Florida Congressman Wants Blogging Critic Fined, Jailed

vvaduva writes "Florida Rep. Alan Grayson wants to see one of his critics go directly to jail, all over her use of the word 'my' on her blog. In a four-page letter sent to [US Attorney General Eric] Holder, Grayson accuses blogger Angie Langley of lying to federal elections officials and requests that she be fined and imprisoned for five years. Her lie, according to Grayson, is that she claims to be one of his constituents. Langley, Grayson says, is misrepresenting herself by using the term 'my' in the Web site's name."

Comments

Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[eldavojohn]

I am not a lawyer. From the letter the complaint seems to be divided into two parts (note that "the Committee" refers directly to MyCongressmanIsNuts.com):

As explained below, Ms. Langley and the Committee falsely represented to the Federal Election Commission that the Committee "supports or opposes more than one candidate." In fact, however, the committee name corresponds to a website that attacks me and only me, while soliciting contributions to be used against only me. Moreover, Ms. Langley has falsely depicted herself as a constituent, in order to further this scheme.

Although you may claim it's just another stupid technicality that Florida Rep. Alan Grayson clings to in order to shut down a website that is probably too painfully close to the truth for his comfort, there is another complaint other than the use of the word 'my.' Now, if you visit the about us page on the committee in question's site you can find:

Central Floridians formed My Congressman Is Nuts PAC as a response to the outrage and embarrassment within Central Florida over Alan Grayson's liberal positions and childish approach in Washington, D.C. We could no longer sit by and accept his inappropriate behavior and leftist big government agenda. He does not represent the values of Central Florida.

Emphasis mine. Now a key part to the argument is that since it is a PAC with pac registration, it receives taxation status benefits from the government making it subject to the law of United States Code Title 18 Section 1001.

I mean, he might have a case here if that US code applies to PACs. I'm not sure. Were I in his shoes, I would have instead taken the angle of attack related to the title line of the site which is "Alan Grayson is Nuts" and proven that I am not legally insane. Actually, I wouldn't have done anything. As Barbara Streisand might have pointed out that before this news I had never heard of nor visited My Congressman Is Nuts but now I have scanned the entire site out of curiosity.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Childish approach? He's just mimicking the Republican Standard Operating Procedure. Yeah I can see how that's childish.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[eldavojohn]

Childish approach? He's just mimicking the Republican Standard Operating Procedure. Yeah I can see how that's childish.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the Democrats are no less or more childish than the Republicans (if you are, I agree with you) but you do know that he's a Democrat with, of course, a history of controversies, right?

You seem to be confused in thinking it's "Republican Standard Operating Procedure" when in reality it's "Politician Standard Operating Procedure."

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have instead taken the angle of attack related to the title line of the site which is "Alan Grayson is Nuts" and proven that I am not legally insane

So when did you stop being a kiddy-fiddler? You weren't? Prove it.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[fermion]

Alan Grayson is Nuts

Name calling is uncivilized and indicates that the person doing the name calling has no case and probably should not be listened to on any substantived matter. It, however, a matter of free speech.

It should be perfectly legal for me to say that Kay Bailey Hutchenson has all the attributes of a drug smuggler, if in fact she is not one. That Bush and Limbaugh are terrorists because they were,and probably continue to be part of the illegal drug trade(trade in prescription drugs without valid prescriptions is still part of that trade), and Bush has said that Drugs==Terroism. Or that Sentor Vitter supports slavery becuase he employs protetutes, and in many cases protitutes are effectively slaves.

The problem is, that as true as all these things may be, it does not actually forwarda rational dabate. So while guaranteed as a right, it isright we should learn to use wisely, and not one we waste friviously.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[john82]

Childish approach? He's just mimicking the Republican Standard Operating Procedure. Yeah I can see how that's childish.

Right. Just so we're clear about this...

Democrat is to Republican as:

C) Pot is to Kettle

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[fiannaFailMan]

You seem to be confused in thinking it's "Republican Standard Operating Procedure" when in reality it's "Politician Standard Operating Procedure."

Not true. Democrats have stood idly by for too long while Republicans get up in the House and make hyperbolic speeches about 'death panels' and 'socialism' while the Dems have just tried to be Mr Nice Guy in the hope that the voters will reward them. They don't. Republicans have become masters of the art of pressing the emotional buttons over and over again even if their message is laced with lies and half truths, while Democrats have tried to counter it with facts, figures, and logic. As you can see from the 2000 and 2004 elections, the voters respond much better to emotional messages (particularly the emotion known as 'fear' as Karl Rove and Dick Cheney know too well) than they do to something as mundane as logic.

All Mr Grayson is doing is what Democrats should have been doing years ago. Republicans want to talk about death panels and pulling the plug on grandma? Fine, they should be prepared to listen to the other side using the same kind of emotional language.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[rolfwind]

Were I in his shoes, I would have instead taken the angle of attack related to the title line of the site which is "Alan Grayson is Nuts" and proven that I am not legally insane.

That's kind of like responding to the domain mycongressmanhasnuts.com by proving you're not a squirrel.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[prgrmr]

It's clearly a parody web site and is protected Free Speech under the 1st Amendment. The complaint shouldn't get any further than an initial hearing and a motion to dismiss by the defendant for lack of merit.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, more likely a non-USA commentator who read "Rep. XYZ" as "Republican XYZ" instead of "Representative XYZ".

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Democrat is to Republican as:

C) Pot is to Kettle

A clearly inaccurate analogy. Everyone knows there are no black Republicans.

...

Okay, Steele, but I'm not sure he's Republican so much as he is plain nuts. *dives out window to avoid getting served with libel papers*

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Trepidity]

All Mr Grayson is doing is what Democrats should have been doing years ago. Republicans want to talk about death panels and pulling the plug on grandma? Fine, they should be prepared to listen to the other side using the same kind of emotional language.

I typically vote for Democrats rather than Republicans because they don't do the same hyperbolic bullshit, or at least don't do it nearly as often. If they're going to start pulling this crap, then I'll henceforth start filing "voting for a Democrat" in the same category as "voting for Sarah Palin".

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit, are your eyes really that crossed or is your brain damage that complete? I hope that some day you can step back and see exactly how incredibly backwards your statements are. I know you won't though, because you're just as blinded by ideology as the people you claim to be against. God bless you, and merry Christmas.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Shakrai]

Republicans have become masters of the art of pressing the emotional buttons over and over again even if their message is laced with lies and half truths

What, and Democrats haven't done the same thing? Were you around for the debate on social security privatization? If you listened to them back then you'd have thought that the GOP was aiming to put America's seniors into concentration camps.

As you can see from the 2000 and 2004 elections, the voters respond much better to emotional messages (particularly the emotion known as 'fear' as Karl Rove and Dick Cheney know too well) than they do to something as mundane as logic.

And the 2008 election was immune? Barack Obama's entire campaign was one of sweeping emotion. Emotion that "change" was on the way, emotion that we'd be able to "rise above" our "petty differences", emotion that he would "transcend" race, etc, etc.

You really can't claim that the Democrats are any better. Democrats and Republicans use the same playbook. If you think any differently then you must be a partisan for one side or the other.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Profane MuthaFucka]

That's the kind of thing a drunk guys says at a party to try to appear insightful. Actually, it's not. It's just plain stupid. A lack of diverse choice in political parties is not the same thing as having two equivalent choices.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[blitzkrieg3]

Right. Just so we're clear about this...

Democrat is to Republican as:

C) Pot is to Kettle

Careful! The answer is not always C!

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[fiannaFailMan]

And the 2008 election was immune? Barack Obama's entire campaign was one of sweeping emotion. Emotion that "change" was on the way, emotion that we'd be able to "rise above" our "petty differences", emotion that he would "transcend" race, etc, etc.

Yup, Obama is another recent Democratic convert to the world of emotional campaigning. Sure he had his facts and figures lined up in true Democratic fashion, but what was new was that he was able to couch it in emotional terms using 'human interest' stories to illustrate the point. Look what happened - he got elected. QED.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[dogmatixpsych]

In your opinion. In my opinion the Democratic party is worse. Now, neither of us has any unbiased and reliable data to support our beliefs so who is correct? We cannot both be correct. Both parties could be similarly "repulsive", the Democrats could be worse, or the Republicans could be worse. But as it stands it is simply a matter of opinion.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Or that Sentor Vitter supports slavery becuase he employs protetutes, and in many cases protitutes are effectively slaves.

Technically, that one's only true if the prostitutes that he employs are effectively slaves, not if some random prostitute that he's never met is effectively a slave.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Childish approach? He's just mimicking the Republican Standard Operating Procedure. Yeah I can see how that's childish.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the Democrats are no less or more childish than the Republicans (if you are, I agree with you) but you do know that he's a Democrat with, of course, a history of controversies, right? You seem to be confused in thinking it's "Republican Standard Operating Procedure" when in reality it's "Politician Standard Operating Procedure."

He told On December 9, 2009, whilst on the MSNBC show Hardball, Grayson told former vice president Dick Cheney to "STFU."

That's not a controversy, that's good step in the right direction.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Majik Sheff]

Two things:

1. I'm tired of CNN, NBC, ABC, ect. and now even Slashdot strategically playing with words. When a Republican does something insane, 'journalists' will boldly emblazon the word Republican next to their name (i wish I was exaggerating, I've seen CNN actually put the party name in BOLD and in a different color). When a Democrat does something equally insane, the party designation is left off and is replaced with the abbreviation of their office: 'Rep.'

2. This story and the subsequent flamewar should have been filed under politics. I filter politics from the front page because of the idiocy that follows in the comments (which I have just contributed to).

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[mea37]

You seem to be saying that defamation laws should not be a limitation on free speech (but that people should choose to avoid it as it is unconvincing). I don't agree with that, although I suspect we do agree on the point that saying that any particular poiltician "is nuts" should not constitute defamation.

If Grayson approached this as a defamation issue, I would hope he loses but at least I could respect that he approached the question honestly. The concern here would be if he's trying ot trump up a defamation question that he knows he'd lose by representing that he's concerned about lies to election officials.

TFA is certainly presenting it that way, but I don't know that I trust TFA. I'm reserving judgement since I haven't seen the actual complaint. I find it hard to believe that he would seriously claim that using "my" in the domain name constitutes a statement to - much less a lie to - election officials.

I do disagree with the claim, made by the critic, that every Congressperson represents very U.S. citizen. The House as a whole represents the citizens as a whole, but each rep is responsible to/for a particular district. I think it's shady to call a congressperson other than the one for your district "yours"... but all else being equal, I don't think it's a crime.

The question, then, would be: is all else equal? Does the complaint allege other conduct that might back the claim of "lying" in a context where such a lie would be a crime? One news story that doesn't provide a link to the original complaint does not count as a conclusive answer in my book.

Note: just because Grayson has said stupid things before doesn't mean we can assume he's wrong here; and just because Fox News has shows political bias before doesn't mean we can assume they're doing so here. The only way to form an informed opinion is to fnid an authoritative source on the contents of the complaint.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[ewenix]

A clearly inaccurate analogy. Everyone knows there are no black Republicans.

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Star Parker, Allen West, etc.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[stoolpigeon]

It's impossible to say one side is worse than the other without having the blinders of partisanship in place. They are all repulsive in the extreme and anyone who tries to argue that their party is "not as bad as the other guys" is deluded. That's not necessarily throwing up one's hands to let the problem continue, though it will continue as long as we keep letting these corrupt people into office.

For every example of 'bad' behavior on the part of one party, there is a corresponding example from the other. How they keep so many people hoodwinked into think it is all the others groups fault is completely beyond me.

Realizing that isn't giving up, it is necessary to get on track to take meaningful action rather than swinging back and forth between two 'options' that are just different sides of the same coin.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[chadplusplus]

This is way off topic, but in response to the above...

I've always considered liberal policies to be the more emotionally based. For instance, universe health care on an emotional basis makes a lot of sense. Consider, for example, Keith Olberman's one hour special appealing for the passage of the health care bill. But if you can overlook the immediate emotion of the issue, issues regarding long term fiscal shortages and potential effects on innovation arise.

Really any social program, from affordable housing to corn subsidies to health care typically relies upon an emotional response for support. "The Poor Farmer" "The Middle Class is being left behind..." Etc...

If you have a heart, its sometimes difficult to remain conservative (at least by my definition). Its difficult to tell senior citizens that we're scaling back medicare because we simply don't have the money to pay for it. Its difficult to tell failing banks and their employees that we're not going to bail them out and that thousands will be laid off because the leaders of those companies made terrible decisions bankrupting the company and its not the government's responsibility to save their ass.

Now please keep in mind that I don't judge a government program based upon what party proposed and/or passed the bill, but by its overall effect. I can't think of a conservative thing the federal government has done since Clinton scaled back welfare.

Accordingly, the asshats currently claiming to be conservatives are just as guilty in relying upon emotional response for expansion of government, e.g. "The terrorists, the terrorists, the terrorists."

We've become (are? always have been?) a reactionary society. The politicians take advantage of this fact to gain and retain power. Its works on both sides of the aisle, but each with its own respective heart strings to pull.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Chris Mattern]

Not true. Democrats have stood idly by for too long while Republicans get up in the House and make hyperbolic speeches about 'death panels' and 'socialism' while the Dems have just tried to be Mr Nice Guy in the hope that the voters will reward them.

Yep. I mean, something like comparing opposition to a bill to being in favor of slavery. A Democrat would NEVER do something like that.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[ChrisMaple]

When you make a choice, if that choice is to be of any value, it has to be based upon the espoused principles of the candidate and the party. The principles of the Democrats are theft and faux logic and big lies. The principles of the Republicans are property and religion (the rejection of logic) and small lies. I value my life, so I vote Republican or Libertarian.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

I have worked with political sites and campaign systems before and actually his complaint is valid. If Angie Langley was just blogging on the site my congrassman is nutz... then it would be a free speech issue, but, they went that extra step and 'registered' as a PAC against the guy and represented themselves as being governed by him. (Its partly how you register yourself and your tax status.) It is no longer a free speech issue and a lying on federal forms issue.

  Now, when dealing with with the government, its a very good idea to keep all of your i's dotted and your t's crossed. For getting money, keeping your tax status, and registering in the right place. It filters all the way down to where you vote and who you can vote for. AKA, Angie Langley can't just go and 'vote' in the next area over just cause she doesn't like the 'guy' the other people voted for without moving there and living there.

A lot of how it works doesn't make perfect sense, but there are some major abuses that the system can be put to so the whole lying on government forms isn't allowed.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boy, the mods are having fun with this! I've seen it go from -1 troll to +5 insightful and back to -1 Troll again! LOL!

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[fiannaFailMan]

Not true. Democrats have stood idly by for too long while Republicans get up in the House and make hyperbolic speeches about 'death panels' and 'socialism' while the Dems have just tried to be Mr Nice Guy in the hope that the voters will reward them.

Yep. I mean, something like comparing opposition to a bill to being in favor of slavery. A Democrat would NEVER do something like that.

Not until Grayson came along they wouldn't.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

haha, if we'd privatized social security, how well off would seniors be today?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[chris mazuc]

You can read the Statement of Organization on the FEC's website. Note that Grayson has accused Mycongressmanisnuts.com of checking box f instead of box c, thus misrepresenting the function of their PAC and violating the law. Additionally Grayson has alleged the PAC is in fact a connected committee due to her status as the former head of the Lake County Republican Party. They will haul you away if you file your taxes improperly, and this isn't any different. The FEC even gives you a guide to filling out the paperwork, which believe it or not is actually pretty simple for the relevant form.

The applicable instructions read as follows:

Line 5. Type of CommitteeCheck box (f) if the committee supports or opposes more than one federal candidate. Box (c) applies if the committee supports or opposes only one candidate. (These are the only boxes on Line 5 applicable to nonconnected committees.)

I think the problem they would have here is demonstrating intent. Nevermind the political idiocy of it. I think that filing the complaint was ok, but specifically asking for jail time was a bit much in my opinion.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[magnusrex1280]

Oooh, I get it. You thought he was being literal. You're right, there are SOME black Republicans.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[jackal40]

Democrat is to Republican as:

C) Pot is to Kettle

A clearly inaccurate analogy. Everyone knows there are no black Republicans.

Clearly Forest, you have lived up to one of your favorite sayings!

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[paulsnx2]

Not all kettles are black: http://tinyurl.com/blackpotkettle

In fact, it seems that "black" pots and kettles can claim to be a minority even in the kitchen.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[SomeJoel]

Really? They don't run "Republicans want to kill your chilren" ads in your city?

Nope, my chilren are never threatened in any way by anti-Republican ads. Neither are my kids.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Kreigaffe]

Yeah, totally new idea.

It's not like some dude named Bill was regularly lambasted for him hammy appeals to emotion. Back in like, 92. Totally never happened. People still to this day don't say things like "for the children" and "i feel your pain" in a poor impression of some guy named Bill in an ironic manner.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[samkass]

The issue here, though, is not what the blogger has a right to say, but what a registered PAC has the right to say. In return for PACs being granted a special status in tax law and election law, they have to follow certain rules. Most PACs have found ways to bend the rules to the point of silliness, but still follow the letter of the law. This site explicitly states that the group was created solely to battle a single politician, so it really shouldn't be a PAC.

Note that I don't know or care about the folks involved in this situation, just trying to point out that this is not simply a freedom of speech issue.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Grimbleton]

My grandmother was a government employee her entire life. Worked until she was 58 and health issues made her retire.

She gets $76 a month from Social Security.

I can't see her being much worse off with privatized SS.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Stradivarius]

No, I don't buy that. When you just throw up your hands and say they're all like that you basically let the problem continue. You have to hold people and groups accountable for their actions.

We should hold people accountable for their own actions. Holding someone accountable for someone else's actions is a totally different beast.

If you fail to pay your taxes (e.g.. Obama's Treasury Secretary Geitner) or accept a bribe (e.g.. Democratic Congressman Jefferson), you should pay the consequences, not me. Even if we're the member of the same political party. Sharing a view on foreign policy, bank bailouts, or job creation doesn't make someone responsible for another's transgressions.

Part of why we have such rancor in our politics is that people are willing to believe this idea that the folks who disagree (namely The Other Party) must be evil or unethical or uncaring or bought off. Most people are not these things, they just have genuine differences of opinion on how to solve problems or what problems government ought to be solving. All these personal attacks are a just a distraction from the real issues at hand.

Personally, when a politician starts spewing personal attacks, I start wondering what problems in their own policies they're trying to distract us from. That rule of thumb seems to have worked well for both parties over the past decade or so.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[shentino]

I think it's high time we started shunning both parties and voting for independent.

Both parties are corporate vetted.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Locke2005]

Yes, both sides use the same tricks. But the "playing on their fears" technique is something that was really perfected by Nixon's campaign staffers and some (not all) Republicans take this tactic to ridiculous extremes (e.g. "Joe the Plumber"). Part of Obama's appeal was that he tried to take the high road. But rhetoric is a part of every campaign, and Obama himself is gifted at it.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

property is theft

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Locke2005]

A clearly inaccurate analogy. Everyone knows there are no black Republicans. I think you've uncovered a conspiracy here -- Michael Steele is really just Glen Beck in blackface!

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[2PAIRofACES]

What's really odd is that there are so few blacks who are Republicans. It seems to me on most core issues gun rights, abortion, death penalty, school of choice, taxation, gay marriages, and many others most blacks lean more to the conservative side. Is it historical? Is it patronage(in the form of social programs)? Is it the race peddlers Jackson/Sharpton/others?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

In response to #1: QQ. Fox News *routinely* misidentifies Republicans engaged in public scandals with a (D) after their names. This is in marked contrast to the legitimate use of "Rep." as the typical abbreviation for the position.

In response to #2: QQ. You can choose not to read it or reply to it. Except, you failed.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[stoolpigeon]

I think we need to come up with better candidates that aren't a part of either party and vote them in. I haven't been crazy about independent choices up until now either, so I think the solution begins with finding good candidates. Though I have voted independent in the past because I am so fed up with the whole current regime.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[fiannaFailMan]

It's impossible to say one side is worse than the other without having the blinders of partisanship in place. They are all repulsive in the extreme and anyone who tries to argue that their party is "not as bad as the other guys" is deluded. That's not necessarily throwing up one's hands to let the problem continue, though it will continue as long as we keep letting these corrupt people into office.

For every example of 'bad' behavior on the part of one party, there is a corresponding example from the other. How they keep so many people hoodwinked into think it is all the others groups fault is completely beyond me.

Realizing that isn't giving up, it is necessary to get on track to take meaningful action rather than swinging back and forth between two 'options' that are just different sides of the same coin.

People seem to be missing the point. First of all I never said one way or another whether it's good or bad that politicians campaign using emotional language. Is it good? Is it bad? Who cares? In my opinion it doesn't get 'bad' until you start adding lies into the deal.

Secondly, what I'm saying is that Republicans have been masters of emotional campaigning for ages and Democrats never really caught up until the Obama era, and Alan Grayson takes the emotional message to the same kind of extremes that Republicans have been doing for years. Sarah Palin talks about 'death panels?' Nobody bats an eyelid. Conservatives refer to the inheritance tax as the 'death tax' (misleadingly implying that we all have to pay it since we all die)? Nobody bats an eyelid. Alan Grayson reads out the numbers of people who have died from lack of health care coverage? Whoa! What's going on here? A Democrat using emotionally charged language? What's going on? This is new!

Take Dukakis. He thought he could respond to emotionally-charged questions, like on the death penalty, with facts and figures. The voters dumped him because he didn't connect with them on an emotional level and because he looked ridiculous being driven around in a tank.

Take Gore. Bush's quirky human interest stories were a much bigger hit than Al's not inconsiderable intellect.

John (yawn) Kerry? Don't get me started!

Compare those old Democrats with their facts and statistics to the emotional intelligence of Obama and Grayson. It's a considerable difference.

And by the way, I reject your assertion that for every lie told on one side there must be an equal and opposite lie told on the other. We're not talking about Newton's laws of motion here. That's just another lazy assessment, the same kind of attitude that leads to the 'equal time to nutjobs' approach that some media organizations use. If one party is lying more than the other, it's okay to say so.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[chris mazuc]

That site is run by a registered political action committee that is actively trying to raise money for the 2010 election. The allegation is that the PAC did not fill out their Statement of Operations form truthfully, thus breaking the law. You're going to get in trouble if you fuck up your taxes, why should this be any different? I completely agree that Grayson is a total moron, but it looks to me that he actually has a valid complaint, however minor that complaint might be.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

*dives out window to avoid getting served with libel papers*

But they were waiting on the other side of the window.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Trepidity]

They probably do; I don't really watch television. The actual people in Congress seem a bit more restrained, though, with some exceptions.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

too bad the medicare buy-in didn't happen. The problem with privatizing social security is, republicans want everyone to think in terms of the market. But I don't want to.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[ravenshrike]

*blinks* Do you mean if we had privatized SocSec from the start and invested evenly in the Dow? Much, much, much, much better off. Or do you mean if we had gone with Bush's plan? In which case the answer would be nobody who could accept Bush's plan would currently be receiving SocSec because his plan had a cut-off age to start it and nobody over that age could participate, which means no one currently drawing SocSec would have a privatized plan.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[fiannaFailMan]

Yeah, totally new idea.

It's not like some dude named Bill was regularly lambasted for him hammy appeals to emotion. Back in like, 92. Totally never happened. People still to this day don't say things like "for the children" and "i feel your pain" in a poor impression of some guy named Bill in an ironic manner.

Oh yeah, Bill. I'd forgotten about him. Yup, he used emotional language too, and he got elected too.

My point stands - use emotional language and you stand a better chance of getting elected. What is different about the two parties is that Republicans have been more consistently good at it than the Democrats.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[pwfffff]

That's funny number system you have, where 76 is the lowest number...

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Bruha]

Yes because he made up the recession, the job losses, the high health care bill, the war dead and wounded, the ballooning deficit and the general disdain that other countries have for how we were doing business with the rest of the world.

He won because he was the only politician who was willing to accept the vast MAJORITY of his funding from the American public, say he was going to fix the issues that the MAJORITY of American's cared about. His predecessor was elected twice on the narrowest margins in history and it's arguable that he stole these elections both times.

Personally I'd rather have a bad president who earned his way into the office, than a morally bankrupt president who cheats his way into the office. Go ahead keep blaming presidents for our problems.

The problem is, has, and will always be congress and political parties and our campaign finance system. Ban political parties, ban corporate donations to candidates, and make a limit on donations to 1k no matter your income per family. Things would change.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[digitalunity]

SS was never supposed to be a retirement. It's a safety net. I can't speak to its original intentions when it was first created, but nobody in the last 30 years has taken SS seriously as a real retirement.

People need to work hard and save for a time when they can't work. That, or have really nice children who will take care of them.

SS needs drastic change. Like, no benefits for people who don't need them. None whatsoever. I don't know where the line needs to be, but there isn't even a line right now.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[ravenshrike]

Pretty much attributable to LBJ and the fact that he more or less hoodwinked them into thinking that the Democrats were responsible for the 1964 CRVA(They weren't, the Republicans were) And then giving them a straight up bribe that was entirely a poison pill in his Great Society. Oddly enough, pretty much the moment that passed, the poverty rate stopped declining.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me on most core issues gun rights, abortion, death penalty, school of choice, taxation, gay marriages, and many others most blacks lean more to the conservative side.

Gun rights - no.
Abortion - no.
Death penalty - no.
School choice - maybe.
Taxation - no.
Gay marriage - yes.

Let's see, you've got one real issue (school choice) and one trumped-up and ultimately irrelevant one (gay marriage). Sounds like a match made in heaven...

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Shakrai]

It's older than Nixon. Johnson did it. Those before him did it to. There probably hasn't been a President since George Washington (the only guy who didn't want the job) who hasn't used these types of techniques.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[digitalunity]

Big pharma is making a killing right now. I think healthcare has had all the "innovation" it can take. Doctors don't know how much the drugs really cost, so they prescribe the newest patented combination drugs. Patients don't know how much the drugs really cost, so they get the best they can get for a good price. This is of course by design. Insurance rates skyrocket, insurance companies rake in the dough.

The average consumer does not understand that the patented combination drugs they take are horrifically expensive and taking 2 or more generics would be quite a lot less expensive. Even if they did, they would probably naively choose the combination drug because the "oh well the insurance pays for it", not understanding that it has a direct effect on their premiums.

Healthcare needs massive government intervention. Way beyond what either party is proposing. In theory a free market would remove these types of inefficiencies, but healthcare is the least free market I can think of. It's heavily regulated.

As far as emotion goes, I think there should be a little emotion in such a fundamental topic. Without compassion for your fellow citizenry, nationalized healthcare doesn't make sense. Then again, without compassion, social security and a host of other programs don't make sense either.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Jstlook]

Reminds me of some guy named John. Of course, I keep getting reminded of him every time I see a high school, but for the life of me, I can't think why.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[mcgrew]

A clearly inaccurate analogy. Everyone knows there are no black Republicans

There was a Senatorial election here in Illinois a few years back, and the Republican candidate had some sort of sex scandal (Jack Ryan, seven of Nine's now ex-husband if I remember correctly) and he dropped out of the race. The Democrats were running a black man (Obama maybe? My memory isn't too clear about who).

Anyway, the Republicans wound up running a black guy from (again, IIRC) Maryland who had never stepped foot in Illinois in his life. A wag on the radio said "Those Republicans! First they couldn't find Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, then they couldn't find WMDs in Iraq, now they can't even find a black man in Chicago!"

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

We have the money to pay for it. We can print it.

Banks create money using the fractional reserve system. This process is not subject to the public srutiny or transparency required when the govt does it. So we don't really know that banks are creating money all the time, but when the govt does it, it is made into a big thing that we should all be afraid of!

In conclusion, we can afford to provide a minimum standard of living to every citizen. As Dick Cheney said, Reagan proved deficits don't matter!

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[lorenlal]

Republicans have become masters of the art of pressing the emotional buttons over and over again even if their message is laced with lies and half truths

True - they have.

But maybe you forget the whole "feeling your pain" thing that some dude leveraged to win the Presidency back in 1992? Appeal to emotion is a key tactic for many many politicians. It just tends to be that people don't notice when "their side" does it.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[stoolpigeon]

My post was a reply to this post by nomadic. So that may be why you think I'm missing your point. I'm not replying to you.
 
But while we are here,
  Sarah Palin talks about 'death panels?' Nobody bats an eyelid.
 
