government service if he pisses off lots of rich people in the private sector?

He gets a Presidential Pension as soon as he leaves office, whether in four years or eight. I'm not sure of the current amount, but it's over $150,000 per year, plus travel allowances and a permanent Secret Service detail.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[CrimsonAvenger]

The vast majority of Americans are asking for a giant pork bill.

Polls seem to disagree with this assertion. At best, a slim majority approve of this bill, and that only by defining "approve" as "don't actively dislike it".

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[mellon]

Well, actually he got elected largely on small donations. So he isn't as beholden to those interests as you think. The main worry would be that if he comes out strongly against them, they might fight to get him out of office in 2012. More likely, he's worried about congressional elections in 2010.

The fact is that for the average American, this simply isn't a deciding issue. It's not even on the radar. It's because of this that we are at the mercy of copyright and patent interests - their voices are the loudest, and to a large degree the only, voices that are speaking to these issues.

Figure out a way to get the average American to really care about these issues, and it won't matter what the lobbyists want. The only reason it looks like it matters is because there are so few things that we (as a group!) really care about enough to let it change our vote.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[jmorris42]

> And you are one of the 20% who demonized him before you even knew anything about him? Figures.

No, I'm one of those who knew everything I needed to know about The One by about this time last year. As soon as it became clear that HRC didn't have a lock on the Dimmocrat nomination I checked into The One a bit. By spring of last year I had already been clued in on Rev. Wright, read TUCC's website and was utterly repelled by it. I had read enough bio on O himself to realize he was a third generation communist who picked Chicago as the place where he wanted to build his political base because it was the epicenter of most of the black socialist movements he would need to tap into. In other words I knew enough to be very worried, that HRC was pretty much doomed and my team was likely to be totally unprepared for what was coming. I was right.

The guy is totally amoral, very slick and has billions of dollars and a lot of evil men backing him. Thankfully his administration isn't turning out to be quite as smart as I initially feared. He is making lots of rookie mistakes, which tells me that the idiot started believing his own press releases at some point and isn't being the passive vessel for the backend handlers he was supposed to be.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[RoccamOccam]

I don't get it, where do you people get that everyone thought of Obama as a messiah? I don't know anyone that did and I know a lot of people that voted for him.

What a coincidence - just saw this today: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/16/borders-obamessiah-moment/

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[Scott Carnahan]

Only a fool would argue with the basic logic of the Laffer Curve. The only puny argument would be that we are on the good side of it, but history rebuts that so completely even The One didn't attempt it.

I guess I'm that fool - how sad. The main problem with the Laffer curve is a type mismatch. The space of possible tax policies is a high-dimensional system, and expected tax revenues over time depends not only on these policies, but also on additional inputs like trade policy, currency management, and vagaries of the business cycle. When Laffer attempts to distill a complex system to a single curve like this, he communicates essentially zero useful information. However, one can take something resembling a partial derivative, and ask whether cutting income tax by, e.g., 10 percent, while holding most other variables steady is expected to yield revenue growth. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office studied exactly that (pdf warning) in 2003, and found that you're wrong. Also, the US treasury studied historical effects (another pdf, sorry) of tax cuts and raises, and found that contrary to your assertions, the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were highly revenue-negative. The revenue act of 1964 was signed by Johnson, not Kennedy, and was also revenue-negative.

Where are your sources? Do you have any data to back up your claims?

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[Vancorps]

Humorous that it's a book store in Texas. So far it mostly just looks like Republicans are trying to raise the bar for Obama calling him The One or the messiah and so come re-election they can say how he didn't fix all these problems that are going to take decades to fix.

Fortunately I don't think this strategy will work as most people I know that voted for Obama didn't think he would fix everything so they will look at what progress he has made during the time of re-election and hopefully make an informed decision then to either re-elect or vote for someone new if he hasn't made sufficient progress.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[Jaeph]

***but the "liberal media" myth has been pretty thoroughly debunked***

Being "pooh-poohed" by liberals is not the same as "debunked".

As an independent who has huge issues with both parties, it is quite evident that the news media, with the obvious exceptions of fox and various talk radio, simply loves Obama beyond all rational reason. If Bush had proposed a guy who can't even manage his own taxes (turbo tax did it!) for treasury secretary he would have been ripped a new one. If Diane Feinstein was a republican who opposed net neutrality, you bet there would be an (R) next to her name every time.

Nothing debunked...it's the same as it's been all my life. The news media has a very strong socialist bent and paints its news stories using socialist colors.

-Jeff

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[geminidomino]

This would mean less promised change would get enacted (even if he honestly planned to do everything, there's only so much you can do with a hostile Congress). As he wouldn't have changed things as much as he promised, he'd face a tougher challenge during reelection (thus needing Entertainment bucks more thus more likely to cave in).

So... what you're saying is that, in order to avoid being blocked from bringing about change, he's got to... not bring around change?

Mmm. Politics.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[TheoMurpse]

Its almost impossible to find unbiased political news

Well, technically, it's categorically impossible given finite time spans. And if you consider the number of reportable events to be uncountably infinite, then it's categorically impossible even given an infinite time span!

Just selecting what to report reveals a bias. The fact that CNN didn't talk about the multiple-attacker assault that happened in downtown Austin a couple weeks ago reveals their bias against comprehensive local news in favor of stories about Paris Hilton. Because NPR didn't talk about Darfur yesterday (maybe they did, I don't know, I don't have a radio except in my car and I don't drive every day), it shows their bias against continuous reportage of a terrible tragedy.

Some biases may be justified. But it's impossible not to have one.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[toddestan]

Sorry Cap, but that's a load of crap. The "news" media in this country carried water for The Savior in every way they possibly could the last two years--and they're still doing it. You could repaper half the White House using just the Obama covers from Time and Newsweek in 2008.

The media reports on what is exciting, because that attracts eyeballs. Fact of the matter is, Obama was exciting, and McCain was boring. Before you accuse the media of a bias though, you should take a look at the VP canidates because it was the total opposite. Sarah Palin got all attention from the media, whereas Joe Biden was mostly ignored. Why? Because Palin was exciting, and Biden was not.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[toddestan]

Actually, they no longer get the permanent Secret Service detail, as that was ended after President Clinton. I don't think it matters much, as Obama is certainly wealthly enough that he won't have to worry about money ever again so long as he's smart about it.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[caldodge]

> I don't get it, where do you people get that everyone thought of Obama as a messiah?

Oh, maybe the people who swooned over him, believing his speeches meant more than his actions. Or perhaps Mr. Farrakhan, who SAID Obama was the Messiah.

> The vast majority of Americans are asking for a giant pork bill.

The polls show otherwise, and Wall Street (i.e., millions of investors) seems to differ with your opinion. In fact, the latest poll I saw said that the American people greatly favored tax cuts over increased government spending as a stimulus measure.

> that much money which was previously something the former administration liked doing

THAT much money? Sorry - but this is the biggest appropriations bill EVER. Interesting note - for all the (legitimate, IMHO) griping about government spending too much, it took a sharp jump in 2007 and 2008. Hmmm ... which party was controlling Congress then?

> the idea of borrowing several billion dollars to give people a tax cut is also quite absurd

Actually, it's pretty well established that tax RATE cuts DO increase tax revenue, because they encourage business growth. Even the Obamessiah acknowledged this in an interview, but said it was more "fair" to hike the rates on the wealthy even if it actually reduced tax collections.

I could laugh at the ways Obama's lies will disappoint his devoted followers, if I didn't know that _I_ would also be negatively affected by his devotion to ever-expanding government.

Re:Who is dumb enough to believe a politician?

[hkmwbz]

a third generation communist

Right. So you are basically a wingnut.

The guy is totally amoral

Yes of course. Anyone who isn't a Republican is amoral of course!

Sorry to have to tell you this, but you are as bad as the Obama faithful, if not worse. At least their obsession is hope that something is going to improve. Yours is destruction and lies.

Everyone needs to speak their piece on this

[erroneus]

Going to various Obama web sites where public submission of comments are facilitated is exactly where people should go to voice their view on these matters. If it is clear to Obama that people are watching and responding, he will have a much more difficult time ignoring the situation and the people and will have an even more difficult time going back on his word. People are still up in the air about Obama's credibility and one negative is worth more than a hundred positives and I know he is well aware of that fact. This early in his presidency, he cannot afford to let his credibility slip. He can't make excuses. He has little choice but to respond as he would be expected.

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Going to various Obama web sites where public submission of comments are facilitated is exactly where people should go to voice their view on these matters.

Exactly. Here's the one I know of. If there are others, would appreciate the links.

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this

[Anonymous Coward]

Snicker. Suckers.

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is clear to Obama that people are watching and responding, he will have a much more difficult time ignoring the situation and the people and will have an even more difficult time going back on his word.

What planet do you live on? That is extremely naive. "O" has already broken several promises:
* He was going to take public financing of his campaign.
* He was not going to have lobbyists working in his administration in the very departments they were lobbying.
* He was not going to write legislation behind closed doors.
* All bills were going to be posted online for a _minimum_ of 5 days before he signed them.
There are more, but my fingers are getting tired.

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what I wrote to them using your link - thank you NYCL...

Are you going to allow ex-RIAA lawyers, now members of your Department of Justice staff, intercede on behalf of the RIAA in cases where they are finally being brought to task in regard to their unconstitutional attacks on ordinary citizens?

You did know that the RIAA hired companies to act as Private Investigators in states they held no credentials to act as such, right?

You did know that the RIAA has brought copyright infringement cases against 80+ year old grandmothers who never had a computer?

You did know that the RIAA has brought copyright infringement cases against deceased people, then tried to get the 10 year child of said deceased individual alone to scare them into saying they did something, when they may or may not have?

You did know that the RIAA has continuously cried about losses (to piracy) during years that they've made their highest levels of profit, which was mostly due to people who have lent songs for others to listen to (much like yesterday's radio)?

You did know that the RIAA has (as a conglomerate of Recording Companies) continually raises the flag that piracy hurts the recording artists, which habitually it's the recording companies that immorally force contracts onto artists that strip them of most of the money they could make - such as charging them for media, distribution (shipping) fees and breakage - for ELECTRONIC downloads of their songs - which have NO media, NO distribution fees, and NO breakage?

The RIAA (and it's movie industry equivelent, the MPAA) are abominations to the citizens of this country, whose outdated business models leave them gasping for breath, trying to find any way they can possibly survive, which has led them to file law-suit after frivolous law-suit (nearly every time someone has stood up to them with any merit whatsoever, they've dropped the cases), tying up the court systems, in an effort to get the government to force the public to keep funding these dinosaur business relics which are better off extinct.

Thanks for your time and patience.

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Here's what I wrote to them using your link - thank you NYCL... Are you going to allow ex-RIAA lawyers, now members of your Department of Justice staff, intercede on behalf of the RIAA in cases where they are finally being brought to task in regard to their unconstitutional attacks on ordinary citizens? You did know that the RIAA hired companies to act as Private Investigators in states they held no credentials to act as such, right? You did know that the RIAA has brought copyright infringement cases against 80+ year old grandmothers who never had a computer? You did know that the RIAA has brought copyright infringement cases against deceased people, then tried to get the 10 year child of said deceased individual alone to scare them into saying they did something, when they may or may not have? You did know that the RIAA has continuously cried about losses (to piracy) during years that they've made their highest levels of profit, which was mostly due to people who have lent songs for others to listen to (much like yesterday's radio)? You did know that the RIAA has (as a conglomerate of Recording Companies) continually raises the flag that piracy hurts the recording artists, which habitually it's the recording companies that immorally force contracts onto artists that strip them of most of the money they could make - such as charging them for media, distribution (shipping) fees and breakage - for ELECTRONIC downloads of their songs - which have NO media, NO distribution fees, and NO breakage? The RIAA (and it's movie industry equivelent, the MPAA) are abominations to the citizens of this country, whose outdated business models leave them gasping for breath, trying to find any way they can possibly survive, which has led them to file law-suit after frivolous law-suit (nearly every time someone has stood up to them with any merit whatsoever, they've dropped the cases), tying up the court systems, in an effort to get the government to force the public to keep funding these dinosaur business relics which are better off extinct. Thanks for your time and patience.

Cool. Good letter. I hope many other people follow suit.

What link did you use to submit it? Mine only allowed 500 characters.

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this

[GuyverDH]

I just clicked your link to write my own response and it appears to be a 5000 word limit now...

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I just clicked your link to write my own response and it appears to be a 5000 word limit now...

Wow. That's amazing. Talk about responsive government!

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this

[grumpygrodyguy]

This is important everyone, please voice yourselves at the OP's link here http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/.

Also, Please spread this link to other forums you frequent and explain why it's so important that we speak up together _now_.

We all know the abuses of the RIAA/MPAA over the past 8 years. Bullying private citizens, stifling innovation, refusing to embrace emergent technologies, and most importantly their slow but successful erosion of the public domain through congress.

These are monopolists who have consistently attacked the public domain, and if they win here they will be very difficult to stop.

Please spread the word to your friends and family, explain to them why this issue is so important...and what's at stake. Encourage anyone you can to comment on this, raise the issue in forums, college newspapers, and wherever else you think public discourse on the subject would be most beneficial. Do your part.

Obama will listen if enough of us speak up. Joe Biden is sided with the RIAA, we need to outvoice him and the Hollywood lobbyists. This is the part where you work for the country you want to live in, not sit back and expect the government to 'do the right thing'.

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

This is important everyone, please voice yourselves at the OP's link here http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ [whitehouse.gov]. Also, Please spread this link to other forums you frequent and explain why it's so important that we speak up together _now_. We all know the abuses of the RIAA/MPAA over the past 8 years. Bullying private citizens, stifling innovation, refusing to embrace emergent technologies, and most importantly their slow but successful erosion of the public domain through congress. These are monopolists who have consistently attacked the public domain, and if they win here they will be very difficult to stop. Please spread the word to your friends and family, explain to them why this issue is so important...and what's at stake. Encourage anyone you can to comment on this, raise the issue in forums, college newspapers, and wherever else you think public discourse on the subject would be most beneficial. Do your part. Obama will listen if enough of us speak up. Joe Biden is sided with the RIAA, we need to outvoice him and the Hollywood lobbyists. This is the part where you work for the country you want to live in, not sit back and expect the government to 'do the right thing'.

Thank you for that, grumpygrodyguy. This is really important, and this is a really important moment in which to express it. I hope everyone will get on that link and tell the President how we feel. (I just heard that they've upped the size of the input field to 5000 characters!)

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this

[nurb432]

You are kidding right? they don't give a damn what us think out here in flyover.

The only time politicians care about what they people want is when its time to get reelected, and its not to do as they ask, but to sound like they will.

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this

[aralin]

Actually, we really need to publicize issues like this. Get them to the mass media, whatever the cost. Lets use the system for once. If there is a guy who has agenda against Obama, lets abuse him and feed it to him as an anti-obama news. In other words lets make the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh useful for once by bringing attention to some legitimate issues. Going to Obama websites is not going to make this issue public enough.

Re:Everyone needs to speak their piece on this

[MobyDisk]

Looks like Slashdot removed the s from the link...

Get real

[Anonymous Coward]

While I still can't determine where Obama is going to stand on helping the citizens over the corporations my guess is that he's looking to do this in a case where th coporations are pushing the innocent around, not in helping a law breaker get away with theft.

Re:Get real

[Ogive17]

So you're ok with people having to pay $1200/song if they got caught downloading? You don't have a problem with the DOJ supporting overly harsh punishment?

Re:Get real

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

So you're ok with people having to pay $1200/song if they got caught downloading? You don't have a problem with the DOJ supporting overly harsh punishment?

Believe it or not the now overturned Jammie Thomas verdict was for $9250 per song file. Even the presiding judge has pointed out how ridiculous it was.

Re:Get real

[cpghost]

Believe it or not the now overturned Jammie Thomas verdict was for $9250 per song file. Even the presiding judge has pointed out how ridiculous it was.

But where does "ridiculous" begin, in the eyes of a judge? 10x, 100x, 1000x?

The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises

[snarfies]

You can track the progress of Obama's many campaign promises at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ - its pretty interesting.

Hope, change, a Politician needs not these things

[mc1138]

I can only hope that Obama steps in, because this sets a dangerous precedent of things to come.

This needs a goodluckwiththat tag.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given all the worship directed at The One by /. commentors, reaction to this one ought to be a beaut. I can't wait to hear how cow-towing to the record companies and movie moguls is somehow all Bush's fault.

Re:This needs a goodluckwiththat tag.

[Falconhell]

Cow towing......but they dont have wheels, and towing them would huet their feet

Kowtowing peraps?

In a word...

[DarthVain]

No.

I am surprised they aren't getting a bailout as well. The RIAA are professional fear mongers. With the economy in shambles this is their time to shine. I expect it to get worse.