Really? No one? You didn't? It didn't get mentioned at huffpo or other spots? I'm pretty sure I heard a bit about it on NPR and it wasn't a ringing endorsement of her ability to cut through the deception to the truth of the matter. In fact I think I saw stuff about it on just about every major MSM outlet too, and I can't recall anyone that didn't report what she said as being inaccurate.
 
  I reject your assertion that for every lie told on one side there must be an equal and opposite lie told on the other.
I'm glad you reject that as I didn't say that. I'd reject it too. I spoke of history. For every example of bad behavior (and let bad cover everything from misleading to illegal) in one party, there as been someone in the other party that has done the same or similar. The idea that one party is somehow less evil, incompetent, etc. than the other is a fiction. My paying attention to history isn't a lazy assessment it is just the opposite. One party hasn't lied more than the other - it is o.k. to say so.
 
People who think there is a big difference between the two parties are people that have a vested interest in one of them and that allows them to ignore the faults in their own side of choice. That makes it look like the other side is worse. People who can step back and look at this whole thing impartially realize what we have are a bunch of people with a few negligible external differences but they all pretty much do the same things. And actions, not appearances are what matters.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[dwiget001]

No he isn't.

He is just an asshole that happened to be elected as a Representative.

He could be Democrat, Republican, Bozo-ian or whatever political party, and he would still be an asshole.

The fact that, at least for now, his District is stuck with him, sucks for them. TOO BAD, YOU VOTED HIM IN! HAHAHA!

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[AK Marc]

You seem to be saying that defamation laws should not be a limitation on free speech (but that people should choose to avoid it as it is unconvincing). I don't agree with that, although I suspect we do agree on the point that saying that any particular poiltician "is nuts" should not constitute defamation.

Defamation must be harming, and it's a defense if it is true. Is saying "he is nuts" harming? Because "nuts" doesn't imply any specific action or pattern of action, I wouldn't think it to be saying anything other than "I don't like him." Also, is it false? How do you measure the "nuts" quotient of a person. I don't think there is any specifically defined measure that anyone could argue about. I would expect that 101% of the population is nuts. Additionally, anyone choosing to be a politician is nuts. So to prove "nuts" is false and harmful would be pretty much impossible. That won't stop a lawsuit, but it should prevent a win.

I think it's shady to call a congressperson other than the one for your district "yours"... but all else being equal, I don't think it's a crime.

He isn't "my representative" but he is definitely in "my Congress." Whether he's "my Congressman" is something that I think could be argued, and I think is less deceptive than the average action of the average politician...

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[prgrmr]

it looks to me that he actually has a valid complaint, however minor that complaint might be.

Only if you buy into his premise that the name of the PAC is the sole criteria that defines the PACs scope and purpose, and it's not. As for the rest, all she has to do is give money to more than one candidate and she's off the hook. The fact that she's not raised a ton of money is an unavoidable practical defense on her part with regard to that.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

I typically vote for Democrats rather than Republicans because they don't do the same hyperbolic bullshit, or at least don't do it nearly as often. If they're going to start pulling this crap, then I'll henceforth start filing "voting for a Democrat" in the same category as "voting for Sarah Palin".

Democrats are every bit as emotional and idiotic as Republicans. They constantly run adds "about the children", they constantly talk about "fascism" and "nazis", they constantly try to limit free speech when it is for the common good or involves things they don't agree with (e.g. hate speech). Don't get me wrong the GOP is certainly no better but the days of rational debate on either side is long gone, neither party holds to the principles of individual freedom and equal treatment, and emotion is all any of them go after. And the reason is it works on way too many people who can't be bothered to educate themselves.

Now if you want to compare who does more of it I would suggest we look over time at who is the majority and who is the minority party. I'm guessing you'll find that the minority is nearly always the more hysterical and emotional of the two as they're trying to break the status quo and it requires more energy to get people to go out and change things.

Oh and this guy is an idiot...way to teach me your name Mr. Grayson and way to show me how little you actually value the basic principles of this country. Regardless of the letter of the law regarding PACs (and I have no idea what it is) the fact that you want to put a critic in jail shows me that you're not suited to represent anyone in a country that supposedly values free speech and criticism of its rulers. Given the chance I will gladly vote against this guy in any future elections.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice institutional racism.

http://www.nbra.info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_Republicans

Dems are the biggest racists on the planet. Keep people dependent on you forever.

Teach a man to fish and eats for a lifetime, Give a man a fish every day and you have a voter for life.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

There was a Senatorial election here in Illinois a few years back, and the Republican candidate had some sort of sex scandal (Jack Ryan, seven of Nine's now ex-husband if I remember correctly) and he dropped out of the race. The Democrats were running a black man (Obama maybe? My memory isn't too clear about who). Anyway, the Republicans wound up running a black guy from (again, IIRC) Maryland who had never stepped foot in Illinois in his life. A wag on the radio said "Those Republicans! First they couldn't find Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, then they couldn't find WMDs in Iraq, now they can't even find a black man in Chicago!"
Yes, that sex scandal was the tawdry things Jeri accused Jack of in their divorce proceedings(take their veracity with a grain of salt as any divorce lawyer can tell you), and yes that was the Senate race Barack Obama went on to win against Alan Keyes. So I hope our president sends 7 of 9 a x-mas card every year.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah right, I forgot a person is Black as long as they agree with the DemoRats. Their heritage is then put into question because of a choice they make as to who they want to represent them. Is that why DemoRats in West Virginia reelect the former Grand Master of the Ku Klux Klan Robert Byrd??? Yeah I know he "got religion" when he went to run for office, but if he were a Republican, you people would be all over him and the party about it.

Grow up mental midget. Your arguments have no credibility.

-T-

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is astroturfing, lobby groups setting up websites to like grass roots campaigns. This misleads the actual voters of an area and gives undo power to large corporations.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Grimbleton]

I cheated a bit there. She gets about $32k/yr from her retirement.

I'm a bad boy.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Mister Whirly]

This just in - politicians resort to rhetoric in their speeches, and sometimes don't always mean what they say. Film at 11.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[chris mazuc]

Did you even bother to read the complaint?

From the complaint: Moreover, in the Fox 35 interview, when the interviewer said "so your goal is to unseat him [meaning Grayson]" Ms. Langley's response was "absolutely, that is our entire goal"

If you can provide reference to one single instance of that PAC promoting any candidate instead of tearing down Grayson (which is easy to do, the guy is a moron) I will concede your point. But as of right now, Mycongressmanisnuts.com promotes no candidate. Besides, what politician would want to be affiliated with Mycongressmanisnuts.com? Someone not familiar with the controversy would definitely get the wrong idea.

As for the rest, all she has to do is give money to more than one candidate and she's off the hook.

Somehow I doubt that. The FEC sent them a letter requesting clarification. You would think that if they were going to change things, the would have done it by the deadline on that letter, which is the 17th.

The fact that she's not raised a ton of money is an unavoidable practical defense on her part with regard to that.

I fail to see how that applies to misrepresenting the purpose of the PAC.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[fiannaFailMan]

People who can step back and look at this whole thing impartially realize what we have are a bunch of people with a few negligible external differences but they all pretty much do the same things.

Are you one of these people who couldn't tell the difference between Al Gore and GW Bush?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[jkauzlar]

Alan Grayson is one of the few members of the house who acts on principle and not on money interest, and one of the few dems who, in the words of a popular talk show host, "goes on the offense and stays there." :) Sometimes he says silly things, but they're not half as silly as what we hear daily from the other side of the aisle. Open your ears.

Also, note the source of the article..

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[stoolpigeon]

It's impossible to compare them as presidents since Gore never was a president. As I said, I'm not interested in conjecture about what might have been or will happen. I just look at the history of what has been done.

Sure I can list differences between Gore and Bush but to what end? It would all be pointless conjecture.

Let's talk about the actions that have been (are being) taken and I'd love to be persuaded that there are substantial differences between the two parties.

I see none in the realm of ethics or substantial policy.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Zordak]

So tell me---what's the real, practical difference between $76/mo. and $0/mo? Will $76/mo. buy you any kind of reasonable food or lodging? Will it give you access to any meaningful services? How is somebody with $0 "much worse off" than somebody with $76?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[uncqual]

And, perhaps you should explain why she only gets $76/mo from SS?

My guess would be that she spent most of her career in a government pension fund instead of contributing to SS so had very few SS credits having contributed to it only for a few quarters.

(Isn't it odd that one of the few groups that gets to opt out of SS are some government workers - while almost every other worker and their employer is forced to stay in SS? Goose, Gander comes to mind for some reason...)

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Myopic]

I'm not familiar with the event to which you allude, but sometimes opposition to a bill could be legitimately compared to being in favor of slavery. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that in this case (whatever case you refer to), it is not a fair comparison.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Myopic]

That might work, or we might end up with a Congress full of people like Joe Lieberman. I wouldn't want that.

In fact, I haven't looked very closely, but can you say for sure that independent politicians are "better" by some metric than partisan ones?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[uncqual]

no benefits for people who don't need them

Ah, that would be called "welfare". We already have that program so we can just wind SS down (contributions stop today, everyone gets benefits based on creditable quarters to date).

Making SS highly "needs based" (it is somewhat today in the sense that some SS benefits become taxable if you have enough other income) will cause support for it to drop quickly. It's pretty hard to justify taking 12.4% of a person's salary through their entire working career just for a welfare program which they will likely see no benefit from. It also discourages people from saving for their own retirement -- "Let's see, I can save this $2K into my retirement nest egg and end up getting less SS because I have income from that $2K or I can buy that neat big screen TV and keep my SS payments up -- hmm... let me think about this one - Not."

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[cheshiremoe]

Anonymous Coward does not live in his district either.

I have as a semi fix for campaign finance by corporations/special interests: No funding sources from outside of the applicable district. So if you live outside of Mr. Grayson's District then you can't contribute to his or his opponents campaign and only companies that are headquartered there could contribute either.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[uncqual]

Too bad you don't want to...

But I wish you'd tell us who you are so I can sell you stuff you don't need at inflated prices and you won't care.

Do you eschew markets when you buy or sell things (used cars, new cars, houses, your labor etc...). Do you willingly sell well below "market" price or refuse to accept "market" price (meaning you never find a buyer)?

Why do people reject markets - are they scared of them and trust politicians and the electorate to treat them more nicely? If you're 60 or 70 years old, maybe you can get away with that as you will probably die before the SS system collapses under its own weight (coupled with a general permanent decline in the US economy now that we have exited the "Century of America" and move into the "Century of Asia"). If you're 30 or below, the older folks will "own" your paycheck by their voting power through much of your career - get used to it.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're a lunatic.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[fiannaFailMan]

Sure I can list differences between Gore and Bush but to what end?

It would refute your claim about all politicians being the same.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[digitalunity]

It's hard to justify already. I'm 28, so I will reach todays retirement age in 39 years, which assumes it isn't raised before I get to 67.

According to a recent GAO study, SS will be insolvent before I reach that age. In effect, I'm already paying tax into a program I will receive zero benefit from. My tax dollars are support YESTERDAYs retirees. It's a ponzi scheme. Always has been. You need massive inflation growth or people to die much faster to keep it solvent.

Let me invest that tax money the way I see fit in my 401k and I guarantee you I will do better than the SS program will do for me.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to know why conservatives hate Grayson so much, look no further than Wikipedia-

Grayson was employed as a law clerk at the Colorado Supreme Court in 1983, and at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals from 1984 to 1985, where he worked with such judges as Abner Mikva, Robert Bork, and two judges who later joined the U.S. Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. He was an associate at the Washington D.C. firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson for five years, where he specialized in contract law.

Grayson wrote his masters thesis on gerontology and in 1986 founded the Alliance for Aging Research (AAR), and served as an officer of the organization for more than twenty years.[5] AAR is a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. that was founded to promote medical research to improve the human experience of aging.

In 1991 he founded the law firm Grayson, Kubli which concentrated on government contract law. He was a lecturer at the George Washington University government contracts program and a frequent speaker on the topic.[4] Grayson also was the first President of IDT Corporation, a publicly traded billion-dollar telecommunications company.[5][6] Grayson was ranked as the 12th-wealthiest member of Congress based on financial disclosure forms with a minimum net worth of $31.12 million, according to Roll Call.[7]

In the 2000s he worked as a plaintiffs' attorney specializing in whistleblower fraud cases aimed at Iraq war contractors. One contractor, Custer Battles, employed individuals who were found guilty of making fraudulent statements and submitting fraudulent invoices on two contracts in 2003 the company had with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.[8][9] On behalf of his clients, Grayson filed suit under the False Claims Act and its qui tam provisions.[8] Grayson disclosed his attorney fees and costs for the case exceeded $4 million.[9][10]

While pursuing the whistleblower cases, Grayson worked from a home office in Orlando where he lived with his wife and five children. In 2006, a Wall Street Journal reporter described Grayson as "waging a one-man war against contractor fraud in Iraq" and as a "fierce critic of the war in Iraq" whose car was "emblazoned" with bumper stickers such as "Bush lied, people died".[10]"

So in other words, Grayson spent years exposing the crimes of conservatives. And for that, they will NEVER forgive him.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[peragrin]

when it comes to politicians I keep democrats away from my daughter and republicans away from my wallet. I do find it easier to keep democrats away than republicans those.

Just remember when republicans say they want less taxes and smaller government what they do is cut taxes and increase spending which leads to recessions. Democrats get us through the recessions but then don't put that money into paying off deficits instead increase spending even more. Oh and my statment is backed by fifty years of US politics, whenever there has been a major recession republicans where in charge for the last 4-8 years. The only exception that I know of so far is the dot-bomb. but by that point clinton was useless anyways.

The big thing to remember is that no party will actually reduce spending, so that Taxes can actually be cut without deficits.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Zordak]

Part of Obama's appeal was that he tried to take the high road.

Sorry, I just threw up a little in my mouth. How exactly did Obama take the "high road"? His whole campaign was straight out of Reagan's (very successful) 1984 playbook. "Change we can believe in" == "It's morning in America." He gave people warm fuzzies, so when they saw his big, charismatic grin, they remembered the warm fuzzies. Rhetoric was not just part of Obama's campaign. Rhetoric was his entire campaign. The guy was elected because he is an outstanding orator. It's not because people knew or particularly cared about his policy plans. In fact, now that he's in office with huge Democratic majorities, people seem to be genuinely baffled at the "change" they voted for. They thought "change" meant "a pretty new face."

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[ShadowRangerRIT]

That's because a government pension subtracts from social security income. And that is because government employees under the pension system were exempt from social security taxes at the time (the government pension system was supposed to replace it for them). She's effectively combined her social security benefits combined with her workplace pension; the source is the government in any event. Your post is disingenuous to say the least.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[nomadic]

It's impossible to say one side is worse than the other without having the blinders of partisanship in place. They are all repulsive in the extreme and anyone who tries to argue that their party is "not as bad as the other guys" is deluded. That's not necessarily throwing up one's hands to let the problem continue, though it will continue as long as we keep letting these corrupt people into office.

You're just lazy. Just because the analysis is difficult doesn't mean it's impossible to do. X is bad, Y is bad, so X and Y must be equally bad is shoddy thinking.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Shakrai]

Ban political parties

As much as I may agree with George Washington's sentiment on the issue, I do presume you've heard of the 1st amendment, right?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[dachshund]

I think it's high time we started shunning both parties and voting for independent. Both parties are corporate vetted.

Since our winner-take-all system is fundamentally rigged against third parties, voting for an independent just makes it that much cheaper and easier for corporations to get their way. Good for you. As a side bonus, it ensures that the party you like least is more likely to win.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[ZaMoose]

Technically, since Harry Reid DID say precisely that after Grayson entered Congress, your statement is true.

To wit:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

He continued: "When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right.

"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[LandDolphin]

Rhetoric was his entire campaign. . . It's not because people knew or particularly cared about his policy plans. In fact, now that he's in office with huge Democratic majorities, people seem to be genuinely baffled at the "change" they voted for. They thought "change" meant "a pretty new face."

He had more the Rhetoric. He ran on changes that he would make (Pulling us out of Iraq, Focusing more on Al Qaeda & Afghanistan, Overhauling the Healthcare system, etc.). The problem is, Change sounds fine and dandy, until it starts to happen and everyone wants it done a different way.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[LandDolphin]

As a Government Employee, I am assuming that she gets some other sort of Retirement plan? Like a pension plan or something along those lines? Or is the $76 from Social Security all that she gets?

Social Security is there for those that need it. If she money from someplace else, like how my grandfather gets a pension from the rail road, than she doesn't need it.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[stoolpigeon]

No it wouldn't because you wouldn't be comparing anything of meaning. What we would be comparing are campaign promises to actions. As we are being taught right now, there is no real connection between the two so it isn't a valid comparison.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[uncqual]

There has been real innovation in healthcare and it does save lives. Just consider the impact that a variety of monoclonal antibodies have had on survival/cure rates for selected cancers. Outside of pharma, MRI and CT and PET scans are all great things that extend life expectancy. Of course, all of these are useful when used correctly - and some (such as CT and PET) are actually harmful when used in excess of benefits.

Yes, patients don't know what things cost, doctors usually don't care what they cost (at least if the patient doesn't care), and patients, doctors (and even all of medical science collectively) don't know what the benefits/costs of generic vs. patented drugs are for a particular situation in a particular patient.

Note, however, that many patients do have an incentive to use generics and DO so. In some cases, it's because they face a greater cost sharing for non-generics. In other cases, such as some Medicare Part D plans, the expensive patented version is only approved if the various generics don't work or the doctor can make a compelling case why the generics would specifically not work or that their side effects would endanger this specific patient.

Agreed that healthcare is heavily regulated - and this is part of the problem. For example, FDA approval is a big cost to getting a drug to market and is one reason that drugs are so expensive. The drug manufactures rely on blockbuster drugs (for those with large audiences) or extraordinary prices (for those with small audiences - such as specialty cancer drugs which only tens of thousands of people a year benefit from). The "obscene" profits from each of these drugs funds the R&D of other drugs which may have been abandoned after spending $100M or more just to get into trials and discovering that they are either unsafe or have limited benefit. Another example, through a variety of government mandated or sanctioned licensing schemes, supply of doctors is limited which keeps their wages (and your medical bills) high. Another example, government requires that anyone be treated for life threatening conditions independent of their ability to pay - resulting in the costs of their care being pushed, in part, to those who can pay. Another example, Medicare bullies doctors and medical establishments into accepting rates that in many cases don't cover costs (except, of course, for the scumbags sucking off the few cases that seem to pay because their lobbyists have kept reimbursements high enough - electric "scooters" for people who don't really need them, lucrative O2 contracts, etc) - resulting in the difference being, again, passed onto those who have insurance. All that regulation has resulted in high costs - I'm not sure how much more regulation we can afford.

We need more personal responsibility and accountability in healthcare and less disconnect between the cost and the person receiving the care. Going through lobbyists and marches on Washington to get priority for your "favorite" disease seems unlikely to improve the situation (except for, of course, government workers). Unfortunately, our reliance in recent decades on employers providing health insurance has removed much of the natural cost control mechanisms -- and the irony of this is that employers involvement in health insurance was accelerated because of government intervention in the form of wage controls during WWII (wages were controlled, but other fringe benefits weren't, so when companies were unable to compete on wages, they competed on fringe benefits -- health insurance being a big one).

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[LandDolphin]

How were republicans responsible for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

From Wikipedia:
By party
The original House version:[9]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[10]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version:[9]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

The republicans had a high % to vote for it, but the Democrats had higher numbers voting for it than rebulicans.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by both parties from the "North" and faught by both parties from the "south"

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul/Kucinich '12!

Maybe?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Colin Powell, Condeliza Rice (First two blacks EVER appointed cabinet positions)

Lincoln (not black) but ran on freeing salves as his primary platform

All Repulicans from 20's-60's running on civil rights being opposed by the DNC.

Get you story straight before trying to claim the GOP is racist, when history has shown the DNC to be the rascist party.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[flyneye]

Now I know that a "constituent" is popularly thought of as one residing in the area on the map that elected this U.S. Senator.
However, doesn't the fact that he is a "U.S." senator make us all his constituents since we all must suffer the product of his labor, good or evil?
I vote to err on the side of the critic. I have suffered enough at the hands of politicians outside my state long enough.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[ShakaUVM]

What's really odd is that there are so few blacks who are Republicans. It seems to me on most core issues gun rights, abortion, death penalty, school of choice, taxation, gay marriages, and many others most blacks lean more to the conservative side. Is it historical? Is it patronage(in the form of social programs)? Is it the race peddlers Jackson/Sharpton/others?

Historically, black people voted Republican. Democrats were the party for discrimination, Jim Crow, etc., whereas Republicans got the right for black people to vote, join congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Rhodes_Revels) and sent the army into the south to protect black rights.

All this got flipped around during the Great Depression, when FDR courted them actively (they were hit harder by the depression, proportionately speaking) and got them to abandon the Republican party in favor of the Democrats, whom they've been voting for ever since.

The real irony is that Democrats still were in favor of Jim Crow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace), even through the 60s, whereas Republicans passed the various Civil Rights Acts over Democrat filibusters, including a 14 hour long speech by Robert C. Byrd, KKK member and current (2009) ranking Democrat senator. Republicans still believe in equal rights for black people, and this includes eliminating Affirmative Action (which gives special privileges to certain races) and similar unequal policies.

The entire notion that Republicans are racists is completely illogical, un-historical, and really the product of the fevered imaginations of lunatics like Jon Stewart, who beats on that idiot line like it's a congo drum.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting how making a joke (?) that there a no Black Republicans gets modded Funny but pointing out that there are is modded Offtopic. It's gotta be hard for them to be told they don't exist - and I'm sure they've heard it before. A group that doesn't fit my preconceived notions, so cognitive dissonance kicks in and convinces me they don't exist. I don't think GP thought that GGP was being literal, I just think he wanted to correct a mistaken belief.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[uncqual]

"Banks" are regulated and the amount of money thay can "create" is limited, in part, by government mandated reserve requirements. And, yes, we do know this.

Indeed, the government can just "print" money to pay for social welfare programs. However, the result is a highly regressive "tax" in the form of inflation (it hits everything, including necessities such as food and transportation). Such inflation causes interest rates to climb -- and makes it even harder for people who really need loans (to buy a used car so they can get to work for example) to get them. The interest rate increase also means that the cost of servicing the US debt would go up - in a vicious cycle... Hyper inflation is a really bad thing which wipes out people's nest eggs -- resulting in more people needing more benefits, resulting in "printing" more money, resulting in more inflation and higher interest rates, resulting in .... well you get the idea.

Unfortunately, the United States has decayed into a culture of lazy, undeserved, luxury in the past 75 years or so -- now it's up to the next couple of generations to pay for it and fix it. It won't be pretty, maybe after India and China have standards of living as high as the US (which will might be in the next 100 years as the US standard of living declines and the standard of living in China and India improves), the US can try again for first world status.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[GooberToo]

Name calling is uncivilized and indicates that the person doing the name calling has no case and probably should not be listened to on any substantived matter. It, however, a matter of free speech.

In many cases you would be wrong. People become frustrated over time with the inability of so many to see what is often obvious and well documented - to them. Accordingly, sometimes you have to crack a few heads to get people's attention. Even then sometimes people are so stupid you still can't get them to address the issue even if they can see a legitimate complaint. Which in turn leads to yet more frustration.

Said another way, that type of attitude you recommend is often the cause of the very problem which forces you to ignore it. In other words, you are your own problem. Its generally more important to listen to the message than shoot the messenger.

IMOHO, almost without fail, when I see people doing what you recommend, there is a huge ego problem behind the closed minded attitude.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

When they outright lie.. see deathpanel.. to convince people that their view is the correct one then they are "bad". Yes both sides do embelish, tell falsehoods whatever, but usually its a few politicians for one side.. see truthsquad... When ALL the politicians on one side absolutly refuse to even discuss things in a fair manner, then they are "bad".

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[black88]

Actually, it is true, and the fact that you are clinging to childish dualities, left/right, them/us, good/evil, and refuse to see the Democrats are just as corrupt and stupid as the Republicans tells me that the we're fucking doomed.

And that you are either blind, stupid, or willfully ignorant of this fact.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[scot4875]

Yep. I mean, something like comparing opposition to a bill to being in favor of slavery. A Democrat would NEVER do something like that.

It's called an analogy, and the analogy was that the conservative forces in the US have historically opposed many things that, in hindsight, turned out to be good. (IIRC, it was actually the democratic party that opposed banning slavery, with democrats being the "conservatives" of the time and the republicans being the agents of change)

How is it that the entire conservative base seems to have so much trouble understanding analogies? Are you one of those morons that also thought that "lipstick on a pig" was insinuating that Palin was the pig?

--Jeremy

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up "Daisy Spot" on youtube and watch in horror as a little girl is blown up by a nuke. That was a campaign ad that ran for LBJ.

It only ran once.

Then learn the history of newspapers in this country. They were started as slander rags for political campaigns back in the days when men wore wigs and stockings.

Learn your history. Dems and Repubs are identical in every way, from the way they run campaigns to the people who supply their campaign funds.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Curunir_wolf]

So claiming that the Republican plan for health reform is "Die quickly" is trying to be "Mr Nice Guy"? Pot, kettle, black and all that.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[evil_aar0n]

Don't forget term limits. Why should the Pres be limited to two terms, but Congress-people get to make a life-time "career" out of it?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Not "independent" or "partisan." It's the "career" adjective that causes trouble.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[pHus10n]

You assume the people that voted for him were idiots. I take offense; I voted for Pres. Obama specifically because of his policy suggestions. If you disagree with those policies, fine --- but don't try to lump everyone together and say we're blind. *I* am not.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[GumphMaster]

Were I in his shoes, I would have instead taken the angle of attack related to the title line of the site which is "Alan Grayson is Nuts" and proven that I am not legally insane.

The typical dictionary does not equate "nuts" exclusively with "legally insane" (example below) so I don't think this will get far. Definition 8b is the one you wish to take offence to, but there are many others. Heck, definitions 7a and 7b could be taken as positive. Definition 8a is negative but is also a statement of opinion that cannot be proved either way although, IMHO, the good representative has demonstrated Def'n 8a quite well in bringing this charge. The writer may have been using metaphor and equating to a "a dry fruit consisting of an edible kernel or meat enclosed in a woody or leathery shell." There'd be long argument over what the writer meant and not what the reader interpreted, followed by argument of free speech protection in your Constitution and law. Only the lawyers would be happy at the end if it.

7. Slang. a. a person who is very enthusiastic about something; buff; enthusiast; devotee: He's a real circus nut. b. an extremely concerned or zealous person: My boss is a nut on double-checking everything. 8. Slang. a. a foolish, silly, or eccentric person. b. Offensive. an insane person; psychotic. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuts

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[zippyspringboard]

The biggest problem with this scheme is that given the choice most people wouldn't invest it. The entire reason for social security is to assure that everyone has some form of a safety net. We have no faith in the ability of the masses to plan for retirement, therefore we take the money from them and do it for them. As far as not giving them the option of spending the money, but letting them manage it however they seem fit... Hrmm... First off we have this program in effect because they are not smart enough to save. This sort of disqualifies them from managing their own 401k IMO. And it seems suspicious to me also. Safety nets are not something you gamble on, they are the sort of thing that should have a *guaranteed* return. A lot of people experienced extreme losses with 401k's during the whole Worldcom and Enron escapades. I don't call that a great safety net. On the other hand if I had a vested interest in the stock market, or heck even owned a company that sold stock I'm sure I'd be all for it.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Vintermann]

"Let me invest that tax money the way I see fit in my 401k and I guarantee you I will do better than the SS program will do for me."

I just don't get such statements. How old are you, 65? Me, I have about 40 years until retirement. You think you know which investements will pay off in 40 years? I certainly don't; I couldn't have told you 40 years ago if you asked me, and the world is changing faster (and there is more uncertainty in other ways) today. Looking at the "best" fund managers, the ones that did best one year will be all over the map in the next. Even short term, there's just too many uncertainties.
And in 40 years? So much can change in 40 years, I don't like thinking about it. Them raising the retirement age is the least of my worries.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[fiannaFailMan]

So claiming that the Republican plan for health reform is "Die quickly" is trying to be "Mr Nice Guy"? Pot, kettle, black and all that.

Er, read the post again. Grayson is one of a rare brand of Democrats who have finally decided to man up and hit back at the Republican spin machine with emotionally charged messages of their own instead of trying to be all logical about it like Carter, Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry.

If your eyes are so bad that you missed that point, I hope for your sake that it's not a pre-existing condition.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Curunir_wolf]

Healthcare needs massive government intervention. Way beyond what either party is proposing. In theory a free market would remove these types of inefficiencies, but healthcare is the least free market I can think of. It's heavily regulated.