In fact I see this moving to the SCO model of business. They will just give up on music, and just sue people for money. It worked for them. We can only hope, as at least that way the RIAA dinosaur would go extinct and the music industry could move forward into the present reality.

Re:In a word...

[DarthVain]

Or Yes.

Title confused me for a second. Whichever is corporate greed, and fear and using the system against the people, go for that one.

Promises?

[dmomo]

I agree this is a great concern. The article would do well to cite these promises, though. I do recall these being brought up, but it would be nice to post the evidence. Anyone have a link to support for these claims? So far I've found this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/

Re:Promises?

[geminidomino]

If they act on this, that damn well better shift to broken.

Re:take your punishment like good kids

[Celandro]

Oh yes, because the Republicans have done so much to help the little people from the big business RIAA.

Both parties are on the side of the RIAA. If you thought a vote for Obama would change the RIAA legal battles, you were sadly mistaken.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[Rycross]

That is an awesome link. Thank you for that.

Re:take your punishment like good kids

[east coast]

Maybe you can do your best to clean up your own back yard first instead of waiting for the government to do something. If all these supporters who voted for Obama refused to play either big oil or big media's game than the issues involved would cease to exist. It's only going to take a small portion of the population to take an active (read: economically fueled) interest in these problems and a shift will start to happen.

It's a shame that under Bush we were starting to see a swing away from oil by ethanol use (granted, it's a minor step but it's more than most naysayers ever did) but today ethanol is a dying market. People must get behind this with their voices and with their dollars or it will not work. It's that simple. If you let the economy fuel your voice in these matters the powers that be will be sure to do what they have to to maintain control.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[furby076]

And I think this site is maintained by our /. editor overlords. It has bill 234 listed twice as promises broken.

Just one more opportunity

[PortHaven]

For the naive to realize that Obama is nothing more than A LOT MORE of the same...

*sighs*

If you wanted change, you should have voted for Ron Paul.

Re:Just one more opportunity

[geminidomino]

For the naive to realize that Obama is nothing more than A LOT MORE of the same...

*sighs*

If you wanted change, you should have voted for Ron Paul.

Not fair. He wasn't on the ballot here. :(

Constitutionality != Good

[thirty-seven]

Just because the US federal administration argues that something is constitutional does not necessarily mean that they think it is a good or fair policy.

Re:Constitutionality != Good

[Stray7Xi]

Just because the US federal administration argues that something is constitutional does not necessarily mean that they think it is a good or fair policy.

The issue isn't the argument, the issue is their conflict of interest.

You shouldn't use your job as VP to award no-bid-contracts to companies you used to run.
You shouldn't use your job at DoJ to aid a plaintiff you used to represent.

It reeks of corruption and distracts from the argument when it's brought to light.

Re:Constitutionality != Good

[HiThere]

Excellent point. I don't know whether the DOJ argument (if they decide to make one) will be just or not, reasonable or not. But when past executives make policy about the firm they worked for ... it gives *at the very least* the appearance of corruption. It definitely decreases the level of trust in the government. (Which is already pretty low after two administrations of Bush.)

N.B.: I don't know whether Clinton was untrustworthy or not. To my mind what he was accused of was not comparable to starting a war for no good reason. And I believe that's what Bush did.

Re:Constitutionality != Good

[caldodge]

You shouldn't use your position as a US Senator to funnel money to the hospital which invented a VERY lucrative job for your wife.

You shouldn't use your position as Speaker of the House to push through laws which favor your husband's employer, saving said employer millions of dollars.

It reeks of corruption and distracts from the argument when it's brought to light - except when it's not brought to the general public's attention because it's an inconvenient truth for the MSM.

If you won't face THOSE conflicts of interest, then spare us your phoney concern over the examples you mentioned.

Tsk, tsk

[drquoz]

Obama repeatedly made sure that we knew that his campaign was funded entirely by us the citizens, not lobbyists or businesses. Therefore he should be using the DOJ to protect us from the RIAA, not the other way around. I sure hope he can fix the economy, because this is a strike against him.

Re:Tsk, tsk

[savorymedia]

I really, REALLY hope you're joking if you're saying you actually BELIEVE that tripe about his campaign being funded ENTIRELY by the citizens.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Re:Tsk, tsk

[hkmwbz]

If we define 'small' donor at $200

How convenient to define it so that you can frame the discussion and "prove" exactly what you set out to prove in the first place.

documented fraud in the Obama campaign's credit card processing

Yet another claim based on carefully framing the data?

Re:Tsk, tsk

[khallow]

Actually, $200 is a significant threshold since anything over that amount is reported by law. Amounts under that are commonly reported by the media as "small donor". I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this threshold for "small donor" is part of US law.

Yet another claim based on carefully framing the data?

With a high stakes, distributed activity like a Presidential election, if fraud can occur without risk, then IMHO it's safe to assume it has. The question really is to what extent. In my view, every donation should be recorded whether it be $10 or $10,000. The problem is that a million donations of $10 each spend just as well as a single donation of $10 million, but they need not be documented. Hence, for the enterprising briber, there is a way to funnel considerable money into any campaign. Incidentally, this isn't the first campaign where small donations could be fradulent. The Howard Dean campaign in 2004 is another example. I find it suspicious that his campaign utterly folded after losing the early primaries. Surely if he was pulling in as many small donations as he claimed, they wouldn't stop coming just because he lost some early races even if he had gambled heavily on those races. OTOH, if he were funded by a big donor, then the symptoms make more sense. Big fish decides he isn't worth it and drops the small donation funding. Doesn't mean I'm right, but I think it's very naive to ignore the small donation loophole.

Re:Tsk, tsk

[caldodge]

No, Obama made sure to give the _impression_ that his campaign was funded entirely by us the citizens.

Since basic credit card verification was deliberately disabled on web sites taking donations for Obama, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know who funded his campaign. Search the web for "Doodad Pro" if you seek enlightenment.

Re:Tsk, tsk

[Manchot]

I can see why you're anonymous, because you couldn't manage to read the line "its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families." In other words, if a professor or a janitor at UC-Berkeley donated money, it counts as a donation from "University of California."

Are they even RIAA lawyers?

[Xest]

Yes I know they worked for the RIAA before. But do they still do so?

If they don't also still work for the RIAA are we sure these lawyers actually even give a damn about the RIAA? Unless they have stocks and shares or whatever in the RIAA companies then what's in it for them if they no longer work for them?

It is possible that these lawyers were just doing it for the money and don't actually give a damn about the company they were working for.

Does anything have anything more damning than that they used to work for the RIAA? do they still? are they receiving money or incentives still from the RIAA?

Re:Are they even RIAA lawyers?

[Xest]

Cheney wasn't just an employee of Halliburton, he was on the board of directors, that means he was very strongly tied to the company and had strong interests in it. He was also a neo-con and Halliburton was a vessel for him to help push his political agenda of American strength and corporate interest worldwide. There was also some evidence that Cheney still had some ties to Halliburton whilst the government was pouring money into it.

This is why I asked about the lawyers, because there doesn't seem to be any evidence they were deeply involved in the company and it's ideas like Cheney was. If there is evidence of a strong vested interest as there was with Cheney then sure I'll view them the same way, but until then I'll remain cautious. There are still a lot of bitter Republicans willing to throw FUD left right and centre when it may well have no merit.

I'm concerned about people in power with ANY link to the RIAA, but I'm not about to decide absolutely that these people are going to push the RIAA's agenda when they don't even hold the very top post.

The RIAA had a lot of money and it stands to reason then that they'd go for people who are high up in the law circles to push their cases. It's also no suprise that people who end up in the justice department are picked from the same set- those at or near the top of their game.

It's good that this sort of thing is reported so that we can watch closely and protest the link, but it's not necessarily the end of the world that's all.

hell, no. copyright law provides fair use.

[swschrad]

DOJ should intervene on the side of customers.

I commend you for admitting it

[r00t]

You're only the second person I've seen admit that he was fooled by Obama. That takes a bit of bravery, a willingness to swallow some pride when called for, and probably some intelligence. Good job!

BTW, tag these stories "messiah" please. :-)

Re:I commend you for admitting it

[Lendrick]

I'm a liberal who voted for Obama, and I wasn't fooled either.

Obama is doing better than Bush did (honestly, better to be in the pockets of the copyright cartels than the defense contractors and oil companies), but he's still too conservative and too corporate (which aren't necessarily related) for my taste. And I'll be honest, he's done a lot of things lately that have pissed me off.

A lot of people use these sorts of things as an opportunity to say something to the point of "well, you should have voted for Ron Paul." While I'll buy that Ron Paul is clean in terms of corporate interests, I disagree with him completely on policy. Knowing what I know now, if Ron Paul faced Barack Obama in the presidential election, I would still vote for Obama. That said, if Dennis Kucinich were running, he'd have my vote hands down. He's liberal and not in the pockets of the **AA, and in my opinion he's the guy who would make the best president.

Re:I commend you for admitting it

[ArcherB]

When the republicans hoist up someone who has a plan for their office besides attacking abortion and gays...

Citation please.

OK, Republicans are against abortion, and for the most part, always will be. You see, we see it as killing babies. You may not think it's a baby, but a simple DNA test will prove that it really is a separate human than either the mother or the father. So, yeah, we see it as killing babies and will continue to stand against it. Neither a mother, nor anyone else should have the "right" to kill anyone else that is no threat and has committed no crime.

Besides, after eight years of a Republican president, many of those with a Republican controlled congress, we still have abortions and gays. So....

Citation please.

Re:I commend you for admitting it

[midicase]

I would like to add that what I see in in republicans, or rather conservatives, being against abortion is not so much about [not] killing babies but rather about having a sense of personal responsibility. "Life" could be the ultimate responsibility of sexual activity and could serve as the ultimate deterrent to pre-marital sex. As long as there is abortion there is little at stake.

Not that I prescribe to such a system but I can appreciate the argument.

Re:I commend you for admitting it

[jamstar7]

That said, if Dennis Kucinich were running, he'd have my vote hands down. He's liberal and not in the pockets of the **AA, and in my opinion he's the guy who would make the best president.

As someone who lived inside the city limits of Cleveland when 'Dennis the Menace' told off CEI and thus set the stage for Cleveland's default, I can categorically classify him as an idiot. The 'competition' that was 'provided' by Munincipal Light was a few cents cheaper than CEI's rates, but it pissed CEI off bigtime because they were forced by law to supply Muni Light with all their electricity below cost. Don't think the guys in the back rooms didn't keep that in mind when reassessing Cleveland's bond rating. 'Kicking CEI's ass' won him votes in the next election, but it did nothing to fix the streets.

Re:I commend you for admitting it

[ArcherB]

You see, we see it as killing babies. You may not think it's a baby, but a simple DNA test will prove that it really is a separate human than either the mother or the father.

I never said I was pro-choice, just that I don't want that to be the FOCUS of their platform. I mean, they really can't come up with more important stuff to discuss with all the problems we have these days? As for your request for citation... okay, so maybe I exaggerated a little bit, but I still felt like they were focusing on all the wrong things for about 40% of their campaign. To be fair, it was mostly Palin. I liked McCain for the most part.

OK, that's fair. But also keep in mind that what you hear may not be what the subject wants you to hear. For example, I've never heard Palin say that she was against abortion from a legal point of view. She's passed no laws in Alaska limiting abortion. I knew she was pro-life because of her actions. She walked the walk and had a Downs baby, even though she knew she was having a Downs baby. She was actually attacked for practicing what she preached. Same for her daughter. As for the media view, they painted Palin as a right-wing, kill-the-bunnies, ban-evolution redneck, where I saw a down to earth, real world, non-elitist working mother who buys diapers at Walmart... just like I have done. (When do you think the last time Obama, McCain or Biden entered a Walmart, K-Mart, or whatever other store that working, non-millionaire people shop in?)

Of course, all I heard about Obama is how eloquent he spoke, how big his heart was, how good looking he was, how good of shape he was in and how much he sacrificed for the poor.

My point is that abortion is not the FOCUS of the Republican platform. For that matter, I would say that it was less of an issue for Republicans than for Democrats. Republicans are (supposed to be) for lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, local control, strong defense and a general sense of ethics/justice. Unfortunately, that's not what gets the headlines and whatever the media focuses on becomes what the people see as the FOCUS of the platform.

Re:I commend you for admitting it

[ArcherB]

It has been said that all you need to do is see one child eating out of a garbage can to realize that maybe abortion is not such a bad idea.

Well, next time you see a kid eating out of a garbage can, why don't you ask him? Walk up to him, hand him a gun and say, "I think you would better off dead, but since I'm about the freedom of choice, I'll let you choose to be an aborted or not."

Re:I commend you for admitting it

[Darkness404]

I believe the party you are looking for is the libertarian party. Basically, they are conservative without the "You are different so lets pass legislation to discriminate against you". The only problem with the libertarian party is that its a third-party that the sheep who belong to a union won't vote for it, the sheep who were raised democrat/republican won't vote for it and those who vote on the best ads won't vote for it.

I think that the general trend for most of America is heading towards libertarianism rather than conservatism.

Re:I commend you for admitting it

[wild_quinine]

OK, Republicans are against abortion, and for the most part, always will be. You see, we see it as killing babies. You may not think it's a baby, but a simple DNA test will prove that it really is a separate human than either the mother or the father.

Bad luck for identical twins, then - they're really only one person by that logic. Does that mean that it's okay to kill one of them? It's only murder if you shoot the second, too?

Before a certain age a fetus can't survive without the mother any more than my finger could survive by itself, if I cut it off.

You can't separate the fetus and mother, and you can't use DNA as a proof of individual identity. That kind of runs you out of options for 'proving' that a fetus counts as a person.

Re:I commend you for admitting it

[shoemilk]

Neither a mother, nor anyone else should have the "right" to kill anyone else that is no threat and has committed no crime.

Just a quick question, if the pregnancy is a danger to the life of the mother, would it be ok then?

Re:I commend you for admitting it

[wild_quinine]

Hard go for certain conjoined twins under your definition. Just because one is dependent on the other doesn't mean they belong to the other.

I think you miss the point. I didn't define anything, I simply refuted a faulty definition. That places no onus on me to suggest an alternative definition.

The issue of abortion relies on the concept of identity. Both mine and and your examples show that there is a lot of grey area in identity.

It is precisely because there is no clear answer that I think we need to be open-minded on this issue.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[Red Flayer]

politifact.com: owned by St. Petersburg Times

St. Petersburg Times: owned by the Poynter Institute

The Poynter Institute is a journalism school well know for its uncommon (in today's world) approach of unbiased reporting and the primacy of fact over sensationalism.

Gotta say, props to you for linking to a neutral site, when there are so many sites "Obama broken promises" sites maintained by partisan hacks.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[daveime]

kdawson strikes again huh ?

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[Fozzyuw]

And I think this site is maintained by our /. editor overlords. It has bill 234 listed twice as promises broken.

It's listed twice in "recently rated" section. There's still only 1 broken promise listed on the meter.

How do you spell Mugabe?

[kawabago]

I sure he doesn't turn out that way!

Oh dear!

[BCW2]

A politician lied?

Why is anyone surprised?
You actually were dumb enough to expect different?

Re:hell, no. copyright law provides fair use.

[mlwmohawk]

DOJ should intervene on the side of customers.

Let me correct that statement:
DOJ should intervene on the side of citizens.

Re:take your punishment like good kids

[tinkerghost]

Ethanol isn't a viable alternative to fossil fuels as long as it's principally made from grains & high sugar saps/juices. Check the conversion rates between growing/processing the ethanol and the energy in the ethanol. Under current production methods, it's pretty close to break even.

If/when ethanol is commercially made from the woody biomass of existing crops, then it will be a potential contender since the growth portion of the cost is removed. Bio-diesel generally has a better net gain, but it's still not a wonder drug for the problem.

Sony v. Cloud

[castorvx]

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Cloud,...

So they've finally done it. The RIAA's legal expertise has lead them to sue the internet.

Re:Sony v. Cloud

[TheUser0x58]

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Cloud,...

Cloud? He should just bust out Knights of the Round + W-Summon on their ass.

Re:Sony v. Cloud

[geminidomino]

He's too busy moping and letting Token Black Guy with the gun arm and Gothy McAngst who is not a vampire (*wink wink*) do all the work...

XKCD always relevant

[jgtg32a]

http://xkcd.com/250/

open -- how about RIAA's new treaty?

[r00t]

What do you think of that treaty that is being negotiated in secret? (the one that has popped up in 2 or 3 slashdot stories over the past half year)

Obama isn't being open about that one.

Re:open -- how about RIAA's new treaty?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, wait, wait. A treaty. Being negotiated in secret. (How do you know about it?) Over the past six months. And you're blaming Obama?

Short-term memory fail.

That's not even possible...

[need4mospd]

...seeking from 2,200 to 450,000 times the amount of actual damages...

I've only seen up to 8000, anything over 9000 would just be ridiculous.

Re:That's not even possible...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

...seeking from 2,200 to 450,000 times the amount of actual damages...