How does this make sense? You're right that heavy regulation and excessive government intervention has all but eliminated free market pressures from keeping prices in check. But how, then, do you come to the conclusion that the solution is ... more government intervention?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[liquibyte]

I too would like to apologize to all the dead people. I am sorry that I let democrats take away your right to defend yourself and kill you by depriving you of your second amendment rights, and your dignity just because your state representatives happened to be democrats. I am so sorry that so many policepersons stood by while democrats cozied up to hysterical soccer mommies, allowing them to send your rights into the null and void of irrelevancy, and helping them kill you. I'm sorry that democrats are such nice and cozy people, and that we've allowed them to destroy our country due to a need to control the populace so that they themselves don't have to die when accountability comes due. It's about time that more peple started saying things like this. It's our nation, and our world. On the line here. I know I'm neg-karma but ideology doesn't help in a police state. Congratulations America, apathy is our new anthem.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Curunir_wolf]

Technically, since Harry Reid DID say precisely that after Grayson entered Congress, your statement is true.

To wit:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

That's really an ironic thing for Reid to do, seeing as it was the Democrats that were opposing the end of slavery. It's like 1984 and he's trying to rewrite history.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

We should remember that when Social Security was created you couldn't claim it until you had lived longer then the average life span. It was intended that less then 50% of those who paid into it would ever collect.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

First, according to the part of his post you didn't read, he said he's 28. He expects to reach retirement age roughly the same time you will.

Second, he doesn't have to know today which investments will pay off in 40 years, no more so than anyone else with a Roth IRA, 401k, and so on. All he needs to do is pay attention to managing his investment portfolio with an eye toward market conditions in 6 months, a year, two years, and so on. He's asking to be allowed to manage (some portion of) what the government withholds for SS. When you opened your IRA, started your 401k, or otherwise invested in the markets, did you expect that you would be required to pick what companies/industries would be "winners" some decades away from now, and never reapportion your investments? Of course not - you manage it just like anything else.

- T

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[OldSoldier]

The standard right wing (not really sure how Republican that is) retort is that if you have no safety net you'll be more careful. So... if there were no government assistance in the form of Social Security then you'll be more motivated to save for yourself. Since, as you point out, you're probably paying for someone else's social security ... just think how much MORE motivated you should be!

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[BakaHoushi]

And back then, Republicans were "liberal." At least by modern definitions of the word. So I don't really find it ironic. Parties change sides all the time. Now if Reid were an actual politician from those days then, yes, it would be ironic.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

So it had nothing to do with the fact that McCain chose Palin for vp? I think the thought of having her less than a heartbeat away from being president scared the hell out of a lot of people, me included.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just say he's a outstanding teleprompter reader.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[BakaHoushi]

The problem is, as George Carlin put it--
"Everyone complains about politicians. But where are all the good, bright, upstanding citizens with new, good ideas willing to step up? We don't have people like that. They don't exist. This is as good as it gets, folks."

I tend to agree with him. We can't find good candidates because there's no such thing.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, crap, I've followed this long enough.

This is what comes of not teaching history any longer. Please consider the following:

1. The man who shot MLK was a .... Democrat.
2. The man who shot Kennedy was a .... communist. (Or far left Demo.)
3. More Repubs voted for the Voting Rights Act than Dems.
4. Bull Conner was a .... Democrat.
5. Bobbie Kennedy hated the Teamsters. He didn't crawl into bed with them.
6. Jack Kennedy won in '60 because he was strong on defense. He really was a warrior.
7. Most blacks before LBJ bought them off to their unending detriment were Republicans. Which black man in the south, where most still lived could vote Dixiecrat with a good conscience?
8. Lincoln was a Republican.
9. Wilson, the great progressive president, instituted Jim Crow in DC.
10. Oh, Jim Crow was started and loved by the Dems.
11. Unions and the Irish and Germans, all good Dem demographics, hated blacks for years and fought against them as scabs, etc. The Irish in Boston fought long and hard against busing.
12. ... many more but I've no faith this will make a difference.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be confused in thinking it's "Republican Standard Operating Procedure" when in reality it's "Politician Standard Operating Procedure."

Not true. Democrats have stood idly by for too long while Republicans get up in the House and make hyperbolic speeches about 'death panels' and 'socialism' while the Dems have just tried to be Mr Nice Guy in the hope that the voters will reward them. They don't. Republicans have become masters of the art of pressing the emotional buttons over and over again even if their message is laced with lies and half truths, while Democrats have tried to counter it with facts, figures, and logic. As you can see from the 2000 and 2004 elections, the voters respond much better to emotional messages (particularly the emotion known as 'fear' as Karl Rove and Dick Cheney know too well) than they do to something as mundane as logic.

All Mr Grayson is doing is what Democrats should have been doing years ago. Republicans want to talk about death panels and pulling the plug on grandma? Fine, they should be prepared to listen to the other side using the same kind of emotional language.

Right, as stated, POLITICIAN Standard Operating Procedure. If you really think one "side" or the other has a corner on that market, you're either blind, foolish, or intentionally deluding yourself. Maybe instead of thinking of politics in terms of "Republicans vs. Democrats" like the media wants you to, you should start examining the issues yourself, forming your own opinions, and then voting for people based on how you feel about them specifically. In other words, dispose of the crutch of political Parties altogether, and vote with your head instead of letting a bunch of windbags tell you what your identity should be.
When people ask me on the street "Are you Republican or Democrat" I answer "neither". They always respond by saying "Oh, are you 3rd party then, which one?" to which I respond "No, you're not listening. I'm not a member of any political party, I'm a normal American and I vote how I want to, and if I want to change my mind on an issue then I can". But most people are weak-minded and need a guy on TV to tell them how to vote, so I guess go ahead and keep doing that if it works for you. But spare me the "Well the other guys did this, so WE did that". Both your side and the other are a bunch of asshats & there's plenty of examples to show that both "sides" are plenty guilty of the same crap. So get off your moral high horse.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[BakaHoushi]

Well, if he didn't take it as literal, the meaning implies that there aren't MANY black Republicans. And the ability to name a few prominent ones does little to prove that to be false.

And of course the fact that most blacks aren't Republican pretty much has jack to do with shit.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't think of a conservative thing the federal government has done since Clinton scaled back welfare.

s/Clinton/Congress/g HTH. HAND.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Firehed]

As you can see from the 2000 and 2004 elections, the voters respond much better to emotional messages (particularly the emotion known as 'fear' as Karl Rove and Dick Cheney know too well) than they do to something as mundane as logic.

Are you suggesting that "change you can believe in" is based in logic rather than emotion?

This issue is NOT specific to one political party.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[liquibyte]

Son, if anyone in his right mind thinks that voters did "not come out of the woodwork" because he was even perceived to be a little bit black, anyone would be deluded. The only change that was promised was "it ain't whitey". God Damn I hate every one of you for thinking otherwise. When did this stop being a country of ideology and start being a country of nascent race. No white man would have ever been able to pull off the level of bullshit this man didn. You know it, I know it. They don't know it. Sotomayor anyone? Say goodbye to your civil rights all in the name of the good cause.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Curunir_wolf]

And back then, Republicans were "liberal." At least by modern definitions of the word. So I don't really find it ironic. Parties change sides all the time. Now if Reid were an actual politician from those days then, yes, it would be ironic.

Also ironic because Reid is still a racist, as is clear if you do a little bit of research .

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[mooingyak]

It seems to me on most core issues [stuff], death penalty, [other stuff]

The black community lines up with the Republican party on the death penalty the same way the Pope lines up with N.O.W. on birth control.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Runaway1956]

Nope. The health reform adverts run by republicans on my local TV stations are stupid and revolting. Those run by democrats are - ahem - uhh - well -

Crap. I hate to say anything good about either party, but the democrats run intelligent, well targeted advertisements, many of which contain a little bit of fact, in addition to hyperbole.

The first lowlife who started running at the mouth about those government death panels should have been laughed out of Washington. Remember, this is the same party whose Representative in Chief told the elderly that they would just have to tighten their belts. There was no money for increased Medicaid, but there was plenty of money for Iraq.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Runaway1956]

Wait - you've forgotten Bill Clinton and NAFTA? That sumbitch poured US jobs and US money into Mexico. Poured, hell, he pumped it into Mexico. Alaska has it's oil pipeline, Mexico has it's money pipeline.

Oh yeah - China, and "Most Favored Trading Partner" status.

Republicans are low life sumbitches who don't give a damn about voters or taxpayers, true - but they don't have any exclusivity agreement with the devil.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[easyTree]

Separated at birth ?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Bill Clinton was no liberal. If you think he was, then I apologize that you were not properly educated.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[steve buttgereit]

Hear, hear! I think you're right on the money with this. One thing that I've observed and, anecdotally speaking, it seems as though this is accelerating over time, is that the typical drivel that gets shouted from the podiums of political conventions has completely supplanted any more serious debate that we use to have in this country. It use to be that silly grandstanding was the tool to whip your rank and file party members into a frenzy so that they would devote time and treasure to the cause of bringing around the less political observer to your side. Culturally, we've become a nation without a real middle. Sure there are the independents, but I have a hunch (complete and utter speculation) that these real independents are largely the same groups of people that wouldn't bother to register to vote without things like DMV sponsored registration and still wouldn't vote except for the convenience of absentee ballots... not so interested in the process, completely reactionary not so willing to put any real thought into it. With that scenario, that means the interested parties have really factionalized themselves such that political discourse is more about cementing an identity than really exploring the issues. It's a sort of tribalism where the jibes at Palin or Pelosi, etc. count more for for saying "I'm one of you liberals/I'm one of you conservatives" than really any deeply understood (as opposed to 'held') personal conviction.

Sorry for being a bit ramblely on this... but I'm very concerned we've reached a point with this sort of factional divide where it won't be repaired and the country will continue to decline.

Oh well... all good things come to an end!

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Please continue to believe your cartoonish stereotypes of Democrats.

The more divorced you are from reality, the easier it will be to beat you at the polls.

Also, it will be easier to ensure your descendants are kept impoverished and ignorant, and hopefully die really young, in great pain. That last part isn't a Democratic policy, it's just my masturbation fantasy.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Foobar of Borg]

My grandmother was a government employee her entire life. Worked until she was 58 and health issues made her retire. She gets $76 a month from Social Security.I can't see her being much worse off with privatized SS.

That's because, until a few years ago, government employees did not pay into Social Security or get Social Security. The upside is that they get a generous pension - 50% salary after 20 years service and 75% salary after 30 years of service.

Nice try at deception, asshole.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Runaway1956]

He certainly didn't run on any conservative or republican ticket. What kinda revisionist history are you trying to pull here? Bill Clinton is a democrat, and the democrats endorsed him, wholeheartedly, just as they endorse that skanky witch he's married to.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Foobar of Borg]

IIRC, it was actually the democratic party that opposed banning slavery, with democrats being the "conservatives" of the time and the republicans being the agents of change

Actually, to be more accurate, it was the Southern portion of the Democratic party that was against Abolition. At that time, and basically up to the time of various Civil Rights legislation, the Democratic Party tried to be a national party. It was the civil rights legislation, along with things like Strom Thurmond's (in)famous speech upon leaving the Democratic Party to form the Dixiecrats, that largely change the Democratic Party into a regional (Northern) party.

The Republican Party, under Lincoln, was a regional party in the North. It was only later that they became a regional party in the South.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Firehed]

Every indication is that SS is going to be completely dried up well before you or I reach retirement age. A very low-risk 401(k) is almost certainly going to do better than 0, and in the long run, most of the higher-risk investments will probably do so as well. No guarantees, but that's life. As it stands now, paying into social security is quite literally as effective as flushing your money down the toilet. Hell, even savings bonds are a better investment - and they won't even match inflation.

I happen to be going down a MUCH higher risk/reward route (probably 2-3 orders of magnitude more than even the riskiest 401k), but I've got plenty of time to deal with it if things don't work out. And I'll know the results within five years, which is all the better if it takes a turn for the worse since I'll still have a good 40 years to figure it out.

Granted, most people would treat the "extra" income that they'd have if they didn't have to pay into SS as just that - extra income. Suffice to say, it probably wouldn't go towards a retirement fund. But you're still better off putting that money towards a new TV than dumping it into a black hole.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Foobar of Borg]

Democrats get us through the recessions but then don't put that money into paying off deficits instead increase spending even more.

Actually, when we had those nice surpluses under Clinton, he and Gore were saying we should use the surpluses to start paying down the national debt. It was the Congressional Republicans who torpedoed that idea.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Grimbleton]

Nope, she always paid into Social Security.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Alan Grayson is one of the few members of the house who acts on principle and not on money interest, and one of the few dems who, in the words of a popular talk show host, "goes on the offense and stays there." :) Sometimes he says silly things, but they're not half as silly as what we hear daily from the other side of the aisle. Open your ears.

he apparently comments on slashdot as well. welcome mr. grayson. please enjoy your stay. help yourself to some memes.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see where you cite an example of Obama playing on people's fears, and therefore fail to see how what you're saying is the slightest bit responsive to the topic you're attempting to respond to.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[shentino]

What sucks even worse is that once our representatives are elected they are guaranteed terms unless some of their buddies decide to impeach them.

If they screw up we have no way of punishing them except to not elect them again. But a kamikaze politician with a corporate sponsored agenda can do a lot of damage by the time we even have a chance to vote him out.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[MurphyZero]

I work government and I've never had an option of not contributing into SS. I believe I paid a lower percentage when I was in the military, but I still paid.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[BoberFett]

People are certainly free to create parties, but there is no reason they need to be officially recognized by the government. Why should parties be listed on an official ballot so that idiots can easily vote straight ticket? If you aren't informed enough to know the name of the person you want to vote for, you aren't informed enough to vote.

Can you imagine if every name wasn't followed by (R) or (D)? People might actually have to listen and learn rather than just wait for the right letter to appear before knowing whether to boo or cheer!

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Roblimo]

Not if she was a federal employee since before 1984. She paid into the federal retirement system, not SS. There are some partial payment criteria that may be in play here. For example, she may get some little bit of SS disability. But this can get complicated and I don't know enough to talk about it.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

And I am sorry the Republicans took away a huge chunk of American rights with the passing of the Patriot Act. I am sorry that Americans, both Democratic and Republican, were such cowards that they allowed the Patriot Act to pass.

I am sorry that the Republicans have trampled repeatedly on our privacy. I am sorry that the Republicans involved us in an unnecessary war in Iraq and murdered thousands of young Americans who committed the crime of wearing a military uniform. I am sorry the United States decided to imprison hundreds of people in Guantanamo Bay because they didn't want to deal with the hassle of human rights. That the Repbublicans decided to torture those people, treating them in a manner that is worse in many ways than the "Axis of Evil" the Republican President wanted us to oppose.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[NeutronCowboy]

Dems are the biggest racists on the planet. Keep people dependent on you forever.

I find it cute that this opinion is consistently voiced by people who are well beyond middle-class in status, or who chose to disregard the many ways in which they receive support from others.

It's a nice cop-out, and makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about the matter. After all, anyone who supports any type of social services clearly just wants to keep the black man (and woman) in poverty. /sarcasm

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't run "Republicans want to kill your chilren" ads in your city?

Huh? Surely those adds are just public service announcements to warn parents to keep their kids safe from Republicans? Kinda like publishing the addresses of known sex offenders.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[NeutronCowboy]

Hah. Yeah. A new low-point for Reid. However, for every Democrat who makes an idiotic comment (generally Reid and Pelosi), there are about 5 Republican senators, 20 representatives and the entire Fox News crew to one-up them.

Just because someone else does it doesn't make it right. Just because one person does it doesn't mean that the 20 on the other side are excused.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Larryish]

... don't try to lump everyone together and say we're blind. *I* am not.

You are too!

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Larryish]

Yep.

They are both 2 sides of the same tarnished coin.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[uncqual]

I believe that initially no state or local government employees participated in SS. Later, all such government employees who didn't have a pension plan were required to join in the SS system. State and local governments which had pension plans were not required to join in the SS system, but some have. Some more info here suggests that about 25% of the public service employees are not covered by SS and that most are teachers, fire fighters, and police.

Note that there is some "benefits coordination" for those that spend part of their career in SS and part in public employee pension plan instead. This "windfall elimination provision" can dramatically reduce SS benefits due to offsets applied for benefits received under their public employee pension fund.

(Railroad workers also have their own independent pension plan and are outside the SS system.)

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[diamondmagic]

What about the source of the article? Are you trying to distract from the fact that Grayson is making up facts as he sees fit and is trying to silence people who challenge those "facts?"

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Since our winner-take-all system is fundamentally rigged against third parties, voting for an independent just makes it that much cheaper and easier for corporations to get their way. Good for you. As a side bonus, it ensures that the party you like least is more likely to win.

Are you fucking retarded? When a politician from neither party outshines the other, the benefit of voting for a third party is manifold:

a) elections become more unpredictable (see 1992 & Perot, 2000 & Nader)
b) politicians adopt the independent's platform, somewhat, even if relunctantly
c) much like not voting, you have withdrawn your support from the duopoly
d) you increase the likelihood of an independent winning or a major party collapsing

"d)" is unlikely but it does happen with sufficient freqency. Regardless, your vote is not likely to affect the outcome. You know that right? Retard. What your vote does is express your opinion. If your vote is the one vote to bring victory to a douche over a turd, you still have accomplished very little. If your one vote actually "counted", what will end up counting more is the side with the greasier recount team. Think about that, asshole. Vote your true opinion regardless the "outcome" or stay the fuck home. Dickmunch.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[dryeo]

That is only true for districts that have close races.
For those districts where the outcome is obvious voting 3rd party can be a good move and at least is no more a waste then voting for the losing party.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Shakrai]

I voted for Pres. Obama specifically because of his policy suggestions.

His tanking poll numbers among independents suggest that most of them did not vote for him for his policy suggestions.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Any diversified portfolio of long-term investments from 40 years ago would have outperformed the return on SS. Key words: "diversified" and "long-term".

If you are looking for a few stocks that are going to make you RICH in a matter or 5 to 10 years, you can forget that. Of course nobody knows what those will be. But trying that approach is not "investing". It is "gambling".

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Concerned Onlooker]

"The guy was elected because he is an outstanding orator."

Hm, maybe. I think his biggest asset was that he simply wasn't another George Bush, which is exactly what McCain was shaping up to be. He was an OK orator. After 8 years of listening to Bush stumble through the English language almost anyone who could speak correctly would appear as an outstanding orator, but in fact I don't think he was great, just good enough.

By the way, I'll take rhetoric that doesn't accompany an idiotic war over rhetoric that does.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you got straight up lied to, though idiot is a little harsh. It strikes me that he hasn't lived up to a single promise, he hasn't closed the illegal prisons, he hasn't commited to ending the wars, healthcare reform seems further away each week, he has inflated the national debt with dubious bailouts and has staffed his administration with the same corrupt cronies as usual. What policies of his are you happy with?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[sweatyboatman]

Why do people reject markets

Because the market isn't geared towards making their experience more efficient.

That's generally why people don't like markets.

That and the boom and bust tendency that many markets have doesn't really mesh well with the human condition.

Why do people reject government intervention? What's to prefer in the cold machinery of the market? Are they afraid that the human traits of compassion and decency might win out over the cruelty of the invisible hand?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't the regulation. The problem is the collusion, or dare I say the criminal conspiracies in the entire industry that counteracts the free market forces.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[sweatyboatman]

With the premise that you are more efficient at investing your money for the benefit of society than the government, I'm sure that you could find an objection to every tax in your paycheck.

Past returns are not a guarantee of future performance.

Your 401k could be worth nothing tomorrow. Meanwhile social security may remain solvent when your grand-children retire.

When you're 67, advances in medicine may provide you the strength and vitality of your 30s. You may never need to retire due to old age. You may be able to work into your 100s, if you so desire.

40 years ago there were many who claimed to know what would happen in 20, 30, 40 years. Those who were right in any way, were right by chance alone.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

the real problem is the baby boomers. There was a huge surge in population after the vietnam war, here in the US. The shit starts hitting the fan once they become eligible for SS benifts.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Whooosh.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

The republicans had a high % to vote for it, but the Democrats had higher numbers voting for it than rebulicans.

Statistics are like Bikinis...

Try looking at the number of Democrats to Republicans in The senate & house in 1964.

They had quite the massive/majority lead :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88th_United_States_Congress

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[bluefoxlucid]

Nobody wants to hear that social security doesn't work. Saying it'll be insolvent is like saying GM will collapse-- it's a pipe dream, it can't happen.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[bluefoxlucid]

There is no feasible way to destroy social security. You'd still have to collect taxes for it to pay out benefits, until it stops paying benefits. You'd have to whittle away at the whole thing until it was gone, at the expense of non-beneiftters. Unfortunately people don't want to pay for this now; they would rather pay social security and take the (currently imaginary, like the flameless light bulb once was) spiral down to devastating financial ruin that it'll eventually follow, with age 115 retirement and 40% of your income going into it, than lose some of their tax money to a black hole that's ever shrinking and will eventually disappear and leave them a gap to put into their 401(k) plans.

I have a great 401(k) because it lets me get my investments going hands-on; my other 401(k) plans sucked because they were more lifestyle oriented, i.e. you don't know what you're doing so the funds managers will manage it for you (and suck 90% of your growth off). In the recession, I had a managed 401(k) perform to -6% for the worst 4 quarters, while one managed by me (with balancing mutual funds, not raw stocks!) performed +32% because I knew what market sectors I wanted to invest in. I'm just better at this than the $250,000/year salaried wallstreet execs, right? That and they're skimming profits off the top as fees.

In the end, most people will lose on social security; and most people will lose on their 401(k). Sucks to be you.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[iLoveLamp]

When Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) came to Washington to assist in the public relations of then President Calvin Coolidge, the spin machine officially began. Bernays is the father of modern public relations and the foundation of politics as we know it today. The Nixon administration only elevated the spin game to a new level for political gains, although with every year, we see a more intense push of FUD for the ongoing struggle to wield power.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

It turns out that markets are not the magic spring of happiness for society that some would have you believe...

There's a thousand ways to bend the rules to your advantage in a market, particularly when you have money (= power). Look at Wal-Mart, who is such a behemoth that it can dictate the price it wants to pay for goods. Look at the music industry, who got away for years with being a middleman between the artist and the consumer, ripping off each side while selling overpriced shiny plastic - and is now using all its might to fight to retain its position. Multinational corporations are masters at juggling the books so that they show a loss in countries with higher taxes, while recording profits in small or corrupt countries with looser tax codes (and before bitching about taxes, remember a few things, like roads, schools, police, or maybe just the fact that you don't have the resources to cheat in the same way...if you think they should be lower, it would be better to become an activist than to turn your head at dodgy corporate practices).

Then, of course, just the regular play of the market ignores basic things that we, as humans, might value. Jobs can be sent to other countries with less regulation and cheaper workers...and the 50-year-old who lost his job now finds his labor is worth peanuts on the open market. I know what the standard response is to this...a horror story of consumers paying above market price for their goods...so how is the magic market going to fix this? It doesn't, which is why you have empty shells of manufacturing towns, thickly covered with the soil of poverty, from which crime grows abundantly - because the investment of re-educating the 50-year-old to bring the value of his labor up on the market, is risky and probably won't pay off. There's something sick about telling a person that they are worthless.

Is there a magic solution? There never is. But there is most certainly a non-solution: to continue worshipping the market when we all know its imperfections.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[pfleming]

Republicans have become masters of the art of pressing the emotional buttons over and over again even if their message is laced with lies and half truths

What, and Democrats haven't done the same thing? Were you around for the debate on social security privatization? If you listened to them back then you'd have thought that the GOP was aiming to put America's seniors into concentration camps.

While it might not have been quite that bad, imagine if the GOP had succeeded and everyone's retirement was 100% in private accounts (ie the stock market) today.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[MartinSchou]

I think George Carlin would say something along the lines of "Michael Steel is openly white. He just happens to be black."

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Chris Mattern]

Yep, Palin is a pig, and I'm a moron. But remember, it's only Republicans that call people names!

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[fedos]

IIRC, the death panel thing started With Sarah Palin on her blog (Facebook?). I always find it ironic becuase while the Republican astroturfers are ranting about fictitious government death panels, we currently have a system of what could be considered corporate death panels. I wonder why they don't think those are at least as bad.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[clone53421]

The more divorced you are from reality, the easier it will be to beat you at the polls.

So... how’s that working out for you?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[clone53421]

It's pretty hard to justify taking 12.4% of a person's salary through their entire working career just for a welfare program which they will likely see no benefit from.

Um, not to burst your bubble or anything, but that’s pretty much the way I see virtually all income taxes. Already.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[clone53421]

You assume the people that voted for him were idiots. I take offense; I voted for Pres. Obama specifically because of his policy suggestions.

Then you are an idiot for a different reason than most of the people who voted for him.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[clone53421]

And back then, Republicans were "liberal." At least by modern definitions of the word.

You’re going to have to expand on that a little. Better yet, [Citation needed].

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[clone53421]

IIRC, it was actually the democratic party that opposed banning slavery, with democrats being the "conservatives" of the time and the republicans being the agents of change

“Conservatism” does not mean resistance to change. That is just a pigeonhole that conservatives have been incorrectly placed into. Conservatism means

lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

It just so happens that the people who originally designed our government actually got a lot of stuff right, surprise surprise. Conservatives are not about resisting change, they are about keeping the good that we already have, while improving what can be improved upon. Conservatives want plenty of change... and much of that change would be in order to reverse the bad laws and policies that liberals have created. Not because the old way is better on the basis of it being older... but because the old way was better. It was smaller, less intrusive, more efficient, less expensive, and put more responsibility in the hands of individuals and less in the hands of the nanny government.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, folks, review your US History. Hyperbolic political rhetoric started (in this country anyway) before the 1800 election, when Thomas Jefferson (a Democrat) launched the first US smear campaign against Hamilton and Adams. Jefferson's "PAC" went so far as to accuse, in a newspaper ad, that Hamilton wasn't fit to be Treasurer because he had extra-marital affairs. That initiated the "Politics of Personal Destruction" that we know today. And while neither party can take the moral high ground, I have to give the trophy to the Democrat POLITICIANS over the past 8 years for their near psychotic hatred for Bush (explains why some are STILL running against him today) and likening him to Hitler. Notice that Republican POLITICIANS rarely say these things, but when they do, at least they are policed by their own party. Let's get real - the Chris Matthews/Keith Olbermans of the world aren't the Democratic Party, and neither are the Rush Limbaughs representative of the Republican party. Glenn Beck is a Libertarian, so when some people conflate him with Republicans, I know that they don't know what they are talking about - they are just parroting their party's Talking Points. So don't confuse POLITICIANS with opinionated mouthpieces in the media.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[clone53421]

Sarah Palin talks about 'death panels?' Nobody bats an eyelid.

IIRC, the media had a heyday over it.

Meanwhile, people like yourself blissfully ignore signs of what is to come, such as when a government-sponsored group recommends that women in their 40s don’t need annual mammograms... which means, of course, that any insurance company can now refuse to cover this “non-necessary” procedure. That’s rationing.

Conservatives refer to the inheritance tax as the 'death tax' (misleadingly implying that we all have to pay it since we all die)? Nobody bats an eyelid.

And “income tax” misleadingly implies that anyone who makes money pays it? And “sales tax” misleadingly implies that anyone who buys anything pays it?

Alan Grayson reads out the numbers of people who have died from lack of health care coverage? Whoa! What's going on here? A Democrat using emotionally charged language?

It’s the same thing as “jobs created or saved”. You fixed nothing, but you claim that if you hadn’t done it, it would have been worse. Great, because it’s 100% hypothetical and nobody can prove one way or the other. Democrats can’t prove that their ideas would save even one person’s life, but it’s perfectly okay for them to claim the evil Republicans are killing people.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Svartalf]

Considering that he wants a critic put in jail over what appears to be a technicality at most...I don't think that he really stands upon principle.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[operagost]

'death panels'

Included in the bill an a provision that, unconstitutionally, requires that it never be repealed or changed. Constitutional issues aside, it does say that the board cannot recommend rationing or withholding treatment. But when we have another panel saying that women don't really need mammograms until 40, and even then only every other year, if the 'death panel' follows that perilous recommendation they aren't really withholding any treatment based on what the government claims is appropriate-- are they?

and 'socialism'

If universal health care which raises taxes, forces people to buy a product, and penalizes anyone who makes too much money or buys a plan that is TOO good, isn't socialism: what is?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[operagost]

You could put your social security tax into something incredibly low-risk and relatively low return, like AAA bonds or CDs. I guarantee you will get a better return than you would from the security Ponzi scheme-- because Ponzi schemes offer a return of ZERO.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[operagost]

it's arguable that he stole these elections both times.