I've only seen up to 8000, anything over 9000 would just be ridiculous.

:)

But seriously, the actual damages are around 35 cents per download. (70 cent wholesale price minus ~35 cents expenses=35 cents lost profits). The now discarded Jammie Thomas verdict was 23,000 times the actual damages (9250 per song file).

Interestingly, when the record companies are defendants they sing a different tune, complaining that even 10 times the actual damages is unconstitutional.

Re:That's not even possible...

[need4mospd]

The now discarded Jammie Thomas verdict was 23,000 times the actual damages (9250 per song file).

So I WAS right! Songs cost $1 on itunes and at $9250 per song, it's OVER 9000!!!

Re:That's not even possible...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Sorry, I thought you were talking 'multiples' as I was; I didn't realize you were talking dollars, because there was no dollar sign.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[jgtg32a]

How is no action a swipe?

Your First Premise WRONG: +1, PatRIOTic

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no DOJ. There is no U.S. Federal Government.

The U.S.A. has collapsed economically. The U.S.A. is now in political collapse.

Good luck suckers.

Cheers,
Kilgore Trout

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[jgtg32a]

It's listed twice but there is only one promise counted as broken

Re:Offtopic?

[jbacon]

Because this article is not about the perceived value of one man's vote, it's about a DOJ amicus brief.

He can go bitch about the political machine elsewhere.

Re:take your punishment like good kids

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Oh yes, because the Republicans have done so much to help the little people from the big business RIAA. Both parties are on the side of the RIAA. If you thought a vote for Obama would change the RIAA legal battles, you were sadly mistaken.

Well we know that the Bush DOJ was anxious to intervene on the RIAA's behalf. We don't yet know that about the Obama DOJ. This will be an interesting test.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[Rycross]

Well I guess, but there's not really a better way of phrasing it. No action is no action, whether its because he hasn't had enough time, or because he just doesn't care. Hopefully we, as the voters, are smart and attentive enough to find out which is which.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Implied conflict of interest...

[argent]

Doesn't matter, there's an implied conflict of interest in intervening on behalf of former employers.

Re:Implied conflict of interest...

[slimjim8094]

That's some pretty good stuff you're smoking.

Ever notice how lawyers seem to care really hard about whatever the case du jour is? That's their job.

I hate lawyers and the RIAA as much as the next guy, but the only allegiance lawyers have is to whoever paying the check that day.

Professionally, that is. Doesn't really matter what their private beliefs are.

Re:Implied conflict of interest...

[argent]

I'm not making this up, you know. The term "implied conflict of interest" shows up on the code of ethics for an awful lot of companies and professions, and I don't see any reason lawyers should be given a free ride just because your cynical (or realistic) opinion is that they're amoral mercenaries who are supposed to be above such legal niceties.

I don't care if they think they're a special case, or even if you think they're a special case. If an advertiser or a speechwriter or an engineer or a judge or a manager has to show they have no conflict of interest, lawyers get no free ride.

Re:Implied conflict of interest...

[geminidomino]

That's some pretty good stuff you're smoking.

Ever notice how lawyers seem to care really hard about whatever the case du jour is? That's their job.

I hate lawyers and the RIAA as much as the next guy, but the only allegiance lawyers have is to whoever paying the check that day.

Professionally, that is. Doesn't really matter what their private beliefs are.

Apparently Obama himself thought it was an issue when he wrote that whole revolving-door ban thing...

Yanno, just sayin'...

Oil War?

[argent]

So Bush attacking Iraq and ignoring Afghanistan had nothing to do with the oil business?

Re:hell, no. copyright law provides fair use.

[langelgjm]

Fair use has nothing to do with this. The defendant has challenged the statutory damages of the Copyright Act as unconstitutional. So, the DOJ wants to look into this, and perhaps offer a brief supporting the constitutionality of the damages.

Is this the same Obama....

[PontifexMaximus]

who promised NOT to hire lobbyists for Administration positions and then had to ask for release from that promise a dozen times (or whatever the final number was)?

I call bullshit. They'll rip the consumer a new one and we'll all be screwed just for LOOKING at a copy of a movie we purchased legally.

A lawyer's point of view

[Midnight Thunder]

An unbiased lawyer's point of view really should reflect the interests of the person or party that he is meant to be defending or accusing. A judge's point of view should be to defend the law of the land and judge the merits of the defence and the accusers in this context. In many ways, just because a judge was previously a lawyer for the RIAA does not mean he will continue to support them, since they are no longer the customer and are no longer paying the former lawyer. If he is still receiving money from a previous client, then the judge should be disbarred, since they have a conflict of interest.

Oh, IANAL, so this is just an outsider's view point.

I am going out on a limb

[Shivetya]

the problem I see is that Bush while supported corporations seemed truly to protect the country and did what he thought best. So far all I see is Obama ceding authority and decisions to others. He seems adept at not taking action himself or taking responsibility. He is after face time and "credit" but credit without owning anything. The stimulus bill was handed over to Pelosi and Reid and he flew around campaigning with doom and gloom if it wasn't signed. Bush just stayed either out of sight or just said it was going to be done and did it.

Yeah you wasted your vote but don't feel bad. We didn't know jack shit about the guy other than he wasn't a Republican (I did not vote for either of these two so maybe I wasted my vote by not voting against him but no good conservative could vote for McCain like we could not vote for Obama).

Look, what little of his voting record existed should have told you his stance. We had two poor choices and after seeing the stimulus bill and the fear mongering used to push it I know we got it wrong. But hey, its America, there is only so much damage that can be done. Will we recover, certainly, will it be hard, yes. Yet we made this choice as a country and we as a country will bear it.

Who knows, he could suddenly wake up and realize that being President means living up to the hype and promise of his campaign. Its early. The stimulus bill was strike two (Geitner & related were strike one). Lets see where he goes from here. As they say, we can only go up - and I hope that is true.

Re:I am going out on a limb

[EastCoastSurfer]

So far all I see is Obama ceding authority and decisions to others. He seems adept at not taking action himself or taking responsibility.

I'm not sure how this is a surprise to anyone. That's all he's ever done. He's never had to actually do any leading in his government positions. Now he has the football and simply handed off to some of the worst players there are in Pelosi and Reid. A real leader would have called Pelosi up and told her to get her act together or he would have carried the ball himself and worked to build his own bill.

Re:I am going out on a limb

[TheoMurpse]

So far all I see is Obama ceding authority and decisions to others. He seems adept at not taking action himself or taking responsibility.

Really? YOu couldn't just search for obama takes responsibility on YouTube? Here's a recent example where he literally says "I screwed up."

an "ordinary citizen" can wrong a corporation

[boguslinks]

look out for ordinary citizens rather than big corporations

Just because Party A is an "ordinary citizen" and Party B is a "big corporation" doesn't mean that Party A should be able to harm Party B with impunity.

NewYorkCountryLawyer, for all the good work he is doing, seems to include verbiage like this in almost every post that makes it to the front page. Over and over... the industry is suing "ordinary folks"... they should stop suing "ordinary folks"... evil big corporation vs. noble, innocent ordinary folks...

I happen to be in the camp that the historical reasons for copyright are no longer extant and that massive reform should be done. But this verbiage disturbs me.

Our legal system should provide facilities for party A to address grievances with party B, whether B is big and A is small, or vice versa. It shouldn't be the goal (as the verbiage seems to suggest) that the legal system should be rigged to favor the smaller party in a dispute.

Re:an "ordinary citizen" can wrong a corporation

[Mendoksou]

True, the companies have rights, too; and we can't get caught up in unthinking corporate bashing, or we shoot ourselves in the foot. But I think most of us agree that the RIAA in this case is the "bad guy," if I may so simplify matters. If the RIAA were merely prosecuting individual thefts of merchandise, I would not object. I'd think they were petty and stupid, but at least they would be operating within the letter of the law. But the fact is they don't do that; they trump up charges to the point where every person who pirates is treated like a corporation that steals technology or products for their own profit. That is unfair, most people cannot defend themselves with high-priced lawyers and massive amounts of capital the way corporations can, nor were they out for major gains in the first place. So I think the terms "ordinary citizen" and "big corporation" here do apply, but it's nice to avoid buzz words, too.

Re:an "ordinary citizen" can wrong a corporation

[navyjeff]

I would agree with you if it were that simple. The problem is that the legal system evolves and favors those who have the resources to contend in court.

A regular person does not have resources to fight civil lawsuits that may last indefinitely. It is not in an individual's best interest (typically) to drag out a proceeding and exhaust every legal option in pursuit of a victory. A big corporation, however, does and can benefit from it.

If the system were rigged towards the smaller party, I agree it probably would be equally injust (see the current state of patent law).

It would probably be helpful to the average working man if judges limited the scope of the better-funded party's arguments in a case. But that wouldn't make it just.

Re:an "ordinary citizen" can wrong a corporation

[jonaskoelker]

Our legal system should provide facilities for party A to address grievances with party B, whether B is big and A is small, or vice versa. It shouldn't be the goal (as the verbiage seems to suggest) that the legal system should be rigged to favor the smaller party in a dispute.

The economics of the justice system (hiring one or more lawyers is damn expensive for Joe Public) favors the big players. To counterbalance that, we need to equally favor the small guys in some other way so that it all evens out.

Re:NOT NOW NOT EVER. I WILL END YOU.

[Niris]

Or, you know, you can get a job that's productive and do entertainment stuff as a hobby because you _enjoy_ it, like it should be.

Re: Not what Vegeta says

[meleespamingzombies]

Vegeta says, Its over nine THOUSAAAAANNDDD!

Re:take your punishment like good kids

[TurinX]

Thats completely incorrect. Demand has fallen, and fallen off a cliff.
A huge factor in Oil's drop from $147 in July is due to he the massive decline in both OCED and non-OCED demand. non-OCED (ie China) was supposed to be the key, decoupling etc... wow that was wrong!
Speculation was just thrown about by politicians - Net length and Open Interest are almost as high now as they were in July!! (they came of substantially towards the end of last year, but now picked up again). Currently there are almost 4mmb/d of OPEC excess capacity... no supprise that oil is now trading at ~$40.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Tried in Pennsylvania?

[Locke2005]

I for one am very glad that there are no corrupt judges in Pennsylvania!

Is this a procedural issue?

[UnknowingFool]

Here's how I understand the motion. Can a lawyer comment if the DOJ's request is just standard procedure? On October 29, 2008, the Defendant (Denise Cloud) challenges the constitutionality of the statutory damages section of 17 U.S.C 504c. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1a says that the Attorney General can intervene in any constitutional challenge within 60 days. This motion requests more time for the DOJ to study whether they should intervene beyond the 60 days. The DOJ may have 3 outcomes: They can reject the challenge. They can allow the challenge to proceed and not interfere. They can also support the challenge.

It is a new administration so we can't be sure which way they will lean. However it maybe that this administration is just more diligent and attentive than the previous administrations to this issue. The Bush administration seemed to be more focused on other legal issues.

Re:take your punishment like good kids

[Neoprofin]

There's a difference between nurturing a technology and ramming it down people's throats.

Computers didn't enter the home until costs had dropped and power was great enough for them to be marketable. Ethanol isn't at this point, and until it is I shouldn't shouldn't have to pay people to produce an inferior product that has been reaking havoc on food markets beyond what is needed in an R&D capacity.

Paragraph(?) 7 of the motion

[Nihixul]

Paragraph(?) 7 of the motion states, in part, "Counsel for both parties do not oppose the motion." I understand why it is important to debate whether or not the DOJ should intervene, what stance the DOJ might take, and whether or not this motion should be granted. However, my question is the following (series of questions). What benefit does the Defendant seek to obtain by not opposing the motion? (Do they need time for other things, and this is a convenient opportunity? Do they have reason to believe the DOJ might intervene on Defendant's behalf? Does this [DOJ intervening and agreeing that a certain act is unconstitutional] happen often/ever?)

Re:Paragraph(?) 7 of the motion

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The defendant was 'not objecting' to the request for extension of time. That's all.

Re:Paragraph(?) 7 of the motion

[Nihixul]

The defendant was 'not objecting' to the request for extension of time.

I realize that, and thanks for the reply.

Is it more, then, that they have no grounds upon which to reasonably object? Because, once more, I do not see what they actually gain from the granting of the motion (that seeks an extension), except possibly in such cases as:

(1) They need more time themselves (for whatever reason). (This benefit would have to outweigh the risk of the DOJ deciding to intervene, defending the constitutionality of the act, and perhaps swaying the judge to side with the Plaintiff.)

(2) They believe the DOJ might intervene in their behalf. (This doesn't seem likely.)

(3) They believe a DOJ intervention on the Plaintiff's behalf (or at least to support the constitutionality of the act in question) would in some strange way *help* their case. (I don't understand how this could really be the case.)

(4) They believe that objecting to the motion is futile, and so such an objection would only waste time and resources, with the possible side effect of annoying the judge. (This seems rather likely.)

Re:Paragraph(?) 7 of the motion

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The DOJ is just asking for some more time in which to decide whether intervention is appropriate. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. The more time they have to make up their mind, the more likely it is they will make the right decision and do the right thing, which in this case would be to do nothing and take no position and leave it up to the Judge to sort out whether the RIAA's theory is unconstitutional.

Poor RIAA !

[jalet]

RIAA doesn't need Obama's DOJ help anymore, because Chris Brown said he was sorry for what he did. So let's just marry RIAA and Chris, and I'm sure all will be fine between them from now on.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[SnarfQuest]

Why break a preomise only once, when you can get more mileage out of it by breaking it over and over again.

Re:take your punishment like good kids

[east coast]

Do what you will be if that's going to be your attitude towards it than don't act like you have a real interest in seeing this technology along. You're looking for star trek technology on an oil budget. It will NEVER work that way.

And I wasn't talking about the home computing market either.

Let me guess McCain would have been different?

[zerofoo]

I'm not defending president Obama here, but do you really think Senator McCain would side with the public instead of the entertainment industry?

If he can help fix the economy (and the middle class) and end the war in Iraq then, for me, president Obama's administration is the lesser of two evils.

-ted

Re:Let me guess McCain would have been different?

[CrimsonAvenger]

I'm not defending president Obama here, but do you really think Senator McCain would side with the public instead of the entertainment industry?

This has little to do with which Party is in power, or which industry is involved. In general, the Justice Department's job in cases like this is to support the Constitution and the currently applicable laws. Note that the Justice Department is NOT the court system. Nor is it part of the Judiciary. It is the Federal Government's lawyers. And their job is to defend the acts of the federal government.

Note that it is assumed that all laws are, in fact, constitutional, though it is clear from reading many of them that their constitutionality is iffy, at best.

Nonetheless, the Justice Department has to support the laws as written before the courts. Which they seem to be doing in this case (and in every other case I've read about).

In other words, this would be happening no matter who was President - Obama, McCain, Paul, Barr, Nader.

Re:Let me guess McCain would have been different?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

the Justice Department has to support the laws as written before the courts

Yes but every member of the Justice Department, and indeed every attorney, takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. Not a particular provision, or interpretation of a provision, of the Copyright Act. I.e., while we are bound to protect and defend "the law", the chief "law" we are bound to protect and defend is the Constitution of the United States. The United States Supreme Court has held that punitive damages which exceed by more than nine times the actual damages are presumptively unconstitutional. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Northern District of California, and the Eastern District of New York have held that statutory damages may well be subject to the same principle. No cases have held to the contrary. And two excellent law review articles have argued forcefully that the statutory damages scheme of the Copyright Act, providing for MINIMUM damages of $750 per infringement, is in fact unconstitutional as applied to the micropayment p2p file sharing cases -- i.e. if each 99-cent song file creates a $750 to $150,000 liability.

Indeed the RIAA's damages theory is not even consistent with basic tenets of copyright law, of long standing, that statutory damage awards are required to bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages sustained.

So the DOJ should stay far away from defending this nonsense. They have much more important things to do than to ensure that college students be exposed to damages which even the courts recognize are ludicrous. See, e.g., the last 3 or 4 pages of Judge Davis's decision in Capitol v. Thomas.

Re:Let me guess McCain would have been different?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Yes but every member of the Justice Department, and indeed every attorney, takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.

Every President and Congresscritter does the same. And yet, laws are passed most every day that are unconstitutional.

In other words, your argument is not persuasive. In an ideal world, maybe. But in an ideal world, the case would never have come up....

Re:Let me guess McCain would have been different?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I was just saying that the DOJ is NOT obligated to put in a brief, as the GP had suggested.

Re:Let me guess McCain would have been different?

[CrimsonAvenger]

I was just saying that the DOJ is NOT obligated to put in a brief, as the GP had suggested.

Never said they were. But if they do, it'll be on the side of existing law. And they probably will. For one thing, arguing that the law is unconstitutional is silly - it's clearly constitutional, just as it's clearly bad law (no, those two things aren't either/or). For another, the Democrats owe a LOT of favours to the entertainment industry.