No, it's not.

Ban political parties

Except for the "political party" of the state, right? Works pretty well in communist countries.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[operagost]

Being conservative doesn't mean opposing all change-- it means being cautious about change. The founding fathers knew the slavery issue would have to be dealt with, but in order to form the free republic that would be necessary to enable this change, they had to accept compromises with powerful, wealthy Southerners. That's why the Constitution said that no laws regarding slavery could be passed until 1808, yet what the Democratic party would call a bunch of insane evil right-wingers (based on their "conservatism") IMMEDIATELY passed a bill in 1808 banning the importation of slaves as soon as it was possible.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Locke2005]

No, his tanking poll numbers suggest that like every president ever elected, he hasn't achieved everything he promised in his platform, and that people really did have unrealistic expectations for him. Reality check: unlike kings, the President cannot pass laws through executive fiat. I'm disappointed that Obama hasn't undone more of what W did, but in the final analysis, there is very little that he has done that I could have done better or would have done differently. Jimmy Carter was one of the most ethical people we have had as president, but he was completely ineffective. Obama is a pragmatist; he'll take whatever wins he can get and compromise when he has to. Only the Taliban and the neo-cons are unwilling to compromise.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[fiannaFailMan]

I too would like to apologize to all the dead people. I am sorry that I let democrats take away your right to defend yourself and kill you by depriving you of your second amendment rights, and your dignity just because your state representatives happened to be democrats. I am so sorry that so many policepersons stood by while democrats cozied up to hysterical soccer mommies, allowing them to send your rights into the null and void of irrelevancy, and helping them kill you.

I'm sorry that democrats are such nice and cozy people, and that we've allowed them to destroy our country due to a need to control the populace so that they themselves don't have to die when accountability comes due.

It's about time that more peple started saying things like this. It's our nation, and our world. On the line here.

I know I'm neg-karma but ideology doesn't help in a police state. Congratulations America, apathy is our new anthem.

Oh. My God. Are you fucking insane?

Let's just take one of your claims. Second amendment rights. When was the second amendment abolished? Jesus wept! You people are fucking crazy!

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[riverat1]

Unfortunately the SCOTUS has ruled that money is equivalent to free speech and to limit contributions to people who are only in within a congresspersons district is a restriction on free speech.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[riverat1]

Bill Clinton was an example of Democrats trying to be Republican-lite.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[cheshiremoe]

We don't let other countries contribute because they should not get a say in who our leaders are. Why should it be any different between states or congressional districts.

The elected officials are supposed to be by the people and for the people. The outside money is making the representative be for the corporations/special interests and not the local people. Money can be used for free speech but it is fundamentally different because of the influence that it has over the politician.

Essentially I am saying that the system is corrupt. Corporations are buying votes and there not just one vote that is local to them their buying as many as they can afford because it pays off in the legislation that gets passed. Most individuals can't afford to do that and its not fair that our representative is representing some company or industry group that is based in some other state on the other side of the country. We have lost our equal representation.

Money buys the means to allow millions of people see/hear your free speech, but it does so much more than that. There is no right to Money.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[riverat1]

Health care can never be a free market and it shouldn't be. Do you really want decisions on your health care based on what's most profitable to the entities providing it rather than what's best for your health. If you really want it to be a free market then figure out a way to make it more profitable to keep you healthy than to sell you services and products when you're sick.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[uncqual]

It turns out that markets are not the magic spring of happiness for society that some would have you believe...

It would be incorrect to assume that everyone who advocates free market solutions believes they are a "magic spring of happiness for society". However, many people believe that free markets based solutions tend to be better than the next best alternative - and believe that's sufficient justification to consider free market solutions.

Also, definition of "happiness" varies from person to person. Some people would be happiest with a system that gives them everything they want and requires them do nothing (this is the "From each according to his willingness to get off his fat butt, to each according to his desire to consume" philosophy of life). Others find the give and take of competition pleasurable and enjoy winning while also enjoying learning from their losses. Some have an intense sense of independence and would rather be independent and hungry than caged and well fed. Others would happily give up all their freedom for a steady diet of yummy food and all the cable channels.

Obviously these differing views of "happiness" (assuming that everyone seeks "happiness" - which is not necessarily the case) are likely to result in different evaluations of a particular system.

Look at Wal-Mart, who is such a behemoth that it can dictate the price it wants to pay for goods.

To some extent, Walmart (and brethren such as Target) has done to retail what modern agricultural technology (biological, engineering, chemical, etc) did to the field of agriculture. In 1900 41% of the US population was engaged in agriculture, in 2000 only 1.9% were. Yet, during this same time, farm productivity went up. Sure, this displaced a lot of farm workers and families and created anxiety for them - but it meant those resources were eventually put to better use. As well, food prices declined as a result so people had more discretionary income (to buy things like transportation and improved medical care). The forces that the likes of Walmart put on the market have had similar beneficial effects and have created similar anxiety. The anxiety arising from such innovation is passing while the benefits are lasting and accrue to future generations.

Walmart does not "dictate" the price it pays for goods. It tells a producer what it's willing to pay for a product and the producer tries to convince them to pay more. Both sides desire to maximize profits and certainly not to lose money. Walmart buyers are strong negotiators, but Walmart can't force anyone to sell them products at any particular price. If a producer is inefficient and a more efficient producer comes along, Walmart will likely shift to that producer in exchange for a lower price -- some of which, in the aggregate, Walmart's retail customer will see via lower prices on the shelf.

This is little different than what the American car buyers did to the inefficient producers of cars such as GM, Chrysler, and Ford. The customers chose better value cars from Honda and Toyota - no matter how "big" GM was, they still lost the battle. That failure is what killed Detroit, not "foreign labor". Toyotas were just better cars and a Toyota worker (even though a US citizen working in the US) was willing to sweep the floor if the line was down for some reason -- unlike the GM worker whose union rules "protected" him from this indignity and allowed him to do nothing for two hours until the line was restarted (while a "janitorial" worker was called over, and paid, to sweep the floor - frigging insane).

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[sabt-pestnu]

An observation from personal experience...

My grandmother was a teacher (= government employee) ye long years ago. Was collecting both a teacher's pension and SSI. Grandpa had a WWI veteran's pension. But... most often, when one would go up (COLA), the other would go down.

Fancy that. Having to rely on the government for your retirement. Not all skittles and beer, folks.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans are not the party that go after their critics with lawyers instead of debate. Or have we forgoten the teames of lawyers sent against every one who dared to have a differing opinion in this past year and a half.

The only real story here is that a member of the federal government is using his position of authority to attempt to harass and intimidate private citizens from exercising their most fundamental constitutional right: Dissent.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Really well. Have you heard about the results of the 2008 elections?

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Democrats are not necessarily liberals. That's where you went wrong.

Bill Clinton is a Democrat. Bill Clinton is not a liberal.

That type of Democrat is what I was talking about when I said that Democrats have not done all they could have done to oppose Republicans.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[clone53421]

That was over a year ago. I suggest you re-check the polls.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Profane MuthaFucka]

The polls still say that 20% of the population is willing to call themselves Republicans. The rest of the conservatives are desperately trying to rebrand, and might even go as far as reform the Whig party.

Of course, if you get your news from Glen Beck then you might disagree. Please keep listening to that guy. The more deluded you are, the more impoverished your children will be. They'll make good servants, I am sure.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[clone53421]

Meanwhile, while you’re preoccupied with Republicrat vs. Democan, twice as many people are now identifying themselves as “conservative” vs. as “liberal”.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a bit of a difference between saying that there will be "death panels" and saying that there were people opposed to abolishing slavery, and that those people were dumb for doing so... in fact as I recall about half the country was against it. And I would say that that half of the country was simply wrong.

So in summation, stirring up fear with phrases like "death panels" is stupid and dumb.
Saying that people who opposed abolishing slavery were stupid, is ok.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[LandDolphin]

Yes,

And because of that lead Democrats were needed to pass the Act. Without their support, it could not have passed. And, the Democrats were split, so they needed the support of the republicans to pass the Act as well.

It was a joint effort by Democrats and Republicans.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[peragrin]

Oh I know if we kept up to clinton's plan, even with the 2001 recession caused by the collapse of the twin towers, we would be close to paying off the national debt by now.

but republicans love credit card debt

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Kyusaku Natsume]

You guys need proportional representation (sp?) for Congress; also you need more citizens and less "consummers". I used to look up to the USA, but these days America looks more and more like it is becoming a north Mexico. Sad.

Re:Her Constituent Status Is Only Part of It

[Hurricane78]

How this looked with my Greasemonkey script:

Childish approach? He’s just mimicking the $puppet1 Standard Operating Procedure. Yeah I can see how that’s childish.

I’m not sure if you’re trying to say that the $puppet2s are no less or more childish than the $puppet1s (if you are, I agree with you) but you do know that he’s a $puppet2 with, of course, a history of controversies, right?

You seem to be confused in thinking it’s “$puppet1 Standard Operating Procedure” when in reality it”s "Politician Standard Operating Procedure."

Instantly removes the distortion goggles. :)

Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Grayson is a joke. Ignore him and maybe he'll go away.

Re:Joke

[Cornelius the Great]

Grayson is a joke. Ignore him and maybe he'll go away.

I've tried to ignore him, yet it's difficult when you actually live in central FL and you hear about him in the news on a weekly basis. I'm not even a republican, yet I cringe every time I hear him being interviewed- he's got an enormous ego and an even bigger mouth. He's the most annoying kind of politician- one who believes he's a populist yet no one actually likes him. Out of all of the reasonable people that democrats had running in the 2008 election for my district, we somehow ended up with a guy who can't debate without personally insulting people, refers to those who disagree with the current healthcare legislation "murderers", called a woman a "whore" on national television, etc... there's nothing professional about him. No surprise that he's trying to get some blog critical of him shut down.

Alan Grayson like a liberal Jack Thompson, only he still has power. He's a disgrace to my district, and frankly, I'm embarrassed that my neighbors in central FL were either stupid or ill-informed enough to elect him.

Yes, I said MY district.

Come get me, Mr. Grayson.

Re:Joke

[interval1066]

Come get me, Mr. Grayson.

Really. With powerful nutbags like Grayson ready to ignore the 1st amendment and lock you up, who needs enemies?
As for the liberals ready to point out how this maniac is typical of the right side of the isle, lets not forget the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five/Keating Five, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Jefferson/William Jefferson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rostenkowski/Dan Rostenkowski, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich/Rod Blagojevich, need I go on about how equally smelly the democrats are? Both sides are losers in my opinion.

Re:Joke

[sgtrock]

I take it you missed the part where this Representative is a Democrat? lol

Re:Joke

[sgtrock]

Don't feel too bad. You've got Grayson? I'VE got Michelle Bachmann! How on earth that crazed mental defective got elected again by my neighbors just boggles my mind. Yay for gerrymandered districts! :(

Re:Joke

[Greg Hullender]

Everyone hates him because he's so popular. --Greg

Re:Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to trade R-WI Paul Ryan for D-FL Alan Grayson, we're more than happy to make that deal!

Re:Joke

[interval1066]

I take it you missed the part where this Representative is a Democrat?

No. I was responding to an earlier post about republicans, and adding this fool to the list of bad dems.

lol

Indeed.

Re:Joke

[fiannaFailMan]

no one actually likes him.

[Citation needed]

Re:Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

No, basically everything he's said is about right. You're just too fucking stupid to see it, evidenced by the fact that you're dumb enough to take a fox news story at face value. Here, let me spell it out for your dumb fucking ass: The 'My' part is only relevant because the site in question is operated by a PAC group which has to file papers with the FEC. On said papers the PAC *LIED* and claimed to be a constituent of Alan Grayson. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your gibbering nonsense, you stupid fucking redneck.

Re:Joke

[Cwix]

Im so sorry, I feel your pain Ive got Ben Nelson, who did quiet some damage to the healthcare bill. I do have to say that your Rep, is quiet a bit more insane then my Sen., mines just greedy.

Re:Joke

[BoberFett]

Howdy neighbor!

I didn't vote for her, I only moved here last February. I look forward to voting against her.

Let me be the first to toast the congressman...

[mmell]

with a tall glass of frosty piss!

Re:Let me be the first to toast the congressman...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've confused him with Barney Frank.

Isn't slander illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought slander was still illegal...

Then again, there is nothing more American than lying.

Re:Isn't slander illegal?

[TheDarAve]

That'd be true if it was slander. This is basically a political op-ed site, which is protected under the constitution. The slander against bloggers/websites has been tried before and found to be afforded the same protections as any print publication, which includes print publications by political opinion entities.

Re:Isn't slander illegal?

[oh_my_080980980]

Sorry, she's a PAC, not a blogger. She's fund raising by fraudulently claiming to by his constituent.

That's illegal.

But hey don't let the facts hit you in the ass.

Re:Isn't slander illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see anywhere in the body of the article that it says he's *her* congressman. Given that, I assume the title is from the viewer's point of view, as it would be in "mycorporation.com" or "myfreecreditreport.com"

Posting anonymous because I said this in another thread and I don't want the mods.

-C. Walrus

Re:Isn't slander illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The PAC consists of three members. She isn't in the district, but the other two are in the district meaning she is in the minority.

Re:Isn't slander illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow - you've been defending this guy pretty vigorously. You sure your name isn't Grayson?

Re:Isn't slander illegal?

[TheDarAve]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

"In the United States, a Political Action Committee, or PAC, is the name commonly given to a private group, regardless of size, organized to elect political candidates. Legally, what constitutes a "PAC" for purposes of regulation is a matter of state and federal law. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, an organization becomes a "political committee" by receiving contributions or making expenditures in excess of $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election."

This appears to be EXACLY what they're doing, but don't let the facts hit you in the ass. Sorry, no matter how you try to twist it, its still a political OP-ED site just like the other million of them out there trying to influence so many other votes one way or the other. This is just targetted at a specific congressman instead of a specific bill.

Re:Isn't slander illegal?

[chris mazuc]

Sorry, no matter how you try to twist it, its still a political OP-ED site

I think the line is when you start trying to raise money. From the PAC's site:

To be successful, we need your help. Please join our effort by making a contribution today! Through paid advertising and grassroots activities, we will hold Alan Grayson accountable for his votes and actions.

Since when does an "op-ed site" have paid advertising against a particular candidate? If all they were doing is pushing an opinion, by all means go right ahead. But if you want to accept donations "for the purpose of influencing a federal election" you need to play by the rules everyone else plays by.

Re:Isn't slander illegal?

[Arthur Grumbine]

I'll be damned if a Congressman who Godwinned the Health Care Bill debate has a lower UID than me!!

Re:Isn't slander illegal?

[TheDarAve]

You haven't paid attention to the small print in the bottom of most of the election ads have you? Guess what most of those ads are being funded by? Guess what they have now a days? WEBSITES! Every single one of them has a "Please donate to our cause!" button somewhere on them, or instructions on how to donate to them. I'd direct your attention to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

---->8----

Categorization of PACs

        * See also List of political action committees.

Federal law allows for two types of PACs, connected and non-connected.

- Connected PACs

Most of the 4,600 active, registered PACs are "Connected PACs", which are established by businesses, labor unions, trade groups and health organizations. These PACs receive and raise money from a "restricted class," generally consisting of managers and shareholders in the case of a corporation and members in the case of a union or other interest group. As of January 2009 there are 1,598 registered corporate PACs, 272 connected to labor unions and 995 connected to trade organizations. [1]

- Non-Connected PACs

Groups with an ideological mission, single-issue groups and members of Congress and other political leaders may form "non-connected PACs". These organizations may accept funds from any individual, business PAC or organization. As of January 2009 there are 1,594 non-connected PACs, the fastest-growing category.[2]

- Leadership PAC

A leadership PAC in U.S. politics is a political action committee that can be established by a member of Congress to support other candidates. Under FEC rules, Leadership PACs are non-connected PACs, meaning, they can accept donations from any individual, business or other PACs. While Leadership PAC funds cannot be spent to directly support their sponsor's own campaign (such as mail or ads), they may fund travel, office expenses, consultants, polling and other non-campaign expenses. They can also be used to make contributions to the campaigns of other candidates.[3][4][5]

---->8----

If you notice, as long as its not a Leadership PAC, and they aren't funding one of their own for election, what they're doing is NOT against FEC regulations.

Also: Thank you for raising your point in a way that doesn't make you seem like a jackass, like the previous replier did.

Re:Isn't slander illegal?

[chris mazuc]

You haven't paid attention to the small print in the bottom of most of the election ads have you?

I lived in Florida during the 2008 election. For your information, I have seen more of that small print than I ever cared to. Don't assume the person you are talking to is uninformed unless they have demonstrated their ignorance.

Guess what they have now a days? WEBSITES!

A PAC is not some informal group of politically minded people, it is a legal entity that accepts donations for political purposes, which may or may not have a website. The fact this was a website is only relevant insofar as the vehicle for the message, as well as for receiving donations. If they had printed flyers with the same content the PAC would still be in violation.

If you notice, as long as its not a Leadership PAC, and they aren't funding one of their own for election, what they're doing is NOT against FEC regulations.

If you are reading Wikipedia for your information on this matter you may be slightly over your head. The documentation from the FEC is fairly clear. When you register a PAC you have to declare some basic information, such as if you are only supporting or opposing a single candidate, multiple candidates, if they are affiliated with some other group, etc. When "Mycongressmanisnuts.com" registered as a PAC, they reported the purpose of the committee was to "supports/opposes more than one Federal candidate". Emphasis mine. Thus far the only action the committee has taken is to attack Grayson, which by itself is fine by me (the guy is an idiot). They should have checked the box marked "This committee supports/opposes only one candidate" as that is how they have operated.

Keep in mind we have these rules to help shut down dishonesty like the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth".

Also: Thank you for raising your point in a way that doesn't make you seem like a jackass, like the previous replier did.

There is enough idiocy out there already. (Just look at what we're discussing here)

Cliffs Notes

[nametaken]

So... two people acting like children, one takes it way too far?

Color me surprised. Not that it doesn't belong here, but this is less tech story and more a human story.

Re:Cliffs Notes

[smitty777]

Not that it doesn't belong here, but this is less tech story and more a human story.

I agree with you. But one interesting (somewhat) relevant aspect of this article is the fact that it was online. Does it make a difference that it was a blog? Would he have any different legal footing if she had said this on television or on the radio? The web version certainly does leave a quite tangible trace of the "crime". Finally, if anything becomes of this, will it set a precedent? These are certainly interesting topics to explore.

Re:Cliffs Notes

[chris mazuc]

Does it make a difference that it was a blog?

If that site was a just a blog I would have to agree that this is sheer lunacy, but when you are a registered PAC trying to raise money for the 2010 campaign the rules are a little different. This isn't a free speech issue, it is a political fundraising issue.

Re:Cliffs Notes

[snowgirl]

Not that it doesn't belong here, but this is less tech story and more a human story.

I agree with you. But one interesting (somewhat) relevant aspect of this article is the fact that it was online. Does it make a difference that it was a blog? Would he have any different legal footing if she had said this on television or on the radio? The web version certainly does leave a quite tangible trace of the "crime". Finally, if anything becomes of this, will it set a precedent? These are certainly interesting topics to explore.

Actually, the "crime" here is that she organized a PAC with legal status with the FEC in order to solicit funds to defeat Grayson in the next election. Only, PACs must endorse more than one candidate or be against more than one candidate.

The reason the word "my" comes into play here is that she is not one of his constituents although she is soliciting money and funds from people under the misrepresentation that she is.

This isn't about whether Grayson is trying to censor opposing viewpoints, this is about if she, or the PAC materially committed fraud.

When I saw that this article was on foxnews.com it immediately raised my skept-o-meter into thinking that there is more to this story than was presented. And of course it suits Fox New's agenda to skim over the part where she's collecting money in a potentially fraudulent manner.

Re:Cliffs Notes

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason the word "my" comes into play here is that she is not one of his constituents although she is soliciting money and funds from people under the misrepresentation that she is.

If that's the case then it would've been brought by the folks who made donations. This is a politician doing what he can to silence the opposition.

Re:Cliffs Notes

[TheDarAve]

"Only, PACs must endorse more than one candidate or be against more than one candidate."

They are endorsing anyone but Mr. Grayson.

"Unlike an SSF, a nonconnected committee may solicit contributions from anyone in the general public who may lawfully make a contribution in connection with a federal election." -www.fec.gov

So, as long as they don't coordinate with any candidate or union/organization, they're clear to do this.

For those just now following along and so someone doesn't come up with the "Hey! They're an SSF!" later, an SSF is a labor union or a PAC for a political candidate. These people do not fall into this category.

Re:Cliffs Notes

[RingDev]

So... two people acting like children, one takes it way too far?

Close, 1 person acting like a child, 1 PAC acting like a child.

The congress critter is a complete asshat. But the PAC is overstepping their legally sanctioned powers giving their taxation advantages.

I'm all for two idiots fighting it out on the internet, unless one (or both!) of them is subsidized by my tax dollars.

If the PAC stuck to marketing and fund raising based on the piss poor decisions, public statements, and asshattery that the Congressman is already known to have done, and not embellished and fabricated further to make their point, I would be all for their cause.

As is though, they should be stripped of the PAC and the Congressman's re-election campaign should go down in flames.

-Rick

Re:Cliffs Notes

[Anonymous Coward]

one interesting (somewhat) relevant aspect of this article is the fact that it was online. Does it make a difference that it was a blog? Would he have any different legal footing if she had said this on television or on the radio?

Nobody cares about what she said in a blog, or on television, or on the radio (or in a boat, or to a goat, or on a train, or in the rain. . . ). The law she broke is the one that bans filing false forms with the Federal Election Commission. Fox News is trying to make it sound like she's being persecuted for blogging. Your falling for that isn't making you look good here.

Oh, the irony

[mariox19]

According to the article, the blogger criticized the congressman for his "childish approach" towards governing.

Well, he sure showed her!

Re:Oh, the irony

[oh_my_080980980]

She's not a blogger but a former republican party official trying to raise funds to unseat Grayson.

Unfortunately, she is doing it in a fraudulent way which could be in violation of the law and land her in jail.

It's a pity when facts get in the way of a good story.

Re:Oh, the irony

[Chris Mattern]

She's not a blogger but a former republican party official trying to raise funds to unseat Grayson.

It strikes me that she's both. I mean, that certaily looks like a blog to me...

Re:Oh, the irony

[Sarten-X]

Bloggers and policitians are now mutually exclusive groups?

Is it stated anywhere on the blog that the author is impartial? By "could be", do you mean it is, or just might be in a more restrictive country?

It's a pity when relevance gets in the way of good facts.

Re:Oh, the irony

[Fallingcow]

My understanding of the situation (from the discussion of this same story on Fark a day or two ago) is that the main charge isn't even misrepresenting where she lives; it's telling the FEC that her PAC raises money for many candidates while actually only raising money for one, which lets her get around donation limits.

Re:Oh, the irony

[theascended]

The two (blogging and being a former R party official) are not mutually exclusive. Your assertion that she is being fraudulent is purely conjecture... just like Grayson's.

It's a pity when sanity gets in the way of a good political snipe.

Re:Oh, the irony

[Galestar]

She's not a blogger but a former republican party official trying to raise funds to unseat Grayson.

[Citation needed]

Re:Oh, the irony

[stoolpigeon]

What's funny about that from what I've read in the local papers is that it hasn't really been all that successful in raising money. I wonder if that would play into it.

Re:Oh, the irony

[furby076]

So if I start telling lies, that is intended to (and presumably does) affect you in a negative manner you should just shut up and take it? You shouldn't fight back? That is what the congressman is doing - fighting back with the law.

Some people may think it is childish, but in the world of politics, even the smallest phrases, statements, actions, etc can spell doom for a politician - because, we the people, are finicky and just flat out retarded when it comes to what matters and doesn't matter, what is real and what is fake, consequences, the bigger picture, and a whole slew of other things.

Re:Oh, the irony

[MozeeToby]

Well, in theory she's raising money against one candidate. That money could be going to any number of politicians who are opposed to that candidate's policies. I believe that the PAC laws are written in terms of how many candidates you support, rather than how many candidates you are against. It's possible that she may still have a problem if all the money raised went directly to a single opposing candidate; but that isn't necessarily the case.

Re:Oh, the irony

[JWW]

Yep. I think the action of trying to put someone in jail for 5 years for creating a blog criticizing you, will have great consequences for the congressman. Hopefully people will get fed up at our leaders recommending draconian punishment for the most trivial of things.

Before you comment about this from a political perspective, think about the kind of punishment proposed by the congressman within the context of a "three strikes" IP law that everyone seems to be clamoring for.

If super punitive punishments for things like this gain a foothold, look out, because they'll be coming into every aspect of your lives.

Re:Oh, the irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. I think the action of trying to put someone in jail for 5 years for creating a blog criticizing you, will have great consequences for the congressman. Hopefully people will get fed up at our leaders recommending draconian punishment for the most trivial of things.

Before you comment about this from a political perspective, think about the kind of punishment proposed by the congressman within the context of a "three strikes" IP law that everyone seems to be clamoring for.

If super punitive punishments for things like this gain a foothold, look out, because they'll be coming into every aspect of your lives.

Its certainly a policy that the Republican Party can stand behind. They spent 8 years advocating that. Now its time to own up and take their own medicine.

Re:Oh, the irony

[klaun]

According to the article, the blogger criticized the congressman for his "childish approach" towards governing.

Of course that's the rub. The article and the Slashdot summary misrepresent the complaint that is in the letter. It is actually about the Political Committee the woman organized to raise funds to support election campaigns. And while she is referred to here as a blogger, she was a former employee of the Republican National Committee. One of the things Congressman Grayson points out in his letter is that it seems a bit disingenuous of her to claim to just be a "private citizen" unconnected with any other political organization when she formerly worked for the RNC.

Further, the fraud he accuses her of is related to raising money for supporting a candidate in an election. Her claim to be his constituent is criminal, not because she is criticizing him, but because she is using it to raise money for an election campaign. At least that is what the congressman is asserting. Further, despite what the summary indicates, it is not his only or even his chief complaint. Rather the chief complaint is that she claims that her organization is a PAC (and raises money for multiple candidates in several campaigns) but in fact appears to only be concerned about one campaign. This would effect who could donate to her committee and how much. It is certainly not a trivial accusation, and there are really laws that govern how much money you can contribute to politicians and political committees.

Whether Congressman Grayson's accusations have merit or it is all a ruse to silence a vociferous critic, I can't say. But I'm very leery of anyone who starts down the path of criticizing someones actions by first misrepresenting what they were. (Why didn't the submitter include a link to the letter [primary source] as opposed to, or at least in addition to, a rather opinionated report on it?)

Re:Oh, the irony

[rickb928]

"This would effect who could donate to her committee and how much"

No, you should have used the word 'would'. I suspect if I send in a contribution for supporting the candidate who will oppose an idiot congressman from Arizona (my home state, and certainly no lack of idiot congressmen here), they will take my money and that is good enough to upset this moron's premise.

What they *actually* spend the money on will be irrelevant, so long as it's to further their campaigning goals. As if any prominent Democrat dares complain about misuse of PAC money. Their supporters offer plenty of examples to compare to this.

Re:Oh, the irony

[M. Baranczak]

My understanding of the situation is that right now, this story is only being carried by Fox News. If it's confirmed by a real news organization, then I'll definitely pay attention to it - until then, I'll proceed on the assumption that it's bullshit.

Streissand effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Streissand effect much?

Seriously, this isn't going to work, at worst they'll change the name of the blog, except this time tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people will know about it instead of the relatively few that probably knew about it before. Is it really worth it? Wow.

welcome to China^h^h^h^h^hUSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Where political speech can land you in jail.

I call bullshit

[guspasho]

The linked article is by Fox News, the media arm of the Republican party. That alone should make you question every word of the article.

Re:I call bullshit

[therealkevinkretz]

Why? Should anything the New York Times reports on a Republican also be assumed to be false? Don't be so intellectually lazy.

Re:I call bullshit

[maxume]

As opposed to material that should be read unquestioningly?

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The linked article is by Fox News, the media arm of the Republican party. That alone should make you question every word of the article.

I'm a republican, and although I enjoy watching Fox News... One should always take such television stations with a critical view.

At least they can't get as crazy as talk radio. Now that's a source that you need to be 100% skeptical of.

Re:I call bullshit

[maxume]

What about Glenn Beck? My cable system bills him as a talk radio host.

Once in a while I tune in and see how long it takes him to say something stupid or confused. I am never disappointed.

Re:I call bullshit

[Trepidity]

If you prefer, this and this predate the Fox story by several days.

Re:I call bullshit

[the_macman]

Yay. I'm with you on this one. At the moment Rep Alan Grayson is a champion of truth, justice, etc etc. All the qualities you'd actually LIKE to see in a congressional representative. So I was a bit surprised when I read the headline. Then I clicked the link and realized it went to foxnews.com. Fox News has been trying to paint Rep. Grayson as a nutjob for a LONG time. He gets in the way of their agenda.

First line FTFA

My, my, my. Florida Rep. Alan Grayson wants to see one of his critics go directly to jail -- all over her use of the word "my."

A bit sensionalist don't ya think. I bet halfway through the article it talks about how he wants to kill babies and eat their brains. Well I chuckled, closed the link, and moved on.

Nothing to see here folks.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears you have attempted to make a right-leaning post. Your internet credentials have been downgraded. Your access is now confined to sending email forwards to your relatives and coworkers that accuse government officials of being terrorists.

Have a nice day,
The Management

Re:I call bullshit

[schwit1]

Please enlighten us on what news source is not biased? Every professional news source is in the news management business as opposed to the news reporting business.

Re:I call bullshit

[berashith]

When are you liberals going to learn ... the republican party is the political wing of Fox News.

Re:I call bullshit

[fiannaFailMan]

Why? Should anything the New York Times reports on a Republican also be assumed to be false? Don't be so intellectually lazy.

New York Times != Democratic equivalent of Fox News.

MSNBC might be a bit closer, but then again I can't think of who their equivalent of Glenn Beck is.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... how about... yes (kidding, sorta): http://www.slate.com/id/2082741/

I never assume that any single source is telling all of the truth, all of the time. Beyond that, I also assume that even if the article is the truth, that it has bias.

Re:I call bullshit

[tchdab1]

>>When has Fox ever falsified anything?

Just reading the question that you posed makes my skin crawl.
From memory, Fox was recently outed for falsifying crowd scenes at teabagger rallies - they substituted crowd scenes from a previous large rally for one that was sparsely attended. I believe they did that twice, two different times in the space of a couple weeks.

Re:I call bullshit

[schon]

Why?

Because they admit they intentionally deceive their viewers, and they fund and promote anti-democrat political protests.

Should anything the New York Times reports on a Republican also be assumed to be false?

Only if you can show any evidence that they intentionally deceive their readers, and have funded anti-republican protests. I await your citations.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

MSNBC might be a bit closer, but then again I can't think of who their equivalent of Glenn Beck is.

that's easy: Olbermann.

Re:I call bullshit

[Lost Engineer]

Did you miss the part about the four page letter to the attorney general?

Re:I call bullshit

[dogmatixpsych]

Which news source would you prefer then? Just because you do not like Fox News does not mean that they do not report legitimate news. Sure, the article was a bit sensationalist but all news services are about sensationalism and all are biased. We just don't like when news services are biased differently than we are.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Please enlighten us on what news source is not biased? Every professional news source in the United States is in the news management business as opposed to the news reporting business.

FTFY. Please don't tar some excellent non-US news organisations with the same dirty US brush.

Re:I call bullshit

[furby076]

You got modded a troll, what a shame. Your statement is correct. Fox News is anything but fair and balanced...well unless you are a republican. If Fox news says anything nice about a liberal then it's probably that the liberal just resigned office - and even then...

BTW - for the 323,325 commenters - yes democrats have their own media sources - CNN. CNN went from the really good news start up, to a liberal news group, to the liberal insanity group (and I'm a democrat). It's gotten to the point that watching CNN makes me want to puke, though in all honesty watching Fox News makes me puke...

Re:I call bullshit

[SanityInAnarchy]

It looks somewhat legit, though that bias was a bit obvious -- the guy is a Democrat.

If he had been a Republican, would Fox have said anything?

Re:I call bullshit

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Yes, because Keith Olbermann has said the liberal equivalent of the WHACKED OUT CRAZY PARANOID SHIT that Beck regularly spews on the TV.

Try again with this, Fox News has no liberal counterpart. We try to find symmetry in all things, there is no symmetry here. MSNBC(former home of Michael Savage, Alan Keyes, Curtis Sliwa and Don Imus, and current home of former Republican House member Joe Scaroborough) wasn't founded with the same ideological basis that Fox was. There are a total of three shows that have an out right liberal bias. Olbermann, Schultz and Maddow. They still have Joe Scarborough, they still have a pretty lousy track record of bias in their news reporting.

Re:I call bullshit

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

No, but to suggest that a given reporting firm is in the tank for one political party or the other is to give News organizations too much credit for being proactive.

During the 2000 campaign, for instance, the Media reported much more favorably for George W. Bush than it did Al Gore. There's a lazy bias in the media. Quick and easy stories that can be out the door to keep up with the ever changing 24 hour news cycle.

Re:I call bullshit

[kevinNCSU]

What excellent non-US news organizations don't have to worry about people buying/reading their products or receiving funding and/or keeping their jobs under the current administration? I'm not trying to be snide, I'd actually be interested in knowing if such environments exist and how they are established and operate in order to avoid these problems.

Re:I call bullshit

[dkleinsc]

The AP and Reuters are pretty unbiased, mostly because they tend to omit anything that would involve opinion of any kind. They aren't the most in-depth or interesting reads, but if you're looking for just-the-facts reporting they are usually pretty good. Basically, the wire services will tell you what happened. Period. End of story. They won't tell you much if anything about why it happened, how it happened, who will benefit from it happening, who didn't want it to happen, and so on, but if all you want to know is what happened, they're a pretty good place to start.

The trouble is, if you're looking for all the stuff the wire reports leave out, the people who are most willing to talk to a reporter about that issue are those with an axe to grind about it. If they're academics, then their careers are staked on particular sets of theories, so any answer they give will ensure that the universe changes to conform to their theory. If they're a think tank or non-profit, they will attempt to match the views of their donors. If they're a politician or one of his aides, then they're going to be going with whatever will improve their chances of reelection. If they're a business, they'll go with whatever will make them the most cash. And so on.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... but nobody would have noticed, due to the metric shitload of coverage that every other news outlet would be giving the story.

Re:I call bullshit

[fiannaFailMan]

MSNBC might be a bit closer, but then again I can't think of who their equivalent of Glenn Beck is.

that's easy: Olbermann.

Show me the batshit insane crying clip and I'll believe you.

Re:I call bullshit

[j_rhoden]

Keith Olbermann...

I like him as a sports guy though.

Re:I call bullshit

[snowgirl]

Yay. I'm with you on this one. At the moment Rep Alan Grayson is a champion of truth, justice, etc etc. All the qualities you'd actually LIKE to see in a congressional representative. So I was a bit surprised when I read the headline. Then I clicked the link and realized it went to foxnews.com. Fox News has been trying to paint Rep. Grayson as a nutjob for a LONG time. He gets in the way of their agenda.

First line FTFA

My, my, my. Florida Rep. Alan Grayson wants to see one of his critics go directly to jail -- all over her use of the word "my."

A bit sensionalist don't ya think. I bet halfway through the article it talks about how he wants to kill babies and eat their brains. Well I chuckled, closed the link, and moved on.

Nothing to see here folks.

Yeah, well, then you read the four page document to Eric Holder, and you find out that she actually organized a PAC with the FEC and is soliciting money to use against him and only him, in violation of the terms under which her PAC was established... so... yeah, not like Fox News would totally gloss over the huge pointy teeth on the rabbit, but rather just point and laugh at Tim saying, "you're crazy!!!"

Re:I call bullshit

[Sir_Lewk]

CNN went from the really good news start up, to a liberal news group, to the liberal insanity group (and I'm a democrat).

Really? I generally consider myself a pretty rightwing libertarian, but CNN is the only news network I can stomach watching. Fox News is a undeniably republican cesspool and MSNBC generally seem to be democrat shills.

I won't deny CNN is crap, but generally they seem too busy jizzing themselves over all of their fancy multi-touch screens, worthless charts, and random morons' 'tweets' to actually display a bias.

Seriously though, what is up with that twitter shit on network news, it's almost like they are actively trying to drive me away from the TV and just use the internet (which is what I generally do anyways).

Re:I call bullshit

[yurtinus]

Maybe we can take this a step further and say "24 hour news makes me want to puke." Really, my life is not *that* boring that I need to know every detail about somebody who did that one thing that was kind of interesting that one time....

Re:I call bullshit

[Archangel Michael]

If it had been a (R) every news organization would have already covered it ... in spades ... on the Front Page or lead in on the nightly news.

Can you imagine what would happen to a (R) if they called someone a WHORE on TV?

Yeah, they would have been driven from office in no short order. So, yeah, if you want to talk about bias, it isn't just what you report, but how, and to what end.

When 15 people show up for "Liberal" protest, the news reports "Dozens", when 5000 conservatives do the same thing, "some" showed up.

And don't get me started on the whole White Racist Gun Toting Teabaggin protester, who turned out to be a black guy. Oh, there is no bias in the nightly news.

FOX NEWS is balance, when you have a "tingly feeling running down your leg" as fare on the other channels.

Re:I call bullshit

[Myopic]

Hah! Yeah right, dude.

The only "intellectual laziness" that I see is you trying to proffer the false equivalence of Fox News and NYT. The underpinnings of such an equivalence can not be supported, so to promulgate it is untenable.

If you were less intellectually lazy, you would realize that.

Re:I call bullshit

[KiltedKnight]

Falsifying crowds? You really should be careful when you speak about that because both branches of the ruling party do it... and it became rather prevalent this past summer when the SEIU was bussed in to the town hall meetings. Instead of being true town hall meetings, restricted to those who live in that district (or state, in the case of a Senator), we find all kinds of people coming in from all over the place taking up the seats that SHOULD have been occupied by the constituents.

Re:I call bullshit

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Which news source would you prefer then? Just because you do not like Fox News does not mean that they do not report legitimate news. Sure, the article was a bit sensationalist but all news services are about sensationalism and all are biased. We just don't like when news services are biased differently than we are.

What news do they actually report?

It looks to me like they stage rallies rather than just report on them, and then embellish them with footage taken from previous rallies.

They have people like Glenn Beck report that the economy is in the toilet and that we should buy gold. This while taking money from the gold brokers.

This kind of behavior doesn't sound like journalism to me.

As for me I'm going to stick with my own highly biased liberal rag, The Economist.

Re:I call bullshit

[BobMcD]

The linked article is by Fox News, the media arm of the Republican party. That alone should make you question every word of the article.

If you don't question every word of every article, why bother to read them at all? Just because Fox News is decidedly Neo-Con, doesn't mean that every other news outlet is automatically trustworthy. Everyone who's ever used print to communicate has 'intentionally deceived their readers' by some definition or another. Your brain is supposed to be in the 'on' position when you deal with important topics. Personally I have found that most people are smarter than you seem to be giving them credit for...

...unless you're using this sense of outrage against their accuracy to silence them for political reasons. If that's the case, carry on. You're entitled to your political opinion.

Re:I call bullshit

[BobMcD]

Assume one exists. Are the people working to provide also immune to peer pressure, pride, greed, etc?

Its better to assume everything you read is wrong, until you are convinced otherwise. Scrutiny, folks. Its the only way.

Re:I call bullshit

[Cwix]

Dont forget the poll that added up to 120% http://www.mediaite.com/tv/when-120-makes-sense-fox-friends-defends-poll-display/

Re:I call bullshit

[schon]

Just because Fox News is decidedly Neo-Con, doesn't mean that every other news outlet is automatically trustworthy.

Ahh.. the wonderful Republican tactic of changing the topic... "OK, *my* source isn't trustworthy - but that doesn't mean that yours is!"

Here's the thing: it doesn't mean they aren't.

Hows about instead of saying "oh, yours is *probably* untrustworthy too!", you actually show me how they are funding and promoting political protests?

Oh, that's right - you can't. If you can't show *evidence*, then don't make the claim.

Re:I call bullshit

[winwar]

"The AP and Reuters are pretty unbiased, mostly because they tend to omit anything that would involve opinion of any kind."

Yet another person that doesn't understand the concept of bias. Lack of opinion does not mean lack of bias. Facts themselves are biased. What is reported, how it is reported and what is not reported will result in bias.

In simple terms, ALL REPORTING IS BIASED. The best you can hope for is accuracy in what they report and to be able to determine any systemic bias.

Re:I call bullshit

[slimjim8094]

I hope you're not joking, because it's called the BBC. In fact, your (rhetorical?) question just about defines why they're so good; that is, they don't need to worry about a market or getting their budget, and they're disconnected from the government.

I'm from the US, but even I know how ridiculously awesome the Beeb is. Fun fact - each party says the BBC is biased towards the other party. That's as close to non-biased as it comes.

Re:I call bullshit

[SanityInAnarchy]

*sigh* I didn't really want to get into this...

If it had been a (R) every news organization would have already covered it ... in spades ...

Looks like coverage to me.

But let's see, what else was covered today? Top stories -- health reform (impacts millions of lives), crash at Jamaica airport, H1N1 supply information, a captive soldier... y'know, important stuff?

Even if you're focusing on internal congressional politics, this is probably a more interesting story.

And hey, big surprise, this story isn't on the front page of foxnews.com now, and isn't "above the fold" (even on this 1200 vertical pixel screen) in their "politics" section. So while I'm sure they love taking shots at Democrats (hey, find me a Fox article critical of Republicans -- it's not hard to find a "liberal media" article, even on MSNBC, that's critical of Democrats) -- even Fox doesn't see it as that important, compared to all the other stuff going on. Maybe it'll actually matter if he succeeds...

Can you imagine what would happen to a (R) if they called someone a WHORE on TV?

Probably the same thing that happened to John McCain when he called this a "Christian nation", which is both offensive and demonstrably wrong. Or the same thing that happened to Ted "series of tubes" Stevens when he showed gross incompetence at grasping the most basic concepts of the Internet, such as e-mail.

Yes, I realize Ted Stevens was eventually prosecuted -- for actual corruption.

When 15 people show up for "Liberal" protest, the news reports "Dozens", when 5000 conservatives do the same thing, "some" showed up.

Yes, in a country of three hundred million, five thousand is "some". Would "dozens" have made you happier?

And if you're referring to the "TEA Parties" which "weren't covered" by the "mainstream media", let's keep a few facts in mind:

1. Fox News is "mainstream", as distasteful as that is.
2. Fox aggressively promoted these events. "Fair and balanced" my ass.
3. Fox took out a full-page ad, then repeated the same lie over and over, that various other news agencies had "missed" that story. I know you'll consider the source, but try to actually look at the facts in this article -- other agencies indeed covered them, they just didn't promote them, as Fox so blatantly (and tearfully -- thanks, Beck) did.

I'd dismantle the rest of your argument, but...

FOX NEWS is balance, when you have a "tingly feeling running down your leg" as fare on the other channels.

...it pretty much devolved into name-calling.

Tell me again how "balanced" Beck is when he blames a gang beating on the rise of atheism -- or when he wants California out of the union. I mean, Bill O'Reilly is a real gem, too, running a segment about how reporters should stop harassing people, leave celebrities alone, etc, right before he goes into a segment of footage of his reporters doing the exact same thing, with no segue... but hey, Beck makes O'Reilly look like a genius saint by comparison.

Whatever bias the "liberal media" might have -- and it doesn't, it just actually is fair and balanced, so liberals think it's too conservative, and conservatives think it's too liberal, but let's pretend it has a liberal bias and I just can't see it -- that hypothetical bias is entirely dwarfed by the kind of unfiltered bullshit, bigotry, and ignorance that so frequently comes

Re:I call bullshit

[Archangel Michael]

"Fox aggressively promoted [indybay.org] these events. "Fair and balanced" my ass."

Sure. And the other media never covered every single Cindy Shehan event.

Look, I'm not saying Fox is "fair" or even "balanced", but neither are the other people. The problem is, that the other news organizations continue to shrivel and dry up because people do get sick of it.

And then we "slashdotters" get upset when more people watch "Dancing with the Stars" than know who Obama's VP is. Not that I blame them, but come on, Joe Biden? He makes Sarah Palin look like a freakin genius.

"Think about it. "War on Christmas"? Atheists should "just shut up", and you're "tired of hearing it"? Are these really people you want to be associated with?"

Athiests should shut up about religion. They are "ANTI" religion, and thus should stay away from it. Or at least protest in front of a mosque, or two. In fact, I dare them to make fun of Mohammad or Allah in the same way.

If your war is against religion, why not pick on the one religion whose adherents are causing many (most?) of the problems today?

Is it because they aren't really scared of Christians? I'm sure that you'll say something like but most "americans" or whatever are "Christians" or whatever, but that is just bullshit excuse for picking on one, rather than all.

And I'm not a Christian, and even I can see the atheists have hatred for them that rises above their "no god" stance.

Re:I call bullshit

[SanityInAnarchy]

Look, I'm not saying Fox is "fair" or even "balanced", but neither are the other people.

No one is perfectly fair. The point is that Fox is actually biased to the point of lunacy.

come on, Joe Biden? He makes Sarah Palin look like a freakin genius.

I'm curious for some details about this, because some of the things Palin has said makes me question whether anyone can make her look like a genius.

Athiests should shut up about religion.

Why?

They are "ANTI" religion,

No, they aren't.

Atheism is defined as simply the lack of a religion. There is a word for anti religion -- antitheism.

While we're at it, it also doesn't mean the positive affirmation that there is no god -- only the lack of belief in a god. Many people you'd probably consider to be "agnostic" would identify themselves as atheist.

and thus should stay away from it.

Well, since everyone likes to scream "think of the children"...

Suppose I was anti-child-abuse. Should I stay away from children, or child abusers? Or should I speak up and get something done about it?

Oh wait, that's not entirely a metaphor. The Catholic Church really did molest children.

Or at least protest in front of a mosque, or two. In fact, I dare them to make fun of Mohammad or Allah in the same way.

Dude, it's been done.

If your war is against religion, why not pick on the one religion whose adherents are causing many (most?) of the problems today?

Mostly because the countries in which atheists are actually allowed to speak out are also mostly populated by Christians. In other words, just ask the Atheist Experience -- most of their callers are Christians. In the US in particular, there's a disturbingly high percentage of the population which believes in creationism, and another disturbingly high percentage who believe in the Rapture.

But you're again mistakenly assuming something's been "picked". If you actually bother to look, you'll find Muslim apostates who speak out against Islam, but there's a more fundamental problem with your argument: Atheism is not a movement, it is the simple lack of belief. That's a bit like suggesting that all people who don't collect stamps should pick a particular stamp to use...

Is it because they aren't really scared of Christians?

I, personally, am terrified of Christians, when I think about it, because they have the nuke codes, and because they follow a bronze-age doomsday cult. For many people in this country, including too many in government, a nuclear apocalypse would be a good thing -- it would be the Rapture.

That's a worst-case scenario. In the mean time, they are steadily trying to erode the rights of non-Christians, and atheists in particular. Every attempt to push back is met by the Christian majority suddenly pretending to be victimized, as Fox does with the "war on Christmas" -- take "under God" in the pledge. Can you imagine what that's like for an atheist kid? If not, just imagine it said "under Allah" instead. Are you still ok with it? Keep in mind, it's not even traditional -- it was added less than a century ago.

I'm sure that you'll say something like but most "americans" or whatever are "Christians" or whatever, but that is just bullshit excuse for picking on one, rather than all.

Ok, piece by piece...

It's bullshit to pick on one, rather than all? Weren't you just encouraging picking on Islam, rather than Christianity? Wasn't that kind of suggesting "picking on one"?

Next, you repeat your assumption that there's some collecti

Re:I call bullshit

[dkleinsc]

Facts themselves are biased.

Is this Stephen Colbert's "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" territory? Or are we instead talking about some important area of the news that isn't being covered by anybody? Or is it that you (or people you agree with) have dug up dirt on somebody important and the biased reporting world won't cover the story? I'm very confused at this point as to exactly what behavior you're referring to.

The kind of coverage I'm talking about is seen in local newspapers every day. It reads something like this:
"John Smith was convicted of first degree burglary in Podunk Superior Court, and sentenced to 12 months in prison. Merchandise from the home of Mr and Mrs Jones which had been recovered from Smith's apartment were returned to them, including a prized 1956 recording of Charlie Parker."
The story in question was probably submitted by the courtroom reporter who has nothing more interesting to cover that day, and has the choice between reporting on John Smith's burglary case or reporting on nothing at all.

Re:I call bullshit

[therealkevinkretz]

I'm not intellectually lazy. "Lazy" is to attack the messenger rather than the message. I personally have as many problems with the Times as I do with Fox. They're both biased - intentionally or not - and it's the responsibility of the reader to judge the source and its references.

Re:I call bullshit

[therealkevinkretz]

Jesus. *None* are perfect, *none* are 100% unbiased. I'm no Republican.

Re:I call bullshit

[therealkevinkretz]

Obviously you believe more in the integrity of the media source you agree with, as do the equally head-in-the-sand on the other side of the spectrum. Shooting the messenger - dismissing a story without even considering the information it contains, because you often disagree with the source or even the source's motives - is very intellectually lazy.

Re:I call bullshit

[diamondmagic]

Since when was crying off limits? Lemme guess, Hillary cried as a publicity stunt too? Gimme a break, let's argue the issues at hand and not decoy with this stupid stuff.

Aren't all voters constituents in a sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always been bothered by the idea that voters who elect representative officials are limited to talking to just those officials on matters that have national scale and scope... in other words, just about everything the federal government does.

I mean, why shouldn't I as a citizen of the state of Abstraction be able to ask the Senator from the state of Facts to vote for a proposal that is in the best interests of the American people?
g=

Re:Aren't all voters constituents in a sense?

[oh_my_080980980]

You can but they tend not to read you letters or return your calls since they are only beholding to the people who actually elect them.

Hence the term, Representative.

Re:Aren't all voters constituents in a sense?

[mcgrew]

I mean, why shouldn't I as a citizen of the state of Abstraction be able to ask the Senator from the state of Facts to vote for a proposal that is in the best interests of the American people?

In my opinion you should have the right to write him a letter or email, but not contribute to his election campaign. In fact Bill Gates, a resident of Washington State, has far more pull with Illinois politicians than I as a registered voter in Illinois do. If I had my way, you wouldn't be allowed to contribute to any candidate you're not eligible to vote for, and you wouldn't be allowed to "contribute" to more than one candidate in any race.

But just send him your views? Of course you should be able to. He shouldn't be forced to read them, but nobody should be able to stop you from sending them.

Re:Aren't all voters constituents in a sense?

[Mongoose Disciple]

I mean, why shouldn't I as a citizen of the state of Abstraction be able to ask the Senator from the state of Facts to vote for a proposal that is in the best interests of the American people?

Sure; but if you talk about "your congressman" (singular) that clearly refers to the one congressman you get to vote for, and not one of the other 500some.

The question, really, is this:

[wiredog]

Is lying, in a political context, a crime? If the Vice President lies about wmd in Iraq, is that a crime? If Monsanto lies about their political contributions, is that a crime? If a blogger lies about her relationship with a Congressman, is that crime?

Re:The question, really, is this:

[Trepidity]

Lying in a political context is hard to prosecute, unless it rises to the level of libel, which has a pretty high bar for public officials, and an even higher bar for political speech about public officials.

Lying on forms filed with the government is illegal, though, under a blanket "don't lie to the government" law. The jail part of the complaint seems to be for allegedly misrepresenting the PAC on the filing documents with the FEC: the filed documents claim the PAC isn't aimed at any particular opponent, but the website clearly is aimed at one opponent.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[CrazedWalrus]

Besides, the domain name makes sense from a different context: the viewer's. When a viewer in his district goes there, it would be ostensibly be *their* congressman. It's like "MyFreeCreditReport.com" or "MyCorporation.com" or whatever. They're not claiming ownership -- they're offering service for the viewer, with a name relative to the viewer.

Should we sue Intuit because they're claiming ownership of corporations created at mycorporation.com?

Re:The question, really, is this:

[Anonymous Coward]

What she's doing wrong is claiming to be an issue group when she's actually attacking a specific congressman. The whole "My" thing is a smokescreen that Faux News is focusing on so people don't see that the real problem here is that the Repugnicans are funding these little astroturf groups to go after each Democrat, and so help their Repugnican opponents in 2010 - funneling money into these groups and pretending that they are *not* funneling soft money into campaigns.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a crime is putting this in the company of lies over political contributions by a major corporation or lies from the VP about wmd in Iraq.

This is not the same. This is a blogger who frames their speech in the context of being a constituent of someone who represents the district nearby.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[Tangential]

If we are going to treat lying as a crime (and IMHO breaking campaign promises is clearly lying) then there are going to be a whole lot of people going to jail. I foresee lots of openings in Washington. I won't name any names, but there would be 435 vacancies in the House of Representatives, 100 in the Senate and 2 in the Executive Branch.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[Tablizer]

Lying in a political context is hard to prosecute

Otherwise, the entire legislative and executive branches would be in jail ;-)
     

Re:The question, really, is this:

[Lost Engineer]

1 website does not constitute the entire committee. Even if this is the only thing this PAC has done so far, it's not a lie unless you can somehow prove that opposing this guy is the only thing the PAC was formed to do.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[tibman]

That depends on what your definition of "is" is

Re:The question, really, is this:

[furby076]

Is lying, in a political context, a crime? If the Vice President lies about wmd in Iraq, is that a crime? If Monsanto lies about their political contributions, is that a crime? If a blogger lies about her relationship with a Congressman, is that crime?

Lying, is not a crime. Lying, with the intent to hurt someone is slander and that is a crime. You then have to prove that 1) the person lied, and 2) the person lied with the intent to hurt.

With respect to WMD and Iraq - it wasn't considered a lie, it was considered of being mistaken - and there is a world of difference.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[furby076]

If we are going to treat lying as a crime (and IMHO breaking campaign promises is clearly lying) then there are going to be a whole lot of people going to jail. I foresee lots of openings in Washington. I won't name any names, but there would be 435 vacancies in the House of Representatives, 100 in the Senate and 2 in the Executive Branch.

Again - lying is not a crime. Lying with the intent to cause harm is a crime. Breaking campaign promises is not a crime. There is not law that says "break your promise and go to jail". Now you can create a contract, but that is civil, and the contract HAS to state the penalty for breaking your promise (there also has to be consideration). For the contract check out (google) the three requirements of a contract. Campaign promises are promises, and even if willfull breaking of a promise is a crime, I doubt it would go so far as to someone who tries to fulfill the promise but can't because there is something preventing them. "Yes I promised to do X....but john doe is preventing me from doing X...Sorry". Nobody is going to jail for that.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[paulsnx2]

I am no lawyer, so I am interested in what anyone that has insight into these particular laws might have to say.

Question: Just because this PAC has chosen this particular congressman to attack, can we infer that the PAC is going to stop with him? Can't they argue that this congressman inspired the concept? That they will move on to other congressmen (men as in mankind, i.e. male or female) later as they too demonstrate they too are "nuts"?

Can't the 'my' then in the domain name refer to all of us that read this site, and contribute to this site over time?

In which case it seems to me that our dear congressmen is attempting to be overly literal and overly strict temporally to claim that the maximum punishment allowed by law should be applied.

Oh, and he is being stupid.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[snowgirl]

I am no lawyer, so I am interested in what anyone that has insight into these particular laws might have to say.

Question: Just because this PAC has chosen this particular congressman to attack, can we infer that the PAC is going to stop with him? Can't they argue that this congressman inspired the concept? That they will move on to other congressmen (men as in mankind, i.e. male or female) later as they too demonstrate they too are "nuts"?

Can't the 'my' then in the domain name refer to all of us that read this site, and contribute to this site over time?

In which case it seems to me that our dear congressmen is attempting to be overly literal and overly strict temporally to claim that the maximum punishment allowed by law should be applied.

Oh, and he is being stupid.

The particular individual has repeatedly said openly on various news programs that she formed the group explicitly to get him defeated, and that is their entire purpose.

She has been and is currently soliciting funds from people under the claim that she is a constituent of Congressman Grayson, which she clearly is not, and as a former Republican part organizer should be well aware that he is not her elected representative.

Also, the FEC has already been informed about her actions, and they have reprimanded her already. As well, it's only natural for any victim to call for the maximum punishment allowable, which is why judges perform the actual sentencing.

However, Grayson is taking one more measured step in the correct process for dealing with illegal campaigning... this is not necessarily an overreaction, and it's not necessarily unwarranted.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[Anonymous Coward]

Politics in the first world are based at more or less extent in lying, exaggerating trivial issues, drawing questionable analogies and mouthing "fuddle duddle" to your opponents, then going to cry in a corner. It's not a crime, it's the poetry of the trade!

Re:The question, really, is this:

[amohat]

Why, are you named My Corporation?

I see your point but your analogy is bunk. Nobody is claiming ownership, and Grayson isn't going after the domain. He is accusing her of misrepresenting her Political Action Committee as some sort of grassroots organization when it's just a front for Grayson's opponent.

It seems inappropriate for Grayson to make a fuss like this...until you look into the shysty-ass crap the other side is pulling. Transparency is good and should be not only encouraged in politics but rigidly enforced.

I do not think Grayson is afraid of being exposed, that dude has Colbert-sized balls. Anyone who dares speak truth to power has my support, even if it's a wacko like Ron Paul.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[Mongoose Disciple]

Otherwise, the entire legislative and executive branches would be in jail ;-)

You say that like it's a bad thing. :)

(In seriousness I don't think all of both branches would be in jail, but an awful lot sure would.)

Re:The question, really, is this:

[Anonymous Coward]

Politics is all about "shysty-ass crap" -- you don't try to get your opponent thrown in jail over a debatable word choice. That's just fascist.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[geekoid]

"(and IMHO breaking campaign promises is clearly lying) "

That is a common myopic view that hurts politics.

You can have a campaign promise, do everything you can to make it happen and still be thwarted by other politicians, and ultimately, the people.

Pay attention to the process when determining if a campaign promise was a lie, or was simply thwarted.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[paulsnx2]

I was simply pondering what sort of representation Angie Langley could make of exactly the actions of hers that you describe, and still be consistent with her PAC filings. I am only saying that just because she "formed the group explicitly to get [Grayson] defeated" does not necessarily restrict the group to this as the "entire purpose" of the PAC. They may very well use the same website and same PAC to attack other democratic congressmen in the future.

As for Grayson's calls for the maximum punishment allowable being "natural", and his letter being the "correct process for deailing with illegal campaigning," it does not necessarily follow that his actions are not stupid.

Just by this fax being Slashdotted, the whole effort to counter Grayson is going to get a shot in the arm. All of the various statements Grayson has made that (right or wrong) make him look nutty will be refreshed in the mind of the public, and his behavior debated. Ms. Langley's purpose is far better served by Grayson taking this bait regardless of any liability Ms. Langley might incur as a result.

I will be interested in how this plays out, but it seems pretty certain Ms. Langley will not spend any time in prison; I'd highly doubt any prosecution occurs at all. She might get her hand slapped, but Grayson's going to take a black eye. Seriously, I have been applauding Grayson for the most part, but take a dim view of people grasping at technicalities to silence opposition and debate.

Anything you do (regardless of how well "within your rights" it might be) is stupid when it does you more damage than your opposition.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, do you really think the guy is trying to throw her in jail? Sounds like he's trying to force her to come clean and document her funding as per the law.

Can't his opponents find someone who actually lives in his district? Yes, but they are lazily flouting ethics...and perhaps the law.

How about they attack him straight up, on the issues? Politics does not have to be full of shysters...people like you give them a pass when you should be upset.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[BobMcD]

Lying with the intent to cause harm is a crime. Breaking campaign promises is not a crime.

What about lying to gain money that would not otherwise have been available?

Because that's what broken campaign promises really are. They elicit support that they have no intention of fulfilling.

Sounds like fraud to me. Good old fashioned snake oil.

Now if you never accepted a donation from a party whose interests you lied about supporting, you'd be in the clear.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[scot4875]

Seriously, I have been applauding Grayson for the most part, but take a dim view of people grasping at technicalities to silence opposition and debate.

I'm in 100% agreement about the importance of political debate. I don't have much sympathy for Langley's site though, because there's none to be found. The entirety of the site seems to be a list of links to news stores from other websites, and a front page with an appeal to free speech and an "Obama & Grayson national debt" (somehow that debt, the vast majority of which was run up during the Reagan and Bush presidencies, must be somehow attributable to Obama and Grayson) ticker.

That's not debate. That's not even an attempt at a debate. I don't know what her position is. I don't know why she's against Greyson. I don't know what ideas she has that she would rather see put in action. All I know is that she thinks Greyson is childish and leftist. It's sad that this is what political 'discussion' has come to in this country. It's even worse that, for some reason, she actually got TV coverage for this site that is completely void of any useful political discourse.

--Jeremy

Re:The question, really, is this:

[Anonymous Coward]

you cant speak about current ones, because they STILL have time to fulfill their promises(if the GOP would LET them do it, that is. but they're to busy denying change so they can run a smear campaign in 3 years "look obama brought NO change"

thanks shitty politicians

Re:The question, really, is this:

[snowgirl]

Yeah, I don't want to sit here and defend him very far... he's made some comments that have made some people take an aback and pissed off more than a few people... I think it's best to let people form their own opinions about him.

That said, I don't agree with FoxNews portraying this as "omg! he says that she says he's her congressman, but she's NOT, and he wants her to go to jail for it!"

That's just simplifying the news down too far...

Re:The question, really, is this:

[Anonymous Coward]

The particular individual has repeatedly said openly on various news programs that she formed the group explicitly to get him defeated, and that is their entire purpose.

So they oppose one candidate. Which is fine, as long as the group doesn't also support only one candidate... so all they have to do is support anyone who opposes Grayson.

She has been and is currently soliciting funds from people under the claim that she is a constituent of Congressman Grayson, which she clearly is not, and as a former Republican part organizer should be well aware that he is not her elected representative.

The only time she claims to be a constituent of Congressman Grayson is in the URL of the website... and that doesn't refer to her any more than any other website with the word "my" in its URL refers to the webmaster of that website, or the word "my" in the title of ANYTHING refers to the person producing or distributing it.

Just because it's called MyLittlePony doesn't mean Hasbro owns your kid's toy. Just because Bill Gates put an icon on your desktop called My Computer doesn't mean he's making a claim to it. It's referring to the target audience, and so is this website.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[snowgirl]

For instance, on Oct 30, 2009, Ms. Langley appeared on a local TV station, Fox 35 (Ex. A-3). Langley was introduced as being one of "some of his people [Grayson] represents [who are getting really upset." Langley pretended to be a person whom I represent. During the interview, the interviewer said that Langley "lives in Lake County, one of the districts that Congressman Grayson represents." Langley continued the charade that she lives in my district. She even claimed that "I have many friends who voted for him." to try to cement the misperception that she lives in FL-8.

Similarly, in an Oct. 31, 2009, interview in the Washington Times (Ex. 4), Ms. Langley falsely claimed that she lives "in the Lake County portion of Mr. Grayson's distrct" (Ex. A-4).

You can make any number of arguments that you want, but when the facts are documented, it gets kind of hard to back out of a lie.

Re:The question, really, is this:

[sabt-pestnu]

and 2 in the Executive Branch.

Only counting elected positions, are you? As I recall, there are plenty of other executive branch positions, and white house aid positions (which are probably not technically executive branch) that we hear from on a regular basis. Secretary of XXX, for instance, or Justice YYY.

This guy is an idiot and an embarassment

[Anonymous Coward]

Just Google him and look at his moronic attention-seeking antics. He's a wannabe Trafficant, and there is no story here.

While Grayson can be entertaining

[NaCh0]

He can also be a jackass. Jail for a website?

If only congress had people like him who were standing up on the right side of the issues. This and other comments (health care == Holocaust??) show he's a nut.

*sarcasm* Thanks Florida.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[fiannaFailMan]

health care == Holocaust??

No, but denying health care to people resulting in the deaths of thousands sounds pretty close to me.

You know what's gonna happen? This profit-over-human-life doctrine is eventually going to be abolished, and it will be remembered in the future the way slavery is remembered now. A small number of special interests and their hillbilly followers thought it was a great idea at the time, but eventually peoples' values changed and the full extent of the suffering and loss of life became clear.

BTW, his use of the word 'holocaust' was entirely appropriate. 'Holocaust' is not a word that has been reserved exclusively for the Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis. If people are dying in their hundreds every day at the hands of profit making health insurance extortionists, then to call it a holocaust is putting it fucking mildly.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[NaCh0]

BTW, his use of the word 'holocaust' was entirely appropriate. 'Holocaust' is not a word that has been reserved exclusively for the Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis. If people are dying in their hundreds every day at the hands of profit making health insurance extortionists, then to call it a holocaust is putting it fucking mildly.

Yeah...paying for services and free emergency room service for everyone who can't is a true holocaust. Way to put it "fucking mildly."

Getting sick and dying is natural.

Gassing 6 million scapegoats is not.

Get some perspective.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Chibi Merrow]

This profit-over-human-life doctrine is eventually going to be abolished, and it will be remembered in the future the way slavery is remembered now.

One day I hope the new government enforced slavery being rammed down our throats is remembered the same way the Jim Crow laws and Prohibition are remembered, as flagrant violations of our rights by idiots who think they know better than anyone else.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Anonymous Coward]

This profit-over-human-life doctrine is eventually going to be abolished, and it will be remembered in the future the way slavery is remembered now.

One day I hope the new government enforced slavery being rammed down our throats is remembered the same way the Jim Crow laws and Prohibition are remembered, as flagrant violations of our rights by idiots who think they know better than anyone else.

Oh for fuck's sake! What the fuck is that? Go and read a dictionary and find out what slavery is, you half-educated Palin-loving Fox 'News' watching half-educated moron! Hint: slavery is not a raft of measures to prevent health insurance companies placing profit before peoples' lives.

You, sir, are stupid! You are stupid stupid stupid! You're so stupid you don't know how stupid you are!

Jesus H Christ I do despair for the human race if people like you actually exist!

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that someone was prevented from getting chemotherapy because they had cancer? That makes no sense, given that chemotherapy is worse than useless to people that don't have cancer.

Oh. Wait. You are upset that someone else won't pay for it. Not the same thing at all.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[linzeal]

There are people getting purposefully put in jail to pay for treatment and you call that living in a free country? Why should the poor's only option be emergency rooms or jail/prison for free healthcare?

I think you have a pretty warped view of what it means to be an American.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[fiannaFailMan]

Are you saying that someone was prevented from getting chemotherapy because they had cancer? That makes no sense, given that chemotherapy is worse than useless to people that don't have cancer.

Oh. Wait. You are upset that someone else won't pay for it. Not the same thing at all.

No, if you could read you would see that I was saying that someone was denied chemo because it was a pre-existing condition.

I think you need to get your eyes tested. For your sake I hope it's not a pre-existing condition.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[ChrisMaple]

This profit-over-human-life doctrine is eventually going to be abolished, and it will be remembered in the future the way slavery is remembered now.

That's so twisted.

Slavery is coercion, freedom is the lack of coercion. The current "health" bill is all coercion, the free market in health care is lack of coercion.

You think "profit over human life" is a bad thing? Wait until the "health" bill is passed, and there is no longer a profit motive involved in saving someone's life.

One of the major lessons of history is that freedom with its necessary partner small government promote widespread wealth; big government with its necessary partner totalitarianism cause widespread poverty. Another is that widespread wealth allows health and happiness; widespread poverty causes "suffering and loss of life."

If people are dying in their hundreds every day at the hands of profit making health insurance extortionists...

The present "health" bill forces people into the hands of insurance companies (and maybe the government). The way to escape this fate is to make insurance NOT mandatory, and not to buy insurance. Most people can save far more money as a reserve against poor health than they will ever use. If that weren't so, insurance companies would go broke. It also means that for most people, buying insurance is both foolish and cowardly.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

"Jail for a website?"

Damn, not only can you not read the article, you can't even bother to read the summary.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[EllisDees]

If you'd like to try and survive longer by relying on doctors and a medical industry that aren't in it for profit, all I can say is good luck to you. While it would be nice if everyone worked out of their concern for their fellow man, that isn't the world we live in, and it won't ever be.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Anonymous Coward]

So who is giving up profit over human life? Not Nebraska. I mean, did we all forget that the insurance companies are not paid to cure cancer, they're not paid to fight the common cold, they are only paid to "potentially" pay out a large award if you need it? It's kind of like the lottery, and the only "reform" we've got now is a mandate to pay for the lottery, and some kind of mandate to let other people play the lottery, and finally a mandate that all sorts of payouts need to be made (not to forget all the federal funding going to a few states to allow people to get payment for treatments ad infinatem).

What amount of government heroism will save us from AIDS after we pass the "reform" bill now that we've changed the rules of a lottery? I should start selling t-shirts that say "I voted for health care reform, and all I got was this lousy lotto ticket" and donate my amoral profits to cancer.org.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[geekoid]

"'Holocaust' is not a word that has been reserved exclusively for the Jews"

In all practicality, it is.

Just like using the word "nigger", regardless of context, gets someone labeled racist... assuming that someone is white.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[geekoid]

His point was the word holocaust isn't owned by 1 event, and it was 12 million scapegoats, 6 million of which where Jews.

"Getting sick and dying is natural."
Is that supposed to be some sort of argument? if so it's lame.

1 out of 10 children dying during birth is 'natural', but it's completely unacceptable in todays society.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[geekoid]

Now see what you did? this could have been a good opportunity for discussion, and then you went with the Adolf.

Bad poster! Bad!

Dying of cancer IS natural. Yes people would get what they need, and yes we should rally against anything 'natural' that leads to death, but to say it isn't natural is foolish.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Anonymous Coward]

If I recall correctly, even the Obama administration used certain industry statistics that seemed to show how doctors themselves are the #3 cause of death in America. Depending on whose data you look at and who you listen to, that figure can erupt to #1 on some charts. Some 16M Americans are affected by iatrogenic events every year.

What do you make of that? By your crazy logic, granting "health care" (disease care?) to people that results in the death of thousands or even millions might qualify as holocaust.

You know, I agree with you that medicine should not be "just business." I think the profit mentality is a huge contributor to sickness when it comes to what we commonly misconceive as "health care."

When it comes down to it, having access to some "insurance" product that pays for specialist intervention when a poorly treated human frame begins to fail is hardly the solution for a healthy America.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Chibi Merrow]

slave

1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.

2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence

American Heritage Dictionary

That sounds like what's being proposed to me.

Palin loving Fox News watching? Seriously? Wow.

Why am I even arguing with an AC, anyway...

slavery is not a raft of measures to prevent health insurance companies placing profit before peoples' lives.

Health insurance companies make less profit than Yahoo. If they're placing their profits before people's lives, they're doing it wrong.

This push isn't about making health insurance companies behave, it's about destroying them and increasing the power and scope of the government. It's about further redistribution of wealth from those willing to provide for themselves to those willing to accept government payouts in return for votes.

If this was about doing the right thing, they'd take time to do it right, not try to rush it through before anyone can understand it.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Anonymous Coward]

You attack a strawman because you know you are not competent to refute what the GP actually said. No other reason is possible.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[vk-agency]

If they're [insurance companies] placing their profits before people's lives, they're doing it wrong.

Insurance companies operate with an inherent conflict of interest.

They sell a product that is marketed as something that will pay money out to cover when misfortune descends upon the purchaser of the product. However, they are beholden to investors that make increasing amounts of money based upon the degree to which they do not pay out under the same conditions.

It was a mistake to ever allow insurance pooling to be a profit-making enterprise. The nature of it is such that it will only work well if that conflict does not exist, and that can only be accomplished if the decision to pay is based entirely upon the merits of the situation, rather than profitability.

Successfully indemnifying people against misfortune is, in large numbers, a matter of understanding the relevant statistics, the speciality of actuaries. An open profit requirement is a toxic ingredient in such an undertaking, absolutely guaranteed to damage the process. Which is exactly what we see here in the USA.

Everyone should be covered; everyone should be paying a rational proportion of the total cost correlated to their income; and that should be the end of it. The fact is, the open capitalist model is not the best model for everything, and particularly not for those things that are basic to the population's health and education.

It is my opinion that the government should create a fund equal to two years of medical costs as they are known to be today, use that fund to pay the costs for the coming year, and at the end of each year, adjust the taxes to cover the previous year, rinse and repeat. The system will continue to be severely broken until or unless insurance companies are removed from the equation entirely.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Anonymous Coward]

Except as it stands now, the profit motive is NOT in saving someone's life but doing as absolutely little as possible in all circumstances since once they're dead they can't sue you for not providing the thing you are contractually obligated to provide.

The profit motive is in bilking people out of thousands and millions of dollars and not performing their duties.

If people being as healthy as possible was what provided them with money, you'd be damn sure they would meet their obligations.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[evil_aar0n]

> Getting sick and dying is natural.

Certainly, but dying because you were denied care, or unable to secure care because you can't afford it due to policies set by for-profit health insurance corporations isn't far off from gassing a broad swath of people. If it's less violent, does that mean it's less effective?

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people can save far more money as a reserve against poor health than they will ever use.

So, you are saying, we CAN as a nation, save the lives of thousands of poor people, but shouldn't, because they didn't manage their money correctly. They failed to balance their checkbook, so deserve death. What a wonderful cheery person you are.

It also means that for most people, buying insurance is both foolish and cowardly.

Cowardly?? Really?? I could save every penny of my money in a bank, just in case... OR I could pool a little bit of money with a lot of people, in case a major disease strikes one of us.

Gee, I wonder what makes more sense? I wonder which one leaves me with more wealth to spend instead of sitting in savings and thus gives me a higher quality of life? I wonder which one provides me the best chance of actually surviving a major disease? I don't like being forced to buy insurance, simply because I don't like choice being removed. But the concept of insurance isn't foolish or cowardly.

And you know what, a very good friend of mine died because he was denied insurance, and couldn't afford the medicine for his disease. He had spent all his money on education, and was in his final year of getting his doctorate in astro-physics. I'm so happy to hear you think he deserved the death he got because he didn't manage his money "properly".

Also, Fuck You.

P.S. Fuck You again.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[fiannaFailMan]

Oh. My. God.

So much garbage in there I hardly know where to start. Lemme just deal with this little intellectual turd:

Most people can save far more money as a reserve against poor health than they will ever use.

'Most people?' What about the exception to the rules? Like the occasional people who end up with cancer? They sure as hell can't save enough for treatment. What do you propose they do? Hmm?

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, his use of the word 'holocaust' was entirely appropriate. 'Holocaust' is not a word that has been reserved exclusively for the Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis. If people are dying in their hundreds every day at the hands of profit making health insurance extortionists, then to call it a holocaust is putting it fucking mildly.

Yeah...paying for services and free emergency room service for everyone who can't is a true holocaust. Way to put it "fucking mildly."

Getting sick and dying is natural.

Gassing 6 million scapegoats is not.

Get some perspective.

yeah ... NOT paying is a true holocaust.

how about starving to death 10 million ukraninan people? like russia did, can that not be equated to starving millions (if only over a longer period of time) of health care they deserved?

yes the holocaust does not only refer to jews who had died at the hands of nazis.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[homm2]

The particular study that Rep. Grayson was referring to when he made these remarks claims that they "calculated approximately 44789 deaths among Americans aged 18 to 64 years in 2005 associated with lack of health insurance". The study goes on to say that this was in spite of things like free emergency room treatment and community health clinics.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Ma8thew]

You need to get some perspective. You cannot treat cancer in the ER. You cannot treat mental illness in the ER. You cannot treat heart disease in the ER. And the ER isn't free. They'll be happy to send you a bill once you're patched up. It's just they can't (legally) refuse to treat you. The fact is, the USA has one of the lowest life expectancies of any western nation. And perhaps more disturbingly, the same is true for infant mortality.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting sick and dying is natural.

But is it ethically justifiable to let it happen, in those cases where modern technology would make it easy for us to prevent it?

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear! ...

Rubble Rubble Rubble....

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Chibi Merrow]

First, I'd like to thank you for making your point in a calm, respectable manner, as opposed to the frothing puddle of vitriol I was responding to.

An open profit requirement is a toxic ingredient in such an undertaking, absolutely guaranteed to damage the process. Which is exactly what we see here in the USA.

Your argument would be convincing except for the overwhelming evidence that government run (therefore, not profit motivated) health care in other nations is also guilty of denying (or at least making difficult) necessary treatments to the sick, making decisions based purely on cost and not necessity/effectiveness, etc.

For a large number (if not the majority) of Americans, the medical system isn't that broken. Most of us are happy with the care we're receiving now and that's why we're so opposed to the way things are going. Want to help those who can't help themselves? Fine. But we refuse to believe that means lowering our quality of care in the process.

My "profit motivated" insurance company has done a damn good job taking care of me and my wife. My parents' "profit motivated" insurance company did the same for me beforehand. The same is true for my entire (employed) extended family. And don't claim it's because we didn't get chronic illnesses or some such silliness... I've had about a dozen family members with cancers of various types, four with chronic heart conditions, and one with AIDS. None of them were denied necessary treatments. None of them were bankrupted due to medical bills. Heck, I can't even really think of any cases where they were denied treatment that would only ease their suffering, not actually cure the problem.

On the other hand, I can point to recent examples of the NHS in Britain deciding "This treatment is known to alleviate the symptoms of a chronic problem, but we will no longer cover it due to cost and require patients to try alternative therapies." Is the NHS motivated by profit and therefore subject to a toxic conflict of interest?

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Anonymous Coward]

So you would make those who deliver health to deliver service weather or not they get paid? Does this not sound wrong to anyone else?

Why isn't the parent marked "flamebait" yet?

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[vk-agency]

You're approaching this as if I had declared that eliminating private insurers was the only factor. It isn't; and there is no question that some people get adequate care. However, some people don't. I know a couple -- personally -- the lady has diabetes, some kind of serious thyroid issue, and is a breast cancer survivor. She is very careful about her diet, exercise, sleep... but her condition is deteriorating regardless. She cannot get health insurance. The fellow has bad knees, a tumor or just some kind of lump in the back of his left eye, a hernia, outdated eyeglasses he can barely see through, and his teeth are in just awful shape, to the point where you can see how much pain he is in just by looking at his face. Often, he can't eat, because his gums are so inflamed. Sometimes when he does eat, the pain causes him to vomit. He can't get insurance either. Neither one of them can afford to purchase care, or is able to go into debt to a degree such that they could pay for the care they need - no spare resources. They both work; he makes 18k and she makes about 6k. They're nice people - smart, too. But circumstances walked them down near the bottom of the economic ladder, and when their health went... there was no safety net.

These are the types of people the system, as is, simply does not serve. They are outliers in the health sense, and while they aren't the average person, then again, they aren't all that rare. Both are in their fifties. It's not enough, in my opinion, to just shrug and say "oh well" and let them suffer. Even the changes that look like they're going through congress and the senate won't help them until what, 2014 or so, at which point the insurance companies will finally have to take people with pre-existing conditions. There's no telling at what cost to the applicant at this point, either, so who knows if even that will help.

I'm not pointing at England or Canada or anywhere else and saying "do it that way." I'm just saying that one of the things that needs to be done is to remove the profit motivated, skimming entities from the middle of the process. They add cost, and they deny people care, and they aren't part of the actual medical process - they are not the sick, and they are not the health professionals. So in addition to doing things in a moral and rational manner on all other fronts as well, we need to eliminate the parasite in the middle - the insurance company. This is precisely the type of thing government can be good at -- because their salaries and bonuses and perks don't have to depend upon how many people they deny service to.

It seems truly obvious to me that maximal health is as important a basic factor for maximum productivity -- personal, state, national -- as is education. I honestly cannot understand why people in the USA, of all places, where equal opportunity, as best as we can manage, is such a strong basic precept... I can't understand why they want to skimp. How can we look at people suffering and be ok with it? How can we penny pinch in the face of it? Do we look at a child down a well and say, hey, that's going to cost a lot to get her out of there, too bad? No, we call in all the heavy equipment we can find, fifteen different fire departments and fly in a ten million dollar Japanese pipe-crawling robot prototype. Truly, I don't understand how we can let (approximately) 35 million people sit at home (presuming they have a home) suffering from all manner of medical problems that we are fully capable of addressing, or at least, ameliorating.

And in the meantime, we're spending trillions on warfare in order, as near as I can figure, to provide corporate welfare for the military industrial complex.

Maybe I'm just stupid. But I really don't get it. And it makes me very angry.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Chibi Merrow]

You're approaching this as if I had declared that eliminating private insurers was the only factor.

No, I'm approaching this as if you've argued that government will provide a superior service. It won't.

As far as your friends with chronic illness... I agree with you that something should be done, but I disagree that it's 'evil' for insurance companies not to cover them. Not even considering *profits*, any company that accepted them would only stand to lose money. Lots of money. It's not just a responsibility to shareholders, but also to those people currently using their services that would drive a company to not take on such a burden. Insurance companies insure against future misfortune, the couple you spoke of is well past that point.

I'm just saying that one of the things that needs to be done is to remove the profit motivated, skimming entities from the middle of the process.

So what you're saying is I should give up my benefits so that we can all have equally bad care, instead of trying to improve the situation of those at the bottom. And you wonder why people oppose you?

They add cost, and they deny people care, and they aren't part of the actual medical process - they are not the sick, and they are not the health professionals.

All those things are even more true about the government.

I honestly cannot understand why people in the USA, of all places, where equal opportunity, as best as we can manage, is such a strong basic precept... I can't understand why they want to skimp.

Equal opportunity does not mean equal results.

Truly, I don't understand how we can let (approximately) 35 million people sit at home (presuming they have a home) suffering from all manner of medical problems that we are fully capable of addressing, or at least, ameliorating.

How many of those 35 million are without health coverage by choice?

Maybe I'm just stupid. But I really don't get it. And it makes me very angry.

You're not stupid. I think you're just letting your emotional need to "Do something!" override everything else.

Government health care will not improve the problems you cite with the current system. People are routinely denied care (either explicitly via fiat or implicitly via reduced availability of services) in existing government systems, leading to the creation of private alternatives and patients fleeing to other countries for help... Bringing us back to the same situation of "haves" getting good medical care and "have nots" suffering under a broken system.

If you truly believe the profit motive is the real culprit behind all health care woes, then the Non-profit Coops should be a good alternative for you to support. Honestly that's the way my car insurance is handled, and I've been pretty happy with them. I'd even be willing to support the creation of such things, but it seems no one wants to take the time to do things correctly and instead we have to accept an "all or nothing" option designed to completely wreck the system for the majority of us.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[vk-agency]

No, I'm approaching this as if you've argued that government will provide a superior service. It won't.

I did not so argue. I said they could. The reason I take that position is because they have an innate advantage no private concern can match: 100% decoupling between their operating costs and continuing viability and the job they do. This is, as we know, also part of the reason they can (and often do) perform poorly. That's a matter of getting better at government. I think it can be done; I reject your argument that government is inherently going to wreck anything it touches. I drive on marvelous highways over immense amounts of area; I visit finely conserved parks of great beauty; I have crossed some of the most beautiful bridges in the world, I have been inside, and used, the library of congress, and I have experienced the stunning beauty of monumental art in the nation's capital and elsewhere. Government can do things well. Does that mean they should get a pass here? No. It means we should try, rather than cowering in our boots because we know also that government has failed us in other areas.

Not even considering *profits*, any company that accepted them would only stand to lose money. Lots of money.

The entire point of an insurance pool is to put small investments from everyone in to cover the cases where the few need lots spent on them. Not everyone will. It's odds, that's all. To reject those known to already need help is poisonous, and not in keeping with the idea behind the pool in the first place (except as to save money for a profit making enterprise.) Fees need to be designed to cover everyone. Not just the presently healthy.

Insurance companies insure against future misfortune, the couple you spoke of is well past that point.

Not if the congress and senate can sort out the difference in the bill that passed the senate tonight, which is very likely. That selfish definition will be down the drain, and good riddance. To lock someone out because they got sick before someone else did is childish on the one hand, and straight up cruel on the other. I maintain that everyone should be covered, period. Then if or when becomes a non-issue.

So what you're saying is I should give up my benefits so that we can all have equally bad care, instead of trying to improve the situation of those at the bottom.

No. I'm saying you should have your benefits, and so should they. How you got to the point of making the above statement, I can't imagine. I'm saying that in order to improve the situation of the people at the bottom, we need to make them healthy so they can work; not ask them to work in an unhealthy condition - perhaps for decades, and with no certainty they will even get there - until they can pay some middleman more than the membership of a pool is actually worth.

Equal opportunity does not mean equal results.

Again, I never said it did. But it does mean equal opportunity. Or at least it should.

How many of those 35 million are without health coverage by choice?

I don't know. I'll readily stipulate some largish number of them are. Still, we don't let people skip primary education, either; and why? Because that leaves them as a load on society, unable to cope well. Precisely the reason we should ensure they are as healthy as possible. Unhealthy people screw up the system for everyone else, putting others at risk if the issue is disease, turning in lower performance, and suffering unnecessarily.

Re:While Grayson can be entertaining

[Chibi Merrow]

I've tried three times now to write a response to you at the end of the day after my work was finished... And all three times the X server on my workstation locked up after I was 3/4 of the way through. Today I'm off of work, so let's see if my home PC is up to the task...

I did not so argue. I said they could. The reason I take that position is because they have an innate advantage no private concern can match: 100% decoupling between their operating costs and continuing viability and the job they do. This is, as we know, also part of the reason they can (and often do) perform poorly.

The other--even bigger, in my opinion--reason that often perform poorly is that there is for all practical purposes a 100% decoupling between their PERFORMANCE and continuing viability. More on this later...

That's a matter of getting better at government.

If that's all that it's a matter of, then why hasn't anyone else been able to do it yet? The government plans elsewhere in the world don't solve problems you cite with the system.

I think it can be done; I reject your argument that government is inherently going to wreck anything it touches.

You could reject my argument that the sky is blue, as well, but it won't change the sky's color. :)

drive on marvelous highways over immense amounts of area; ... I have crossed some of the most beautiful bridges in the world,

And yet we've heard constantly for the past two years how our infrastructure is crumbling around us. We have roads being built solely to prevent giving money back to the federal government, the Federal Government has declared that 75,000 bridges are "structurally deficient," etc., etc...

I have been inside, and used, the library of congress, and I have experienced the stunning beauty of monumental art in the nation's capital and elsewhere.

That's a great example of what Government is extremely good at, actually: Taking care of itself. This played out during the health care debate, as well--even in the most radical "single payer" type plans that were suggested, our senators and representatives would have kept their cushy health benefits.

Government can do things well. Does that mean they should get a pass here? No. It means we should try, rather than cowering in our boots because we know also that government has failed us in other areas.

I'm generally willing to give people trying visionary, risky, or even crazy things the benefit of the doubt. But only with a catch: They bear the burden of their failure. This is never a feature of massive government social engineering programs. We already have two Federally managed health systems: Medicare and Medicaid. Both are over budget, under performing, and end up making health care more expensive for everyone else. They're embarrassments. And they will never be in any danger of being shut down because of their poor performance. There will never be a reckoning.

And on top of that, we're supposed to trust the people who couldn't run two health care systems with a third system that's larger than the other two put together? Without requiring them to fix the first two? How is this anything but madness?

Note I didn't even touch on how heartwrenchingly embarrassing the VA Health System is... What's most infuriating about that is that it's not even an example of some stupid attempt at social engineering, it's supposed to be us paying a debt that's owed to those who serve. And we can't even do that right!

No. I'm saying you should have your benefits, and so should they. How you got to the point of making

Grayson should be impeached

[mcgrew]

Also, she should sue him for civil rights violations; specifically, her first amendment rights. This man has no place in government (TFA didn't say if he's a federal congresscritter or a state guy)

He apologized in October for calling a female adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke a "whore."

She should sue for slander. Get this guy out of government and into the poorhouse!

Re:Grayson should be impeached

[wizardforce]

He's in the house of representatives in the 8th district of Florida.

Re:Grayson should be impeached

[Trepidity]

Those laws are widely expected to be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment in the next month or two, though. Cases like this seem to be one of the better arguments for the "strike them down" side. I'm not a big fan of corporate money influencing politics, but throwing someone in jail because they're a "former republican party official" with an anti-Congressman blog seems pretty repugnant to free-speech principles.

Re:Grayson should be impeached

[bertoelcon]

It's political speech aimed at fund raising. There are laws that govern that.

Yes the First Amendment governs that.

She's a former republican party official trying to raise funds to unseat Grayson. Unfortunately, she is doing it in a fraudulent way which could be in violation of the law and land her in jail.

Fraudulent how exactly? By using typical political tactics to pull support her way? Sounds like this is par for the political course then, and that the one already in power is trying to silence her.

Re:Grayson should be impeached

[mcgrew]

So I'm trolling, eh? Looks like Grayson's not the only Democrat that's pro-censorship, we have plenty of them here at slashdot.

Re:Grayson should be impeached

[furby076]

Also, she should sue him for civil rights violations; specifically, her first amendment rights. This man has no place in government (TFA didn't say if he's a federal congresscritter or a state guy)

How did the congressman prevent her from her first amendment right? She got to give her opinion. He didn't stop it - so there is no lawsuit.
With regards to your title - please tell me you are not one of those idiots who says "impeachment" anytime they don't like what someone does? Impeachment, in this country, only happens when someone breaks a very serious law. Speeding won't qualify...selling national secrets will qualify. This is closer to speeding ticket then national secrets.
I would say that yuo need to learn the law before you type, but in reality your comments are just nonsense and make no sense.

If anything, the blog poster lied (she is not a constituant), she did so with the intent to make him lose votes (and thusly his job), and she is a member of the opposing party which helps to show her intent. He just may have legal cause against this blogger - though in the end he will suffer more then she will.

Re:Grayson should be impeached

[Locke2005]

She formed a PAC as an end-run around campaign finance laws to raise money to support one specific candidate by attacking his opponent. Granted, this probably is "typical political tactics" but it is also unethical and should be unlawful. There are many PACs which claim to be advocating an issue whose real purpose is to get a specific candidate elected by running attack ads against their opponent. They should all be shut down, as this flies against the intent of campaign finance laws.

Re:Grayson should be impeached

[mcgrew]

I thought Nixon should have been impeached (he would have been had he not resigned). I thought Blago should have been impeached, and he was. Congressmen take an oath to defend the Constitution, which is the law all other laws are based on. IMO any politician who breaks that oath by ignoring the constitution is treasonous. Is there a more serious offense than treason?

They impeached Clinton for lying in answer to a question that should never have been asked. IMO impeaching Clinton was wrong. Who sucks his dick is nobody's business except his and his wife's.

This guy is a legislator who wants to put her in JAIL for her speech, how is that NOT censorship?It's nothing like a speeding ticket at all. She sounds like a sleazebag, but that shouldn't be a jailable offense.

Re:Grayson should be impeached

[Cwix]

Moot point if they are gonna be struck down, they are the laws as it stands, she has broken said laws (supposedly,IDK beacuse IANAL or judge)

PACs shouldnt be allowed to lie to people. And if you actually looked beyond the fox hype, you would see its beacuse shes lying to the people shes trying to get money from, and she lied on the PAC paperwork. SO while I think its idiotic to go after her in this way, he does have a point.

Re:Grayson should be impeached

[CrimsonAvenger]

They impeached Clinton for lying in answer to a question that should never have been asked.

Umm, no.

About the time that Clinton was being questioned about his sex life, the Supremes ruled that someone's sex life was, in fact, relevant in a sexual harassment lawsuit. So asking Clinton that question in a sexual harassment lawsuit was perfectly reasonable.

What law?

[eWarz]

I'm sorry, I must be dumb. Someone please explain to me, exactly WHAT law is she breaking? I read the complaint.

Re:What law?

[Zeelan]

She is in a PAC. When she formed it she misrepresented the scope and intent of her political action comity. The jail time they are talking about isn't about what she says, but what she signed on the dotted line when she summited to the Fed for Tax Exempt status. Lying on that form 'will' get you in very hot water. Part of the group of laws designed to keep corruption out of the government. AKA, there are limits to the number and types of contributions she can take in if she formed the PAC with the correct documentation, scope, and intent. Regardless, her site wouldn't get her in anything nearly that kind of trouble if she was spending her own money and time on the site and not making an official representation and taking in donations.

PACs have to play by the rules

[Orange Crush]

She can say (just about) whatever she wants as a private citizen--constituent or not, but if she's taking political contributions as a PAC, she needs to play by the already much-too-lose campaign finance laws.

Re:PACs have to play by the rules

[Zordak]

she needs to play by the far too restrictive incumbent protection laws.

McCain-Feingold was crassly unconstitutional. As Scalia said in his scathing (and brilliant) dissent, "it is the first instinct of power to protect power." In a perfect world, all direct contributions to a specific politician would be banned outright as the bribes they are, and PACs would be unregulated, because that's what the First Amendment is all about---the ability to speak out on issues that matter to you. I don't see how a law that makes it illegal to specifically criticize a candidate in the all-important last 30 days before an election is "much-too-loose."

Huh?

[d3ac0n]

Methinks you posted in the wrong submission thread.

Re:Huh?

[smitty777]

I dunno - he did mention Windows ME. Me, my - I think Shadow7789 is looking at some hard time in the near future.

MySpace?

[smitty777]

So if she can go to jail for using that particular name on a site, can I go to jail for having a MySpace page? What about MyYahoo? MyWay?

Re:MySpace?

[smitty777]

Wow...thanks for that. Another delicately worded reply to a redundant link with absolutely no new information . As far as I can tell from the website provided in your link, the only time she infers she's a constituent is in the name of the site.

Re:MySpace?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why were you rated offtopic? This post seems right on to me. Hey mods - did you even read the post?

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[Icegryphon]

I know brother, Thankfully it is not nearly the level of Bias on MS "Text my blackberry please" NBC.

Media should be Ashamed, They always yelled about people receiving Republican marching orders of some sort, While they have been doing it. thou dost protest too much, methinks I would love to get me some of those marching orders from the Republicans because that would mean they actually are not in shambles and chaotic.

I'd like Americans to remember...

[Vyse of Arcadia]

Whenever an elected official does something silly like this, remember that we elected these people. We've no one but ourselves (and/or our idiot neighbors) to blame.

Re:I'd like Americans to remember...

[mcgrew]

I disagree. What if his opponent was an even bigger nut job than him? There may have only been two people on the ballot and he may have indeed been the best of two bad choices. I've seen ballots here, especially for more local races (State Senate, etc) with only a single candidate.

Plus, corporate "contributions" have far more to do with who wins than your views do. Money talks. When George Ryan ran for Governor he outspent his opponent ten to one and won in a close race. Had the finances been level he'd have lost in a landslide (but still would have gone to prison; his scandal was from when he was Illinois Secretary of State).

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[eln]

Interestingly, TFA is from Fox News, which pretty much NEVER fails to note the party of a political official in a scandal, regardless of the party they are in, including this one.

Right, Fox News just lies about what party the scandal-ridden politicians belong to.

Seriously, after they repeatedly represented scandal-ridden Republicans as Democrats, and misrepresented footage from previous events as being from more recent ones (tea parties, Palin book signings) to make crowds look larger than they actually were, I don't know how anyone can hold up Fox News as a paragon of journalistic integrity anymore. And please don't trot out the old tired argument that "everyone else is just as bad or worse". The fact is Fox News routinely does this sort of thing, and acting like they're in any way "fair and balanced" is just absurd.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[Virak]

And when there was the story a little while back about the Republican who raped his daughters and was trying to censor news about it where Slashdot didn't mention his political affiliation, that was a clear example of Evil Liberal Bias too, right?

If this is what you mean when you're talking about "liberal bias" then it's no wonder everyone looks at you like you're a paranoid lunatic.

Thou shall not critize a member of Congress

[Shivetya]

I am pretty sure the FCC is headed that way. Congress would just as likely modify their Congressional Incumbents Protection Act (McCain/Feingold) to keep any criticism of a sitting Congressman. Why not, its not like they care what you think until its time to vote.

It all comes down to arrogance not seen since the late 1700s in France. The "ruling" class while "elected" has no problem in engineering a system by which they cannot be criticized (see McCain/Feingold) but will change laws to prevent people from voting against them (redistricting - Voter Rights Act - not prosecuting thugs at election sites - philly).

Grayson is an embarrassment to his district, but like voters in Louisiana proved, money in the freezer does not mean your guilty, just stupid. Remember all Congressmen and bad except yours.

Re:Thou shall not critize a member of Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak without fear.

Re:Thou shall not critize a member of Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

money in the freezer does not mean your guilty

My guilty what?

Re:Thou shall not critize a member of Congress

[Areyoukiddingme]

So sayeth the Anonymous Coward...

Re:Thou shall not critize a member of Congress

[31415926535897]

It all comes down to arrogance not seen since the late 1700s in France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

Re:Thou shall not critize a member of Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

My guilty? Your guilty, his guilty, their guilty ... were all guilty!

Re:Thou shall not critize a member of Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember all Congressmen and bad except yours.

Not true. One of my Senators is Ben Nelson, and he is a sleazy lying sell out.

He has a history of corrupt behavior going back to the his serving on the board of directors of a life insurance company which failed due to heavy investments in junk bonds. Ben also cost the state of Nebraska $145 million by denying a permit for a low level nuclear waste dump which was part of a multi-state compact after the other states filed suit against Nebraska because Nelson did not live up to the agreement.

Nelson recently showed that there is no such thing as a conservative Democrat by voting to advance the bill to ruin the US health care system and grow the federal government's control of our individual lives.

At least one of my congressmen SUCKS!

Re:Thou shall not critize a member of Congress

[BobMcD]

Congress would just as likely modify their Congressional Incumbents Protection Act (McCain/Feingold) to keep any criticism of a sitting Congressman.

You're blatantly disparaging the nature of the Act is such a way that everyone would automatically agree with you. Honestly I didn't recognize it under the names you used here. Here's the wikipedia writeup on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

Why do you color this as a 'do not criticize' law?

Is 'criticize' the same as 'run attack ads paid for by shell corporations'? I see those as different.

I agree with the rest of your post, but the way you started this off was really off-putting.

Re:Thou shall not critize a member of Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

struck down in a heartbeat by the courts. They take 1st amendment seriously.

Re:Streisand....

[mcgrew]

The fact that she's a wingnut, either right or left, doesn't enter into it. Even Rush deserves freedom of sppech (and to be ridiculed for his speech).

Many of my views are liberal/progressive, many are conservative, most are pretty libertarian, but this guy needs to be voted out. IMO nobody that wants any form of censorship should be in government.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[wizardforce]

Everything has a bias to it. Slashdot has a libertarian leaning bias, Dailykos has a left bias and Fox News is right leaning. It is the reader's job to look critically at what other people say and decide for themselves regardless of the political slant. As for leaving off the D-fla next to his name, I'd say that you could look at it two ways: 1) a party shouldn't be singled out in media or 2) party affiliation is irrelevant; the conduct of a particular congress critter is what is important. Mostly I'd say that 2) is most correct as much of the problem in politics is that people mindlessly vote along party lines eg. republicans/democrats as a whole are evillll instead of crosscritter X is specifically an arsehat. It's irrational.

Of course.

[mmell]

After all, have you ever clicked on "My Computer"? Y'know, that's just Billy G's way of letting you know who's computer it really is!

My, my, my!

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[carrolljim]

Actually, Fox News does occassionally omit the partisian labels, and even switches them (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200906240026 - assumedly this is inadvertant, although folks more suspicious than I tend to infer malacious intent). That doesn't make the omission here any better, of course.

It's fair to say there has been a severe lack of civility on both sides of the aisle, highlighted mostly on the Republican side, I think (Cheney telling Leahy to Go F__k himself, the rep who shouted "you lie" during the presidential address, etc), although Rep. Grayson clearly enjoys lowering the standards himself.

Surpise! Fox has misrepresented facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know Fox makes it sounds like some DEMOCRAT wants a CONSERVATIVE web site taken down because they used the word "my", but thats simply not true.

The letter was written to claim that Ms Langley requested permission to create a non-partisan voter education committee for her district. However, the webpage that represents this committee is clearly not bipartisan and falsely claims to originate from the district in question. It is illegal and considered tax fraud to do this.

I really hope I don't find many more headline stories that are from Fox's falsification/opinionation version of news. I like slashdot.

Quoting Fox News on slashdot

[Stevious]

priceless.

Likely reason

[Tablizer]

I suspect that a not-so-technically-savvy politician got pissed at the blog contents and then turned to his lawyer and said in a huff: "Find some way to shut that [bleeping] blog down! I don't care how you do it, just find a way."

The result is a bunch of silly lawsuit claims that have a slight chance of tying up the blog and blogger for a while.

Re:Likely reason

[Cwix]

Considering the politician in question is a harvard educated lawyer, I'm sure he knows full well whats hes doing. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/weekinreview/01herszenhorn.html

Re:Likely reason

[Cwix]

The citation is only to prove hes harvard educated, i dont think it has anything else to do with the topic on hand.

Re:Likely reason

[Tablizer]

He seems kind of like a guy who shoots from the hip. Some of the comments he's made on other topics are pretty funny, and I even agree with some of them. Some say he's acting like the "Left's Rush L.": simplistic name-calling and bullyism. Maybe he has a future in talk radio.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Fox News apparently forgot Mark Foley was a Republican, and listed him as Mark Foley (D-FL). Same for the Republican governor of South Carolina after his affair.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/fox-news-identifies-sanfo_n_220377.html

Thanks for the clarification. . .

[JSBiff]

Now I remember why I almost never read/watch Fox news. I was scratching my head wondering what the connection is between a domain name, and lieing to the Federal Elections Commission. Last time I checked, a DNS registration is not submitted to the FEC.

Reading that statement, I knew there had to be more to this story, but good luck getting it from Fox News. They must really think everyone is stupid (or maybe they just *don't* care about non-stupid people - we aren't in their demographic, I guess).

Re:Thanks for the clarification. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this get modded "interesting"? How is it FN's fault that Grayson's complaint says exactly that. It should have been modded "moronic".

You can read the actual complaint here:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/GraysonComplaint.pdf

If you think it's been altered you can google other copies.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Link?

I wonder...

[hyades1]

If I called Rep. Grayson "My least favourite douchebag", would that get me in trouble? Or perhaps "My personal definition of an asshat"?

I wonder what got into the people of Florida to elect such a pathetic waste of oxygen. Clearly this guy isn't qualified to run a fast food joint, much less make decisions affecting the lives of thousands of people. Maybe everybody will get lucky and he'll drown from looking up too long during a rainstorm.

Website no longer necessary

[Locke2005]

Langley criticizes Grayson on her Web site for his "inappropriate behavior" and "childish approach" toward governing, and claims he "does not represent the values of central Florida." Grayson has pretty much made her case for her with this inappropriate and childish attack on her web site. The term "Streisand Effect" also comes to mind. I hope mycongressmanisnuts.com carries advertising, 'cause this dick move is going to drive a metric shitload of traffic to the site!

Re:Website no longer necessary

[Locke2005]

Grayson does have one valid complaint stated at the end of his letter -- as Langley is a former Republican Party chairman in Grayson's district (which she obviously considers to be her district), her organization is a fairly transparent attempt to do an end-run around campaign finance laws. This is highly unethical, but from what I've seen it is also a fairly common practice; third party "attack" ads that obviously favor the opponent have been used almost everywhere in the US. If you are going to go after this one organization for that, you'd better go after all of them!

Re:Website no longer necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, never heard of this guy before hearing this story. Now I know about him and that he appears to be a complete prick.

Re:Website no longer necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope mycongressmanisnuts.com carries advertising, 'cause this dick move is going to drive a metric shitload of traffic to the site!

The domain name would be a nice beginning for a political social network site focused on negative campaigns against politicians all over the country. The part 'my' is very appropriate in this context.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[fiannaFailMan]

And OF COURSE, /. forgets to add "D-Fla" to the Reps name.

Anyone think, even for a second, if Grayson was "R-Fla" that it would have been missed?

Yeah, didn't think so.

This is what conservatives and libertarians mean when we are talking about "liberal bias" in the media. Those soft, subtle things used to quietly tweak the story to emphasize or de-emphasize precisely the point of view the writer wants his or her readers to end up with after reading the story.

Interestingly, TFA is from Fox News, which pretty much NEVER fails to note the party of a political official in a scandal, regardless of the party they are in, including this one.

Nice omission there /.

Are you fucking kidding me? Fox 'News' can be relied on to mislabel a Republican involved in a scandal with a D almost every time the story breaks.

Re:Streisand....

[flitty]

So now stopping someone from lying about what their PAC is for, to get tax exempt money, is censorship? I'm with you on freedom of speech, but Grayson isn't aruging against the mean words on the site, it's the fact that she's breaking campaign finance laws.

You wouldn't name it 'YourCongressmanIsNuts.com'

[meerling]

With regards to the name, if someone is ticked at him and searching for or just typing in a dissenting statement hoping to find a site, they will always use 'My' instead of 'Your'.
How many people do you know that have gone to a help site and looked for 'my (something) is broken'.
(probably a lot, then they call us in a panic, I know, we all know...)

I haven't even looked into the other allegation, but as ianal, it would probably get too messy for me anyhow.

Besides, that guy is a total wackjob anyhow. His public statements have already proven that his entire political career, and possible himself, should be shoved into a deep dark rubber room and heavily medicated.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[Virak]

Here you go.

This seems silly on the surface

[UnknowingFool]

At first glance it appears that a Democratic congressman is suing a blogger for using "my" in the name of her website because she really isn't his constituent. Is this all there is to this story? Bear in mind, the only source I've found is Fox News which isn't exactly balanced reporting (if any of them are). From the story: "In a four-page letter sent to Holder, Grayson accuses Langley of lying to federal elections and requests that she be fined and imprisoned for five years." So what I can tell Langley had been questioned by some sort of official. Grayson says she lied. So her crime might be she lied to some officials about where she lived which isn't a high crime but is a crime.

Here's what I think went down: Grayson gets attacked on her site. He investigates the site to know whether it is by a PAC or an independent blogger. If it's a PAC there are various disclosures that must be done. Officials question Langley. Grayson thinks she lied about her constituency at least (and maybe other things like her independence). So he asks for legal action. Fox is spinning it to be more sensational than it is for ratings.

Re:This seems silly on the surface

[Dunbal]

which isn't exactly balanced reporting (if any of them are)

      Nah. IMO, "balanced reporting" died when Walter Cronkite retired.

Re:This seems silly on the surface

[Anonymous Coward]

At first glance it appears that a Democratic congressman is suing a blogger for using "my" in the name of her website because she really isn't his constituent. Is this all there is to this story? Bear in mind, the only source I've found is Fox News which isn't exactly balanced reporting (if any of them are).

Are you freaking lazy or what?

Go to www.google.com
Click the "News" link up at the top.
Type "Grayson" in the textbox by the "Search News" button
Click the "Search News" button
Look at the top results.
Follow links.
Read.
Maybe learn stuff, but I'm doubtful in your case.

Re:This seems silly on the surface

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

What Grayson did is politically stupid. However, it is arguable that the person running the web site has violated the law.

Re:This seems silly on the surface

[mcgrew]

Well, you know Fox's motto, "Fairly Unbalanced".

Re:This seems silly on the surface

[AK Marc]

At first glance it appears that a Democratic congressman is suing a blogger for using "my" in the name of her website because she really isn't his constituent. Is this all there is to this story?

The "balance" to this is that the blogger is a PAC, didn't fully disclose this where required. Committed fraud in the PAC filings, and is illegally operating a PAC in direct violation of the election laws, using deceit and lies to steal money from taxpayers (though false non-profit status) and pervert the election process.

That may not be all true, but it is more true that him suing her solely for the use of the word "my."

Re:This seems silly on the surface

[rickb928]

"In a four-page letter sent to Holder, Grayson accuses Langley of lying to federal elections and requests that she be fined and imprisoned for five years."

And what in that statement is either unfair or unbalanced?

You could at least serve up a helping of fact with your irrationality, eh? If that statement is your basis for calling Fox News unfair and/or unbalanced, you are at least a zip code away from reality.

Please, you don't need to make stuff up. Politics, news, the media, and journalism are pretty much fracked up in America. The plain facts are more than enough to make your point without this apparent disconnect.

Re:This seems silly on the surface

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox is spinning it to be more sensational than it is for ratings.

Oh, almost certainly, but that doesn't change the fact that Grayson's motive is to silence a critic. Regardless of the legality of the criticism, he's still being a childish dick.

Re:This seems silly on the surface

[iLoveLamp]

Walter Cronkite was one of the first to inject his own opinion into the news. An opinion that many in the public listened to. News is not balanced if it is slanted with your opinion.

Re:Streisand....

[anonymousbob22]

Did you RTFA? The reason why Grayson is pissed is because the blogger set up a PAC to effectively find her own re-election, i.e. breaking a ton of tax laws.

Re:Streisand....

[Anonymous Coward]

>he doesn't roll over and take it in the ass from the republicans like most democrats do,

Are you kidding me? The current agenda is straight out of the GOP playbook right?

Do you liberals, really believe you are losing legislatively? Really? WOW.
I would hate to see what you winning looks like?

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[gludington]

Way to engage in ad hominem rather than address the point -- you know, the screen capture of Fox identifying Sanford as a democrat, or the side by side video clips proving footage was used out of turn.

Due Process

[realsilly]

Innocent until proven guilty....

The representative can go after her all he likes, it's for a court to decide if she's innocent or guilty of lying in the use of PAC funds and whether or not the use of 'my' in the name of her site deems fraud.

I can't say whether her use of PAC funds were used properly, but I would certainly agree with her stance that your congressman is your congressman for your state regardless of which district your from. I could see much better use of taxpayer monies than persuing this blogger.

Give specifics

[SuperKendall]

Any example you can give of Republican malfeasance can easily be matched by a similar Democratic one.

You simply choose to have selective blindness as to which malfeasance you remember.

When you just throw up your hands and say they're all like that you basically let the problem continue.

You do the same thing by pretending one side is altruistic while the other is Satan. Actually, you do far worse - you encourage the side you have a blind spot for to escalate behavior.

Re:Give specifics

[Anonymous Coward]

Any example you can give of Republican malfeasance can easily be matched by a similar Democratic one.

During the 2000 election recount, the Republicans hired demonstrators to physically stop the recount. I can't think of a single thing in recent memory that the Democrats have done that approaches that level of sliminess.

Re:Give specifics

[clone53421]

I can't think of a single thing in recent memory that the Democrats have done that approaches that level of sliminess.

I can. The Democrats tried to have legitimate absentee ballots from overseas servicemen invalidated. That’s slimy.

Re:Give specifics

[nomadic]

You do the same thing by pretending one side is altruistic

Only you're completely making up something that I never said. I have serious problems with the Democrats. But just because I don't like how they operate, doesn't mean I think they're equally as bad as the Republicans. It's not binary, good or bad.

childish?

[__aazsst3756]

So.... Apparently the site is dead on with this "childish" claim?

Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Having finally solved all the major problems facing the United States, Florida Rep. Alan Grayson wants to see one of his critics go directly to jail.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[schon]

Thankfully it is not nearly the level of Bias on MS "Text my blackberry please" NBC.

I'm not sure what you mean by "thankfully" - you're saying you want MSNBC to start promoting political protests like Fox News does?!?!?! This sort of thing is bad for *everyone*.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nice and all -- but did you look at the actual videos where Fox has done this? It's pretty clear that Fox made these "errors".

You're doing exactly what the parent poster is doing -- dismissing any info from a source based on your opinion of it. Sometimes even Fox News and Media Matters have valid points.

Re:Streisand....

[Zeelan]

I'm all for you on freedom of speech but, when you dig into this it isn't about censorship or freedom of speech but about how her PAC is formed. She is claiming on the site that she is representing her views of her congress critter, and the site is all about Grayson who isn't. The PAC also is only working on raising money to remove him from office while the PAC was formed under a more general license. Meaning that Angie Langley can bypass campaign financing laws and collect more money then the law would allow. There are a lot of laws on the books now about PACs and there will probable be even more, and some of them are on the books because of massive abuses done by PACs. (They don't have too account for every dollar they get, unlimited donation.) On the flipside as a PAC you have signed away some of your rights to Free Speech to get the tax exempt status. From what I can see from digging into it, Angie Langley, is basicly running a generalized PAC, while specifically targeting Grayson and representing herself as one of his constituents to Federal Elections. So basically committing election fraud with a slice of corruption. Just the kind of thing that people don't like. Anyway, just reading more into it sense the headline is so wonderfully catchy.

Fucking stupid republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, wait.

The Royal We

[Bysshe]

Suck my balls.

and by my I mean the royal "my". Our collective scrotum should be sucked by this congressman.

Add a slash to the URL

[starglider29a]

Add a slash to the URL, so that it's MyCongressmanIsNuts.com/Grayson. Repeat 434 times, once for each congressman.

Fixed that for ya.

MY is accurate

[zoomshorts]

In the American system, we have Congresspeople who represent a particular State.
Those other bozo's are called Representatives, who represent the PEOPLE, no matter
where they reside. Using MY in the case of a representative, ie; Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla,
would be correct.

Grayson actually represents all the people, without regard to their origin, be it Guam, Puerto Rico
or Ohio. He needs to re-take Gov 101.

Ask Representative Grayson what would happen if everyone moved to California. Would
he get to represent the non-existant people in 'his' district? No he would not. He would
have to move to California and run again for election. It is in the constitution. Look
for it. It may take some skillful reading.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[Dunbal]

Slashdot has a libertarian leaning bias

      Geeks, intelligence, porn, what did you expect?

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[linzeal]

Maybe you should learn a bit more rational debate and a lot less rhetoric, it will get you a lot further in life.

Welcome to the Internet.

Alan Grayson seems pretty nuts to me...

[moz25]

... for never hearing about the Streisand effect. I've never heard of the guy before.

So, in my opinion Alan Grayson *is* nuts, just for a different reason :-)

Re:You wouldn't name it 'YourCongressmanIsNuts.com

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

Ah, Republicans hate it when a Dem starts giving back what they've been shoveling for years now...

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[d3ac0n]

It isn't ad-hominem if it's true.

However, your point is correct. Fox did make a mistake with the party affiliation in the highlighted instance. They also corrected the mistake in the next broadcast and several times over the following day.

Hardly a case for "lying" and "repeatedly representing Republicans as Democrats". Indeed, the few mistakes Fox has made, have been called out by it's OWN people often before anyone else has had a chance to digest it.

Unlike, say, most of the rest of the media, who are SO bad at it that sites like NewsBusters have made a regular topic out of it: Name That Party.

I don't claim that Fox News is perfect. FAR FROM IT. But at the same time, to try and use a massively biased leftwing troll site to provide "evidence" of some "vast Republican Conspiracy" in collusion with Fox news is just nuts.

Also, I realize that we all tend to see the world through the lens of ourselves. Being bias-free is nigh-on impossible. But where there are serial examples of obvious bias bordering on gross journalistic malfeasance it's appropriate to call it out.

I apologize if I came across a bit rudely, it's been a rough week at work. (and it's only Tuesday. Ugh.)

Oops

[Trailer Trash]

Someone forgot to mention Grayson's party affiliation. "Democrat" for those still wondering. "Republican" would have been part of the headline had it been so.

Re:Oops

[Myopic]

No it wouldn't have been.

Re:Oops

[thelexx]

That has to be the lamest post I've seen in years from such a low numbered user. Congrats. Keep being part of the problem.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[Kirijini]

It isn't ad-hominem if it's true.

Yes it is.

Anyone who speaks truth will sound a bit crazy.

[TheRealRainFall]

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) "Concision means you have to be able to say things between two commercials. Now that’s a structural property of our media—a very important structural property which imposes conformism in a very deep way, because if you have to meet the condition of concision, you can only either repeat conventional platitudes or else sound like you are from Neptune That is, if you say anything that’s not conventional, it’s going to sound very strange." -- Noam Chomsky

This is easy...

[withears]

So Ms. Langley claims to be in Grayson's district, but she isn't? Seems pretty clear to me. Just change your website to be MyCongressmanIsNuts.com to be ThoseOtherFolksCongressmanIsNuts.com

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[MaWeiTao]

Yeah, because Media Matters is a bastion of impartiality who never take anything out of context and never blow anything out or proportion.

I think it's valid

[CranberryKing]

And whether or not you agree with the method, Grayson's position on issues (unrelated in this context), or whatever, this shouldn't have been tagged as censorship. They could have said 'that' senator is nuts.

Separately, I think the Constitution should have a provision that states that no one in Congress (or any federal position for that matter) should have any legal recourse against anything stated about them other than their own explanation or response. A person whom voluntarily steps into public service, should not only NOT have a MORE privileged status than the common citizenry, they should have a LESS privileged status.

However currently, there are no such laws.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, I realize that we all tend to see the world through the lens of ourselves. Being bias-free is nigh-on impossible. But where there are serial examples of obvious bias bordering on gross journalistic malfeasance it's appropriate to call it out.

Agreed, which is why you may wish to consider Fox made the same mistake about Mark Foley's party affiliation during his sex scandal.

Shouldn't the title of this article be...

[jkauzlar]

Shouldn't the title of this article be "Florida woman attempts to fraudulently raise campaign funding"?

What a tool

[OrangeMonkey11]

Alan Grayson deserve to be bound gag and thrown in a river for this stupid a$$ stunt. Just another b1tcha$$ politician acting like a three years old trying throw someone in jail because he doesn't like a little criticism.

Like the old saying goes "if you don't like the heat get the f*ck out of the kitchen"

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[geekoid]

There is a difference between bias, and pandering.

Yes there is bias everywhere, but that doesn't mean you don't take action to minimize it, instead Fox news holds it up with intentional lies.

FOX news is the worst, by far.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[geekoid]

It all says libertarian..except for the middle bit.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[mcgrew]

Slashdot has a libertarian leaning bias

Not really. Slashdot is a pretty diverse bunch. There are right wing wingnuts, left wing wingnuts, libertarian wingnuts, socialist wingnuts, and moderate folks of all stripes. It's a tech site, people come for the tech but techies come in all colors. DailyCos is set up as a leftist site so of course it will be left-leaning, Fox is owned by a right wing wingnut and his views are of course its views.

The Libertarians just seem to shout louder; you should have seen all the Ron Paul yard signs here last primary election, if elections were won by yard signs he'd have been the Republican candidate.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[Myopic]

Yes, exactly; they are. I'm glad we see eye-to-eye.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[ultramk]

Correction: Dailykos has a moderate right bias, and Fox has a right-of-Mussolini bias. We don't have an active left wing in this country.

Mods! Do your jobs!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know Fox makes it sounds like some DEMOCRAT wants a CONSERVATIVE web site taken down because they used the word "my", but thats simply not true.

The letter was written to claim that Ms Langley requested permission to create a non-partisan voter education committee for her district. However, the webpage that represents this committee is clearly not bipartisan and falsely claims to originate from the district in question. It is illegal and considered tax fraud to do this.

I really hope I don't find many more headline stories that are from Fox's falsification/opinionation version of news. I like slashdot.

"Troll?" Gawd! This was one of the most informative posts on this whole flaming thread! Come on moderators, go to work and reverse all the "-1 disagree" mods that conservative moderators are abusing here!

He's my congressman too.

[Culture20]

He's a congressman in my country's federal legislative branch of government. When I'm talking to a worldwide audience like the internet, he's mine too, even though I don't live in his state and can't vote for him.

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM A JEW?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see anything wrong here. Typical Jewish tactics to deal with their opponents.

Faux News

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

Notice that the story, complete with the completely false, yellow journalism, headline, is only being run by Fox News. I saw the story on Google News earlier, and wanted to read the actual facts. However, so far no reputable news organization has bothered to report it. Something to keep in mind.

What seems to be the actual story is that the Congressman sent a rather routine notice to the FEC about a likely violation of PAC status and election law. All the "trying to send to prison" bit is just a deceptive way of saying that, well yes, laws do have legal force (including ultimately penalties).

Re:Faux News

[bmajik]

I don't troll the interwebs looking for ways to apologize for Fox news {I have no horse in the national-news-media race}, I do think yours is a problematic point of view.

There are _lots_ of stories that the "mainstream media" doesn't pick up. That's because they don't report the news, they make it. Their priorities are capturing eyeballs and shaping public opinion, and both of those goals play second fiddle to making money. Means to an end.

When Grayson forgets to pay his dues to the right people, and when there isn't some sex scandal to report on, he'll show up in more places.

There seems to be some need to consider Fox as an outlier according to whatever metrics people want to stack rank or group news organizations by. Being an outlier isn't necessarily a bad thing; in fact, it's a great thing if you happen to be telling the truth [see also: Galileo]. Lest I set off someone's pressure cooker by conflagrating Fox news and "truth", I was merely reminding you that truth survives a hung jury.

In any case, my [limited] experience with Fox news convinces me they are staffed about the way everyone else on TV [or radio] is - by manipulative hacks that either don't understand what they're talking about or don't want _you_ to understand what they _should_ be talking about.

Re:Faux News

[f0rtytw0]

I'm sorry but Fox News and truth do not go together. I can't trust a news source that goes to court over its right to lie and wins =/

Re:Faux News

[bmajik]

Which news source can you trust? Why?

Re:Faux News

[freedomseven]

By your logic, then you can't trust any of them.

I stood next to a CNN reporter at the Florida election certification as he said that there were as many Gore supporters in the crowd as there were Bush supporters. The problem was that there were maybe fifty Gore supporters at the Capitol building but there were easily two hundred Bush supporters. He was just careful to shoot his video at a narrow spot in the entrance so that the crowds looked even. When I watched the footage aired about a half hour later, it was full of file footage that was shot no where near the area being referenced in the story.

You can disparage Fox if you like but you just have to recognize that all of the media outlets air stories according to what their agenda considers "news." That is why media outlets with a liberal point of view ignored the Acorn scandal while Fox was running it as their lead story.

The fact that you don't like the messenger, doesn't mean that their message is always wrong. If Hitler or Stalin told me that the building was on fire, I would at least consider the possibility that it was true.

My favorite "nonstory" now is the way that CNN is sugar coating the budget impact of the Health Care legislation. They continue to push the projected long term savings of the legislation even though the bulk of the "savings" happens in the distant future and the short term numbers have already been brought into question by the CBO. You know the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) the people who came up with the initial projections for the bill.

At any rate, you hear a little blurb about things that oppose their point of view and week long tirades about things that support their point of view.

Re:Faux News

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News didn't. An TV station owned by Fox Broadcasting (the entertainment thing, that has brought you such gems as American Idol, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, The Cleveland Show, COPS, 'til Death, Brothers, and Firefly) sued. While technically part of the same conglomerate, there's a fairly substantial difference between the Fox News Network and a local TV station. That's a little like saying that Quentin Tarantino's actions during the making of Pulp Fiction are somehow pertinent to Disney Home Video.

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy's points are in order, even if you disagree with them.

blah

[Anonymous Coward]

I really do respect Rep. Grayson however I do believe he is wrong on this one. He should back down.

The Monkeysphere

[TapeCutter]

All of the random ass-headed cruelty of the world will suddenly make perfect sense once we go Inside the Monkeysphere. - I think that's basically what you were saying.

Re:The Monkeysphere

[Stradivarius]

Thanks for the link! You're right - that is basically what I was saying - but Monkeysphere does it in a much more entertaining way.

Re:The Monkeysphere

[TapeCutter]

You're welcome, glad you enjoyed it. :)

Dear Rep. Alan Grayson:

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to say one thing: Most illiterate lie-virtuosi think, "credo, quia absurdum" when they hear Rep. Alan Grayson say that representative government is an outmoded system that should be replaced by a system of overt animalism. It may help if I begin my discussion by relating an innocuous story in order to illustrate my point: A few days ago I was arguing with a particularly revolting four-flusher who was insisting that the majority of pugnacious, lubricious rapscallions are heroes, if not saints. I tried to convince this stingy rube that some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that Grayson is secretly scheming to generate an epidemic of corruption and social unrest. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that he likes to concoct labels for people, objects, and behaviors in order to manipulate the public's opinion of them. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, Grayson and his assistants will run for cover like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must weaken the critical links in Grayson's nexus of brazen anti-intellectualism.

Grayson is completely versipellous. When he's among plebeians, Grayson warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against sesquipedalianism. But when Grayson is safely surrounded by his peons, he instructs them to promote violence in all its forms—physical, sexual, psychological, economical, and social. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that you may have noticed that Grayson is as pusillanimous as the sky is blue. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that Grayson can bring about peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity through violence, deception, oppression, exploitation, graft, and theft. In fact, that's exactly what Grayson does as part of his quest to do exactly the things he accuses reckless bozos of doing.

If Grayson hadn't been challenging all I stand for, it simply would not have occurred to me to write the letter you now are reading. Why, I might have taken the day off altogether. Or maybe I would have been out commenting on Grayson's methods of interpretation. In any case, what Grayson is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly irrational activity. If I seem a bit sordid, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with him on his own level.

Regardless of whether we consider Grayson a lunatic, an evil aggressor, or whatever, if he bites me I will bite back. Now, I don't want to overwork the story about how he plans to destroy the heart and fabric of our nation, so let's just say that he has been trying for some time to convince people that he should worsen an already unstable situation because "it's the right thing to do". Don't believe his hype! Grayson has just been offering that line as a means to place beastly vagrants at the head of a nationwide kakistocracy.

Whether the downfall of our culture can be arrested by a violent rejection of Grayson's smarmy crotchets, I am unable to decide; that would require forces with whose existence I am unacquainted. Nevertheless, you may want to consider that it would be great if all of us could kick butt and take names. In the end, however, money talks and you-know-what walks. Perhaps that truism also explains why this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Grayson's untrustworthy newsgroup postings. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) Grayson is frightened that we might take a strong position on his commentaries, which, after all, label everyone he doesn't like as a racist, sexist, fascist, communist, or some equally terrible "-ist". That's why he's trying so hard

Can I sue Microsoft too?

[brianc]

Can I sue Microsoft too? They seem to always claim it's 'My Computer'.

Faux

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox (fucks with the) news
Close the page now and no-one will get hurt.

Yeah, yeah, mod me down for the joke . . .

[mmell]

Karma to burn, baby! But I'm not off-topic - how'd you think I got the 'funny' that used to be there?

Attention spiteful conservative mods

[fiannaFailMan]

My post is entirely in order and yet you manage to mod it as follows:

60% Troll
20% Insightful
10% Informative

Guess what, my karma is still 'excellent.' Looks like mod bombing is all you have left now that you've lost the argument.

Re:Attention spiteful conservative mods

[clone53421]

Looks like mod bombing is all you have left now that you've lost the argument.

After the level of absurdity that you just expressed in your previous post, I can’t really call this an “argument”. More like a “delusional fantasy”, and it’s quite pointless to argue with an advocate of such a position.

As I’ve already posted, and used all my mod points on other discussions yesterday, the only thing I really have left is just laughing, but this isn’t funny.

Hey, by the way... maybe those moderations don’t mean what you think they mean. It’s entirely possible to say something that is true and still be flamebait. Or troll. There isn’t a “Wrong” mod, and if anything comes close, it’s “Overrated”. Flamebait and troll are categorizations of style, not substance.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[evil_aar0n]

> party affiliation is irrelevant; the conduct of a particular congress critter is what is important

If the particular congress critter could exhibit an ability to think and vote for himself, or his constituents, rather than his party, I might agree with you.

Threatening to jail constituents?

[pclminion]

Threatening to jail constituents for criticizing you? What exactly is the message you are trying to send -- which horrific evil figure of the past and present are you trying to resemble? Are you shooting for Stalin, or are you trying for something a little fresher, like Ahmadinejad?

Simple

[BCW2]

It's called freedom of speech and Grayson is a fool. He is just showing one of the main problems with Washington this year. The Dems can't accept any criticism of any kind. They try to ridicule it (Palin, Tea Parties) or counter attack with everything they have (Fox News). The most thin skinned bunch that has been there in my 53 years of life. If they weren't trying to destroy the country it would be funny.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Kos has a moderate right bias?! What planet are you from? I'm sure even their own readers would disagree with your statement.

Actually, we need to participate in the primaries

[zQuo]

If you want better candidates, register for one of the parties and participate in the primaries. Most candidates are forced into extreme positions just to obtain the candidacy, the more of us who participate to mitigate that, the better.

While I also used to register as independent, it's not enough to protest the dysfunction of the parties. We really need to start participating earlier. Pick the party who has the worst candidates, register, and try to get better candidates. Ignore the party lines, you are just trying to improve the candidate slate for everyone. Republicans and Democrats are both pretty bad, but it's what we have to live with, try to register to get a good candidate on one side or another, so we have a choice between candidates that are not too extreme.

Until we change the winner takes all voting system, we will have basically only two parties. We're stuck with them. The party system is not a great way to choose candidates; a very small sliver of people, mostly extremists, control the candidate slate. One solution is to participate. Otherwise all candidates end up beholden to party extremist groups in order to get the candidacy.

Apparently, a lot of people can't follow links

[scot4875]

To everyone who thinks that this case really is about her 'blog' (I hesitate to call it a blog -- it's really just a poor homepage that looks like it was ripped out of the 90s) or the use of 'my': you fail. You did exactly what Fox News wanted, you took their word for granted without question and didn't dig any further to find the real story. You will keep repeating the misrepresented version of the story until it becomes "truth" to enough people that the actual truth doesn't matter.

Please, take a look at yourself in the mirror and realize, "yes, I am part of the problem."

To those who went a little further and think it's a free speech issue: I'm with you 100% on the whole free speech thing, but this isn't the issue here. Lose the knee-jerk reactions and calls for impeachment. IMHO, If someone is going to organize a PAC whose stated goal and only reason for existence is to influence an election, they'd damn well better follow the exact letter of the law. I'd much rather this wasn't used to go after some 2-bit organization like Langley's, but it's too dangerous of a precedent to set to *not* go after this sort of clear electoral fraud.

--Jeremy

News for nerds? Stuff that matters!?

[Zarn]

Thank you Timothy, for rolling out the red carpet for all the batshit crazy
  commenters by promoting a foxnews fabrication on Slashdot. I've been
  lurking for years but you got me mad enough to post now.

Check your F-ing sources. Get a second and a third source. Foxnews
does not get the benefit of the doubt, not on Slashdot.

What were you THINKING??

Re:News for nerds? Stuff that matters!?

[diamondmagic]

foxnews fabrication? Do you want to challenge the primary sources that the FOXNews.com article posted, including the complaint from Grayson himself?

It looks legitimate to me and anyone else who bothers to do even a little work on Google, apparently you don't want to do that though.

OMG! Has Boing-Beoing heard about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given they are the self-appointed guardian of blogger rights against governmental abuses, they should be on the warpath. Wait, you say the blogger is a Republican and the Congressman is an outspoken "liberal"? Oh sorry, forget I mentioned it.

Maybe you weren't familiar w/ the policy, but...

[weston]

Rhetoric was not just part of Obama's campaign. Rhetoric was his entire campaign...

Really? All rhetoric? No policy? Not, say, on Net Neutrality?

Not to say that some of the rhetoric wasn't impressive on its own. The speech on race that he gave in response to the Reverend Wright controversy showed some pretty strong insights.

It's not because people knew or particularly cared about his policy plans

Maybe you didn't. Personally, I got on board precisely because I thought some policy positions like the one above demonstrated some insights I didn't see elsewhere, or at least that he spent some time talking to the right people.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that a lot if not most people vote on rhetoric and symbolism -- what a candidate means to them, how it fits into whatever political narrative they've internalized. That's almost certainly true no matter which election or candidates we're talking about. But that's a really different statement from yours, which appears to be that there was no policy substance to the Obama campaign, and I don't think that statement is particularly defensible.

Just Curious

[weston]

Were you around for the debate on social security privatization? If you listened to them back then you'd have thought that the GOP was aiming to put America's seniors into concentration camps.

Can you point to or even recollect any instances of that kind of hyperbolic concern?

Genuine question, I'd like to get a bead on this if I can, as it's probably a comparable question to the health care reform issues.

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it when a Republican does something wrong and yo uhave a new posting about it, it always mentions Republican X. But when a Democrat does something wrong, the word Democrat is no place to be found?

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[NeutronCowboy]

Oh please. Just shut the fuck up. I've counted 3 instances where a senator or representative was caught with his pants down - either it was for soliciting gays sex in a bathroom, engaging in sexual innuendo with male underage pages, and a guy with a mistress. Those are the most salacious ones, and the only ones I remember. You know what they have in common? Fox News claimed EVERY time that these people were democrats, for at least 24 hours. Multiple times. The official retraction, if any came at all, was at least a day late. If, however, the person in question was a democrat - like, say, one of the presidential candidates, they got it right. It got to the point where I could predict that Fox News was going to lie about the political affiliation. And no, they didn't change it on their own accord.

You, and everyone who claims that Fox News is anything but an entertainment channel catering to a very specific audience is lying, pure and simple. Your little strawman about media matters is cute and all, but it doesn't address the reality that Fox News plain lies.

Re:Maybe you weren't familiar w/ the policy, but..

[Zordak]

I never said he didn't have policy. In fact, he was quite clear about what his proposed policy was. It's why I didn't vote for him, despite his awesome rhetorical powers. But you and I are not the people he was campaigning to. You and I were already sold one way or another. There was nothing he could do to win my vote short of changing his policy, and there was nothing he could do to lose your vote short of changing his policy. He was campaigning for people in places like Virginia, Iowa, and Colorado---folks who were used to voting Republican but who were tired of all the Republicans' shenanigans. That's where the rhetoric came in. The Republicans had made asses of themselves (take that remark any way you please), and Obama was Different. So they voted for him. But now that he's aggressively doing all the stuff he plainly said he was going to do, suddenly his approval rating is plummeting, like people are surprised at what he's doing. To quote Agent Kay, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[diamondmagic]

If you trust Media Matters to do all your fact checking you will never hear about any of the other mistakes that Fox or any other network makes. It isn't uncommon for news programs to make typos, pull the wrong image or video clip, cut and paste part of a press release incorrectly, or even just not have any content to run at all. But when one of these mistakes happens to mismatch the wrong image with the wrong name it is somehow a huge scandal with a hidden motive.

Come back when you have actual evidence of malice, like, oh I don't know, forged military service records about a certain former president or something.

You will need our approval when living

[Anonymous Coward]

We are fast becoming a country that are losing their rights. It is now that the gov't is free to do whatever they want while "We the People" must seek special permission to live our lives unmolested. It is funny the elite were of the mindset that we have the right to question authority but now they are in charge, you don't dare question their authority. Do as you are told and shut up !

Two parties, same system

[PMBjornerud]

Democrats are every bit as emotional and idiotic as Republicans.

Republicans remove social freedoms.
Democrats remove economic freedoms.

When one gets too bad, switch to the other. Rinse, repeat.

The fear of "throwing away your vote" has created a two-party system where both parties are pretty similar. Nothing will change until it gets a lot worse, bad enough for a third party to swing enough votes to really matter.

Re:Two parties, same system

[operagost]

Democrats remove economic freedoms.

I'm not about to defend Republicans, but Democrats do both! Why else would we have onerous sin taxes on cigarettes and Democrats trying to outlaw non-diet soda? Under universal health care, we'll be required to follow government health regulations. That means no more Mountain Dew, Doritos, and sedentary late-night coding in the basement for the Slashdotter.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a natural mistake based on the bad reputation Democrats have earned.
Democrats = corruption and scandal (especially sex scandals).
And they are the only ones ever involved in vote scandals.
I've never heard of dead Republicans voting, have you?

When anybody hears about a political scandal, their first thought is "DEMOCRAT".
Accept it Dems, you made your bed; now lie in it.

Want a better reputation? Change your ways.

Not really, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama didn't do much of anything Reagan did that one can claim is a Reagan tactic. I don't know where Clinton got his marketing plans, but Obama was doing a rip off of Clinton 92 most of the time including when he was going against Hillary. Bill even used the same HOPE message!

Reagan ran on telling people what they wanted to hear - feeding the disillusion; warm fuzzies. Obama was far more realistic wasn't mischaracterizing the mess like Reagan 84 was (on the defensive.) Obama used HOPE of fixing the BAD BAD situation like Bill Clinton did in 92-- but the situation was FAR WORSE than 92 so people responded even more strongly to the tactic. Now maybe Obama will do something like Reagan in 2012; however, I find that most these general tactics accredited to recent politicians are usually a result of people not knowing or remembering further back - the basics are probably there since the beginning of language - the specifics are harder to attribute; but like I said, the 1992 Clinton messages were very much like Obama 2008 sometimes I felt like they were almost verbatim.

Partial Credit

[bussdriver]

SS is a large slow moving program. A policy at any one instant could make it insolvent in the long term if one extends that into the future without adaptation. Reality is, things do not work like this-- as the bad times approach more people wake up and start trying to fix it. So policies change as the situation becomes more apparent to more people. The process is slow; however, strong measures to fix things DO HAPPEN. In the USA, its a regular pattern of neglect, realization, and expensive quick fixes- somewhat mirroring the boom bust economy. Y2K was a problem; the big problem areas were fixed by billions of dollars of panicked fixes so it never became a serious problem.

The SS system has current payers support the currently retired with a BUFFER of money and the backing power of the government. Sometimes the buffer will empty; in which case, the government will create a secondary buffer until:

A) Government goes broke/stops buffering it (not likely, especially when the boomers will be a MASSIVE voting block)

B) Government avoids monetary problems by lowering benefits.

C) Revenue starts to exceed demand (boomers die) and buffers are refilled.

A ponzi scheme is an IMPOSSIBLE trap that can easily be misapplied to any buffering problem, including any insurance schemes (public or private.) Its especially easy to start drawing parallels when the buffer is going to empty. You are incorrectly applying it to SS.

Social Security WORKS and did for a century before any issues; which started due to poor management combined with an unusual increase in long living old people. Continual growth is not required; right now our economic system is based upon this, not SS. True the fall of this flavor of economics is inevitable therefore making it far more like a ponzi scheme; especially our monetary policy.

Its UNTRUE that SS will fail. This is a plan to kill it by convincing people its inevitably going to end: "so why support it?" Lots of powerful financial corps want you to gamble your SS money -- err, correction, they want to gamble with YOUR savings (and without regulations.) They almost privatized it just a few years ago-- before the collapse, remember?

When SS is projected to go broke the boomers will be dropping like flies. The retirement age may be raised. Then revenue will exceed demand. The real issues:

1) Government steals from SS trust fund (the buffer) which it has been doing.

2) Government ranks up so much debt it's insolvent or unable to carry the debt of buffering the SS system even for a SHORT TIME SPAN. This is possible if current tends continue; but they likely will not. Again, the problem gets bigger as we approach it so we act (unfortunately, with half measures instead of stomaching a real solution..)

3) We finds ways to extend life even longer for the boomers and while refusing to raise retirement age. My neighbor retired at 60 - he is 92. He will spend almost 2/3 his age living off the rest of us; plus the 1st 16 years he was not contributing. He thought he'd die 30 years ago like his parents did.

4) Cost of living increases and wages stagnate; making SS become unaffordable without heavily taxing the rich, which will be even less possible because those circumstances increase their influence over government. This won't kill SS, but force it to become underfunded after government gives up on going into debt for it.

I could clean up my post, but you should get the gist of it.

Problem: corporate vetting

[bussdriver]

"Independents" can not win without corporate vetting. Even vetted parties -- the 2 major ones -- screw their own members who manage to get into office despite the corporations. Ron Paul comes to mind, they screwed him as much as they could, even giving lesser candidates entry into debates or more speaking time and he was within the corporate party! Dennis Kucinich was as well, but it was less obvious and his base wasn't as active or as large. These are within the system. Outside the system, they don't get any chance unless they are a funny billionaire who PAYS for time - if you bribe the media they'll talk about you somewhat evenhandedly.

Money talks. speech is not free and coverage especially is not free. You can speak all you want to small groups but you can't reach the public.

Its a SYSTEM. like a buggy program, it needs debugging. We need to stop the indirect bribery; unfortunately, we have to use the broken system to fix itself. This bootstrap won't work just short of a violent revolution - it has to be that close to the edge. We are nowhere near there today. Best we can do is get people woken up and worked up. Then we can start to do things like:

Mandatory equal airtime. FREE. a form of tax on the media. They use OUR airwaves and OUR intellectual property and even the private I.P. they used exists because of OUR laws.

Independent run debates (league of women voters used to do them)

Semi-non-profit media like newspapers. used to be that news divisions were a nice tax write off; besides a public service-- they have gone down since they became profit centered.

Public financing of campaigns. equality. Money is not a vote, its not democratic. think about it.

Politicians can't work again after leaving office. neither can their spouse. Maybe they should just go to jail; if they care so much for us then why won't they actually give something up for real??? At least stick them on SS pay for life and ban them from work or investment.

Run-Off Voting; any of them. ....lots of possible things to do-- but until people realize the system is busted... they'll keep using windows 95.

Re:Clear Submission Bias

[riverat1]

And they (D's) are the only ones ever involved in vote scandals

Now that's a laugh. Ever hear of voter caging? That's an almost exclusively Republican crime.