Re:Let me guess McCain would have been different?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Well I guess you know better than any judge that has addressed the issue so far.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[Snerdley]

ACK! ACK ACK ACK!

Living in Clearwater (and having the St. Pete Times as my newspaper), I assure you that they are NOT neutral in any sense of the word.

In addition to their editorial page being constantly slanted left, they regularly spin their new stories in the same way.

I have been following the politifact.com site since I found it weeks ago. In fact, I subscribe to the RSS feed here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/feeds/updates/

My main problem with this site in particular is that they count broken promises as "in progress" or "compromise", and they add new promises all the time. This doesn't just track promises made during the campaign: if he says (as president) he'll do something next week, and then he does it, it counts as a "Promise Kept". This ensures that their numbers always skew to the "Promise Kept" side.

That said, I find the site entertaining, if irritating. I just hate the idea that anyone things it's "Fair" or "Neutral".

The more things CHANGE...

[Androclese]

...the more they stay the same...

Off topic tidbit

[Mendoksou]

Interesting, comparing that link with this one: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424 Apparently McCain's TOP contributor gave less than Obama's 20th top contributor. Not sure what that implies, if anything, I just think it is strange.

Re:take your punishment like good kids

[Justtaint]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/international/opec_forecast.reut/index.htm

World oil demand has fallen and will continue to fall in 2009. The $105/barrel difference was mostly due to speculation, but the rest of it is due to low demand. Now if that would only translate to lower gas prices. Gasoline averaged $1.61 on Dec. 30, its up to almost $2 today, yet oil has dropped ~$5/barrel in that time

Hello Astroturfer

[argent]

Does this count the people who the RIAA sued who didn't even own a computer?

Re:Hello Astroturfer

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Does this count the people who the RIAA sued who didn't even own a computer?

I can even go you one better. I have a client who's been in litigation with them since 2005 who's never even used a computer.

Re:Hello Astroturfer

[Svartalf]

I'm amazed at just what the courts are allowing to go on these days. So damn much stuff flunks a sniff test that it's beyond black humor hilarious- it's abjectly tragic.

Re:Hello Astroturfer

[argent]

Total stream-of-consciousness babble with no point, no reasoning, no cause and effect. What, did you do too many heavy drugs when you were 17?

Re:Hello Astroturfer

[Rycross]

He did say he was an artist, so, very likely.

If you didn't know by now about government

[nnnich]

what changes every four years? only the cover of the book

good judgment calls though - your vote counts!

those DOJ appointments were just plain stupid.

[DragonTHC]

You have two lawyers with proven track records of a) using evidence that was obtained illegally, and b) suing people with no evidence at all, c) suing the wrong people, and d) participating in a campaign of frivolous litigation.

The only way the administration could have done worse was to appoint Jack Thompson.

Re:those DOJ appointments were just plain stupid.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You have two lawyers with proven track records of a) using evidence that was obtained illegally, and b) suing people with no evidence at all, c) suing the wrong people, and d) participating in a campaign of frivolous litigation.

Yeah but other than that, what do you have against them? Picky, picky.

Re:those DOJ appointments were just plain stupid.

[rwwyatt]

You have two lawyers with proven track records of a) using evidence that was obtained illegally, and b) suing people with no evidence at all, c) suing the wrong people, and d) participating in a campaign of frivolous litigation.

Sounds like every lawyer I have ever known!!

Re:those DOJ appointments were just plain stupid.

[jamstar7]

The only way the administration could have done worse was to appoint Jack Thompson.

To be not giving them any ideas, now, eh?

Besides, I kinda doubt a presidential pardon would trump a disbarment...

He's already failed that test...

[Kazoo the Clown]

This is an early test of whether President Obama will make good on his promises (a) not to allow industry insiders to participate in cases affecting the industry they represented (the 2nd and 3rd highest DOJ officials are RIAA lawyers) and (b) to look out for ordinary citizens rather than big corporations.

Are you in denial? Or just slow?

Not just expect....

[nurb432]

They will get it.

Re:Offtopic?

[MrNaz]

Actually, this is a test of key issue in what was perhaps the most watched US election of all time.

People who voted had expectations that are manifestly being tested in this particular scenario. So, it is not off topic, it's the mods who lack the ability to connect two dots that are not immediately adjacent.

Re:take your punishment like good kids

[soundguy]

Of the two oligarchies, I think we made the right choice. Our current economy cannot survive without the products of "big oil" so we had very little leverage with the Bush administration. No one "needs" RIAA products. NO ONE! That means we have a vast amount of leverage now. Stop buying major label products and their war chest disappears.

I haven't bought a new CD since 1998. Buy used or buy indy. It's not that hard. Coincidentally, that's about the same time I quit my 2-pack-a-day smoking habit. At today's prices for smokes & CDs, I'm saving enough every year to make a few months worth of mortgage payments.

Re:whether does not mean 'if' - some lawyers...

[soundguy]

The remarkable thing about English is that lots of stuff can be assumed.

In this case, mentally tack on an "or not".

You know what they say: "when you ASSUME, you're a fucking asshole"...or something like that.

separation of powers?

[BoxedFlame]

I'm confused. How can the DOJ, an arm of the executive, "intervene" with the courts? Doesn't that radically break the separation of powers? Or did I mix something else up?

/ a confused european

Re:separation of powers?

[CrimsonAvenger]

I'm confused. How can the DOJ, an arm of the executive, "intervene" with the courts? Doesn't that radically break the separation of powers? Or did I mix something else up?

/ a confused european

The Justice Department is the Federal Government's law firm. It is, in fact, their job to support the laws as written in any case where the Constitutionality of a law is questioned. Which usually means that they file an Amicus brief stating, in summary, "we're not doing anything wrong, and we won't do it again."

this will naturally cause flame

[superwiz]

But I'll say it just a reminder of where the actual statutory damages point of view comes from.

Penalty payments are not meant to compensate for the damage done. They are meant to be compensation for the damage adjusted for the probability of getting caught. That's why they are penalties rather than simple compensations. For example, how much does a municipality lose when someone doesn't put coins in a parking meter? About $1. How much is the ticket for not putting the coins? I would say (the hypothetical national average is) around $50. This would mean that the municipalities are assuming that only 1 in 50 offenders get caught. The same goes for the penalties (fines, statutory damages, or whatever else you want to call them) for copyright infringement. If the penalty is $150,000 for 1 instance of infringement (that is tantamount to stealing $0.99), then we (as a nation) are going on the assumption that only 1 in 150,000 copyright violators get caught.

Please, don't try to correct me on this assumption. I don't care if it's right or wrong. I am only trying to explain here what is the logic behind this point of view. I am not supporting or condemning the view itself.

If you disagree with the assumption that 1 in 150,000 violators get caught (as I suspect most people here do), the correct venue to express thit disagreement is to inform your elected legislators (senator and congressman). Legislature's primary mandate is to turn the collective wisdom of the people into law. I am sure, you'll find a myriad of different ways to poke fun at that statement. But read it again. The statement was about the primary mandate of the legislature -- not about its actual performance. As for the question "what's the point of contacting your senator?", it's all you can do.

Re:this will naturally cause flame

[nog_lorp]

Statutory damages are not municipal fines. The logic behind them is totally different. If I break your window, I don't have to pay the cost of the window "Adjusted for the probability of getting caught breaking your window", I just have to fix the damn thing.

Re:this will naturally cause flame

[shentino]

Actually, it doesn't follow.

You don't get to fine someone for penalties because you don't have governmental power.

Re:this will naturally cause flame

[nog_lorp]

I'm talking about tort law. If someone damaged your property and refused to pay for it, you would take them to court.

The situation I discussed is exactly like what the RIAA is doing.

He'll ignore it

[pubwvj]

The best shot at getting President Obama to pay attention to this issue is if he or his family gets sued by the RIAA. Until then he's frying other fish.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Biden's influence . . . you think?

[_critic]

This is the dark side of the Obama candidacy in my opinion, completely predictable from the moment he chose Joe "Media Industry Lacky" Biden as his running-mate.

If the Bush administration was pandering to the energy industry, this one will be pandering to the traditional media industries. What will be most interesting will be seeing how this administration balances telecommunications and new media interests versus more traditional media interests. I predict they'll tie themselves in knots even the most adept contortionist couldn't imagine.

Oligarchopoly

[_critic]

I was going to suggest you use "oligopoly" instead of oligarchy, but after considering it further I think the proper term should be "oligarchopoly".

New word?

Too much of a coincidence....

[untouchableForce]

Anyone think that's it's a bit too coincidental that this was announced on the same day the stimulus bill was signed and troops were ordered to Afghanistan? Pretty much guaranteed to not get a single lick of major press.

OT - NYCL's page

[visible.frylock]

To NYCL:

Thank you for putting a relevant ad on your page (the one to the independent download shop). That was the first internet ad I've intentionally clicked on in years.

We should be so lucky that all sites would do that.

To everyone else:

Is it really that hard to understand your target demographic? And another thing: Do you know why adblock plus didn't catch this? Probably because the image in question is hosted at beckermanlegal.com, rather than soullessAdCompanyFromHell.biz.

Vote NYCL for Secretary of the Clue Stick 2010!

Re:OT - NYCL's page

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

To NYCL: Thank you for putting a relevant ad on your page (the one to the independent download shop). That was the first internet ad I've intentionally clicked on in years. We should be so lucky that all sites would do that.

Funny you should say that because just a couple of days ago I decided to take down the Google AdSense ads, which are supposed be directly relevant to my site's content but just aren't, and to start concentrating on ads that are consistent with the subject matter of the blog. Also, I came to the conclusion that the ads for independent music downloads are the most important thing I can feature, since the more independent music that is bought, the sooner the RIAA will go down. Meanwhile, I have the classified ads, which are hosted on a different page, if they just want to help me out by buying stuff through my links.

Thank you very much for the input.

Re:What discretion do they have in this matter?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

isn't the government obligated to defend any laws that are being called unconstitutional?

No.

Or if they have discretion in the matter, what discretion are they allowed?

Virtually unlimited discretion. They can refrain if they think the statute may indeed be unconstitutional, or if they just don't like it, or if they think they shouldn't intervene in a private dispute, or if they just think they have better things to do with their limited resources than gang up with the RIAA against some college student.

The Supreme Court disagrees

[tkrotchko]

"I'd hate to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment as imagined by the Republican party doesn't exist."

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but certainly the Supreme Court agrees with the interpretation that there is a constitutional right for people to own handguns (and certainly long weapons as well). I think the 2nd amendment is worded pretty plainly; it seems like wishful thinking to say that it legitimizes weapons only for the militia; if that was the correct interpretation, it wouldn't be necessary to have the amendment if you really think about it.

Anyway, here's but one of the links. I'm sure you're aware of it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/

Re:take your punishment like good kids

[Neoprofin]

How does subsidizing corn production for the making of ethanol (from corn) further anybody? Ethanol from corn isn't a viable technology and spending money to roll out a technology that is already a failure does nothing to further the cause of alternate energy in general.

By logic we should be dumping government money into a massive production of solar cars, hydrogen cells, and space elevators. Who cares if the technology isn't useful as it stands? Why wait until something is ready for prime time when we can just throw money into a pit?

Research is just that, and it doesn't require gas stations offering E85 to figure out better ways to make Ethanol. It doesn't need to be perfect, but it does need to at least be a step in the right direction.

Re:NOT NOW NOT EVER. I WILL END YOU.

[Falconhell]

If you are any good as a live performer, you will make a living.

If your are not making a living AC, that is because you dont entertain people.

I worked for 20 years in live entertainment both as a player, Sound Engineer and Tour Manager, and few of the players I knew made thier living form their recordings, most from their quality live performance.

You are nothing but a talentless shill going by your posts.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[DNS-and-BIND]

Objective journalist? Is that one of those oxymorons like "military intelligence" or "jumbo shrimp"?

Careful, Barak

[hyades1]

President Obama had better tread carefully here. A lot of tech-savvy internet folks contributed to his campaign and voted for him. A lot of them don't like the RIAA, and are decidedly un-thrilled with his appointment of two RIAA scumbags to his government.

Pissing such people off would be a huge tactical mistake, assuming Mr. Obama has plans to be more than a one-term wonder.

Re:take your punishment like good kids

[trmcdougle]

Not only do WE not know, I am guessing (from the request for more time) that THEY don't know themselves!

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[jonaskoelker]

Living in Clearwater (and having the St. Pete Times as my newspaper), I assure you that they are NOT neutral in any sense of the word.

Then why do you ACK ACK ACKnowledge your parent? ;-)

No!

[jonaskoelker]

No. Lawyers are scum. La-la-la-la-la-can't-heeeaaar-you! ;-)

Re:take your punishment like good kids

[buck-yar]

Eat your own poison, liberals. Obama comes after our guns, you liberals sit there and call us nuts. He goes after talk radio, you say "its all about fairness and equal time". He taxes rich people and you say "good, they make too much anyways".

Then when he comes after your issues, you flip. Now I say "who cares" to your issue. I hope the RIAA wins and wins big. 95% of you on here voted for this guy. Deal with it.

Get with the program guys, this is what this guy does.

this should get at least a -4 flamebait rating.

Re:take your punishment like good kids

[east coast]

You think that most solar and wind projects aren't subsidized? What a joke.

There are alternatives withing the ethanol field itself that deserve another look at but simply won't be taken into consideration because people refuse to put money behind it. If the current ethanol market was such a loss it would have never made it to market. Ethanol certainly has gotten further in the last 5 years than any other alternative. That's a potential that is glossed over only by those who don't want alternative energies to come into being.

Re: NYCL's page

[TaoPhoenix]

Actually gang, I think is is beautifully on topic.

NYCL, you made what I believe is a very important shift that I believe has far more important consequences than some here might think.

We sorta know that ads are the intermediary currency of the digital age. But unless you're a mercenary who risks not paying bills unless the highest payout/ad is chosen, I think carefully cultivating *ads with a message* is extremely important.

Maybe advocacy services would be another useful type of ad to host.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[Snerdley]

Perhaps I Mis-Grunted!

I was trying to keep my head from exploding.

Forgive me for not trusting Kdawson

[Beelzebud]

I'll wait until the Obama team actually does something I disagree with before I freak out. And if this post goes like Kdawson's many anti-Microsoft posts that aren't based in reality, then I think I'm wise to hold off and getting the pitchforks out just now.

Re:stop the religious intolerance

[geminidomino]

... Goerge Bush wasn't in the pockets of Wall Street, big oil, and the bible-thumpers.

Religious intolerance has caused a lot of human suffering.
Time for it to stop.

Bible-thumpers first.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[geminidomino]

No need to be attentive. The site has an RSS feed! ;)

Re:stop the religious intolerance

[HiThere]

Do you mean tolerance of religions? Then you are right, but sorry, people are built to be religious.

I can wish it weren't so, but that doesn't change the facts. Actually, I just wish that people by and large had a better understanding of just what religion *is*. (Of course, I'm totally objective:-)

As I see it a god is a manifestation of an archetypal process into consciousness. There are lots of them and they ARE real. (I've encountered one a few times. They feel as real as the table in the dining room. More real, as just thinking about them brings back a stronger echo than I get from thinking about the table in the dining room.)

My suspicion is that if we ever succeed in designing an AI based around human thought processes, it, also, will be religious. And people won't be it's gods. People are physical objects, not archetypal processes. Different order of reality.

Note that I'm not claiming that gods are eternal. Not unless the species is eternal. But gods are genetically coded for, and are activated by thinking of them ... so ... "Whenever two or three are gathered together in my name, I am among them." is literally true, for the proper definition of the "my" of "my name". The speaker is claiming to be speaking as the voice of the archetype.

Note that archetypes are not memes, but can be activated by memes, so that contagious memes can result in increased activation of particular archetypes. Now we are approaching the heart of religion (as I see it). The remainder is left as an exercise for the student.

Re: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promis

[HiThere]

Objective journalism is impossible. The idea is a relict of a very outworn idea about how people think.

Try "fact based". Then it's possible to argue about the facts they include and those they choose to exclude. You KNOW they've got to exclude some. That they've got to trim their edition of the news to those facts they deem important. By seeing how close the facts they exclude match those you, also, consider unimportant you can get an idea as to how much to trust them.

That said, I prefer even biased fact-based journalism to ax-grinders who just make up what they think the news should say. (Except for the Weekly World News. I admire any publication that can put a picture of a chambered nautilus on it's cover and claim it's a picture of an invader from Mars.)

MOD PARENT UP UP UP AND AWAY

[TheoMurpse]

All corporate-owned news have a pro-corporate bias. Period. Suggesting their biases are anything (left, right, etc.) other than pro-corporate is hopelessly ignorant.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

suggestion letter

[victorsskull]

We just posted a suggestion letter to the white house on dmusic.com heres a link http://news.dmusic.com/article/35684 http://www.dmusic.com/

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion