Slashdot Mirror


State Senator Caught Looking At Porn On Senate Floor

Everyone knows how boring a debate on a controversial abortion bill can get on the Senate floor. So it's no wonder that Florida State Sen. Mike Bennett took the time to look at a little porn and a video of a dog running out of the water and shaking itself off. From the article: "Ironically, as Bennett is viewing the material, you can hear a Senator Dan Gelber's voice in the background debating a controversial abortion bill. 'I'm against this bill,' said Gelber, 'because it disrespects too many women in the state of Florida.' Bennett defended his actions, telling Sunshine State News it was an email sent to him by a woman 'who happens to be a former court administrator.'"

574 comments

  1. Florida by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it is safe to say we earned our Fark tag the hard way.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this was Fark, someone would have already posted the source by now.

    2. Re:Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you make it look soooo easy.

    3. Re:Florida by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Speaking of Fark, I think this "News story" is somewhat beneath the standards of Fark.

      A politician otes to invade our personal privacy? Zzzzz. A politician sides with corporate interests against the public at large? Zzzz. A politician makes a stupid incorrect statement about sciences, history, geography, or technology? Sometimes interesting. A politician is caught with his pants down in some way? ZOMG NEWS!

      Leave that line of thinking with cable news and tabloids.

    4. Re:Florida by corbettw · · Score: 1

      You mean like the video displayed in the summary? Guess we all know which state you're posting from.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    5. Re:Florida by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Fark was also one of the few places to cover Iran instead of going for ratings.

    6. Re:Florida by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1

      Um, I'm pretty sure the AC meant the uncensored version.

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    7. Re:Florida by Meski · · Score: 1

      Is the Senate floor an inverse Sistine Chapel?

    8. Re:Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, send an email to a senator, with child pornography in it, hope he opens it during a session in the senate and is caught on tape.
      That's a new strategy for eliminating an opponent!

      Or should we use our brain and understand people are not responsible for the crap they receive in emails?

  2. I don't see what the big deal is by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Funny

    You liberal nerds are just jealous you don't have female coworkers sending you naughty pictures.

    1. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by Kleppy · · Score: 0

      Our Corporate Policy is that you are only in trouble/punishable if it's sent BY you and not TO you.

      It however mentions nothing about opening and viewing the material, or at least I saw no information on viewing. I would think you'd only be in trouble if it anyone else found it offensive or impaired your ability to perform your job (beyond the obvious sexual arousal).

    2. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Her and three of her nude friends?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    3. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      Dude. He was also looking at video of a dog.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    4. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by lorg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nude? Where? Looks to me like they are all wearing some kinda bikini. Some of them might be or are possibly topless but atleast one of them isn't. Is this what is concidered to be porn in Florida these days?

    5. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      Think of the dogs!

    6. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD PARENT UP!

    7. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Let me rephrase the argument for you: Holy shit male politicians have dicks! SOMEONE CALL THE POLICE!

    8. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by Sleepy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, they're only "nude" if you consider a bikini nude.. in which case you are delusional.

      The picture CLEARLY shows bikinis (even the ones that were partially black-boxed are obviously bikinis).

    9. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have/are, what's the diff?

      The diff here is, dickless or not, what he did is against policy, may be illegal, and is certainly disrespectful of the entire state that is paying for his time and has to live under the decisions he participates in making.

      Doesn't matter whether it was b00bies or reruns of Curb Your Enthusiasm. When a State Senator breaks the rules it's as if he thinks the law means nothing, and that is the picture next to the entry for Hypocrisy in the dictionary.

    10. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Yeah, a naked dog.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    11. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      They are wearing bikinis as you say but they may not be wearing them "properly".

    12. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's worse. We have male coworkers sending us naughty pics :(

    13. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Nude? Where? Looks to me like they are all wearing some kinda bikini. Some of them might be or are possibly topless but atleast one of them isn't. Is this what is concidered to be porn in Florida these days?

      If it gives you the horn, it's gotta be porn.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Wanking off to bikini clad lovelies at work is not actually much better than doing the same to nude ones.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  3. Porn..... by Dthief · · Score: 4, Funny

    now available in SEC and Senator flavors.

    --
    www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
  4. Fire him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    next topic..

  5. Hmm... by Pojut · · Score: 1

    ...anyone else surprised that porn isn't blocked as per the IT policy for the Senate? Or am I expecting too much?

    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... I'd hate for you to be MY admin! Sheesh.

    2. Re:Hmm... by characterZer0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you have a filtering system that can identify pornography inside a video file inside a zip archive?

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    3. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You allow your users to send and receive *.zip files?

    4. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You force your users to send each file in a large group of files individually and uncompressed?

      (no, .tar.gz/.tar.bz2/.7z/etc/etc is not an answer here, they can all carry pornography)

    5. Re:Hmm... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it is, and you know there are NEVER any holes in blocking technology.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    6. Re:Hmm... by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      If you do, GP, share. I still have to find all my good user porn manually by reading their emails and looking through their files.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    7. Re:Hmm... by IshmaelDS · · Score: 1

      I don't but I do quarantine any attachements that are archive's or executables and require them to get in touch with our helpdesk to download them. We have the ability (depending on who you get on the helpdesk they may have to go to a more senior tech) to view and scan the files to make sure they are business appropriate and virii free.

      --
      letting an idiot know they are an idiot is not a game... it's a responsibility. - by Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
    8. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can trace .zip files renamed as .zip.stopthat ?

    9. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You force your users to send each file in a large group of files individually and uncompressed?

      No, that's what FileNet, SharePoint, eRoom, and Documentum are for.
      Upload the files to a CMS and send out a link; the above vendors even provide add-ons to automatically strip attachments and replace them with links to uploaded versions.

      E-mail is not a large-file-transfer medium.

    10. Re:Hmm... by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're expecting too much. Restrictions on the capabilities of the offices of elected representatives can be construed as disenfranchisement of the people he/she represents. Imagine if they were required to personally go through some labyrinthine process before they could actually cast votes. Or if their internet filter was so strict they could never use the internet to learn about issues facing them.

      So, expecting that representatives have to follow the dictates of the IT cadre is a bit much.

      Not that they should ever need to look at porn, but it's an issue of how aggressive the filter should be.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    11. Re:Hmm... by Me!+Me!+42 · · Score: 1

      You allow your users to send and receive e-mail?

      --
      -- My apologies if the above facts contain any opinions, or vice versa! --
    12. Re:Hmm... by SausageOfDoom · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd have thought this was pretty trival. A lot of files have some kind of signature that identifies what type of file they are, often in plain text at the start of the file. This would presumably make basic filtering based on file contents pretty easy - ie if it starts with 'PK' and has binary content, I'd be guessing it's a zip. And if it starts with GIF, PNG or JFIF I'll be forwarding it to my special private server.

      The only excuse for a file filtering program not to do this would be that the mail server was under too much load to MIME-decode and examine each attachment - but then most corporate mail servers will be running virus scanners which will need to do this anyway, so that's a pretty weak argument.

    13. Re:Hmm... by Xeno+man · · Score: 1

      I'll let you know when some actually gets through.

    14. Re:Hmm... by a_nonamiss · · Score: 4, Funny

      You allow users?

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    15. Re:Hmm... by Teun · · Score: 1
      I thought the Senate is the highest authority (or at least one of them) in the Federation.

      And I can't imaging such a level of authority to be subject to any type of censorship or other meddling in the flow of their information.

      Besides, except what appears as a beach/holiday pic I did not notice any porn on his screen.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    16. Re:Hmm... by Teun · · Score: 1

      Oops, it was the State Senate but then for the subject at hand what's the difference.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    17. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You allow your users to send and receive *.zip files?

      Oh, don't get me started on annoying ultra-paranoid email administrators and their obsession with blocking every goddamn file type known to man.

      Seriously, I'm so sick of it. I don't know how many times I've seen this email exchange between developers and clients:

      Email #1: Can you send me your configuration file so I can try to determine what's wrong?

      Email #2: Can you send me the file again, but this time change the file extension because apparently the mail server blocks XML files.

      Email #3: Okay, one more time, but this time zip the file. Apparently changing the file extension doesn't work, because the mail server sees the contents as XML and blanks it all out.

      Email #4: That didn't work either. You're going to have to send it one more time, but this time zip it and change the file extension of the zip file.

      Email #5: Praise $deity, it finally worked.

      Grrrr.

    18. Re:Hmm... by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      You allow ?

      Error: problems[0] is undefined.

    19. Re:Hmm... by toastar · · Score: 1

      your IT policy blocks images sent to you via email? how does it do that?

      I'd hate to think of how many flops a program that scans all pictures in all emails would take.

    20. Re:Hmm... by toastar · · Score: 2, Funny

      E-mail is not a large-file-transfer medium.

      Tell that to my boss

    21. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "virii free"?

      Really, parent? Wow...

    22. Re:Hmm... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Yup, and very happy they are. They've even worked out they can reboot their laptops by holding them upside down and shaking them, although most of them aren't quite up to operating both dials at once.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    23. Re:Hmm... by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      Gmail and Outlook block images automatically. It isn't hard at all.

    24. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You allow your users to send and receive *.zip files?

      I want to slaughter you.

    25. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you need to use FTP. You know.... FILE TRANSFER protocol.

      Email is a communication tool, not a storage bin with a fed ex label.

    26. Re:Hmm... by prograde · · Score: 1

      err...have you ever considered setting up a web portal where they can upload the file? Or and FTP server? Really, if this is happening "often" there's probably a better solution out there, just waiting for you to lay your blessed eyes on it.

    27. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the guy who doesn't wanna allow zip files? Seems like you're the pussy to me. "Hurr I'll just make my users' life more of a pain cause I can't admin for shit".

    28. Re:Hmm... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      You really think that an administrator who sets up an email system so paranoid it blocks XML files is going to allow an Internet-facing FTP server?

      Sadly, it seems that often what happens is sensitive data gets transferred through unrelated third parties like Yousendit and Drop.io who could be doing anything with it.

    29. Re:Hmm... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Email #5: Crap. Can you just send it to my Hotmail/GMail account?

    30. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blocking zips is being a tool, not using a tool. What I prefer is a tool that will actually scan .zip files instead of just denying them.

      You know, because I'm not a fucking idiot.

    31. Re:Hmm... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Oh, don't get me started on annoying ultra-paranoid email administrators and their obsession with blocking every goddamn file type known to man.

      Oh, don't get me started on annoying know it all users and their constant petty attempts to use a system for a purpose it wasn't designed for instead of using the system we designed for that purpose.

      User: I cant email. Why is the server broken
      Admin: Server is fine, what are you trying to email.
      User I only want to send this video file to 40 people.
      Admin How big is it. Limit is 7 MB.
      User What????
      User Thats a ridiculous limit, I want 50 MB.
      Admin If everyone sends 50 MB files does that the email server will collapse into a pile of molten lead and steel.
      User I don't care, I want my 50 MB.

      This is typically followed by various rants and threats before I transfer them to the hold music. No one seems to understand that Email is meant for short text messages, even adding images in was a kluge. If you want to send files, especially to a client why aren't you using a god damned FTP, HTTPS or DMS system. If you don't have one, you need to make a business case for one. IT is here to make sure the entire company runs, not to cater to your petty whims.

      The BOFH, used to be the Kind and Friendly Operator of Candy and Flowers before he had to deal with end users.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    32. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy was talking about an xml file. I swear, at one point I and a consultant from a different company almost ended up having to exchange our files as blobs in a fucking database. Only by chance did we find out we each had shell access to the same box. Getting a common store to put it on would likely have taken three months of deliberations and b.s.

      Business is about trust. Don't employ complete morons, and if you have to, put those in a separate group that can't email binaries. Fire those who are supposed to know better that end up spreading viruses.

    33. Re:Hmm... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Business is about trust. Don't employ complete morons

      Let me know how that one works out for you.

      I've been working here six months, three of those six months were spend fixing the place from the last two sysadmins who I wouldn't trust to find the network port. This is in a small business where screw ups are immediately apparent, the larger you get the easier it is for the incompetent to hide. Worse then that, the incompetent can hide in plain sight if they brown nose enough.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    34. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said that, you pulled it out of your ass. There are plenty of situations in which you'd use a zip file even though the file isn't big. There's a reason compressors have a "storage" option, you know. Then again you're a shitty network admin, what should I expect.

      Have you figured out how to have an anti-virus scan work through zip files yet? I wish you good luck.

    35. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll ignore the fact that you responded to a rant about someone being blocked from doing their job with a defense against people sending massive video files to all of their friends.

      instead of using the system we designed for that purpose

      Email has attachments. Accept it and move on. The real question is this: if it's considered safe for my client to send me an XML file using the "appropriate" system (FTP, HTTPS, DMS), then why is it not safe for that same client to send me that same XML file using email? Are files on an FTP server magically immune to the viruses that plague email attachments?

    36. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not offering solutions, you're offering workarounds. If security systems regularly need to be worked around, then they're not actually secure, and arguably unnecessary.

  6. Porn? It is censored! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The video appears to be censored. Hard to call it porn when what he appears to be seeing is nothing worse than what is available on daytime over the air TV.

  7. Hardly qualifies as porn by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Risque or naughty, maybe. Still, the guy should have been paying more attention to his job.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
    1. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Jeng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      being topless in most places is not an actual crime.

      It only becomes a crime when women go topless for money in public.

      You can show it for free in public, or charge in a private place, but you cannot charge if you're showing it in public.

      Considering those laws I would say that that shot of women with their bikini tops moved to the side would not be porn, unless they were paid for it.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Thanshin · · Score: 0, Troll

      Considering those laws I would say that that shot of women with their bikini tops moved to the side would not be porn, unless they were paid for it.

      Wait... What?

      So it's only porn if it's illegal?

      What the frack are you talking about?

    3. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I know what I'm talking about, what the frak are you talking about?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    4. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe he already made up his mind how he wanted to vote?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    5. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on where those most places are. In most places in the US it is illegal (indecent exposure). NY state, Maine and a few beaches in CA are about the limits of legal female topless-ness. Oh and maybe a few places up in Oregon and Washington state.

    6. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Umm... no one said it was a crime... do you understand why looking at photos of nude women while at work is not acceptable behavior?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    7. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by compro01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Depends on your definition of "most places". It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    8. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 1

      You can show it for free in public, or charge in a private place, but you cannot charge if you're showing it in public.

      Creative commons for boobs?

    9. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, especially for senators. If they paid less attention to making new laws, we'd have far fewer problems.

    10. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much a given. Almost nothing ever actually comes to the floor for debate until at least sixty senators have already made up their minds about their vote. Anything actually happening on the Senate floor is purely grandstanding for the public, aside from the actual voting.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    11. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Asking a senator to pay attention?

      Next, you will ask they actually read and understand the bill they are voting on...

      You forget how this country works.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by d3ac0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes.

      Now, do YOU understand that the image was:

      A) Of Bikini-clad women. Not nude, and not even (as TFA falsely states) topless.

      B) E-mailed to the Senator uninvited and unannounced, with a deceptive filename.

      C) Sent by a female co-worker.

      Basically, it's looking more and more like this Senator got Punk'd.

      But hey, let's not let a few facts get in the way of a salacious story! This IS /. after all.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    13. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Really?

      what about my friend that works HR for a stripper club?

      I am certian it's not only acceptable behaivoir, but expected!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Strip-clubs have HR departments?

      Wow. Who'd-a thunk it?

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    15. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but it was an abortion bill they were debating. Zero chance that that debate was going to change anybody's mind.

      If there's a problem here, it's that the Florida Senate is wasting time with the sideshow instead of just cutting to the vote.

      Just some lame rag trying to stir up controversy.

    16. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by anagama · · Score: 1

      Abso-frelling-correct.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    17. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. I needed to update my list of States I Will Consider Living In.

    18. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by kramerd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pornography is material with little or no artistic merit. Under obscenity laws, yes, porn is illegal. Or to be more accurate, sexually explicit material is only illegal if it's porn (this one off those squares are rectangles arguments), but pornography is not necessarily sexually explicit.

    19. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      It is only protected in 47 states? Does that mean it is illegal to breast-feed in public in the other states?

    20. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      So it's only porn if it's illegal?

      That's why I only have sex while trespassing.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    21. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Wait, you actually believe the excuse that it was sent to him in an email by a female court employee?

      I bet the dog ate his homework, too.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    22. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Technically yes, but whether the law would hold up in court is a different consideration, as is whether people pay any attention to the legal protection.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    23. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by shadowrat · · Score: 2, Funny

      The wet dog tips the balance to porn.

    24. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Hordeking · · Score: 0

      Depends on your definition of "most places". It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

      You must have studied math at the Barack H. Obama School for the Mathemagically Challenged (BHOSMC). I counted 54 states in your total (47 plus 7 exceptions).

      Did we suddenly annex 4 new states I don't know about?

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    25. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by d3ac0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that it was sent via e-mail can easily be backed up with mail server records, which will be released if needed.

      While this senator is obviously not the most technically astute, he does at least grasp the basic concept that all of his internet traffic is running through some kind of web proxy server:

      When asked if he ever looks at pornography while on the Senate floor, Bennett responded, "You'd have to be insane to do that. It all goes through a server. I don't think anybody would be doing that."

      And then there is the fact that he closes it within seconds of it appearing on his screen, and if you look at the application open immediately behind the image, it's quite obviously an e-mail client.

      From the evidence available from the video, I see no reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    26. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by kramerd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Depends on your definition of "most places". It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

      You must have studied math at the Barack H. Obama School for the Mathemagically Challenged (BHOSMC). I counted 54 states in your total (47 plus 7 exceptions).

      Did we suddenly annex 4 new states I don't know about?

      Nope, you are just illiterate.

      California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas are the states in which it is not illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public.

      47 states protect the right to breastfeed.

      Thanks for playing.

    27. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably talk about the characters on your favourite shows as if they are real.

      You should use the subjunctive there. The sentence should read: "You probably talk about the characters on your favourite shows as if they were real." Speak English, not some fucking grammatical corruption of English.

    28. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! When we're talking in a smegging geek website, we need to make sure we don't talk like smegging geeks! This makes almost-perfect sense, except for the parts where it doesn't, and since there's only one part to this concept, it doesn't make any sense!

      Smeghead ACs...

    29. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Risque or naughty, maybe.

      I couldn't see nor download anything because the Website refuses to let me see any visuals without installing the Flash executable program on my computer. What the article does say however is this:

      the image of four bikini-clad women with their tops exposed

      Which means the Slashdot editors weren't doing their jobs (or were deliberately telling a lie in the title of the article). What is obvious however, is that The Sunshine News Website did a bait-and-switch in their yellow JOURNALISM; they state that a senator was looking at pornography in big letters at the top of their "story", and then in little letters somewhere in the middle they state that it was "the image of four bikini-clad women...". It makes Fox News seem scholarly by comparison.

    30. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Summary says porn, article says porn.

      Doesn't matter what actually happened, just what shows up when you google it.

      But watching the video in HD at full screen it's clear they're wearing bikini's. I know that (now), you know that, but the rest of the world thinks it's porn when they google it. That's what matters.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    31. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, it's porn if it is "evil", for some definition of "evil", from "pornos" meaning, you guessed it, "evil". Pornography means "evil writing", and I think it's reasonable to interpret "writing" liberally, in the same way that we interpret "speech" to include photographs, signs, the written word, artistic expression, etc. In fact, much of what many consider pornography is protected speech under First Amendment grounds.

      But, that misses the greater point here: this man was not doing his job, for which he is paid by taxpayers.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    32. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Dewin · · Score: 1

      Strip-clubs have HR departments?

      Well they want to make sure that prospective humans they hire have ample... ermm... resources.

      --
      Of course nobody reads the FAQ! If people read the FAQ, the Questions wouldn't be so Frequently Asked.
    33. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Why was my post modded "Troll"? Since when is stating facts about TFA classify as "trolling"????

      Can I get a mod fix please?

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    34. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      Depends on your definition of "most places". It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

      Nope, you are just illiterate.

      California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas are the states in which it is not illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public.

      47 states protect the right to breastfeed.

      Thanks for playing.

      Nice try.

      It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states)

      So, you're saying that breastfeeding in public is allowed in 47 states...

      Now, let's look at your exceptions...

      Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

      According to this, it's illegal in 7 states to breastfeed in public.

      For those of us who don't subscribe to the 57-state theory, 47+7 = 54 (which is 4 more states than I recall we had).

      Check please!

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    35. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      Depends on your definition of "most places". It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

      Nope, you are just illiterate.

      California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas are the states in which it is not illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public.

      47 states protect the right to breastfeed.

      Thanks for playing.

      Nice try.

      It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states)

      So, you're saying that breastfeeding in public is allowed in 47 states... Now, let's look at your exceptions...

      Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

      According to this, it's illegal in 7 states to breastfeed in public. For those of us who don't subscribe to the 57-state theory, 47+7 = 54 (which is 4 more states than I recall we had). Check please!

      Okay, apparently I misread the original statement. It was ambiguous to me.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    36. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by kramerd · · Score: 1

      Breastfeeding and exposing breasts in public are two different things.

      Dumbass.

    37. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Error. Tautological argument.

      No, Pornography is legal. Obscenity is illegal. Please go back and review the Miller decision.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    38. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      It was merely erotic art, it was not pornography. If the women were recorded performing sexual acts either on themselves or with each other, then it would be pornography. I'm a domain expert pm the subject of pornography with female actresses.

    39. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by radtea · · Score: 2, Informative

      from "pornos" meaning, you guessed it, "evil".

      Nope. Pornoi were low-class prostitutes in ancient Greece. "Pornography" means "whore's writing", more-or-less.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    40. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by kramerd · · Score: 1

      Error. Tautological argument.

      No, Pornography is legal. Obscenity is illegal. Please go back and review the Miller decision.

      I didn't say that pornagraphy, in and of itself, is illegal.

      Directly, I stated that 'Under obscenity laws, yes, porn is illegal' (ie if porn is obscene, it is illegal).

      I see how you could be confused though.

    41. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Pigeon451 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps his co-worker send him an email entitled "BILL 125 -- URGENT" with an attachment, to which he complied by opening. That would actually be pretty funny.

    42. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Pornography does not mean evil writing. The root is porne/pornea, meaning prostitution. So pornography is writing or depiction of prostitution.
      http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pornography

    43. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      Perhaps his co-worker send him an email entitled "BILL 125 -- URGENT" with an attachment, to which he complied by opening. That would actually be pretty funny.

      Yeah, especially if it was the guy sitting behind him with the video camera.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    44. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      oh gee and you didn't try to go with some sort of "assets" joke??

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    45. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      prospective humans

      You must go to some really interesting strip clubs...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    46. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      As others have pointed out. I stand corrected.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    47. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by compro01 · · Score: 1

      No, 47 states allow women to expose their breasts strictly for the purpose of breastfeeding. Of those 47, 7 of those allow women to expose their breasts under any circumstances. 43 states do not allow women to expose their breasts, and of those, 3 do not make an exception for breastfeeding.

      it's 40 (exemption for breastfeeding) + 7 (allowed, period) + 3 (not allowed, period).

      My statement made perfect sense to me, though maybe I'm tripping over something specific to American English.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    48. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      He's confused because you can't speak clearly.

      Under obscentity laws, yes, porn MAY BE illegal. Not is, MAY BE.

      What you said was that pornography is illegal because of obscenity laws. That is incorrect. Pornography MAY be illegal under obscenity laws IF that pornography falls under the category of "obscenity" which is spelled out relatively clearly considering how unclear it can be what is porn and what is art.

      Pornography isn't by definition sexually explicit, but much pornography IS sexually explicit AND ALSO entirely legal. Softcore porn isn't sexually explicit. Softcore porn could potentially fall under the "obscenity" heading, but I don't know that for certain and it'd really take a lot. By "a lot" I mean "are animals or human waste involved".

      In summation, porn is legal, sexually explicit things are legal, it's just obscene things that aren't legal.

    49. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      No, 47 states allow women to expose their breasts strictly for the purpose of breastfeeding. Of those 47, 7 of those allow women to expose their breasts under any circumstances. 43 states do not allow women to expose their breasts, and of those, 3 do not make an exception for breastfeeding.

      it's 40 (exemption for breastfeeding) + 7 (allowed, period) + 3 (not allowed, period).

      My statement made perfect sense to me, though maybe I'm tripping over something specific to American English.

      Point taken. I had misread the original statement as stating that 47 states allowed it, and 7 with exceptions allowing for it.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    50. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by compro01 · · Score: 1

      The 47 states statement is separate from the listed states, hence the parenthesis.

      7 states allow exposed breasts whenever.
      40 allow exposed breasts only for breastfeeding.
      3 don't allow exposed breasts period.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    51. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by kramerd · · Score: 1

      You seem to have understood what I said, and then gone off on a tangent.

      I thought I had initially clarified this in the third sentence, 'sexually explicit material is only illegal if it's porn' which explained that sexually explicit material must be with little or no artistic merit in order to be obscene (and thus illegal, under obscenity law). What was unclear?

      While I understood why RF could be confused, I also expect that this is /. People without reading comprehension or logic should be the exception, not the expectation.

      From your post, I am fairly certain that the use of animals or human waste would by definition make something no longer soft-core (remember, pornography refers to something with little or no artistic merit, not sexuality). While I suppose it would be possible to show sexual use of animals or human waste without being explicit, I can't think of an example without artistic merit. This past weeks episode of family guy shows a dog eating a baby's shit yet for some reason isn't considered to be obscene, despite the baby acknowledging personal pleasure from getting the dog to do so. The dog and baby also acknowledge that they love each other because of this, making the intent erotic (and thus sexual). This aired on prime time television nationally and thus must have artistic merit, because it is not obscene, but contains hard-core sexuality. Soft-core, by definition, when referring to sexuality (but not necessarily pornography), refers to things that are sexual in nature, but that do not show genitals. Hardcore refers to activities depicting sexuality more explicitly than soft-core. Both are adjectives that can describe items that are either obscene (because they are sexual and pornography) or not obscene (because they are not pornography). Hard-core or soft-core sexuality containing artistic merit is not obscene.

      Note that soft-core and hard-core do not necessarily refer to sexual things (for example, you can be a hard-core vegetarian, although no one knows why you would want to be)

    52. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you RTFA, and I quote:
      "We offered Bennett an opportunity to prove his statements to Sunshine State News by showing the executive editor and videographer the email record with a government-related subject line, but after talking to the Senate's top lawyer, he declined to let us see those records."

      So your statement of "will be released if needed" is moot.

      Although we have a "Sunshine Law" in Florida for public records, I seriously doubt we will ever see the "mail server records".

      And from the Senator talking to the "Senate's top lawyer" and refusing to show the records, it leads me to believe (and, yes, assume) that the Senator has something to hide...?

    53. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      if you look at the application open immediately behind the image, it's quite obviously an e-mail client.

      Really? It was quite obviously a browser. Directly under the title bar is a big "Back" arrow and right above the image is a row of tabs.

    54. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      They may be wearing bikinis but they look like the kind that are easily worn "improperly".

    55. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You appear to be under the impression that ((porn == obscene) == true)
      Obscenity and pornography are both legally defined, and are not identical concepts.

    56. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, you're illiterate.

      It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

      Even if you know nothing about scope, there is no ambiguity, because the "exceptions", does not immediately follow "47 states.

      If it had read:

      It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public in most of the USA. (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

      Then you would have valid cause to be confused.

    57. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by kramerd · · Score: 1

      I make no appearance of being under such an impression.

      At this point, you are just making things up.

    58. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, literacy is optional in American English.

    59. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states)

      So, you're saying that breastfeeding in public is allowed in 47 states...

      It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts (except for the case of breastfeeding, with condition). You are incorrectly asserting some statement about breasts after the main point of the sentence (which is about nudity only) is the only idea expressed, and that's incorrect.

      Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

      According to this, it's illegal in 7 states to breastfeed in public.

      Nope. You are having trouble with the parenthetical statement. When in doubt, erase what's in parenthesis, then read it again. IF you delete everything in the parenthesis, the meaning is absolutely clear (thought technically inaccurate). The parenthetical statement is a footnote regarding the legality of breastfeeding being an exception to the "no breasts" rule.

      That you were never taught how to properly read parenthetical statements doesn't mean that there was any ambiguity at all in the statement. And even if there was ambiguity, you chose to read the statement in the only impossible way, when there was another obvious reading that would be possible. That makes you an offtopic troll posting flamebait.

    60. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Hordeking · · Score: 1
      Illiteracy != missing a clause or misreading it. Most of you guys seem kind of illiterate, since I admitted to misreading it.

      Okay, apparently I misread the original statement. It was ambiguous to me.

      I misread it. As a result, the statement was ambiguous to me. I don't know how much simpler I can make this phrase. Let me try: Misread something, interpreted based on misreading, interpretation incorrect.

      Does this compute yet?

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    61. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states)

      So, you're saying that breastfeeding in public is allowed in 47 states...

      It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts (except for the case of breastfeeding, with condition). You are incorrectly asserting some statement about breasts after the main point of the sentence (which is about nudity only) is the only idea expressed, and that's incorrect.

      Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

      According to this, it's illegal in 7 states to breastfeed in public.

      Nope. You are having trouble with the parenthetical statement. When in doubt, erase what's in parenthesis, then read it again. IF you delete everything in the parenthesis, the meaning is absolutely clear (thought technically inaccurate). The parenthetical statement is a footnote regarding the legality of breastfeeding being an exception to the "no breasts" rule. That you were never taught how to properly read parenthetical statements doesn't mean that there was any ambiguity at all in the statement. And even if there was ambiguity, you chose to read the statement in the only impossible way, when there was another obvious reading that would be possible. That makes you an offtopic troll posting flamebait.

      You would know that I don't know how to read a parenthetical statement, wouldn't you? I'm awestruck at your skill at word-smithing and grammar-handling, and evaluating the skills of others, all based on a single occurrence of someone misreading a statement. Where ever did you get your BE in English? The City College of San Francisco?

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    62. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Save America - write your senator and enclose a porn DVD today!

    63. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      he does at least grasp the basic concept that all of his internet traffic is running through some kind of web proxy server

      I very much doubt that the guy in question (and, indeed, most members of U.S. Senate) know what a "proxy server" is, either by name, or even in concept.

    64. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Maybe he already made up his mind how he wanted to vote?

      I'm not sure there's anything to make there, even. Judging by the recent voting record, I'm inclined to believe that GOP senators are simply hardwired prior to assuming their duties.

      I do wonder what algorithm they use to detect whether the bill is submitted by the Dems, though.

    65. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      Could not he have clicked a link from an email, which would naturally have opened in his browser?

    66. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmn, as far as I can tell, that's most places biased on population. see a population map [mapofusa.net] that would then lead me to think that people in larger areas who have more opportunity to run into nude people are ok with it,

      the other lower population states stick to their old draconian laws because hell, if you go topless there - nobody cares, or it'll be weeks before you run into anybody.

    67. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Save America - write your senator and enclose a porn DVD today!

      Brilliant. I'm starting to reconsider the idea of sending Senators on junkets now. I saw it as corruption, but if it's instead viewed as a distraction... man, better to have Congresscritters busy running hooker syndicates than making banking law.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    68. Re:Hardly qualifies as porn by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Considering the state of the law down in Florida, the less of their job the legislators do, the better!

      Florida, the only state where you can get 5 years in prison for speeding.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  8. A setup by Rurik · · Score: 5, Informative

    Purely a setup. Notice how the presence of a black bar insinuates that it's covering something offensive? If you look at the picture, there's all fully clothed, the straps to their tops are visible, including the top themselves under and above the bar.

    He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time... but there is no porn here.

    1. Re:A setup by characterZer0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Honestly, I would rather my senetor spend his time in the Senate looking at pictures of pretty girls than voting or cramming pork into every bill he can find.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:A setup by MoellerPlesset2 · · Score: 0

      Uh, wow. And I suppose the big "Sunshine News" logo was actually in the room? And the guy just repeated the exact same action twice??

      It's EDITED, you dolt! You think a news organization would put that online _without_ censoring the naughty bits??

    3. Re:A setup by mi · · Score: 2, Funny

      He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time...

      Actually, not even that is automatically wrong.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you missed the point. The girls aren't naked.

    5. Re:A setup by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Damned skippy. About the least harmful thing a Senator can do on the Senate floor is to look at porn. Given their innate gift of being able to fuck up anything up to and including a wet dream, I'd even rather they be having a full on circle jerk than doing what they've been doing. It wouldn't be near as big of a national embarrassment as the shit they've been passing as law.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    6. Re:A setup by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      And apparently you can't read. The girls are NOT topless! The black bar wasn't needed. It was added to provide the impression that the girls were topless, thus increasing the salaciousness and "newsworthiness" of the story.

      I'm thinking YOU are the "dolt" here.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    7. Re:A setup by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time

      Whereas reading Slashdot on a private employer's time is perfectly acceptable.

    8. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not really, here is the original image (for all intents and purposes)
      http://img157.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=00376_0460_ff2009-darksand1-3001_123_939lo.jpg

      Very poorly made bikinis.

    9. Re:A setup by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      Mod this man (or women) informative.

    10. Re:A setup by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      The bikini cups are pulled aside. Pretty sure I've seen that pic before.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    11. Re:A setup by ChikMag777 · · Score: 5, Informative

      NSFW

    12. Re:A setup by Protoslo · · Score: 1
      Well, the bikinis in this case appear to have voids over the nipples and labia. Nevertheless, I don't think that flashing an image from bikini-pleasure.com for a few seconds rises to the level of "looking at porn on the Senate floor" (even for Republicans). No doubt it took him a few seconds to kill the window because he was gripped by an urgent ontological crisis: what is actually the nature of these "bikinis" qua clothing? I am inclined to believe his disclaimer

      When asked if he ever looks at pornography while on the Senate floor, Bennett responded, "You'd have to be insane to do that. It all goes through a server. I don't think anybody would be doing that."

      You heard the man. It all goes through a server. He may be the intellectual heir to Ted "a series of tubes" Stevens, but he apparently does understand that browsing for porn with the Senate wifi would be...inadvisable in the current (bipartisan) political climate.

    13. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, when I saw this picture I was dissapointed... I was like, where's the damn porn? Just a couple girls in bikini's.

      If some idiot was droning on in the background about how his religious beliefs should be thrust upon others, I'd probably be checking my E-mail and browsing Slashdot & 4chan too.

    14. Re:A setup by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Actually, if the local internet connection uses Websense or a similar product, all of his transmitted and received data really DOES go through a server, the web proxy server. So he's far more educated about it than Ted Stevens.

      I'm also inclined to believe him.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    15. Re:A setup by Protoslo · · Score: 1
      I agree completely. Primary challenges are being contemplated for Kirsten Gillibrand, but I would much prefer that someone knock out Chuck "The Children" Schumer. He actually has a fairly decent ACLU scorecard, but you'd never guess from his rhetoric. Just yesterday he artfully combined expansions in local surveillance with pork in a single proposal.

      Schumer added, “There is nothing more important than keeping New Yorkers safe from an attack. If anything was made clear on Saturday night, it’s that New York is a target. We need to do everything in our power to deliver the funding to protect New Yorkers.”

      Judging by his press releases, he also takes credit for 1-5 federal appropriations for New York state per business day.

    16. Re:A setup by Protoslo · · Score: 1

      Everything (well, web traffic) "goes through a server." My point was that his statement was so vague as to be meaningless, indicating a probable lack of clear understanding. If he meant "a proxy server," he could have said so.

      That doesn't preclude his being more informed than Ted Stevens, of course, but as Internet users I feel we have a solemn and ongoing duty to employ Ted Stevens analogies whenever at all possible.

    17. Re:A setup by Roblimo · · Score: 1

      Um, sorry to tell you guys, but when he's not watching porn, Mike "Road Rage" Bennett manages to introduce plenty of nasty legislation.

      I live in his district, sorry to say.

      Never voted for him, but still... :(

      - Robin

    18. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post needs to be modded informative to end a lot of the useless arguments about whether the women are wearing bikinis or not.

    19. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a comment on TFA, someone says that in the original image there are holes cut in the tops exposing their nipples. So, yes, they are wearing them - but they're still exposing themselves.

      This is, of course, assuming the person making the comment is telling the truth about the image. I'm inclined to believe they are, as it explains the censor bar.

    20. Re:A setup by sockonafish · · Score: 1

      Well, they're wearing tops and bottoms, but the tops and bottoms are nipless and crotchless.

      It's not porn, but it's definitely not work-safe.

    21. Re:A setup by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      That's up to my employer, where a Senator is the employee of the United States, or at least the state they directly represent: it's tax payer money.

    22. Re:A setup by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      Define "poorly made"

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    23. Re:A setup by trentblase · · Score: 1

      Obviously... did you even RTF title?

    24. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Late NSFW notice. Just got canned.

    25. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean very well made bikinis.

    26. Re:A setup by SuperRoboNinjaMonkey · · Score: 1

      Clearly not the same photo. If you look at the redhead in the photo that the senator is looking at, she's leaning toward the blonde and away from the brunette. In the "original" linked by the parent, the redhead is standing straighter. Also, the blonde on the viewer's right has her hand on her hip in the senator's photo, but lower in the "original". Also notice the shape of the elbow. Not sure if this is from the same series or a quick "recreation", tho.

    27. Re:A setup by Pigeon451 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually it's not the EXACT image, since the poses are SLIGHTLY off (look at the head tilts). But it is obviously from the same sequence of images. /pedantic mode

    28. Re:A setup by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Whereas reading Slashdot on a private employer's time is perfectly acceptable."

      But we despise our employers and don't care what happens to them.

      Oh, wait....

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    29. Re:A setup by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 2, Funny

      And by God, as a taxpayer, I'm never going to pass up an opportunity to be outraged over nothing!

    30. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since I'm a programmer I consider it business research :-) Besides, as long as I'm anonymous, they'll never know.

    31. Re:A setup by DieNadel · · Score: 1

      Left to right:

      1) don't know
      2) Ariel Rebel/Piper Fawn
      3) Melisa A
      4) Don't know

      --
      Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
    32. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I bet normal people fucking LOVE talking to you. Stop being so fucking pedantic. I bet you'd throw a bitch-moan party if your mechanic berated you for referring to a part by less than an exact technical name.

      Yes that's right, you white collar techies aren't really any more impressive than an auto mechanic to the vast majority of people. We don't give half a shit what's called what, we just want our shit to work right. We don't need to know all that stuff, just a basic understanding of what's going on is plenty (and on that note, Ted Steven's analogy wasn't all that off-base if truck=packet)

    33. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try but doesn't work. Reading slashdot while at work on YOUR DESK, is one thing. Reading slashdot in the middle of a debate is another. The man is a Senator and in the middle of a Senate session. If he wants to view that in his office during his office time, so be it. How are we to know anyway? However, doing so during an important debate, agree or disagree, Republican or Democrat, the guy should be fired on the spot. I would fire him even if he was working for a private company. He obviously has shown his character by doing what he did. So why give him the chance to further pollute the minds of people and get away with a moronic act?

    34. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find him watching the video of the dog more offensive.

    35. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn

      Nipples and bushes visible.

      Didn't Janet Jackson get into trouble for showing less?

      lol.

    36. Re:A setup by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 1

      If they want me to maintain the status of BOFHWGSD - (who gets shit done) Then yes.

      --
      "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
    37. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSFW

      It is, if you are a senator.

    38. Re:A setup by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Thanks for getting me fired, you insensitive clod.

      --
      -Styopa
    39. Re:A setup by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I would rather my senetor spend his time in the Senate looking at pictures of pretty girls than voting or cramming pork into every bill he can find.

      If you're like most constituents, what you actually want is for your senator to continue cramming pork into bills, while every other senator looks at porn.

    40. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note: if you're a senator, you may ignore the parent.

    41. Re:A setup by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      I am not like most of my fellow constituents. I want no pork at all.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    42. Re:A setup by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      They may not be topless but it is quite apparent you've never been intimate with a girl in a small bikini. It is very easy to leave the top on and still see naughty bits.

    43. Re:A setup by Rurik · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected :)

    44. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I convince myself of this because I eventually get the job done.

    45. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I just the other day got...an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially."

    46. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a "views:" counter at the bottom of the page. Refresh occasionally so you can pretend you're trying to see the /. effect in action, and not keep staring at the pic.

    47. Re:A setup by abelenky17 · · Score: 1

      I believe this is the EXACT photo:

      -=-=[NSFW]=-=-
      http://content.moneyshotblog.com/2009-09/bikini-pleasure-1.jpg
      -=-=[NSFW]=-=-

    48. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firstly - NSFW.

      Its clear from the head positions that it is not the same photo although it may be from the same set.

      Very poorly made bikinis.

      If it is from the same set, one might ask why they censored the nipples hanging out and not the pussy doing the same.

    49. Re:A setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd vote for him, given his taste in women.

    50. Re:A setup by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      NSFH, either. Remember to turn off JavaScript, first.

  9. Missing the Point by Reason58 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think the fact that it was "pornographic" is missing the point. This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

    1. Re:Missing the Point by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

      My question is: "Isn't his vote pre-decided by his political party?"

    2. Re:Missing the Point by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Bills are hundreds, sometimes thousands of pages of legalese, constructed by dozens of staffers over the course of several months. Bills don't get written on the senate floor, they get written literally in back room offices by people at least one, and usually two levels removed from the actual representatives, and then summaries are made and distributed. The 'debates' on the floor are seldom more than grandstanding their views, as opposed to anyone trying to convince each other of anything.

      So, while I agree with you in principle, there probably is little to no reason for him to pay attention in that situation.

    3. Re:Missing the Point by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      What if he was reading his email?

      Don't tell me you've never gotten silly emails like that from friends or family?

    4. Re:Missing the Point by weszz · · Score: 1

      unless he's an independent (and not just a democrat or republican who ran as an independent), I would say yes.

    5. Re:Missing the Point by ig88b · · Score: 1, Troll

      My question is: "Isn't his vote pre-decided by his political party?"

      It depends. If he's a republican, yes. If he's a democrat.. maybe.

      Right now, all republicans are voting along party lines but only some democrats are.

    6. Re:Missing the Point by weszz · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should drop the whole deal and vote on the back office people... put some term limits on staffers perhaps? Or find some way to make them do more than know the summary...

      I know I wouldn't get too far if someone only gave me summaries of the projects I work on...

    7. Re:Missing the Point by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then why is it important that he pays attention?

      Why is it even important that he actually goes to the voting?

      He could simply send a memo saying "This year I vote whatever [party leader name] votes" with the exact same result.

      Everything else is self delusion.

    8. Re:Missing the Point by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      So his ears don't work because he's looking at something else for mere seconds? Please. I do all sorts of little non-work things between work things in order to maintain focus. If I did nothing but work at all times I would literally fall asleep.

      This is nothing but manufactured outrage to make political hay. If I were in Florida I'd be more likely to vote for the guy now than before, since it seems to me Republican-or-no he's probably not some too-tightly-wound moralist of which there too many on both sides of the aisle.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    9. Re:Missing the Point by aliddell · · Score: 1

      voting on bills that will affect his entire state.

      Fixed that for you. He's a *state* senator.

      --
      What do you think, sirs?
    10. Re:Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever watched a senate "debate"? It's no debate at all. It's just a serious of blow-hards taking turns repeating their side's hyperbole and rhetoric over and over until they run out of time, punctuated by people asking to have their statements for/against this disastrous/historic/evil/essential/anti-american/pro-american bill entered into the record.

    11. Re:Missing the Point by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's primarily because they are in full lock down right now due to their deep minority status. Unity is their only hope for stopping the opposition, even on bills that the individuals disagree with the party on. When there is some wiggle room in the balance of power certain legislators are able to put their vote counter to the party because it won't matter. The democrats did exactly the same thing when they were backed into a tight minority in the 90s. Welcome to the game that is American politics.

      Wait until the census comes out and the gerrymandering begins! Then we'll see some gamesmanship.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    12. Re:Missing the Point by Jer · · Score: 1

      My question is: "Isn't his vote pre-decided by his political party?"

      Probably, given that he's a Republican Senator and the bill was about abortion. He was probably only in the room to make sure there was a quorum. Or waiting his turn to get his own bloviations on the bill read into the record.

      And as far as this:

      This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

      First - State Senator. Not Federal Senator. State Senator. Meaning that he's voting on bills that affect the state of Florida.

      Second - All Senators have a staff. The staff does most of the work. They read the bills, summarize it all into a nice set of bullet points, and work with the Senator to figure out how to vote or what changes to recommend or if this is a good bill to demagogue against to score political points. If you're lucky, you've elected a Senator who is really good at finding smart people to do that work. The debate that goes on on the floor of a state Senate (or even the Federal Senate) isn't there to change anyone's minds - it's there to put things into the record and to give people who like to bloviate their opinions in the Senate an opportunity to do so. It's a nice fiction that we teach children that the debate on the Senate floor actually matters, but like Santa Claus it doesn't work that way. The real debates go on behind closed doors in people's offices and at whatever clubs the Senators frequent while they drink with their friends after hours. The horse trading and vote getting is done behind closed doors - the "debate" on the floor is for covering asses, demagoguery, getting good sound bites that might make the news, and impressing the other Senators with your rhetorical skills.

      The fact that he was apparently checking his mail while one of his colleagues was performing his role in the voting ritual doesn't really offend me all that much. His vote was decided long before he hit the floor of the Senate and he's there to carry out his part on the ritual. On the other hand, if his story is bullshit and he was surfing the web rather than doing something at least somewhat productive with his forced down time he should be openly mocked and ridiculed.

    13. Re:Missing the Point by Mr_Perl · · Score: 1

      I think the fact that it was "pornographic" is missing the point. This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

      State Senator. Unless you're one of the tea party secessionists you'd probably not call a state your entire country.

      --

      My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
    14. Re:Missing the Point by Draek · · Score: 1

      Didn't we have this very same debate about a week ago, except with pilots and videogames?

      Just because he's a politician doesn't make what he did automatically wrong.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    15. Re:Missing the Point by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Unity is their only hope for stopping the opposition, even on bills that the individuals disagree with the party on.

      You have to wonder about the people who blame Obama for the lack of bipartisanship these days. Sheesh! When will Republicans stop being the party of no and instead of seeking to stop the opposition, instead start beginning to work for what they want?

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    16. Re:Missing the Point by kckman · · Score: 1

      Please note that this is a State Senator. What he votes or does not vote on affects one state only.

    17. Re:Missing the Point by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      I think the fact that it was "pornographic" is missing the point.

      Only a very TINY minority of the population considers bikini's to be "pornographic": fundamentalist right wing Christians, and fundamentalist Muslims.
      It is your right to consider women in bikinis to be "pornographic", but this does NOT make it a fact... it is your subjective opinion.

      This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

      Oh, the irony!
      You could be forgiven for not RTFA, _and_ for not reading the Slashdot summary... but for not reading the HEADLINE?
      What are the first 2 words of the headline? "State Senator"... as in, of the Florida Legislature.
      "RTFH"... now that is a new one.

      Lastly, this isn't some website he is looking at... it was something sent in his email. Most email clients will display attached images by default. You know this, correct?

      How this trick works is I have someone - camera at the ready pointing at your laptop, filming... and then I email you a NSFW image. When your email client previews the image, ZOMG you are looking at porn. Guilty!

      This is an OLD trick and it's already been done to several politicians and members of the media.

    18. Re:Missing the Point by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      My question is: "Isn't his vote pre-decided by his political party?"

      No, but if he was a Republican, he would be viewing beach photos of MEN... well-oiled (and with a wide stance).

    19. Re:Missing the Point by rednip · · Score: 1

      The democrats did exactly the same thing when they were backed into a tight minority in the 90s

      Really? No Senate has had the filibuster used so frequently.

      It's the standard Republican excuse for bad behavior "The Demo-rats are as bad or worse!". If pressed they can rarely give an example arguably equal, within the same decade, or factually correct.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    20. Re:Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is any excuse to look at porn while working acceptable? Anyone in a normal job, caught doing this would be terminated. It doesn't matter if he was voting on an abortion bill, or whatnot. It is inappropriate.

    21. Re:Missing the Point by weszz · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it's not even that. There was a video floating around the tubes a few years back of a state legislature vote in which a vote was called, everyone voted at their desk, and THEN went on to vote on the desks of everyone around them!

      you had people casting votes for others of different political views for them (I can't imagine they would vote for others against their own vote), and they went on to say it was the only way they could get anything done because so many were absent.

      Why is that...

    22. Re:Missing the Point by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The party leader likes having other people around to hide behind.

    23. Re:Missing the Point by smashin234 · · Score: 1

      girls in bikinis is porn....

      Lets get it right at least.

    24. Re:Missing the Point by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Right now, all republicans are voting along party lines but only some democrats are.

      All? False. Proof by counterexample:

      H.R. 2499, Puerto Rico Democracy Act. Roll call on 4/29/2010. Democrats 184Y, 40N. Republicans: 39Y 129N.

      Also, I can find plenty of other votes where 100% of democrats voted one way, and not all Republicans voted the opposite.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    25. Re:Missing the Point by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      Well, it is ironic, for one, considering the context and the comment.

      For two, it's generally understood--right or wrong--that if a man and titties should be in the same room, there shan't be a single other thing on the man's mind other than them titties, in which case he's not just distracted, he's completely gone.

      For three, it does show a certain level of arrogance to not just be distracted but just completely not care. I dunno what the culture is like in the senate but most places "NSFW" rules apply and it a severe faux pas to take your jollies on the clock.

      Four, is he fucking stupid? Does he think nobody's behind him? Or did he just assume nobody would call him on it and/or have a camera?

    26. Re:Missing the Point by medcalf · · Score: 1

      That's true at the Federal level (where the Republicans are in the minority), but not in all states, and certainly not in Florida. In 2002-2006, with the exception of right around the 9/11 attacks, the Democrats did the same thing, and for the same reason.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    27. Re:Missing the Point by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      Just because things have moved so far away from the way it's supposed to work, doesn't mean that I am wrong to get upset that they aren't even trying to do what they are supposed to be doing.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    28. Re:Missing the Point by Obyron · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the entire nation of Florida will have to face the ramifications of this man's decisions.

      --
      --Obyron
    29. Re:Missing the Point by westlake · · Score: 1

      I think the fact that it was "pornographic" is missing the point. This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

      Think Tallahassee, not Washington.

      Mike Bennett is one of Florida's 40 state senators.

      In a small body like this, your hyper-ventilated speech on the floor is routinely boiled-down into a 30-second sound-byte for home town consumption.

      It tells your colleagues nothing they don't already know.

    30. Re:Missing the Point by Straif · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can you list off these numerous filibusters? And quoting Obama doesn't count.

      For 7 months the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority, meaning the Republicans could not filibuster any bill/motion even if they wanted to.

      The oft cited cloture stat is next to meaningless as cloture and filibuster are not directly linked.

      A filibuster is a tool use by the minority party to prevent a vote. Which as already pointed out was impossible for Republicans to do without Democratic support for at least 7 months.

      Cloture, on the other hand, is a tool use by the majority to close off further debate. This could be because of a filibuster or simply because they just don't want to discuss the matter further.

      And if you want to talk about improper actions taken in the Senate, the Democrats win this round hands down. To protect their filibuster proof majority and to help push their agenda forward, they violated the rules of the Senate which they themselves demanded previously by allowing the interim Senator from Mass. to continue to vote even after Brown had won the seat. The rules of the Senate clearly state that in the conditions present at the time newly elected Senator Brown was legally permitted to hold his seat and vote the day the election was completed and he was recognized as the winner; and the Senate rules specifically don't even require State certification. The Dems actually held several votes after the election in Mass. and prior to them recognizing Brown (at least 17). Previous, the Republican majority had recognized Democrat winners of special elections the following day, even when important legislation was on the floor.

      Of course you could also extend the improper actions to the very appointment of a interim Senator to fill Kennedy's vacant seat since the Dems had to change a law THEY PUT IN PLACE just a couple years before to even do that. But I guess that was on the state level and not the federal so that's ok.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    31. Re:Missing the Point by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You do know that the Republicans introduced at least 4 health care reform bills (all of which were short enough to read and understand)? You do know that when the Republicans wanted to negotiate on the "stimulus bill", Obama's answer was "I won"? Further, were you aware that a national bill on education was one of George W. Bush's top priorities when he was elected (before 9/11), so he asked Ted Kennedy to write the No Child Left Behind Act (when Republicans were in the majority)?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    32. Re:Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. It's depressing that a post that is so factually wrong could be modded up to +4...

      In the modern Senate, a failed cloture vote is the same a filibuster. It is not simply a method for the majority party to tell the minority to shut up. Every bilil that comes up in the Senate automatically is allotted infinite time for debate, and a cloture vote must be held before it can be voted on. A modern filibuster is simply withholding the necessary 60 votes for this to happen.

      There's an argument that the old style, "make them read the phone book" filibuster should make a come back. Neither party is in favor, because it can make the minority party look like heroes, a la, "Mr Smith Goes to Washington." The closest equivalent is the recent vote on financial reform; the Republicans filibustered (i.e., denied cloture), so Harry Reid schedule cloture votes on it once a day until they gave in.

      You are also incorrect as to Scott Brown. As a trivial google search would tell you, President Obama instructed Harry Reid to not schedule any bill that would be require a cloture vote passed with 59-votes (which would not pass, if Scott Brown were present) during the period between his election and assuming his seat. Harry Reid obeyed. Presumably, they were interested in protecting the integrity of the process, and avoiding unfair criticism that they didn't respect the democratic process. Apparently it didn't make an impression amongst the wingnuts...

      Anyway, for being so completely and willfully ignorant of Senate procedure, I sentence you to go watch that cartoon with the talking bill again. Come back when you can post without frothing.

    33. Re:Missing the Point by ShinmaWa · · Score: 1

      How this trick works is I have someone - camera at the ready pointing at your laptop, filming... and then I email you a NSFW image. When your email client previews the image, ZOMG you are looking at porn. Guilty!

      After seeing the video, I have to admit I was wondering why there was a camera zoomed in SOOOoooo close onto a senator's laptop computer.

      I mean, it's not like this was a senator caught playing solitaire in a wider shot. Also, there was supposedly something more interesting going on, like a speech about an abortion bill. Why would a cameraman think to himself, "I know! Let's ignore the speech and zoom in on $randomSenator's laptop screen! That's interesting!" unless he knew something interesting was about to happen....

      --
      The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
    34. Re:Missing the Point by Straif · · Score: 1

      Once again, the stat people are tossing around to prove an abundance of filibusters is the submission of cloture votes NOT the failure of cloture votes.

      According to the Senate.gov website, of the 92 cloture motions filed between Jan 3, 2009 and April 29, 2010 about 44 were passed and only 9 failed. Of those 9, 2 were passed after reconsideration. The rest were mostly withdrawn before any vote was taken (usually indicating that the Senate leader didn't even have the support of his own party on the bill in question or other business came up that was deemed more important).

      That would mean there were effectively 9 true filibusters in that time period, 2 of which were later ended by either a change of heart of the participants or a compromise on the bill in question.

      As for Obama's instruction to Reid, if it was followed so closely, as you contend, why did Kirk vote on at least three separate occasions on matters that required a 60 vote majority. The raising of the debt ceiling, confirmation of Ben Bernake for the Fed Reserve and an amendment to introduce a discretionary spending cap. He also voted on at least 14 other matters that may or may not have required the 60 vote majority. So you might want to tweak that 'trivial' Google search or check the senate.gov vote rolls. Also a good idea not to take a statement from a politician as proof something occurred without first bothering to look at the facts.

      Or maybe in the "Obama's word is gospel" world you live in January 28th (the Bernake vote) comes before Jan 19th. Must be a real hell on calender makers.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    35. Re:Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joe Lieberman is an independent. While he technically caucuses with the Democrats, he is quite conservative and has mentioned that he has considered running as Republican. So, it is actually 58 dems, 2 ind, 40 republicans. The Democrats have not had a majority the entire time.

    36. Re:Missing the Point by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Cloture and Filibuster are related in that one prevents the other, and the number of cloture votes is related to the filibuster.

      The republicans have been threatening to filibuster everything, so the it forces a cloture vote. Basically, it slows things down intentionally.

      Here's a nice graph of cloture votes:
      http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction

    37. Re:Missing the Point by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      That's primarily because they are in full lock down right now due to their deep minority status. Unity is their only hope for stopping the opposition, even on bills that the individuals disagree with the party on. When there is some wiggle room in the balance of power certain legislators are able to put their vote counter to the party because it won't matter.

      Hmm? If they're in a deep minority status, it doesn't matter if they vote against their party because they're too far buried to make a difference. It's when the votes are close that people jumping ship make a difference. If it's 60-40 for the majority, it really doesn't matter if the vote ends up 60-40 or 70-30. You still lose. If it's 50-50 then a single person jumping ship matters a great deal. Obviously these are extremes.

      However, I also don't agree with your premise. It isn't because they're the minority; they did the same thing as the majority party. It's just that, for whatever reasons, the Republicans are much better at walking in lock-step than the Democrats are. Even when they had their filibuster-proof majority, what did they really do with it? They could have passed health care, economic reform, appointed whoever they pleased as Supreme Court justices, put Obama's face on the twenty dollar bill -- anything.

      Instead they did very little that wouldn't have passed anyway. The reason? Because the democrats' gains in the previous elections actually came from moderate-to-conservative democrats who aren't inclined to simply fall in line.

    38. Re:Missing the Point by aqk · · Score: 0

      I think the fact that it was "pornographic" is missing the point. This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

      So whothefuck cares?
      According to TFA, the bill being debated was apparently just an abortion bill. 'I'm against this bill,' said Gelber, 'because it disrespects too many women in the state of Florida.'
      So? No big deal for him.
      Porn as usual for these guys. Surprised it wasn't homo porn...

    39. Re:Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you link to these do-nothing "health care reform bills" the republicans introduced?

      And please, keep ignoring the republican support for the stimulus bills (all of them). Not to mention the support of basically every single economist, plus anyone with enough of a brain to understand basic economics.

  10. Doggie porn? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Looks innocent enough to me. If I were an American (or even a human being), I would be inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, whatever else I might think of him. He's obviously not spending time trawling through hardcore sites - his friend just needs a NSFW tag.

    1. Re:Doggie porn? by ls+-la · · Score: 1

      At least it wasn't kitty porn.

    2. Re:Doggie porn? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      I would be inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt...

      While I'm sure this will be quickly dropped for just this reason, I'm not convinced the same courtesy would be extended if the senator was a democrat.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  11. Sad by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The saddest part is that the repercussions of these actions wouldn't be the same if he was browsing any other, not job related, content.

    1. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying elected officials need to adhere to some sort of moral and ethical guidelines?

      What planet are you from?

  12. Not weird discussing legislation whileviewing porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This guy did something similar while they were debating the law that made it illegal for monkeys to piss in their own mouths.

  13. If they have porn on the floor... by feepness · · Score: 1

    ...this is clearly a janitorial problem.

    1. Re:If they have porn on the floor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly it was that damn Solid Snake again.
      Looks like he is out to take down the US government.

      MGS5 - CHANGE!

  14. Give a dog a bone . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    Live, in your Senate . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  15. Porn isnt the issue by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Its that he was doing personal activities while 'on the job'. He wants to watch porn, fine, but do it while on his own time.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Porn isnt the issue by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      Its that he was doing personal activities while 'on the job'

      Most of us here are guilty of the same thing. Except, of course, for the people who's job is posting to slashdot.

  16. Email? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks to me like he's opening email messages and one had that picture while another had the video attached. Notice he doesn't stay on either very long but flips back to the same original web page. Very possible that those were two attachments and he was working through his email and happened upon them. But notice that he didn't dwell on either -- just opened them and flipped back to the email.

    If that's the case, he needs some slashdotters to give him a security / virus / spyware debriefing, but that's about it.

  17. Do as I say, not as I do by Applekid · · Score: 1

    What I find most interesting is that Florida State Senator Mike Bennett represents District 21. That district, encompassing zip code 342xx, still has laws that ban pornography.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  18. He has a bright future... by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 1

    ...as a future SEC employee!

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    --
    Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
  19. I Don't Think So by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Purely a setup. Notice how the presence of a black bar insinuates that it's covering something offensive? If you look at the picture, there's all fully clothed, the straps to their tops are visible, including the top themselves under and above the bar.

    He's wrong for viewing pictures of girls in bikinis while on government time... but there is no porn here.

    I disagree. If you zero reference the women from left to right, women one and three have no visible straps that would hold the top part of their bikinis up. While it's still possible they had something around their chests, I don't know what would be holding up so little material. I do agree that he was just opening up an NSFW e-mail sent him to him and it didn't look like he was "viewing" it as it seemed to be closed as soon as his brain registered what he was looking at. Three seconds and then closing the window is not really "looking at porn" in my book. Accident at best. Even Slashdot has embarrassed me at work.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:I Don't Think So by Troed · · Score: 1

      While it's still possible they had something around their chests, I don't know what would be holding up so little material.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=strapless+bikini

      I love the US. At least the parts of it I've visited (San Francisco, San Diego, Las Vegas and New York). I still don't get you though. Where's the porn?

      (Maybe it's because I'm Swedish ... )

    2. Re:I Don't Think So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot has embarrassed me at work

      Well Slashdot these days is embarrassing in general...

    3. Re:I Don't Think So by blackraven14250 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no porn; the prudish sects of America are showing up for this one.

    4. Re:I Don't Think So by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      On the note of your Slashdot embarrassment, The quote in that ad comes from here:

      http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/19/opinion/oe-ehrenstein19

      In case you were wondering.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    5. Re:I Don't Think So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just as plausible that the ones with straps had no material in the front, hence the black bar....

    6. Re:I Don't Think So by corbettw · · Score: 1

      You leave messages in your Slashdot inbox that have already been read? That is embarrassing!

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    7. Re:I Don't Think So by DesertFly · · Score: 1

      Actually watching the video at full screen shows clearly visible straps coming down around the necks of all four girls. In fact, I'd say it looks like nothing more risqué than a family photo of a young relative, perhaps a daughter/granddaughter/niece/etc at the beach. The video of the dog coming out of the water is probably from the same trip. I'd even go as far to say that the good senator has done nothing wrong. I watched the video several times, and it's clear that he opens an email from someone, notices what it is, then closes it. Same with the dog video. Nothing exciting or newsworthy here.

    8. Re:I Don't Think So by McGruber · · Score: 1

      Even Slashdot has embarrassed me at work.

      That's not as embarrassing as outing yourself as the slashdotter who sees advertisements.

    9. Re:I Don't Think So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, check the link to the full size picture. It's full porn - pink bits top and bottom.

    10. Re:I Don't Think So by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Even Slashdot has embarrassed me at work.

      This is why adblock has become indispensable. I cant take the risk that a content owner has slipped material that violates my AUP into a web page via an ad. Not that I'm saying /. does this, all I get are ads for Rackspace and IBM.

      Mate, if anyone else at work can see your PC, have adblock installed, especially if you visit not strictly work related sites like /.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  20. Not Porn by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It doesn't look like porn to me. It looks like art. I know it's hard to believe, but pictures with nudity are not necessary pornographic!

    1. Re:Not Porn by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not when one is a Republican, the party of (check their anti-sex, anti-personal-freedom-other-than-Second Amendment) voting record before modding me) the Christian Taliban.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Not Porn by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't look like porn to me. It looks like art. I know it's hard to believe, but pictures with nudity are not necessary pornographic!

      I agree, but tell that to John Ashcroft, Jesse Helms, most of the GOP, and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who now wants to modify the State Seal, because the Roman goddess Virtus has a bare breast.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    3. Re:not porn by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Have you met many men from Saudi Arabia? If they're not attending Most Beautiful Goat contests, they're blowing up buildings.
      Probably not as happy a bunch as you think

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    4. Re:Not Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck are you talking about. The naughty bits are showing, it's porn.

      This isn't tasteful nudes, this is women wearing clothing that shows and accentuates the naughty bits.

    5. Re:Not Porn by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That seal should be modified. That's the worst drawing of a female breast ever. Virginia should be ashamed.

  21. Hate to defend the guy. . . by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . . . but it looks like he might be telling the truth. The video doesn't let us see how long it was up or how he opened the picture, but when he closes the browser, you can clearly see Firefox's download window open. It certainly looks like he had opened the photo as an email attachment.

    Plus, he's using Firefox. Are you guys really going to pick on him after realizing that?

    --
    My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    1. Re:Hate to defend the guy. . . by alex-tokar · · Score: 1

      Plus, he's using Firefox. Are you guys really going to pick on him after realizing that?

      Is he? For a second there I thought that read "Mozilla Internet Explorer 6"...

    2. Re:Hate to defend the guy. . . by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I tend to have a rather dim view of porn in general, but from what I saw, it looked like he closed it as soon as he saw what it was, rather than spend inordinate amounts of time ogling/watching it. It's just the reality of the Internet that these things tend to get passed around whether you want them or not. I'm willing to bet that far worse things went across the screens of others in the room that very same day.

    3. Re:Hate to defend the guy. . . by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Plus, he's using Firefox. Are you guys really going to pick on him after realizing that?

      Oh ya, he uses Firefox. Give this man a total pass! WTF, he's supposed to be an elected official performing a JOB. But you know what's really sad? He's not alone. Check out these other officials (Democrats) playing Solitaire and viewing ESPN.com.

      http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2009/09/connecticut-budget-solitaire-photo.html

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  22. Re: Or am I expecting too much? by snikulin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Hey, Jesus does it too!

  23. Bingo by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bingo. It seems to me like the bigger "crime" is that he's not paying attention to doing his job. He'll then have to vote on that issue, and I'm hard pressed to imagine how watching bikini babes or dog videos is going to help him make an informed choice.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Bingo by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      I'm hard pressed to imagine how listening to the senators from other districts is going to help him make a choice that represents his constituents.

    2. Re:Bingo by necro81 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm hard pressed to imagine how listening to the senators from other districts is going to help him make a choice that represents his constituents.

      If that were true, then there would never be any debates, and legislation could be done entirely by popular referendum.

      Maybe it's different where you are, but around here, we vote for legislators not just for their currently held views, nor just for how well their views jive with our own, but also because they demonstrate some capacity to think, and be able to sift through thoughtful arguments and separate the insight from the crap, and then to act on our behalf.

    3. Re:Bingo by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm hard pressed to imagine how listening to the senators from other districts is going to help him make a choice that represents his contributors.

      FTFY. Really when it comes to abortion most people have their minds already fixed on a position... politicians even more so. This topic galvanizes people based on philosophy, religion, or affiliation lines. Like everyone else in the room he already knows how he will vote on the issue, and nothing short of the new "Mike Bennett Turnpike" will change his mind.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    4. Re:Bingo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      constituents? Oh wait, in the republican dictionary that is 'whatever the grand poobah republican wants'...

    5. Re:Bingo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming that he's the audience for the speaker. He's not. 99% of everyone in that room have already made up their mind on how they are going to vote, and the other 1% isn't going to be swayed by a speech. The real audience is the voters back home, in theory at least, although sometimes I think they just like hearing themselves talk.

    6. Re:Bingo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is doing his job, I doubt anything that is said in the floor will change anyone's mind. He already made up his mind on the issue, so what if he doesn't listen to the other senates talk. Nothing to see here move along.

    7. Re:Bingo by shadowrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      His job is to vote yes or no. It's actually not a hard job. I'm not certain he needs to or should be paying attention to do his job well. The R behind his name implies he's going to vote against abortion. It's not his responsibility to listen to the other side of the aisle and all their arguments. His job is to vote the way he thinks the people who put him there want him to vote.

      whether or not these guys should be paid so much to do such an easy job is up for argument.

    8. Re:Bingo by Xeno+man · · Score: 1

      He's already made a decision, possible before he show up to work that day as I'm sure many others in that room already have. No amount of debate will change his mind and he's just waiting for the voting part of the job. You can't judge how someone works by a 20 second clip of their day.

    9. Re:Bingo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's different where you are, but around here, we vote for legislators not just for their currently held views, nor just for how well their views jive with our own, but also because they demonstrate some capacity to think, and be able to sift through thoughtful arguments and separate the insight from the crap, and then to act on our behalf.

      Really? Did you found a community of only smart people, or something? If you think that's how it works, maybe you should talk to some people at your local polls next election.

    10. Re:Bingo by MadnessASAP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!! Heeeeheeheeeehee! Whooeee, that just made me laugh.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    11. Re:Bingo by medcalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What happens on the floor is not debate. It is a series of speeches for the consumption of voters. The actual debates happen in committee rooms as the bills are marked up (not written; that happens sans debate) and in the halls as favors and votes are traded. This seems to be true of every legislative body in the US above the town hall level.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    12. Re:Bingo by MiniMike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm hard pressed to imagine how listening to the senators from other districts is going to help him make a choice that represents his constituents.

      Easy. His lobbyists had already told him how to vote.

    13. Re:Bingo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but listening to another blowhard spout hyperbole is going to help him make an informed vote?

    14. Re:Bingo by socz · · Score: 1

      According to a study covered in a TV special, males tend to make 'bad decisions' when aroused because the 'pleasure' part of the brain overrides the reasonable part of the brain (ie "it doesn't feel as good but it's safer to wear a..."). So they say that when you're drinking alcohol AND stimulated... your decisions are even worse!

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    15. Re:Bingo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is his job to listen to both sides of the argument you moron. He is an elected official voting for laws that directly affect you and I. I want him to listen to every speech, every detail, every idea no matter what. How can he make an informed decision if he doesnt?

    16. Re:Bingo by shadowrat · · Score: 0

      So you want to vote for a representative who may be entirely unpredictable? Why even bother with the pretense of elections at all?

      I think most people expect their guy is going to hold steadfast to their views.

    17. Re:Bingo by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The whole point of representative democracy is that people who get elected are supposedly better prepared and qualified to deal with intricacies of legislation. If they are just muppets voting as the crowd cheers, then you have a direct democracy (so often disparagingly referred by Americans as "mob rule") in all but name. Oh, except that your electoral system ensures that it's not even proportional.

    18. Re:Bingo by dontbgay · · Score: 1

      So why even have a debate on the topics? I'm sure you're just being glib, but let's face it. He wasn't doing his job and got caught. It's like the stoner kid at the minimum wage job getting caught sleeping in the stockroom by the owner.. except this time, the owner is the public. In both cases, the employee should have known better.

      --
      Sig not found.
    19. Re:Bingo by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      That's daft. He wants to vote for a representative who will predictably and reliably listen to all the points of view, and take them into account when rationally making his decision. Not make up his mind before the debate based on who pays him off.

    20. Re:Bingo by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      They have debates to make it look like they are really important. It's a bit of cynical hyperbole. However, it would seem like a better approach would be to read the bill in question, ask the people you represent how they feel about it, and reach your own decision.

      when you buy a car, do you listen only to what the dealer says? He'll tell u you look good in it. You really know how to take corners well, it's a great machine. Or, is independant research more important? The cynic in me believes the other side of the debate is always the car dealer.

  24. That's some twisted logic there, Lou. by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    21 comments, and half are along the lines of "I don't see what the problem is".

    It's an inappropriate picture, being looked at on a taxpayer's purchased computer, through taxpayer provided Internet connectivity, by a taxpayer funded lawmaker, and the floor of the State Senate. Call me a prude, but I don't appreciate this asshole using my tax dollars to ogle naked chicks at my office; no more than the GOP appreciated the SEC doing the same. Nice set of double standards we've got working there.

    --

    I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    1. Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1

      Stop harping on the "taxpayer" thing. If he's your state Senator, and you think he is less effective because of it, work to vote someone else in. That's it. Spoiler alert: The replacement won't spend every waking minute advancing the interests of his district.

      Every white collar organization has some level of waste. Guess what? They hire *people*. People aren't perfect. When you purchase a product, part of the cost of the product was the cost of smoke breaks. Or the cost of their marketing department surfing for porn (or Slashdot for that matter). Expecting every single individual in a government job to be 100% efficient at all times is expecting the impossible, because unlike Santa, we don't have the ability to enslave ceaselessly industrious elves to do all our work for us. Unusual levels of waste should be called out, but checking e-mail (and clicking a link sent to you) while a bill is endlessly rehashed on the floor isn't the same as ordering gold toilets for your office bathroom.

      And FYI, I posted a nearly identical defense of the SEC. The staffer who was surfing for porn 8 hours a day should be fired, but for the other guys who did it once or twice a week for a few weeks should be warned and otherwise ignored (assuming no aggravating circumstances). Surfing for porn in a private office is no worse than occasionally browsing Slashdot. This isn't political for me, this is realism. Rejecting every person who occasionally takes a wasteful work break from government employment would mean a government with no employees.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    2. Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were hardly "naked". 4 girls, all 4 with bikini bottoms on, 2 with bikini tops on. that's 6 out of 8 pieces of clothing. for 80% not naked.

    3. Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. by PPH · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many legislators flip through their Bibles on the taxpayer's time. Worse yet, visiting religious websites with their taxpayer-funded laptops on taxpayer-funded broadband.

      There's an amendment about the separation of church and state. There's nothing about leaving your testicles at the door of the capitol. So, what makes these photos inappropriate?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. by girlintraining · · Score: 0

      21 comments, and half are along the lines of "I don't see what the problem is". It's an[deleted] [deleted] [moral indignation] [deleted]... Nice set of double standards we've got working there.

      Hardly. We're just holding senators to the same standards we'd hold anyone else too -- which is that he's a human being and regardless of how important the job is, the brain needs downtime. You spend how many hours a day in a room covered in wood and architecture, listening to the echoing voices of other self-important people, and see if you don't occasionally have an urgent need to tune out. Floor debates are just like office meetings... Everybody nods their head and waits for their turn to speak, and prays the guy standing will finish before lunchtime.

      There's worse ways to pass the time. *shrug* Only in America would it even make the news 'zomfg, someone's viewing porn in the senate!' ... In other countries they make porn on the senate floor and it doesn't make the news.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    5. Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Every white collar organization has some level of waste. Guess what? They hire *people*. People aren't perfect. When you purchase a product, part of the cost of the product was the cost of smoke breaks. Or the cost of their marketing department surfing for porn (or Slashdot for that matter).

      Well, sure, there is built in waste and inefficiency. But this wasn't taking a break from crafting legislation in his office, or seeing prostitutes in his spare time, or anything like that. This was taking a break during the most important part of his job, where the rubber meets the legislative road, where inattentiveness and just-phone-it-in mentality actually affects people's lives. This was an abortion bill, after all, not some honorary naming of a road. If you don't want to give your best effort when people trusted in you to do the right thing in their name, then go get a job doing something less important.

      Poor judgment and poor leadership, in my opinion. I hope he does get replaced and that the replacement at least pays attention when it counts.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    6. Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should only be taking inappropriate pictures with taxpayer equipment of prisoners of war being coerced at gunpoint while installing democracies.

    7. Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      Some people would rather their Senators sit around and wank rather than pass ever more encumbering, convoluted, and generally pork-filled laws.

    8. Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      It's an inappropriate picture, being looked at on a taxpayer's purchased computer, through taxpayer provided Internet connectivity, by a taxpayer funded lawmaker, and the floor of the State Senate. Call me a prude, but I don't appreciate this asshole using my tax dollars to ogle naked chicks at my office

      Even if we accept that he wasn't actually doing his "job" (aka waiting while his peers pointlessly got up on a soapbox lecturing them all when everyone knew how everyone was going to vote the week before, and then voting how he said he was going to vote) then that wasted, what, $5 taxpayer money total?

      If this guy hasn't wasted more than $5 taxpayer money an hour in his time in office, then he's probably still doing better than the average politician. That he wasn't using his time to draft up a subsidy to the sugar industry or some other pork project along those lines to me means he's probably doing a better job than most of his peers.

    9. Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I don't have any double standards. I don't have a problem with the SEC, or the RNC using funds at a bondage club, or this.

      I'm a home-owning, full-time employed registered voter and taxpayer, and I have no problem if a government employee uses my funds to look at some sexually-charged pictures now and then. Our whole society needs to lighten the hell up.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    10. Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a prude, with zero perspective on life. Give anyone twenty seconds to examine your actions and they can make similar boldface complaints about you. Think how easy it would be if you were closely monitored for years in a senate hall. Oh wait, I'm sure you're absolutely perfect, and every second you spend at work does not go to anything but work, ever.

    11. Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      If you really think that looking at a picture for seconds, not even a minute, derails then entire legislative process or shatters the ability of somebody to do useful work for the rest of the day, I have little hope for your rational perception of the world or the human actors in it.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    12. Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1
      I'm amused that you think that any legislator's vote on an abortion bill is influenced by arguments presented in session. There are three things that influence the vast majority of legislators when it comes to abortion (in no particular order, since it's different for each individual):
      • Personal opinion: If they really think it's murder, they'll always vote for more restrictions; the only possible exceptions being for the life of the mother, and maybe rape and/or incest if they are fine with a little sophistry
      • Constituent/donor pressure: If they think it's likely to kill their reelection bid (or their campaign coffers) to vote a particular way, they'll vote the other way or find some way to abstain
      • Party pressure: Related to donor pressure, if their party is pushing a particular vote, they may go along with it to avoid being primaried or cut off from party funds

      Abortion is far too polarized an issue for a speech on the floor to affect any legislator's vote. I don't know anything about this legislator, and even if I lived in his district, my opinion of him would not be affected one whit by this event.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    13. Re:That's some twisted logic there, Lou. by Xeno+man · · Score: 1

      Your an idiot to think every senator comes and listens with an open mind ready to decide which way to vote based on the arguments presented that day on the floor. Their staff are the ones who have done the leg work and research on the issues who summarize it for the senators who make their decisions well before hand. Everything on the floor is nothing more than procedure and record keeping so whats the problem that he's checking his email while some windbags enter their arguments into public record. Links he receives could be anything from his public appearance schedule for next week to two girls, one cup.

      Looks like he's actively working to me. The non work stuff was only open for as long as it took for him to get the cursor over the close button. It's not like he was playing solitaire or actively browsing through porn sites.

      Now, you can tell me, what actions does he need to be preforming to be considered working? Staring intently at who ever has the floor and talking? Have some little graphs n charts on opinion polls on his monitor? Shit I'm sure he has already seen dozens of times. Have word open so he can type notes, despite everything already being recorded?

  25. It was a reply... by couchslug · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Bennett defended his actions, telling Sunshine State News it was an email sent to him by a woman 'who happens to be a former court administrator.'"

    She sent it in response to his "tits or GTFO" text message.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:It was a reply... by ginbot462 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually, he is part of OBAMA'S DEATH PANEL (it's bipartisan). He was just deciding on the health of the individuals and need for care.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    2. Re:It was a reply... by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      Wow, troll. Could have just used -1 Derivative of Federal Boob Inspector joke.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
  26. You're missing the point. by itomato · · Score: 1

    This was a *Florida* Senate session, not the USA.

    About the most important thing they could discuss right now is that fucking sea-floor oil geyser.

    They're pitching an abortion bill around - have been for twenty years. Bo-ring.. Bring on the state of emergency and the hardcore discussions about what resources to deploy to LA.

    Also, I don't know about you, but I happen to find appropriately aged girls in bikinis extremely inspiring and rejuvenating, especially when they arrive unexpectedly during an 82-degree senate session.

  27. Contents of the email... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here is what the email said:

    "Hey Sparky,
    Just wanted to send you a little hello from me and my girls in Florida. Missed you at spring break teddy bear. Here's a shot of me and my friends. They can't wait to meet you."

  28. Lowering standards by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you call that porn?

    Come on, folks. We've got bukakke, DP, water sports and more. That photo isn't more than R-rated.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Lowering standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Funnel Girl

    2. Re:Lowering standards by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      It's been like that for a while. Most of the "X caught looking at porn" for the past few years have been bikini shots, or even more clothed than that! I think that the US media considers any picture of a women to be pornographic.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    3. Re:Lowering standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've got bukakke, DP, water sports and more.

      Bukakke DP watersports? Where did you find those?

    4. Re:Lowering standards by PPH · · Score: 1

      We've got bukakke, DP, water sports and more.

      Bukakke DP watersports? Where did you find those?

      At any of our finer college sororities, of course.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Lowering standards by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      That is because loose women are evil and exposed boobs cause earthquakes.

    6. Re:Lowering standards by cadience · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's PG-13 at best.

  29. Lenovo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US Senators are being issued laptops produced by Lenovo?

    I guess they must have under bid their competitors.

    Lenovo must figure that they'll be able to make up the difference in other ways. *coughspwarechips*

  30. PORN ? by dindi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am sorry, I know I am from Europe, where being topless is just the norm sometimes even in a park, but calling a picture of 5 topless women PORN is a little bit of an overreaction.

    I am not saying, that everyone viewing your private crap behind you in congress, and watching this kind of crap on any meeting is right, but it is not PORN.

    Besides, he is at work. How many of us looked at this article/video at work? Well, then I guess we cannot throw the 1st stone at him.

    1. Re:PORN ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... 5 topless women ...

      3, sir

    2. Re:PORN ? by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      We're just applying his own party's definitions of the word.

      Personally, I don't think pictures of a naked woman not engaged in a sex act should be classified as porn. But. The GOP has decided that naked = sex, and that is bad for their version of America. These guys are sexually intimidated by statues, FFS.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  31. OMG America Can't Be That Uptight by xednieht · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There was nothing on that screen that you would not see on any beach outside of the U.S. aside from the black censorship bar covering their tits.

    And besides, the more time politicians spend looking at porn the less time they have to fuck up the country.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  32. Give the guy a break... by MarcQuadra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It looks like he opened up the mail and then closed it right away. That stuff happens, even at work. People have sent me NSFW things before without warning that I've opened up and -quickly- closed.

    Also, since when is a row of girls wearing swimsuits (maybe a few are topless) 'porn'?

    Give the dude a break.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    1. Re:Give the guy a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      It looks like he opened up the mail and then closed it right away.

      He's a member of the GOP. probably disappointed that it wasn't boys.

    2. Re:Give the guy a break... by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      Sad that you got buried as Flamebait, but your joke rings very true: those conservative fundamentalists (I suppose could be either party) make a *career* about campaigning against pornography or gays... and then get caught or outed, one way or another.

      I wish this was Digg.. Digg's a bit more "democratic" in moderation.. your opinion counts. Moderators and Editors here are a closed circle.

    3. Re:Give the guy a break... by Xeno+man · · Score: 1

      Not the exact same photo and from the same shoot. http://img157.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-30648/loc939/00376_0460_ff2009-darksand1-3001_123_939lo.jpg

      Nipples are exposed and lips are flapping in the wind but there is a big overreaction. Nude != Porn, Porn = Sex.

    4. Re:Give the guy a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Topless AND crotchless, if you viewed the original image linked above.

    5. Re:Give the guy a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look closely, the "swimsuits" are open in strategic locations. Both the top AND bottom. :P

      He did close it rather quickly, but I would hope that most people would have the sense to not open such files at work, ESPECIALLY when there are people sitting BEHIND you.

    6. Re:Give the guy a break... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I was once at a conference with my supervisor. I needed to demonstrate something at a particular workshop so he lent me his notebook. I walked into the workshop, sat down, decided to make sure everything was up and ready to go on the notebook, opened it up and, full screen, some actual porn of the young girl + oiled up guy with enormous schlong variety.

      Glad I decided to get stuff ready before the demo.

  33. Stay tuned for... the affair! by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

    > Bennett defended his actions, telling Sunshine State News it was an email
    > sent to him by a woman 'who happens to be a former court administrator.'"

    Great, so now we're going to have revelations about an affair? Why is the former ct admin sending him porn?

  34. It's always porn in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad the guy is from Florida if that black bar really is obscuring exposed breasts; in other states bare chests are "nothing to see here, move along".

  35. Thought bubble... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Senator's thought bubble - "Now, if only there was way to get the girls AND the dog together... that would ROCK!

  36. Seriously by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

    I think this speaks more to how meaningless these "debates" are, when speakers argue primarily on party lines.

    To be fair though, I doodle and surf the web all the time during lecture. I'm just not stupid enough to surf porn in a room full of other people.

  37. While cute, "Democrats did it too!" is wrong by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    It's a cute talking point I hear a lot. "Well they have to do it to prevent the evil dems from enacting policy and, you know, governing like they were elected to do!"

    Problem is, it's wrong. Democrats weren't a minority party in the 90s until 95 (104th congress). Additionally, that Senate (since that's really where the bloc voting creates dysfunction and prevents governance) had a party line voting percentage of 80% for Dem, 88% for Rep. citation, And let's not forget what we took up most of that congress with: impeachment.

    In conclusion, fuck you.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:While cute, "Democrats did it too!" is wrong by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 2, Funny

      Never has a person had a more appropriate user name. Can we still be friends?

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
  38. FUD by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    Can we mod the article TROLL. So far I see no pr0n. In fact most of us can usually name the performers given a face...

    Slashdot: Politicizing Geeks, Hack Jobs that don't Matter...

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact most of us can usually name the performers given a face...

      Cikita (a.k.a. Cecilia, Cheyenne, Chikita, Tchikita), Ariel (a.k.a. Piper Fawn), Bianca.

      The image is branded bikini-pleasure.com It's definitely porn.

  39. Topless does not equal porn. by Capn_Snazzy · · Score: 0

    Since when does topless=porn? Never on a beach. Maybe at Thanksgiving dinner if the queen is visiting. But they are standing on a beach that is probably full of other people walking around topless.

  40. Double standards by U8MyData · · Score: 1

    Hehe. For those that are trying to make the case for filtering, who are you kidding. The Senate filtering their own activity? That's like asking your company president to abide by the same rules as the common worker, not going to happen. Tee time is at 2. As for the material, presumably opened without prior knowledge of the content, this story is nothing more than gotcha politico crap. Who hasn't opened something questionable on the internet before? Now be honest...

  41. It is not porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Topless women standing on a beach IS NOT PORN. Ever hear of nude beaches? Go back to the middle east you fundamentalist!

    This is crazy and a waste of time and shouldn't have made it as a headline on slashdot unless it becomes a scandal about being punished for what other people EMAIL YOU!

    I suppose it would be a horrible crime against society if he had a clothed model as his desktop? biki? a nude statue? a nude painting? a nude artistic photo? softcore? Where does it matter? The only issue is that he is checking EMAIL while listening and if you ever listened to the floor for any time (and I have) most of the time is politician BS or tired old talking points; one can pause and listen to something if it picks up but much of the time it is not that critical that you cling to each word.

  42. So? What is the guys voting record? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    The video is edited, as it seems to be showing the same thing twice. Perhaps to make it appear longer? Considering he doesn't have a mouse, he seems to click the image and the movie away fairly quickly.

    The image is harmless, well to a European anyway, although age might be a factor, the women are to blurry to judge but how old are they? It is clearly an amateur shot, so some under-aged going on?

    What remains is knowing how this votes. Is he a Republican: do as we say, don't do as we do. Who vote against gay marriage yet cheat on their wives while they are dying of cancer? Or is he a Democrat: You are the president of the most powerful country in the world and you fuck THAT?!?

    Calling this "watching porn in the senate" requires an extraordinary puritan mind. Or an American one. Same thing really. In Holland two politicians posed nude in the playboy on the seats of our senate. So what. Afraid a little skin will start earth quakes or something? No human being could be that silly.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:So? What is the guys voting record? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Is he a Republican... Who vote against gay marriage yet cheat on their wives while they are dying of cancer? You appear confused. The guy who cheated on his wife when she had terminal cancer was a Democrat (John Edwards). The most vocal gay rights opponents who are secretly gay themselves are all Republican. Both Repubs and Demos are prolific philanderers. The Repubs are just a lot more hypocritical about it. Some so strongly believe in the sanctity of marriage that they have successfully completed 5 or 6 marriages! And yet they profess the belief that gay marriage is a bigger threat to the institution of marriage than egocentric douchebags that can't keep their zippers closed. Please, get your political stereotypes right!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:So? What is the guys voting record? by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      The video is edited, as it seems to be showing the same thing twice. Perhaps to make it appear longer? Considering he doesn't have a mouse, he seems to click the image and the movie away fairly quickly.

      The image is harmless, well to a European anyway, although age might be a factor, the women are to blurry to judge but how old are they? It is clearly an amateur shot, so some under-aged going on?

      What remains is knowing how this votes. Is he a Republican: do as we say, don't do as we do. Who vote against gay marriage yet cheat on their wives while they are dying of cancer? Or is he a Democrat: You are the president of the most powerful country in the world and you fuck THAT?!?

      Calling this "watching porn in the senate" requires an extraordinary puritan mind. Or an American one. Same thing really. In Holland two politicians posed nude in the playboy on the seats of our senate. So what. Afraid a little skin will start earth quakes or something? No human being could be that silly.

      Its only p0rn if your a Republican. They're just upset because he's acting like a Democrat and looking at women.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  43. Not that interesting by houghi · · Score: 1

    The issue should not be if he is watching porn. He can watch whatever he wants to. What about the person n (second 12-13) that is texting? What about the two guys in front of him chatting? What about all the others who are not even there?

    That should be the important discussion.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  44. Republican by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bennett is a Republican. His Republican Party would send us all to jail for watching porn at our own jobs. Indeed, Florida Republicans would have us all locked in stocks and publicly flogged by some priest for it, if they got the theocracy they're working on.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Republican by medcalf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hyperbole much? That's like saying that the Democrats would happily send bankers to the gulag for short selling investments, while they short sold investments as well, if they could only get the full-on fascism they are striving so hard for. It's just hyperbole, and it's stupid. Oh, it's Slashdot; business as usual: carry on.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    2. Re:Republican by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, you're just wasting our time with the usual false equivalence between Democrats and Republicans, hyperbolically. Democrats (like all politicians) are bad, so Republicans, who are catastrophic, must be no worse than Democrats.

      Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy for years. It's a core value of their Party, and the core value of a large fraction of its remaining members. Their theocracy would indeed send you to Puritan style stocks for a whipping for downloading porn at work. Both for the "morality" of the act, and for wasting your employer's time on nonprofitable activity.

      No, this is not really hyperbole. The Republican Party is America's Taliban. And fallacies like false equivalency is keeping them at work on their theocracy.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Republican by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, you're just wasting our time with the usual false equivalence between Democrats and Republicans

      What false equivalence? Democrats can't stay out of your wallet and Republicans can't stay out of your bedroom. I fail to see how accepting governmental intrusion into one part of my life offsets the removal of government intrusion from another.

      Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy [google.com] for years.

      The Republican Party is America's Taliban [google.com].

      That's real cute, linking to Google searches like that. Did you know that Barack Obama kicks puppies? It's true.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Republican by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What false equivalence? Democrats can't stay out of your wallet and Republicans can't stay out of your bedroom.

      That false equivalence. Republicans have spent much more of your money, and committed you to spend way more (in debt payments, in unfunded mandates, in catastrophic misadventures like wars and deregulation) than Democrats ever have. They continue to do so in their minority by obstructing government. And they invade your bedroom, too. Democrats are not at all equivalent, even if they do also waste your money - but not nearly the vast, crippling magnitude of Republicans.

      That's real cute, linking to Google searches like that. Did you know that Barack Obama kicks puppies? It's true.

      You give us just another Republican example of false equivalence. I linked to a simple Google search result that returned lots of verifiable sources, so you can read for yourself and see the facts - confirmed from many angles, and even with any defenses or contrary claims as published. What you linked to is a Google result list that is obviously unable to support any claim that Obama kicks puppies.

      Thanks for perfectly confirming my point. You Republicans have wallowed in false equivalencies for so long, to the exclusion of any logic in favor of fallacies, that you can't even tell what it is. You just hear "Republican", and you shove out some package of nonsense about "Democrats, too!"

      Fallacies. Republicans. You people never learn. But the rest of us have learned to spot your fallacies and reject them.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Republican by Idiomatick · · Score: 0

      He was pointing out the rediculousness and you took it seriously... And Democrats of the last 50~ years are way better with money than Republicans so think of another meme.

    6. Re:Republican by medcalf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      See, that's the thing. It's just real easy to call people names on the Internet, to make up allegations of a theocracy (only about 40% of Republicans are socially conservative, and most of those don't even want anything approaching rule by clerics, or even rule restricted to only Christians) or the even more over-the-top "America's Taliban." It's just childish. All politicians are alike, certainly, though all policies are not. Yet I find about the same amount objectionable in Democratic and Republican policy proposals, and for that matter much objectionable in policies they both agree on. But that doesn't mean I think the Democrats are communists or the Republicans are theocrats. You have to have lived a very culturally sheltered and ideologically isolated life to believe that kind of crap. But I guess if you want to feel better about yourself, demonizing those who disagree with you is the easier path.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    7. Re:Republican by medcalf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bush certainly held the (absolute dollar, not inflation adjusted) record for overspending. Until Obama's first year, where he outspent Bush's 8 years in just his first. The rest of your comment is even less useful, so I'll just leave it at that.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    8. Re:Republican by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That false equivalence. Republicans have spent much more of your money, and committed you to spend way more (in debt payments, in unfunded mandates, in catastrophic misadventures like wars and deregulation) than Democrats ever have.

      You mean wars like Vietnam and deregulation like the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or the repeal of Glass–Steagall? Oh wait, those happened under Democratic administrations.....

      And they invade your bedroom, too.

      And Democrats invade my wallet, gun cabinet, phone records, radio stations, etc.

      Democrats are not at all equivalent, even if they do also waste your money - but not nearly the vast, crippling magnitude of Republicans.

      Careful, your bias is showing.

      You Republicans have wallowed in false equivalencies for so long

      "You Republicans"? That's interesting, I start out by pointing out that both parties suck and you leap to the conclusion that I'm a Republican. From my vantage point you have more in common with partisan Republicans than you probably realize.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:Republican by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Doc, you better pray a civil war never happens. THEY have more guns than you. So stop the hate speech already!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:Republican by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And Democrats of the last 50~ years are way better with money than Republicans so think of another meme.

      No, Democrats of the last 50~ years suck just as much as Republicans of the last 50~ years. The only exception happened during the 90s, when the two parties were too busy trying to drag each other down to spend money we don't have. Outside of that window neither party has ever been willing to live within our means and stop running up the national credit card.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:Republican by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except the facts show that Republicans, by a significant majority, want the country ruled by religious laws. Here's just a sample of their positions on issues ruled by what they think their bible says, rather than the Constitution:

      Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?
      Yes 26
      No 55
      Not Sure 19

      Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?
      Yes 7
      No 77
      Not Sure 16

      Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?
      Yes 11
      No 68
      Not Sure 21

      Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?
      Yes 8
      No 73
      Not Sure 19

      Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?
      Yes 77
      No 15
      Not Sure 8

      Should contraceptive use be outlawed?
      Yes 31
      No 56
      Not Sure 13

      Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?
      Yes 34
      No 48
      Not Sure 18

      Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?
      Christ 67
      Other 15
      Not Sure 18

      But I wasn't even talking about Republican Party members, but Republican officials. If you read the many supporting pages to which I linked about "American Taliban", you'll see that those officials are theocrats.

      False equivalence. There is nothing actually "Communist" about Democrats, nothing anywhere near as severe as the truth about the Republican Party and its actions. "They're both as bad" is a lazy judgment, when the facts show the difference between "bad" and "intolerable".

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:Republican by techoi · · Score: 1

      That argument gets really old. We have plenty of guns as well. It's one the least well kept liberal secrets.

    13. Re:Republican by TheLink · · Score: 1

      From what I see the Two Parties must be doing a really great job:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Nationwide_results

      52.92% + 45.66% = 98.58% of all casted votes.

      One party satisfies one group of voters (including you), the other party satisfies the other group of voters (the other person you're arguing with).

      Together they satisfy >98% of the voters.

      The less than 1.5% can safely be ignored, and the nonvoting voters too.

      --
    14. Re:Republican by Khyber · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "That's real cute, linking to Google searches like that."

      Whooo boy I got some news for you.

      It is America's Taliban - go watch Jesus Camp and tell me otherwise.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    15. Re:Republican by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 1

      I was reading your source, and the results of the question "Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?" almost made me spurt my nice pineapple juice.

    16. Re:Republican by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hyperbole much? That's like saying that the Democrats would happily send bankers to the gulag for short selling investments, while they short sold investments as well, if they could only get the full-on fascism they are striving so hard for.

      From my observations of American politics, the Republicans are far, far more interested in implementing Fascism than the Democrats are. Indeed, to the casual observer it seems that's their Raison d'être.

    17. Re:Republican by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Informative

      That time period you mention also happens to be Bill Clinton. With Bush on either side creating all time record deficits. Reagan before that terrible as well (obviously...). Jimmy carter didn't make anything better or worse. Ford sucked. Nixon didn't fuck anything up. Lyndon Johnson broke a bit above even.

      Dems: 1 great, 1 good, 1 even
      GOP: 1 terrible, 3 bad, 1 even.

      http://www.thefreespeechzone.net/images/charts/bush_deficit_graphic.gif

    18. Re:Republican by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I was reading your source, and the results of the question "Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?" almost made me spurt my nice pineapple juice.

      So, does that mean that you think Obama is qualified to be President?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    19. Re:Republican by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Hyperbole much? That's like saying that the Democrats would happily send bankers to the gulag for short selling investments,

      That's ridiculous, if the Democrats sent the bankers to the gulags, where would they get their campaign contributions?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    20. Re:Republican by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Liberals don't ever try to force THEIR morality on everyone else ... NO!!!!

      (Health Care)
      (Happy Meal Toy Ban)
      (“But I don’t believe it was rape rape.”)
      (global warming)
      (Discarding Live birth after failed abortions)

      One person's conscience is another person's theocracy. Just because liberals don't go to church doesn't mean it isn't a religion.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    21. Re:Republican by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 1

      More than Sarah Palin? Yes. And note that I'm very non political, meaning I don't subscribe to the US democrat/republican points of view. My country of birth has several political parties and I still don't understand how a country as big as the US can only have two.

    22. Re:Republican by Myrimos · · Score: 1

      Here's just a sample of their positions...

      I hate theocratic regimes (and Democratic presidents who kick puppies) just as much as the next person, but the problem with your "sample" is the same problem that comes with any online poll.

      The problem, namely, is what is called study heterogeneity, or more colloquially, "your source sucks."

      --
      Internet scofflaw
    23. Re:Republican by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You'll be worth talking to when you mature enough to realize that the Executive is only 1/3 of the Federal Government and only 1/2 of the part that decides how much money is going to be spent.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    24. Re:Republican by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      It is America's Taliban - go watch Jesus Camp and tell me otherwise.

      Wake me up when the Jesus people have police power and publicly stone people that disagree with their orthodoxy. Wake me up when they dynamite ancient archaeological treasures. Wake me up when they harbor like minded foreign extremists that use the United States as a base of operations for a global terrorist network.

      Until then it's just bullshit moral equivalence.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    25. Re:Republican by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      My country of birth has several political parties and I still don't understand how a country as big as the US can only have two.

      Duverger's Law.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    26. Re:Republican by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realize that decrying homosexual marriage restrictions and claiming theocracy in the same post is hypocritical right? You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a ... wait for it ... SACRED institution like Marriage.

      MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.

      But that would break all sorts of "social programs" (like the new Health Care Bill) liberal love so much and depend on.

      Liberals, on the one hand, oppose the new Arizona law against illegal immigrants (no race specified in the law itself) because it is "racist", but on the other hand, they love to have all sorts of other laws that specifically account for race (Affirmative Action).

      Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical twits. Just like Conservatives.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    27. Re:Republican by medcalf · · Score: 1

      You need to observe better. Both major parties are fascist on economic matters: nominal private control with extensive government regulation coupled with indirect government policy control of business they deem "critical." Neither party shares the strange racial quirks of the NAZIs, but then again, neither did Franco's Spain, and Mussolini's Italy was on a much lower key than the Germans in that regard.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    28. Re:Republican by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting read. I can see how it works. Like I mentioned before, my country of birth has several political parties, but there are only two or three that are the most popular at one point. But the thing is, with each presidential election, different parties become popular, they kind of "rotate" if you want to call it that way. Sometimes they get repeated, sometimes they don't. I feel that way is much healthier than having two and only two. But eh, it's not like it's going to change anytime soon.

    29. Re:Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be noted that the majority of money spent by Obama was to continue the recovery spending initiated by Bush, based on the advice from major economists and industry leaders, as well as military spending to bring an end to the Iraq war and rethink the war in Afghanistan. Further, the majority of decisions he's made thus far (including the recent health care reform), when analyzed by the CBO, leads to a reduced national deficit in the long-run. New strategies are actually beginning to reap benefits in public opinion of Afghanis towards American soldiers and America in general. The economic results of the Bush/Obama stimulus are still highly uncertain, and are dubious, though based on the best-available evidence and advice.

      That said, when you look at the last Democratic president and the current one against the last three republican presidents, it seems as though Democrats are becoming the party of fiscal discipline and responsible spending, and republicans are losing their reputation with a vengeance (both Iraq wars [the first one seems pointless in light of the second one, which was a logistical disaster], iran-contra [which blew up in our face and required increased military intervention], the first afghan war against the ruskis [which blew up in New York and required increased military intervention], massively needless experimental defense spending [star wars, etc], and governmental [state, local, federal] costs incurred by environmental disasters spawned by bad federal regulatory policy). Just goes to show that rhetoric is almost never congruent with reality.

    30. Re:Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reasonable people understand that dailykos is not a source of information but rather a source of entertainment.

      You clearly are not a reasonable person.

    31. Re:Republican by socz · · Score: 1

      Something worth talking about... while studying poli sci I took a "test" to see where I aligned politically. Well, lets say I thought I belonged on "one side," when the results came in I apparently belonged to "the other side." That was pretty interesting! But after thinking about it for a while it made sense in a freaky way.

      Also very interesting, Clinton wasn't as bad as most people painted him to be ("liberal"). I remember Clinton and Limbauh actually being 'closer to the center' than a lot of others on that list.

      Maybe everyone should be required (wishful thinking, I know) to take that... then they could actually see who they believe in....

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    32. Re:Republican by be951 · · Score: 1

      Wait, who's guilty of false equivalence? Because looking back over this thread, it seems like somehow you are going from a few stats above about gays and creationism to public flogging for viewing bikini pictures at work. Personally, I don't see how you connect the dots between the two. And yes, I did check out many links from the google searches you suggested -- plenty of name-calling, but not much beyond that.

    33. Re:Republican by WilyCoder · · Score: 1

      I think you are talking about economics, and I just wanted to tangentially add that Nixon fucked up BIG TIME and gave us the war on drugs. We have bled over $1 trillion dollars fighting that war that cannot be won...

    34. Re:Republican by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Indeed if there is ONE saving grace to the american two party system its that the split is almost 50/50. A small shift in either direction would be complete tyranny. Can you imagine if either the gop or dems could reliably count on 60% of the vote. :(

    35. Re:Republican by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      To say that I voted for one party or the other is not necessarily to say that I am satisfied by that party. Many people cast their votes to make sure the party that is closest to protecting their interests wins. Some Greens tend to vote Democrat because Democrat is better than Republican (and the reverse is often true for Libertarians). Lots of people feel the need to make sure their voice is heard, so they select the better of the two major options rather than "wasting their vote" by supporting someone that might more closely represent their views.

      Taking numbers from that article, only 63.0% of Americans voted in this election (shamefully, the best turnout since 1968). Continuing your logic, 37.0% of Americans were so dissatisfied by any available party that they did not even vote. 33.3% of eligible voters voted Democrat, 28.7% voted Republican. Think of it this way, only 1/3 of our country supported Obama enough to take the 20 minutes to go to their town hall and check the box next to his name. Of that 1/3 some of them likely did so only to make sure that John McCain didn't win. Not exactly inspiring support.

      The less than 1.5% can safely be ignored, and the nonvoting voters too.

      That is kind of a dangerous attitude to take. Keep in mind that they represent a population larger than voted for any single candidate.

    36. Re:Republican by iamhigh · · Score: 1

      Are you using the same tatic we are calling bullshit on in this tread? Christians aren't bad because Muslims are REALLY BAD!!! GTFO.

      --
      No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    37. Re:Republican by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It should also probably be noted that most of the money we spent on TARP has already been payed back or is expected to be payed back in the near future. Also, we didn't end up spending even half of the $700 billion originally allocated to the program.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    38. Re:Republican by logjon · · Score: 1

      Nixon created the 'war on drugs'. That's p much fucking up.

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    39. Re:Republican by logjon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the Executive branch has done a lot to skirt the system of checks and balances that keep it at 1/3. You'll be worth talking to when you realize that the constitution is, unfortunately, no longer relevant in modern American politics.

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    40. Re:Republican by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      That has nothing to do with the voters or the politicians, it's just an unfortunate consequence of our plurality voting system.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    41. Re:Republican by skids · · Score: 1

      You vastly overestimate the ability of Democrats to work in lockstep.

      If Dems had an unbreakable majority, it's almost a guarantee the party would split. The Blue Dogs and Progressives are at each other's throats as it is -- lots of bile has to be swallowed for them to agree on anything.

      Republicans, meanwhile, have a very easy job. Just vote no on everything and read the memo Lunz sent over a microphone.

    42. Re:Republican by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      The number of Americans that are actually politically aware and care enough to vote could probably have a hard time populating a country the size of Montenegro. We only need the two to keep up occupied. Any more and we'd get confused.

    43. Re:Republican by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      But Nixon was the most pro-environmental president since Teddy Roosevelt.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    44. Re:Republican by logjon · · Score: 1

      Should add that said skirting is a bipartisan phenomenon.

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    45. Re:Republican by swillden · · Score: 1

      Like I mentioned before, my country of birth has several political parties, but there are only two or three that are the most popular at one point.

      No conozco las políticas de Chile, pero de lo que leo en Wikipedia, es un sistéma fuera de lo común.

      I feel that way is much healthier than having two and only two. But eh, it's not like it's going to change anytime soon.

      I'd really like to see us switch to approval voting. I think it more accurately represents the will of the electorate and would have the tendency to break up the current duopoly. I used to be Republican-ish, but have drifted more and more libertarian over the years, to the point where I really dislike both parties about equally and would love to see some new blood.

      The reality is that in the current system, if you want to make some sort of change, the only way to do it is to pick one of the parties and work within it to hopefully alter their platform. It sucks.

      BTW, how'd the henna work out on your hair?

      :P

      Sorry, I'm intrigued when I see people who appear to use their real name on-line (I use most of mine) and so I often google them to see if it's a pseudonym -- or at least if it's a consistently-used pseudonym -- and your questions about dying your hair with henna showed up on the first page.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    46. Re:Republican by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Clinton a liberal? Yeah right. The Republicans just like to tar everyone they oppose with that brush. Note how during every recent presidential election the National Journal comes out with a survey ranking the most liberal legislators and conveniently enough the Democratic nominee always just happens to be the most liberal.

      Anyway, the joke among actual liberals is that Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a few decades.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    47. Re:Republican by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's true. OTOH on environmental issues Nixon was downright liberal compared to today's Republicans.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    48. Re:Republican by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 1

      Well, it IS a pseudonym, it is not my real name. And yes, it is a consistently used one. I call it my "online identity". And everything I post/publish/comment online is under this name, and I always have in mind that someone might google me and see what I post, so even my little blog doesn't have anything that could link me to my real name. And to be honest, googling my online name gets way more hits than my real one. And I'm satisfied with that :)

    49. Re:Republican by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      You know I've met some Republicans with the ability to comprehend what they read, it doesn't have to be just a liberal thing. Nevertheless, here's a hint for you: the questions is not "Is Obama qualified", it is "Is Obama more qualified than Palin" to which the answer is clearly yes.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    50. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      No, you're just wasting our time with the usual false equivalence between Democrats and Republicans, hyperbolically. Democrats (like all politicians) are bad, so Republicans, who are catastrophic, must be no worse than Democrats.

      Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy for years. It's a core value of their Party, and the core value of a large fraction of its remaining members. Their theocracy would indeed send you to Puritan style stocks for a whipping for downloading porn at work. Both for the "morality" of the act, and for wasting your employer's time on nonprofitable activity.

      No, this is not really hyperbole. The Republican Party is America's Taliban. And fallacies like false equivalency is keeping them at work on their theocracy.

      Really Doc? I seriously hope you don't believe that. As a Republican, I can honestly say that no one wants to "send you to Puritan style stocks for a whipping for downloading porn at work." Really, we don't give a shit.

      Also I would like to ask you which party let the war against music lyrics that contained profanity? Let's see... I believe it was Dee Snider who pointed out that a member on the congressional committee grilling him was married to the founding member of Parents Music Resource Center. I believe that senator became Vice President at one point, but I could be wrong. I don't think he was a Republican either. Strange that you didn't bring that up.

      Then, of course, let's not forget about all the Democrats that would gladly take everything you own and trow you in jail for not paying your taxes, but when one their own misses a few years of tax payments, why they make him United States Secretary of the Treasury.

      So, to sum it all up for you:
      1) You spew a bunch of bullshit and hyperbole about the party you don't like to justify your personal hatred.
      2) You remain completely silent when the "other guys" truly would jail you for something they do themselves.

      Your claim of Republican hypocrisy is dripping with hypocrisy itself. Does projection qualify as irony?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    51. Re:Republican by socz · · Score: 1

      ...

      Anyway, the joke among actual liberals is that Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a few decades.

      My black friends all joked that he is really the first black president... lol

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    52. Re:Republican by chadplusplus · · Score: 1

      Can a democrat accurately describe the fundamental ideology of members of the Republican party? Or does he or she assume that the most outlandish of Republicans represent the norm?

      The Republican party I know is comprised of several distinct groups, not all necessarily mutually exclusive. One group believes in small government, less regulation, lower taxes. The Reagan Republicans, if you will. One group believes in laissez faire capitalism: the Randian Republicans. Another group believes in bigger government for the purposes of national defense and international manipulation. We'll call them the Bush Republicans. One other group believes in totalitarian government: the religious right.

      Some members of the Republican party, myself included, despises the religious right and everything for which it stands. I also dislike the Bush Republicans.

      As I've recently convinced my wife, both the religious right's stance and the Bush Republican stance is inconsistent with the fundamental basis of traditional Republican values. Fundamentally, we believe in less government involvement in everything - from business to individuals to international affairs. But without these other groups, we'd never win an election.

      And now we see why Republicans are f$cked. In order to have any political clout, we sold our souls to the war machine and to God. We cannot abandon them (despite the Tea Party's now twisted goals) because without them, we're massively outnumbered by people who believe that governments should always be doing something.

      So I've essentially given up. I believe that the government that governs least governs best. But I'm in the vast minority on that one. So I just have to suck it up and pay my taxes and grumble. Like this post.

    53. Re:Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now I think that Peewee Herman is more qualified to be president than Obama.

    54. Re:Republican by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Hah, yeah that too. So I guess Obama is only the first black *Democratic* president.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    55. Re:Republican by ericfitz · · Score: 1

      Doc Ruby, you are a Troll.

      Show me the bill that anyone tried to get passed in the last 30 years that tried to outlaw contraception (some flake submitting a bill that died in committee doesn't count). Show me a bill that anyone tried to get passed which attempts to prohibit or limit the practice of any religion except Christianity, or for that matter, has any effect that tends to diminish the practice of any religion.

      The issues with abortion and creationism are complex and although you obviously have a strong opinion on the matter which precludes debate, it is a reasonable thing that if we are going to force children to learn a state-imposed curriculum, then the community should have input into that curriculum. Likewise it is a reasonable thing to discuss whether/when a fetus turns into a baby, whether abortion is infanticide, etc. It doesn't mean that the other side wants to impose its religious views on you. It's that they don't want YOU imposing YOUR views on them.

      There's a small percentage of the population at either end who would willfully force the rest of the population to comply with their worldview. The rest of us realize that we live in a democratic republic and that individual communities might choose to pass laws that we would personally find distasteful.

      The position you advocate, which is that people who hold these views (evidenced by a survey of people's beliefs) are trying to establish a theocracy. This is absurd and intellectually dishonest.

      I *WANT* people's beliefs to influence their lawmaking. If someone believes that gays being denied the right to marry is a violation of their civil rights, then I want that person to sponsor and drive legislation to change the matter. If someone believes that evolution is a crock and that God created the earth in 7 days, then I want them to fight for inclusion of that in the curriculum. I might not want them to win, and in practice I usually find that there is some underlying principle that we disagree on that needs addressing (why does the government sanction/perform marriage? is creationism science?) but I want them to have their chance to debate the issue civilly.

      There are flakes on both ends of the spectrum, but they are so far out of mainstream that they typically have no effect on anything. That is, until they get elected by hiding their agenda and then push through ideology-driven laws that the majority of the country oppose. But by and large the system is self regulating and corrects itself.

      It's trolls like you who incorrectly stereotype people and use variants of Godwin's Law to attribute evil motives to people with whom you disagree.

    56. Re:Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Affirmative action is discrimination against perceived discrimination of the majority.

      Arizona law discriminates the minority on the basis of race.

      That's the difference. Majority/minority. If everything is equal, a majority will always have an advantage over a minority. If you don't believe me, move to a different country, legally, and learn a new language. Even if you are 100% qualified for work, there will be bigots that can only say "fucking immigrants" and not give you a job.

      In business world, there is the same notion, but here they call it monopoly. Laws are introduced to discriminate against monopolies, to allow small businesses to grow. Otherwise you'll have 1 company because small businesses would be muscled out of every market.

    57. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Informative

      That time period you mention also happens to be Bill Clinton. With Bush on either side creating all time record deficits. Reagan before that terrible as well (obviously...). Jimmy carter didn't make anything better or worse. Ford sucked. Nixon didn't fuck anything up. Lyndon Johnson broke a bit above even.

      Dems: 1 great, 1 good, 1 even

      GOP: 1 terrible, 3 bad, 1 even.

      http://www.thefreespeechzone.net/images/charts/bush_deficit_graphic.gif

      First, in defense of Reagan, you obviously don't remember the absolute mess the country was in when he took office. Maybe you weren't born yet. I remember mortgage rates well over 18%. I remember unemployment and inflation at double digits. I even remember something called the "Misery Index". Reagan's spending brought this country back from brink of becoming another Greece.

      Now, on to the rest of it.
      Congress controls the purse strings. Why not look at the deficit cross referenced by the party in control of Congress?

      Also, I noticed that you conveniently left out the current administration that has the tripled the deficit spending of GWBush. It's incredibly staggering when you consider that it took Bush eight years to do 1/3 of what Obama did one.

      Consider the following:

      First off, know these crucial facts: The deficit under Ronald Reagan increased 35 percent, from an inherited deficit (from President Jimmy Carter) of $104 billion in 1980 to a final deficit of $141 billion in 1989 ...
      President Obama inherited a record Bush deficit of $400 billion, but is generating a far worse $1.8-trillion deficit in his first year. (Source: Congressional Budget Office, March 20, 2009.)

      So, if you think Reagan was "terrible", then you must think Obama is Satan himself. I'm really surprised you didn't mention it. Unless, you don't want to make your side look bad by presenting all the facts. So much better to only cherry pick the stats that back up your side.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    58. Re:Republican by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Until Obama's first year, where he outspent Bush's 8 years in just his first.

      That doesn't mean *over* spending. Pretty much every economist on the planet was in agreement that if the bailout didn't happen the global economy would COLLAPSE. I don't think you would have seen the alternative.

    59. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Informative

      Republicans have spent much more of your money, and committed you to spend way more (in debt payments, in unfunded mandates, in catastrophic misadventures like wars and deregulation) than Democrats ever have.

      Um, as a "Doc", you can read right? Go read The Constitution and report back to me with which branch of the government controls spending.

      In the mean time, here is a graph showing the party in control of congress vs the deficit. It came from the article here (so you can check the references and data).

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    60. Re:Republican by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical twits. Just like Conservatives. Which is why Libertarians rule! Sure, they are selfish, mean-spirited little gnomes, but at least they are honest about it.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    61. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      But I wasn't even talking about Republican Party members, but Republican officials. If you read the many supporting pages to which I linked about "American Taliban", you'll see that those officials are theocrats.

      Yes! Because denying gays federal recognition of marriage is the exact same thing as hanging or stoning them.

      I'm sorry. What were you saying about "False equivalence"?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    62. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      More than Sarah Palin? Yes. And note that I'm very non political, meaning I don't subscribe to the US democrat/republican points of view. My country of birth has several political parties and I still don't understand how a country as big as the US can only have two.

      Strange. I don't remember Sarah Palin running for president. In order to be fair, one of the following questions should be asked:
      Do you think Barack Obama is more qualified to President than Sarah Palin is to be Vice President?
      or
      Do you think that Barack Obama is more qualified to be President than John McCain?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    63. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize that decrying homosexual marriage restrictions and claiming theocracy in the same post is hypocritical right? You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a ... wait for it ... SACRED institution like Marriage.

      MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.

      But that would break all sorts of "social programs" (like the new Health Care Bill) liberal love so much and depend on.

      Liberals, on the one hand, oppose the new Arizona law against illegal immigrants (no race specified in the law itself) because it is "racist", but on the other hand, they love to have all sorts of other laws that specifically account for race (Affirmative Action).

      Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical twits. Just like Conservatives.

      I agree and even take it a step further. In order to not "break all sorts of "social programs"", the feds could convert all current marriages to civil unions. Problem solved.

      I only say that because there are certain "benefits" that are afforded to married people like child custody, power of attorney, and so on. There needs to be federal and state recognition of the union currently called marriage. I believe everyone would be happy if you just changed the name. Civil Unions have no religious significance. If you want to get "married", go to a church, chapel or where ever you want and get married by whoever you believe is qualified to stand there and say, "You're married". It will just carry no legal weight.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    64. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      That argument gets really old. We have plenty of guns as well. It's one the least well kept liberal secrets.

      So, liberals are hypocrites?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    65. Re:Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush certainly held the (absolute dollar, not inflation adjusted) record for overspending. Until Obama's first year, where he outspent Bush's 8 years in just his first. The rest of your comment is even less useful, so I'll just leave it at that.

      Utter bullshit, and not even a citation in support of it. Bush spent more than any president in decades, but Obama certainly did not outspend him in a year. Not even remotely close.

    66. Re:Republican by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. I'm pretty sure the reps are "riding the sarah palin train" if you want to call it that way.

    67. Re:Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the John Stewart reply to the we have guns argument. I wish they'd stop talking - we have guns too - lets just get it over with.

    68. Re:Republican by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Upon what do you base your opinion that Sarah Palin is incompetent to be President? (NOTE: I am not saying she is competent to be President because I do not know). I do not see how she could be less competent than the current resident of the White House.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    69. Re:Republican by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      As I asked in another post, upon what do you base such a low opinion of Sarah Palin? The current occupant of the White House has never demonstrated competence at anything other than running for office.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    70. Re:Republican by jwhitener · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can you link to some numbers? That Obama's first year cost more than Bush's 8 years and two wars doesn't sound right.

      http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTrading/cost-of-the-bush-era-11-point-5-trillion.aspx

      Under Bush, total spending appears to have been near 11.5 Trillion.

      Some people, like the conservative heritage foundation, say Obama's total spending will be somewhere near 10.3 trillion, Over a Decade though. Not in one year.....
      http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54400

      Were you perhaps thinking of total deficit rather than spending? That is true, the deficit right now under Obama is larger than it was under Bush. But that is because he inherited so much, and is betting that 'fixing' health care will lower the deficit over time.

    71. Re:Republican by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      but at least they are honest about it.

      I'd say the stoner branch of the libertarians are probably pretty straightforward. The rest though are the guys who want to gut the power of government so they can make trillions of dollars without worrying about petty things like safety regulations, but when their company kills someone they want to hide behind the government-granted corporate veil or in the worst case scenario declare government-created bankruptcy to eliminate their debts.

      They're hypocrites too.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    72. Re:Republican by Danse · · Score: 1

      You do realize that decrying homosexual marriage restrictions and claiming theocracy in the same post is hypocritical right? You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a ... wait for it ... SACRED institution like Marriage.

      MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.

      But that would break all sorts of "social programs" (like the new Health Care Bill) liberal love so much and depend on.

      The state has laws regarding marriage or civil unions because there are rights accorded to spouses under the law, and have been since the country was founded. There are a huge number of these rights, far more than I had even imagined. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between people and automatically grants these rights, only some of which can be gotten through other means, and at much greater legal expense.

      So, these special rights accorded to married couples by the state would either need to be done away with (which won't happen), or provided for through some other mechanism. Once you establish that other mechanism, then people will argue about whether gay couples should be allowed to avail themselves of that mechanism. As long as there are rights granted by the state for marriage or whatever form of union, there's really no non-religious reason why gay people should be prevented from forming such a union.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    73. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Wow! I seriously replied to the wrong post. I wasn't even close!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    74. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Strange. I don't remember Sarah Palin running for president. In order to be fair, one of the following questions should be asked:
      Do you think Barack Obama is more qualified to President than Sarah Palin is to be Vice President?
      or
      Do you think that Barack Obama is more qualified to be President than John McCain?
      or
      Palin vs Biden

      But to compare the top of one ticket's experience with the bottom of the other is kind of chicken shit. It's like two people arguing over which football team is better and one says, "Yeah, but our quarterback can throw the ball better than your kicker!"

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    75. Re:Republican by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      (global warming)

      How is global warming in any way, shape or form related to morality?

      The theory is that pumping certain materials in the athmosphere causes the planet to warm up, thereby raising ocean levels and causing all sorts of other fun side effects. Most of the civilized world has accepted this theory as sufficiently plausible to take steps to remedy the situation. Not because of "morality" but because we're quite fond of where we happen to live right now and would rather not have to deal with melting icebergs showing up on our doorsteps.

      Do you honestly, truly believe that "liberals" want to reduce CO2 output because this will somehow hurt you? Are you truly that delusional?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    76. Re:Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberals, on the one hand, oppose the new Arizona law against illegal immigrants (no race specified in the law itself) because it is "racist", but on the other hand, they love to have all sorts of other laws that specifically account for race (Affirmative Action).

      Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical twits. Just like Conservatives.

      Talking about hypocrisy, nice try, but that's a bogus argument. The former is an example of using one's race against them. The latter is using one's race to benefit them. So try again. And this time, stop accusing others of things you're guilty of.

    77. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Funny

      Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy [google.com] for years. It's a core value of their Party, and the core value of a large fraction of its remaining members. Their theocracy would indeed send you to Puritan style stocks for a whipping for downloading porn at work. Both for the "morality" of the act, and for wasting your employer's time on nonprofitable activity.

      So let me get this straight, a batshit crazy liberal is telling everyone what the "core" of the Republican party is, right? Like you have any fucking idea what Republicans want. Tell you what. How about if I, a Republican, say that Democrats are Stalinists who want to ban religion entirely, lock up religious leaders, arrest the leaders of any party they disagree with? Would that be fair? How about if I found sources that backed me up. Do you really think I would have a hard time finding prominent Democratic leaders that want to see the Pope arrested or "see Bush frogmarched"? Would that make me batshit crazy? You bet it would. So, go back and read your posts again and tell you are not batshit crazy! My God man! You linked to a poll by the Daily Kos as evidence. Don't you know those guys are batshit crazy too? Is that really who you look to for truth?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    78. Re:Republican by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      True Libertarians believe that people should be held accountable for the downstream effects of all of their actions, but that it should be a civil matter, not a criminal one. When a company kills someone, the deceased persons relatives should have the right to sue for unlimited damages. Ideally, reasonable safety precautions become a less expensive manner of doing business than constantly paying off damages claims. I argued with my Economics professor that the corporate shield from personal liability was a bad thing; he insisted nobody would be willing to invest in a business if that shield did not exist. But liability only acts as a deterrent to those people that actually have something to lose.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    79. Re:Republican by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Surprise surprise, Obama started including expenses for war in the government spending totals. Bush conveniently kept the costs of two wars out of the official government spending number.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    80. Re:Republican by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Luntz. There are so few evil geniuses left in the world, it's the least you could do to spell their names properly.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    81. Re:Republican by mike1210 · · Score: 1

      No, this is not really hyperbole. The Republican Party is America's Taliban.

      So when do we get to see them cut your head off?

    82. Re:Republican by westlake · · Score: 1

      You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a ... wait for it ... SACRED institution like Marriage.

      Citizenship in pre-Christian Rome came with the expectation that you would settle down and raise a family. Insuring the survival of the city and the continuity of its culture.

      The state's involvement in marriage was a given and could easily be defended in purely secular terms.

    83. Re:Republican by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Nice job dodging the issue.

      I haven't read the source link, but I'd assume that the question was probably asked in the context that McCain is likely to die before his term would be up. In that case, it's a very important question.

      And even if that wasn't the context -- the belief that Palin is more qualified, when she can't answer hard-hitting gotcha questions like, "what newspapers do you like to read?" is hilarious. And there are people who really do believe this.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    84. Re:Republican by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Republicans have spent much more of your money, and committed you to spend way more (in debt payments, in unfunded mandates, in catastrophic misadventures like wars and deregulation) than Democrats ever have.

      With full democrat acquiescence... There's nothing to argue here.. They a re a tag team. One's distracting you while the other is picking your pocket, while accusing each other of the theft! One of the oldest con games ever, still works like a charm.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    85. Re:Republican by goatee · · Score: 1

      You do realize that decrying homosexual marriage restrictions and claiming theocracy in the same post is hypocritical right? You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a ... wait for it ... SACRED institution like Marriage.

      "Marriage" isn't sacred. It's a social construct, not a religious one. That's not opinion; that's global history.

      Almost all of the marriage legal tomfoolery comes from nitpicking about the definition, or is based on a particular religion's interpretation (read: subset) of marriage.

      We absolutely have laws in the USA which provide benefits to one particular subset of marriages. That's similar to endorsing only some religions, or any other social subset of humans. You make a particular social choice, we give you kickbacks. Pick another (including no choice at all!), tough rocks, you don't get squat. Even though your choice doesn't harm others, it doesn't fall in line with what we've deemed "good".

      Which is bollocks.

      Any law which gives a benefit or a punishment for being a particular race, nationality, gender, social group (religion being one, knitting club being another), or choosing or not choosing a socially-recognized life partner is bollocks. Affirmative action is bollocks. State benefits for marriage is bollocks.

      Tax-exempt status for religious institutions is bollocks. Religion is the only selective qualifying category listed under 501(c)(3). The rest are beneficial to the whole of society, not a subset (though the sporting inclusion in 501(c)(e) is arguably not in line as well, but also sneaks in under the very broad "charitable" definition). I digress.

      Recognizing same-sex or other particular subsets of marriage and giving them the same benefits of male-female marriage doesn't solve the problem. What about group marriages, shouldn't they get the same rights? "Oh, no...we don't recognize group marriages or polygamy, those are wrong..." Same logic core as being against same-sex marriage though, 'eh? Though I bet most of you are a bit more squeamish about saying polygamy is kosher even if you're for same-sex marriage... Abolish the whole mess of recognizing any subset, and you eliminate the legal problem.

    86. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice job dodging the issue.

      I haven't read the source link, but I'd assume that the question was probably asked in the context that McCain is likely to die before his term would be up. In that case, it's a very important question.

      And even if that wasn't the context -- the belief that Palin is more qualified, when she can't answer hard-hitting gotcha questions like, "what newspapers do you like to read?" is hilarious. And there are people who really do believe this.

      --Jeremy

      And Biden telling a man in a wheel chair to stand up and take a bow was very telling as well. Not just because that Biden is a fucking idiot, but what kind of idiot picks him to make his campaign look better? And Obama was known for stepping on his dick every time he tried to speak without a teleprompter.

      The point is that every politician stumbles on what should be an easy issue. On paper, both candidates, Palin and Obama have roughly the same number of years experience. The differences are that Palin's experience was executive at a local and state level while Obama's was legislative at the state and federal level. Which carries more weight, executive experience for an executive job or federal experience for a federal job?

      I think of this way. You are hiring for an IT job. Who would you hire, a person from another company with IT experience or someone who already works for your company with no IT experience? Of course, that's my opinion. I'm sure yours differs. Either way, all experience weighted equally, Palin and Obama have roughly the same amount of experience. That's fact. Numbers don't lie. The difference, as I stated before, Obama was running for President. Palin was running for Vice President. I would say that Palin was more experience for her job than Obama was for his.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    87. Re:Republican by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      OTOH on environmental issues Nixon was downright liberal compared to today's Republicans.

      Nixon was starting off with a society that condoned companies disposing of hazardous chemicals by dumping them in the river. Modern GOP'ers are starting off with a society that requires nine years, several lawsuits and 200 different state and federal governmental agencies to approve a wind farm project....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    88. Re:Republican by syousef · · Score: 1

      MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.

      I'm very glad your views don't run your country or mine.

      People paring up does have consequences. In a hetrosexual marriage there are additional consequences because both parties are suppose to be responsible for their children. One thing that marriage laws allow is for a couple to pass on their inheritance to their spouse or children when they die so that their residual assets can be used to look after them. This makes sense when there is a division of labour among the couple. (eg. wife raises children, husband goes out to work as in the "traditional model", or both couples work together to support the household).

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    89. Re:Republican by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      Marriage was a social contract between individuals (or rather, between the groom and the wife's family) long before Christianity got involved sometime in the middle ages. Hell, the equivalent of gay marriage was pretty common (and accepted) in Ancient Rome.

      The problem with extremist Christians (and other religions) is that they only consider their own beliefs and completely ignore the right of the rest of us to live our lives according to our own beliefs or traditions.

    90. Re:Republican by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      I didn't conveniently leave it out, the picture is old. And I looked for (about 10minutes) something more up to date but that can't be found. And I fully agree that seeing who controlled what house through these periods in time would also be valuable and interesting. So would adding bits of historical timeline, wars and recessions and their causes, to give context. Anyways, I wasn't feeling energetic enough to make my own chart, You can feel free. However I do know that Bush improved greatly when the dems took the house (Aside from the depression fix at the very end).

      Anyways that was full bi-partisan and occurred mostly before Obama controlled anything. I do think it will be interesting to see more information as it comes out and I welcome it.

      Also I was saying that G.W. Bush was terrible (based on those stats) not Reagan. Reagan however created a type of economic ideology which was probably harmful, though hard to measure. Didn't mean to cherry pick at all.

    91. Re:Republican by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      No, the Christian whackjobs have no real power. They couldn't even keep Terri Schiavo from being taken off life support. They can't even end abortion on demand.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    92. Re:Republican by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      In both cases that's only due to the constitution and to a degree the judiciary for making it so - in Terri's case they even passed a bill solely for her "benefit" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLay#Terri_Schiavo). To say they have no real power I think is wrong - take a look at the re-writing of history going on in Texas, the continuing brouhaha over evolution (almost all presidential nominees declared they didn't believe in evolution, none stated flatly that they do) - its really a troubling situation.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    93. Re:Republican by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly, truly believe that "liberals" want to reduce CO2 output because this will somehow hurt you?

      The goal of "environmentalists" is the destruction of Western civilization. Observe that all methods of CO2 emission reduction that do not require the destruction of Western civilization have been rejected, such as nuclear power.

    94. Re:Republican by glitch23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except the facts show that Republicans, by a significant majority, want the country ruled by religious laws. Here's just a sample of their positions on issues ruled by what they think their bible says, rather than the Constitution:

      The country already is ruled by religious law to some extent: thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal. Murder and burglary are against the law. Why aren't you all riled up about that? Constitution doesn't say anything about murder or stealing but yet we have laws for them.

      By the way, we know what the Bible says so including in your post "what they think their Bible says" is a transparent attempt at discrediting them. Nice try but it didn't work. Those Republican officials' views are shared by a vast majority of the country's citizens. It just goes to show you that despite what the minority don't believe in, the majority of the population still enjoy and prefer having religion as a large part of their lives. And the side benefit is that those who disagree are welcome to do so as long as the laws of the land are still obeyed by all.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    95. Re:Republican by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      There's the fact that she couldn't complete a term as Governor. The stupidity of "Drill baby, drill" should also be pretty obvious now. Or how about the blatant hypocrisy of reading teleprompter jokes off of a teleprompter?

      Admittedly that barely scratches the surface. There's plenty more but I don't pay her much attention so I don't have a list of every stunningly ignorant thing I've heard from her at the moment.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    96. Re:Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.

      Amen to that. State involvement in marriage was historically a way of keeping the races from mixing. Now it is used to punish homosexuals instead.

    97. Re:Republican by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine if either the gop or dems could reliably count on 60% of the vote. :(

      Very easily, in fact. If that happened, you'd get a split within the winning party over issues other than those Reps & Dems fight about today - which may even be a good thing (honestly, watching U.S. politics, it's like you have 3 same talking points every election, on and on and on).

      In fact, if it would happen to Dems, then maybe you'd get some actual sane and viable left-wing parties...

    98. Re:Republican by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It would be all well and good, except that most American religious conservatives also oppose civil unions for homosexuals, so long as they confer the same benefits as marriage does - i.e. equal in all but name. In other words, for them. it is still strictly about gay discrimination.

      Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical twits. Just like Conservatives.

      I'm a liberal (in American terms). I am extremely opposed to any form of affirmative action. I'm also pro-gun ownership.

      If you stick labels to people around you, you start seeing just the labels, rather than people.

    99. Re:Republican by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No, there's just no solid "liberal" platform. Washington is a "liberal" state, but it permits open carry, for example (while Texas does not).

    100. Re:Republican by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > That is kind of a dangerous attitude to take.

      How so? They can safely ignore those nonvoting voters as long as those nonvoting voters keep not voting.

      > Keep in mind that they represent a population larger than voted for any single candidate.

      I've known that for years, but do those voters know, or care?

      Do those voters really count, if time after time they don't vote?

      > Lots of people feel the need to make sure their voice is heard, so they select the better of the two major options rather than "wasting their vote" by supporting someone that might more closely represent their views

      This to me is stupid. It works fine in the academic game theory scenarios where you only have one iteration, only one go at it. In the real world most people live longer than one term.

      If you vote for someone else who doesn't win it is not wasted. It sends a signal.

      If 20% of the voters actually voted for the Libertarians and "wasted their vote", don't you think the Two Parties might change to be a bit more like the Libertarians?

      Even if that doesn't happen (not possible for the Two Parties to do it) some of those 37% nonvoting voters might actually vote for Libertarians in the _next_ election because they now know there's a chance.

      --
    101. Re:Republican by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Is it any surprise that his name is almost 'Lulz'?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    102. Re:Republican by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Cute graph, but the fact that he uses the term "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" indicates a bias.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    103. Re:Republican by swillden · · Score: 1

      That's cool. I basically use my real name online everywhere, and in any case it's trivial to find out my name, address and phone number from my domain name registrations.

      I gave up on anonymity long ago. Not that there's anything wrong with it, I just don't bother.

      Oh, you didn't mention how the henna turned out :)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    104. Re:Republican by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Yes you could. You could easily abandon them, because then people like myself would spend more than two seconds considering the merits of your party before blowing them off. Seriously, find a T. Roosevelt or a Dick Nixon (minus the crazy) and I'd think about it. Instead we're dealing with people who cherry pick which elements of Reagan they want to follow and fill in the rest of their policy 'thoughts' with a bit of Leviticus and just a smattering of Ayn Rand.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    105. Re:Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a shit who the administration is, it's Congress that makes law. For both the Telecommunications Act and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, weren't the Republicans in control of Congress?

    106. Re:Republican by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Why were you modded flamebait? Everything you said is true. I hate right wingers who mod people down just because they can't come up with an intelligent rebuttal. And then they criticize Democrats for being "intellectual elites". Sigh... America is doomed at this rate.

    107. Re:Republican by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Deregulation of the Telecommunications Act occurred under Republican Administrations. Indeed, the first 4 or 5 years after the Act was passed was characterized by budding competition in the broadband industry as line sharing was forced on the incumbents. It was a Republican FCC that reclassified broadband under Title I, essentially destroying their powers, and refused to take any sort of action to increase competition.

      While Clinton made a mistake allowing the repeal of Glass-Steagal, it needs to be noted it was the Republicans in Congress who created the bill and pushed it through.

    108. Re:Republican by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      What a troll you are. First the graph only goes back to '95, which is just plain disingenuous. Second it doesn't take into account Bush keeping the cost of the wars "off the books". Obama simply added them back on. You *know* Republicans generated far more deficits than Democrats did. You know this because you've been told over and over, and been shown an endless amount of evidence. Yet your mind is so screwed up, so backwards and twisted, that you will do everything in your power to lie to yourself, and lie to others, just so that you don't have to face the truth. It's fascinating and yet disturbing watching you lead a life in a tiny bubble of fake reality.

    109. Re:Republican by sonicmerlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The top tenth of 1% of the population receives half of every available dollar of income (almost as much as the bottom 50%). The question is whether they are paying "more" like they were 30 years ago, prior to income taxes becoming more regressive, before their share of the national income quadrupled while the average American lost ground.

      I mean, is it a good thing that 300,000 Americans quadrupled their incomes, and pay less tax on that money today than they would have 30 years ago? To the "less tax" crowd that may sound like an ideal world. But, is that ideal when, at the same time, average income dropped 10%?

      In 1980, Ronald Reagan asked "are you better off today than you were four years ago?" He got elected and proceeded to make income taxation less progressive. The result has been as described above.

      But, if the average American asks the same question Reagan did, he's accused of being a "deadbeat," "wanting something for nothing."

      I won't go into details on the massive deficits Reagen wracked up, the destruction of environment, the elimination of a great deal of government funded basic scientific research, etc.

    110. Re:Republican by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      True Libertarians believe that people should be held accountable for the downstream effects of all of their actions

      That's a lovely libertarian mantra. But, in reality it could never exist. When individuals in a state of nature join together for their mutual benefit (forming a society under Lockean political philosophy) their definition of "mutual" will never be the same.

      Consider the founding generation. They revolted to promote their mutual goal of liberty. After 12 years of living under the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation they ditched it for a relatively *colossal* new federal/constitutional government of 1789. They traded liberty for security (a more powerful government to which states would be more greatly subordinated).

      From there it gets more complicated. Some joined together to protect their property rights. Others joined together to strip others of their property rights (the right to own slaves). Colorado became a state to control its source of water. Arizona became a state to use the federal government to get its "fair" share of that water.

      Competing goals. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness often dependent upon public law -- which creates winners and losers.

      When enough people feel they're consistently losing (such as, the top 1/10th of 1% quadruple their incomes as average income declines 10%, all under the auspices of "trickle down" economics), that's something to be concerned about.

      You can't dismiss it with quaint depictions of liberty and happiness being exactly what you say it is.

    111. Re:Republican by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Actually he's pretty intelligent. His points about the complete terribleness of the Republican party over the last 30 years versus the not-so-badness of the Democratic party ever since WW2 are quite accurate and well-sourced.

    112. Re:Republican by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      I hope you realize your entire post is anecdotal, and doesn't do anything to dispel his well-sourced arguments (with numerous polls and statistics to back him up) that Republicans are far more theocratic in their beliefs than Democrats.

    113. Re:Republican by sonicmerlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the majority of people on this forum consider you to be a crazy right-wing troll. That you don't realize this is quite amusing.

    114. Re:Republican by sonicmerlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you have any evidence for your claims? How does Democratic=supported regulation of industries that influence the fate of our economy in any way related to "fascism"?

      Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP. The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63% of GDP.

      Mussolini himself said "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Do you not see how the formation of super-large corporations and their increasing influence on government politics is equivalent to the invasion of fascism? Can you not see how the break-up or regulation of these extremely large corporations is akin to fighting the creep of fascism?

      Who was it on the Supreme Court who voted to give corporations equal rights to people? What presidents in the last century attempted to break up giant corporations? From the Republican side only Teddy Roosevelt was anti-trust, and eventually he was shunned from his own party.

    115. Re:Republican by cadience · · Score: 1

      Marriage in this country is sanctimonious. Many other governments actually require separate ceremonies wherein the wedding is for symbolism only and does not confirm any legal status.

      I agree with you, and would even be willing to extend the abstraction further: An adult picks an "important party" that is their legal representation. By default, this is your Guardian until 18, after that pick someone - *Any adult*. This scares people because it sounds random, but it is just as random as picking someone to marry. I argue that the selection may be more, uh, rational. It could be the person you are "married to" (religiously) and I would image that would be the common case. I can see many of the legal benefits that are bestowed on a spouse as useful to give to someone else. I feel that requiring marriage to confer those rights to someone else "discriminates" against those that wish to remain single. For example, I am married, but if my wife should die, I should be able to confer these benefits upon my friend since the age of three If I desire. It's a matter of trust, not marriage, not emotion.

      This abstraction could be useful for other issues such as mental illness where the guardian, or the state, could remain the "important party". Unlike today that requires More Laws And Paperwork to allow this to workout.

      PS I've yet to figure out what to call myself. I'm typically cast into the "liberal" category by those more "conservative" than my self. Then again I'm fiscally Conservative. Not sure if you were trying to knock "liberals" but I agreed with everything else you were saying.

    116. Re:Republican by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      What you say about Texas is true. But over all, conservative states have the least restrictive gun laws over liberal ones. Regardless, Texas is least restrictive compared to Washington despite the open carry status.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)

      http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/bcam/stategunlaws/scorecard/BradyScorecard.pdf

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    117. Re:Republican by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Rejected?

      According to this http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html , 4-8 units will be build in the next decade in the US.

      Europe has taken sharp turn as well. Even the Dutch are considering building a new one. East Europe is not sleeping too. Russia wants to build 50 new plants, how about China and India.

      The advance of nuclear power was certainly hindered but not by any environmentalists (or just a few) but global hysteria, market interests and politics. Plus the "bio fuel scam" delayed us in Europe. Now we are backing out of it but many concessions are rewarded because the fucking politicians did not listen to the majority of scientists when they should have.

      On a side note: You make another mistake too. You confuse the disgust some thinking people (including myself) share about THE WAY our civilization is run for an attempt to destroy it. Which is utter bullshit, because if only transportation stops for a month most city dwellers around the world will starve. The civilization will be destroyed exactly by those people that see conspiracy every time when someone tries to change something for the better. Like a small child that goes mad with contempt and rejection and starts breaking anything in sight.

      Here is my music greeting for the day:

      Dogs of war and men of hate
      With no cause, we don't discriminate
      Discovery is to be disowned
      Our currency is flesh and bone
      Hell opened up and put on sale
      Gather 'round and haggle
      For hard cash, we will lie and deceive
      Even our masters don't know the web we weave

      One world, it's a battleground
      One world, and we will smash it down
      One world ... One world

      Invisible transfers, long distance calls,
      Hollow laughter in marble halls
      Steps have been taken, a silent uproar
      Has unleashed the dogs of war
      You can't stop what has begun
      Signed, sealed, they deliver oblivion
      We all have a dark side, to say the least
      And dealing in death is the nature of the beast

      One world, it's a battleground
      One world, and we will smash it down
      One world ... One world

      The dogs of war don't negotiate
      The dogs of war won't capitulate,
      They will take and you will give,
      And you must die so that they may live
      You can knock at any door,
      But wherever you go, you know they've been there before
      Well winners can lose and things can get strained
      But whatever you change, you know the dogs remain.

      One world, it's a battleground
      One world, and we will smash it down
      One world ... One world

    118. Re:Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're a boot-licker.

    119. Re:Republican by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      >> The country already is ruled by religious law to some extent: thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal. Murder and burglary are against the law.

      That is not religious law, that is just common sense. Just because it is mentioned in the bible does not make it religious. Now if the law is _derived_ from the text in the bible, that is religious law.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    120. Re:Republican by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Liberals, on the one hand, oppose the new Arizona law against illegal immigrants (no race specified in the law itself) because it is "racist", but on the other hand, they love to have all sorts of other laws that specifically account for race (Affirmative Action)."

      Perhaps it's because they're capable of seeing the difference between what a law actually specifies and how it should work in theory, and how the law will end up actually being used in practice?

      It's just like the stop and search powers in the UK, the police are allowed to stop and search anyone, but they're used to target people from asia and the middle east massively disproportionately. Just as people said would happen when arguing against the laws when they were created. This is despite the fact that statistically, asians and people from the middle east are no more likely to be a terrorist threat than white Western people due to the fact we have had everything from the IRA, to a nutcase who was pissed off at the DVLA, through to white extremists also attempting terrorist attacks in recent history.

      Similarly it would seem these people know that sometimes the law does in fact work- in the case of companies who find it much harder to avoid legally binding discrimination laws for example. Essentially, sometimes the law does work and in balance decreases discrimination, other times it doesn't, and increases it.

      I don't see how this is hypocritical in any way whatsoever, the people you're referring to as "Liberals" seem to be merely pushing for equality using the law where it will work fairly, and talking down new laws where it clearly wont work fairly.

      You may call these "Liberals" with this standpoint twits, or hypocrits, or whatever else you want, but at the end of the day it would appear they at least have a better grasp of how the world actually works in practice than you do. Your view on marriage for example is great in theory, but wont necessarily work in practice.

      I use the term Liberals in quotes because it's a very American concept that you can pidgeon hole people into precisely one very narrow political leaning and suggest they all have exactly the same viewpoint. I suspect that again, in reality things are quite different and that people all across the political spectrum fit into some of your points, but it makes them neither truly Liberal or truly Conservative, but either way, certainly doesn't make them hypocritical.

    121. Re:Republican by Jarnin · · Score: 1

      The country already is ruled by religious law to some extent: thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal. Murder and burglary are against the law. Why aren't you all riled up about that?

      Probably because those crimes generally involve an unwilling participant, usually referred to as a victim. Homosexuality is usually an act committed between willing participants, and in the case a participant isn't willing, we have laws for that.

      Constitution doesn't say anything about murder or stealing but yet we have laws for them.

      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

      Those Republican officials' views are shared by a vast majority of the country's citizens. It just goes to show you that despite what the minority don't believe in, the majority of the population still enjoy and prefer having religion as a large part of their lives.

      Here's my beef with theocratic Republicans: They're trying to impose their religious teachings to non-believes through law. If Christians and other religious folk could simply practice their religion and not impose it on others, I wouldn't have problem with them at all. But they do. So, problem.

    122. Re:Republican by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Your list doesn't even come close to Obama's history of insulting US allies, pushing a massive economic stimulus bill that didn't stimulate the economy, pushing a "health care reform" bill whose "purpose" was to reign in insurance and pharmaceutical companies, yet is more strongly supported by those industries than any other group in the country.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    123. Re:Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Democrats invade my wallet, gun cabinet, phone records, radio stations, etc.

      And the republicans don't? Son, either you're very young, or you're very quick to forget.

    124. Re:Republican by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      IMO, everyone watches computer porn, only thing separating Dems and Gop is that the GOP want to make it illegal for everyone but themselves

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    125. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Cute graph, but the fact that he uses the term "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" indicates a bias.

      But don't be insulted. This article tells it better than I can:

      The truly unfortunate result of the constant carping on this trivial distinction between “Democratic Party” and “Democrat Party” is that it serves as a distraction; therefore, instead of addressing the issues, the aggrieved Democrat retorts that the offending Republican uttering the shortened form ”insults the party,” as partisan hack Paul Begala complained about Bush’s use. Other sword-swallowing partisan Democrats such as those of the DailyKos ilk like to pounce on any and every use of that term by conservatives, even when many times that use is inadvertent, as in Bush’s case, and therefore meaningless.

      None of that matters as the graph was found at FreeRepublic.com. That is a right wing site. I posted it as full disclosure and I expected people to actually look at the sources and verify the data itself. Unfortunately, you fell for the "Attack the Messenger" and "Guilt by Association" fallacies. You seem to have a problem with that. Instead of looking at the data, you look at who is bringing it to you and throw it out with no consideration of its accuracy.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    126. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      What a troll you are. First the graph only goes back to '95, which is just plain disingenuous. Second it doesn't take into account Bush keeping the cost of the wars "off the books". Obama simply added them back on. You *know* Republicans generated far more deficits than Democrats did. You know this because you've been told over and over, and been shown an endless amount of evidence. Yet your mind is so screwed up, so backwards and twisted, that you will do everything in your power to lie to yourself, and lie to others, just so that you don't have to face the truth. It's fascinating and yet disturbing watching you lead a life in a tiny bubble of fake reality.

      Republican presidents or Republican led congresses? There is a difference. See, according to the Constitution, Congress controls the purse strings. So when you say, "Republicans generated far more deficits than Democrats did", are you talking about the party that controls the White House or Capitol Hill? I think that if you consider that aspect of your statement, you'll find that your conclusion changes. This is why I don't blame Obama for the current deficit as much as I blame Pelosi and Ried. Although, when the same party controls the WH as Congress, Congress tends to go along with whatever the President wants as he is in control of the party. This is why Obama is not completely blameless.

      Now that you know this, welcome out of your "life in a tiny bubble of fake reality." See, ignorance can be cured. I guess that I can overlook the insults as you really didn't know any better.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    127. Re:Republican by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Second it doesn't take into account Bush keeping the cost of the wars "off the books".

      Let's explain it this way:

      So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
      Then he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending, not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.

        So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.

      But, since you brought up the wars, let's look at how much they cost. According to the left wing Cost Of War.com site, the total cost of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is about $990 Billion. Obama's deficit spending had exceeded that in his first year in office. Now, keep in mind that the $900 billion was the total cost since 2003 when we invaded Iraq. So, unless Obama increased funding for the wars by more than seven times, your "wars kept off the books" as an excuse for Obama's deficits argument is total bullshit.

      And you accuse me of lying?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    128. Re:Republican by Dr_Terminus · · Score: 1

      The differences between Palin and Obama 'on paper' are more than you let on in your post. To continue your metaphor, lets say I'm hiring them for a job... here's what I'd likely see on their resumes:

      Palin:
      Active in high-school sports
      Won beauty pagent
      Transferred 5 times to 4 colleges in 5 years; degree in communications
      ~4 years sportscaster/sports reporter
      4 years city council
      6 years mayor
      3 years governor

      Obama:
      High school sports
      Attended college prep school
      Attended 2 colleges, one being Columbia, studying poli sci and international relations
      Travelled worldwide
      3 years director of Developing communities project
      Harvard Law school + Harvard Law Review editor, graduated magna cum laude
      12 years constitutional law professor at University of Chicago Law School
      8 years serving on 2 boards of directors of Chicago philanthropic organizations
      8 years state senate
      4 years US senate

      Now, I dont know about you, but if I had to make a decision on who to hire based solely on the contents of these resume's, the job would hands down go to Obama.

    129. Re:Republican by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but I can't get that worked up about it. My first inclination when you mentioned the evolution wars was to retort that it wouldn't be an issue if Government wasn't so heavily involved in education. But even with the current status quo the creationists are losing more often than they win. Recall the events in PA a few years ago. Even without the involvement of the Federal court the local population voted out the school board members that were pushing the creationist agenda. This is in rural PA -- not a bastion of liberal/secular thought by any means.

      Besides, why the focus on the religious right? The Democratic Party has their own share of extremists that want to trample on your rights. The gun control folks come to mind....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    130. Re:Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Im sorry Liberals are better then conservatives. Sure we make our mistakes but at least we want something better for humanity. We want peace, we want health care so needless millions do not have to suffer.

      Say what you want about my beliefs I stand by them and I am proud of them. :)

    131. Re:Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My evil is lesser than your evil. I'm very pissed that you voted for Kang.

    132. Re:Republican by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      My first inclination when you mentioned the evolution wars was to retort that it wouldn't be an issue if Government wasn't so heavily involved in education.

      Well that's technically true as then teachers would not have a responsibility not to mix religion into classes. However that doesn't exactly seem a better solution.

      Even without the involvement of the Federal court the local population voted out the school board members that were pushing the creationist agenda.

      But not before they tried to have a go at preaching creationism, wasting taxpayer money and effort of parents to fix. Note that this was by no means the end of their efforts as can be seen in Texas.

      Besides, why the focus on the religious right?

      You brought it up by saying they have no real power! Wtf does that have to do with democrats and gun control???

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    133. Re:Republican by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'm not disputing that there is stronger pro-gun sentiment among conservatives. My point was that, either way, gun control is not a point over which there is strong consensus in the liberal camp. You see both the likes of NY, and the likes of WA (personally, I find it ironic that, at the same time, assisted euthanasia is illegal in NY, but legal in WA - go figure who's more "liberal" there!).

    134. Re:Republican by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      However that doesn't exactly seem a better solution.

      Sure it is. If you don't like what your school is teaching, move the kids to a better one. It's harder to do that nowadays because you don't get any credit for the monies that would have been spent on your kids in public school if you opt to take them elsewhere.

      Note that this was by no means the end of their efforts as can be seen in Texas.

      For better or worse they have the right to try and advance their agenda in this country.

      You brought it up by saying they have no real power!

      Which they don't, as evidenced by the fact that they can't make progress on their most important issue (abortion on demand). In any case the religious right is only one part of the GOP coalition.

      Wtf does that have to do with democrats and gun control???

      The thread is about the suckitude of both major political parties. Some have claimed that the Republicans are worse because the religious right seeks to impose itself upon the rest of us at the expense of our civil rights. It's rather one-sided to condemn the GOP for this while giving the Democrats a pass for similar behaviors, isn't it?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    135. Re:Republican by mike1210 · · Score: 1

      I suppose Democrats are better than Republicans if you believe smashing the economy, creating huge, bankrupting entitlement programs, getting involved in wars with no intention of winning, and concessions and capitulation to the Soviet Union are "not so bad" things.

    136. Re:Republican by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "the feds could convert all current marriages to civil unions. Problem solved."

      No it doesn't solve anything. It is just government intrusion into private matters. Of course that is exactly what both Liberals and Conservatives do. Both want and decry social intervention. Both want government to tell people what to do with their time and money while complaining about government interference in people's private lives.

      As much as liberals hate about "legislated morality", they are all about legislating their morality (same with conservatives) like Free Health Care for all.

      Of course it is easy to make fun of conservatives, but the reality is both sides are equally silly.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    137. Re:Republican by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Right, and you have the right to tell people and MAKE them not be selfish, according to YOUR terms and conditions?

      Libertarians aren't as selfish as you think. We actually value the LIBERTIES of all people. But if you don't care about liberty and justice for ALL then it doesn't matter. Which is why we have all sorts of special "classes" of protections for people based on arbitrary race/color/creed/sexual orientation/planet of origin.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    138. Re:Republican by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps it's because they're capable of seeing the difference between what a law actually specifies and how it should work in theory, and how the law will end up actually being used in practice?"

      No they aren't.

      Liberal/Progressives write all sorts of laws that have all sorts of unintended consequences because rose colored glasses aren't reality.

      Remember the Luxury Tax from Clinton years, that was quickly repealed because the "rich" suddenly stopped buying "luxury" items like Yachts and put out of work a bunch of normal working class people?

      And this "Health Care" thing we just put into place, is wrought full of problems the liberals don't want to address or see.

      And Liberal/Progressives don't want to see a fence put up between Mexico and the US because they say that it won't stop illegals from coming, while not ever admitting it will slow them down?

      Liberal/Progressives want perfection in everything, but cannot fathom why stuff doesn't work based on ideals.

      I often here Liberal/Progressives say things like "It ought to be like __________". Yeah, and if wishes were horses ....

      Or to put it differently ... "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are not".

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    139. Re:Republican by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "
      According to this http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html , 4-8 units will be build in the next decade in the US."

      Too little, too late. We need probably close to 100 or more Nuclear Plants to get off coal powered ones. And we need to build more Hydro Electic Dams, but that is also held up because of environmentalism. Progress requires sacrifice and hard work.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    140. Re:Republican by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      No, Im sorry Liberals are better then conservatives. Sure we make our mistakes but at least we want something better for humanity.

      So did Pol Pot.

      We want peace,

      Not really, as coercing large amounts of money from people requires some form of violence, or the threat of violence.

      we want health care so needless millions do not have to suffer.

      You don't want "health care", you want more government, and you want people to be dependent on government for their existence.

    141. Re:Republican by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Dude, you've obviously never read The Virtue of Selfishness. For the record, I was a registered Libertarian for 30 years, until I changed to Democrat in 2008 so I could vote for Barack Obama and Steve Novick in the primary.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    142. Re:Republican by pugugly · · Score: 1

      Considering that, for the average income, the income tax has gone down under Democratic administrations and up under Republican administrations, actually Democrats are better at keeping out of your wallet *and* your bedroom than Republicans.

      Which is a shame - some of these Democrats are hot, I wouldn't mind seeing . . . er, never mind . . .

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    143. Re:Republican by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Considering that, for the average income, the income tax has gone down under Democratic administrations and up under Republican administrations, actually Democrats are better at keeping out of your wallet *and* your bedroom than Republican

      Even if that's the case, in what world do you live that income taxes are the only ones that you pay? Here in my home state we are being slowly bled to death by property taxes. Democrats have dominated this state as long as I've been alive.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    144. Re:Republican by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Even if that's the case, in what world do you live that income taxes are the only ones that you pay? Here in my home state we are being slowly bled to death by property taxes. Democrats have dominated this state as long as I've been alive.....

      Income taxes are just a trick to hide taxes anyway. I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of an embedded tax - a single mother making minimum wage is likely to spend $3000 a year paying other people's income taxes. They just come as 50c of that $2 loaf of bread she bought.

      If there's a bright side to property taxes is that if they're applied locally, high taxes will tend to drive population away (businesses open up in the next town over, for example). The latency is pretty long on that, though.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    145. Re:Republican by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Too bad Mussolini never said this. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Benito_Mussolini

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    146. Re:Republican by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      He ain't black. He's the first JEWISH president, I say.

      Workin' for his man, Rahm...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    147. Re:Republican by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I really don’t understand the fuss over “Democrat” vs. “Democratic”.

      Democrat is syntactically analogous to Republican. He’s a Democrat, he’s a Republican. You wouldn’t call a person a Democratic. Republicans aren’t part of a Republicanist party so why are Democrats part of a Democratic party?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    148. Re:Republican by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.

      Yes, but while you *do* have laws establishing marriage as a priveleged legal condition it is inequitable to deny those rights to people who happen to be gay.

      In the UK certainly, there are many problems to do with property rights, child visitation rights and so on for non-married couples (both gay and straight).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    149. Re:Republican by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The country already is ruled by religious law to some extent: thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal. Murder and burglary are against the law. Why aren't you all riled up about that? Constitution doesn't say anything about murder or stealing but yet we have laws for them.

      Why do some people in the US think that the Constitution is the be all and end all of the legal system?

      You have common law inherited from our UK system: over the centuries people decided that stealing and murder were a bad idea and should be punished. It's nothing except coincidentally to do with the Bible. It would be hard to imagine a sane legal system under which murder wasn't a serious offence.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    150. Re:Republican by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Even more amusingly, this rant above has been modded funny, which I bet really, really pissed him off.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    151. Re:Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, had to double post in response to the same comment trying to push your bullshit? Here's a hint, stop watching Fox and start watching real news. You might learn something.

    152. Re:Republican by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Which has exactly zero to do with the deficit. The spending on the war may have been keep out of the annual spending bill but it was still tallied against the annual deficit. You can't deny that the deficit has gone up a lot under President Obama. Nor can you use bailouts as an excuse. How did then Senator Obama vote on the bailout packages?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  45. What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously

  46. Actions and words by dosun88888 · · Score: 1

    1. In this case, it looks like the guy opened a link from an e-mail and then closed it when he saw what it contained. No story here, move along. Yeah, meetings are boring and we all know that.

    2. People tend to vote and speak out for morality that they think is good, not what they actually practice in real life. If the story were instead about a guy who was speaking out against pornography but had a terabyte of porn on his machine, we'd have some evidence supporting that people don't vote for what they actually think is right, but what they want others to think they think is right. If people were more honest with their likes and dislikes the world would be easier to navigate, but that's not the current reality.

  47. RECALL HIM! by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    RECALL HIM!

  48. Honeypot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what the senator would think about the FBI cp honeypot download link posting plot? There was a good deal of handwringing about "what if someone sends a blind link. . "

  49. Key word... by batquux · · Score: 1

    it was an email sent to him by a woman 'who happens to be a former court administrator.'"

  50. That's NOT Porn by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just breasts.

    Bloody puritans.

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:That's NOT Porn by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Most of those girls look under 18, just comparing to the local high school kids that are running around right now for their lunch break.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:That's NOT Porn by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      So, you like to check out underage girls on your lunch break, eh?

    3. Re:That's NOT Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust me. That isn't just breasts... I wonder if the senator is a /b/tard.

    4. Re:That's NOT Porn by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I see your reading and English comprehension is at a 5th grade level.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:That's NOT Porn by Thiez · · Score: 1

      No they don't?

    6. Re:That's NOT Porn by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      I see your joking and sarcasm comprehension is at a 4th grade level.

      I'll simplify it for you.

      (ahem)

      I... WAS... FUCKING... JOKING!!!

    7. Re:That's NOT Porn by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I'm not even sure there were bare breasts. At least one of them is definitely wearing a bikini top.

      I'm shocked at Slashdot's porn standards.

    8. Re:That's NOT Porn by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      Just breasts.

      Bloody puritans.

      Well said.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  51. Ah-Ha! by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

    Bennett defended his actions, telling Sunshine State News it was an email sent to him by a woman 'who happens to be a former court administrator.'"

    That somehow makes it okay? He should be working, not goofing off with email.

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    1. Re:Ah-Ha! by Illogical+Spock · · Score: 1

      If at least he was reading Slashdot as we are... ;-)

      --
      --- Illogical Spock
    2. Re:Ah-Ha! by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      With /. you at least have the excuse of "It's a news site, for nerds, about stuff that matters." Thin, but better than "I got it from an email from a former court clerk." I mean seriously.

      I know you were being funny (and should get at least one +1 funny mod), I'm just really angry about bureaucrats and elected officials wasting our money and time.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    3. Re:Ah-Ha! by Illogical+Spock · · Score: 1

      In fact, a few months ago we had a similar case here in Brazil. In our case it was slightly different - I don't know if worse or better :-). It was a high court judge that was playing chess (in a laptop) during a very important session of the court, while his colleagues were presenting the case.

      Anyway, both cases are the same: "authorities" (the quotes are deliberate) being paid a large sum of money (and receiving a free state-of-the-art laptop) to spend the time as they please.

      So, funny comments apart, I agree with you and completely understand you being angry.

      --
      --- Illogical Spock
  52. not porn by corbettw · · Score: 1

    You can see things far more risque on certain public beaches. Anyone who seriously considers women in bikinis to be porn ought to move to Saudi Arabia, where they'll finally be happy.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  53. Nothing new to see, move along. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
    Colleagues email the funniest things! Sen. Mike Bennett (R) was probably just watching some amateur video from a lesbian strip club, airport bathroom, or about male interns/pages... Nothing new here for the GOP. Surely nothing that, in the overheard words of Sen. Dan Gelber (D), 'disrespects too many women in the state of Florida'.

    By the way, how few women could the abortion bill "disrespect" to get Gelber's support? I wasn't aware that right vs. wrong was a numbers issue. (Disclaimer: I'm an abortion rights supporter.)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Nothing new to see, move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothing new for the GOP?

          Oh sure slashtard, as if you have ever seen boobies and as if those dumbocrats are pure as the driven snow?

      How bout pure as the driven slush you fucking ninny tard.

      Now go back to jacking yoursefl to your Obama poster

  54. Defense by mseeger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hi,

    It goes against any emotional bone in my body, but i have to vigorously defend a politician.

    • First: He has not been caught watching any porn. What he watches does not even approach event the most bigoted defintion of porn. If that should be porn, than i would have spent several vacations in a porn camp without noticing.
    • Second: For doing something else during a boring speech, he has my complete understanding. This makes him do his job neither better nor worse. The speeches are no longer part of the political process. It is more important for a politician (in order to get elected) to kiss some babys or his contributors asses than to give eloquent speeches in parliament. The voters are even more desinterested in those speeches than the politicians.

    By borrowing the headline unchallenged, /. is participating in a witch hunt. Even on this site i suspect several readers not to look at the material and to remember just the headlines. I hereby petition Slashdot to change the headline to "State Senator falsely accused of Looking At Porn On Senate Floor".

    CU, Martin

  55. Politicians are hypocritical! Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His only problem is that he got caught. Again, the issues with politics/lawmaking is that the public servants have sold out for money and instead of serving us, who trusted them with our votes, provide for the highest bidder. This is where the corruption lies, not in someone looking at skin.

    Sex is not a crime, despite what your child-raping priest told you.

    Not doing your job 100% is not a crime either.

    Taking money to use your position for the benefit whoever is paying you, in contradiction with the purpose of your appointment is corruption.

  56. Politicians by Illogical+Spock · · Score: 1

    Politicians think in sex all the time. this is why they screw us so often...

    --
    --- Illogical Spock
  57. I know all their names... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how come noone has admitted to knowing who these ladies are and even recall what series that shot is from?

    Also, the browser window is clearly visible, so this is no attachment or email... if anything it was a link to the site in the email.

  58. A father of a legislative page. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, My kid was a page for the house that week that this happend. They kicked the pages out during this debate, now I have to wonder if it was the reason.

  59. Pure Fud by JM78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Point #1: There is no porn here. The women depicted, even with a blackout bar, are obviously wearing bikini tops. The blackout bar is an obvious attempt at misleading.

    Point #2: The senator obviously opened something which he immediately closed. This has happened to everyone who has ever used a computer. You are sent something, you open it, and it turns out to be something not-safe-for-work.

    Point #3: For those saying he should be doing his job, you are all guilty. Everyone, admittedly or not, has read email on their mobile device in a meeting or has, at one time or another, thought about something other than work while on the clock. To suggest that because this guy is a senator that he should be super-human to something of which we are all guilty is complete flamebait.

    Good grief, cut the guy some slack.

    --
    I am Jack's smirking revenge.
    1. Re:Pure Fud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bikini tops are actually cut out (see the original - warning, probably NSFW). Still, calling a single, briefly viewed image “porn” is ludicrous.

    2. Re:Pure Fud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone above linked the actual photo. The blackout bar wasn't being used to mislead, those bikinis have strategically placed holes (tops and bottoms).

      Agree with the rest of the points, though.

    3. Re:Pure Fud by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      Points 2 and 3 are valid, but Point 1 is wrong.

      In the original picture, all three girls are wearing bikinis with holes exposing their nipples and their crotches.

    4. Re:Pure Fud by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      And when I say three girls, of course I meant four.

    5. Re:Pure Fud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good grief, cut the guy some slack.

      No. As a politician, he is to be held to their own absurd standard.

      Plus no "normal" citizen would be cut any slack by the government if he was caught with compromising material or had a minor slip-up, even if not his own fault.

      Burn him on the media stake for all I care. An eye for an eye.

    6. Re:Pure Fud by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Their nipples and cunts are showing. sauce

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  60. Did anyone notice his "Laptop Privacy Filter"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like he has one of those filters which prevent viewing of your screen unless you are directly in front of the screen...looks like it didn't work too well (or the cameraman had a polarizer or something on his lens). hahah

  61. Oh, those wacky Republicans! by maugle · · Score: 1, Troll

    Sure, the Democrats may not be much better, but the Democrats aren't the ones constantly harping on "traditional values and morality".

  62. Character assassination attempt by Valacosa · · Score: 1

    Here's what I want to know: who took the video? That's a huge part of the story here, and that detail is omitted. My knee-jerk reaction is that it's someone from the opposing party, trying to make the next election in Florida easier for them.

    Personally, I'm more disgusted by the censorship (the black bar) than the original photo.

    --
    "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
    1. Re:Character assassination attempt by hduff · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm more disgusted by the censorship (the black bar) than the original photo.

      Then the Commonwealth of Virginia will really bother you.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/01/virginia-seal-breast-picture_n_559673.html

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  63. I am not sure about this. by Montezumaa · · Score: 0

    I am sure the image in real and it was really on the guys screen, but it looks like he was paying attention to something, other than the screen, then changed what was on screen when he looked back. Regardless of the fact that the image, as shown to us, is really not shocking, I see no problem with any of it. There are many at work, some that visit this site quite a bit, that are wasting far more time than this guy. At least this guy seems to be paying attention to some degree. I have seen people waste days doing nothing but roam around the internet.

    If this guy were watching some 200 person gang-bang every day, in session or in his office, then I would be angry. The fact is that this is really a non-issue.

  64. Does this Qualify? by hduff · · Score: 1

    Does this even qualify as porn in 2010?

    At least the models are human and at least 18 years old (I hope or we're all going to jail).

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    1. Re:Does this Qualify? by wrencherd · · Score: 1

      It's probably not pornographic by applicable community standards (which I think is still the rule).

      But the legal definition of "pr0n" is likely less the issue in this kind of PR snafu, than it is about what idle hands are allowed to get up to.

    2. Re:Does this Qualify? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recognize the second girl from the right as a softcore model from Met-Art, which (supposedly) means she's 18. This is probably a Met-Art set, which would mean they all are.

  65. link to original image please by goodtrick · · Score: 1

    I know that someone has a link to the image in question here.

    Please provide a link so that we can judge for ourselves whether it is "porn" or not.

  66. Doing the job by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    It only takes one hand to vote. He was probably still able to do his job.

  67. What do you expect? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    How else do you prepare for a deposition with the SEC???

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  68. Incorrect etymology by sbjornda · · Score: 2, Informative

    from "pornos" meaning, you guessed it, "evil"

    Wrong. It comes from porne meaning "prostitute". The etymology of "pornography" means "writing about prostitutes". You're probably thinking of the Greek word poneros. Writing about evil would perhaps be "ponerography" but definitely not "pornography".

    --
    .nosig

    1. Re:Incorrect etymology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poned.

  69. Re:Hmm...For Completeness by Morty+Vicar · · Score: 1

    You ?

  70. depends by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    Were you simply mistaken when you stated "Democrats do it too!" or was it a willful misrepresentation of the facts?

    The way I see it, propagandists should be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:depends by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Politics is a game. It always has been, it always will be.

      Anyone who plays apologist/propagandist for either party is nothing more than a useful pawn. My pointing out that both sides play these games is a simple statement of fact, nothing more. I even gave another example of the games these people engage in. Yes, the stakes of these games are incredibly high, but you have to recognize that it is this adversarial approach that ultimately keeps things in balance in the long run. The greatest threats to the liberties of the people come from the people elected to serve (regardless of those peoples' actual intentions).

      Vote gridlock, every time, for the sake of all of us.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
  71. Stopping a cloture vote IS filibustering by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    You know it, I know it. The current senate rules are that the Senate can inform the President they intend to filibuster, and that's that. Filibuster accomplished.

    That's why the cloture vote is the equivalent of the filibuster vote now; stopping debate stops the filibuster. Period.

    The rest of your post is blowing smoke. . . we're aware that there are Dems (Lincoln, Halter, Nelson, et al) that are breaking ranks to get pork/are really corporatists/just want to fuck up our days/whatever but the bottom line is the Reps are voting as a block, consistently.

    The thing that really burns me up is it's a cynical ploy that amounts to this: "The country is fucked. If the dems can't govern, it will get worse, and then we'll be back in power again!"

    And that's disgusting, more disgusting than a rep looking at porn.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  72. Porn and an Dog by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    Luckily for him they were separate videos.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  73. The fillibusters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:The fillibusters by Straif · · Score: 1

      Once again you're missing the point.

      A minority party with less than 41 members cannot in any way obstruct the passing of any legislation or any appointee of the majority party. Failure to pass legislation or appointments in those conditions are effectively 100% on the shoulders of the ruling party.

      They can declare a filibuster all they want but that doesn't make it so when the ruling party can simply vote not to have a filibuster. And cloture votes, while related to filibusters, are also used when the ruling senate party simply doesn't want to continue a debate, even if their are valid points still to be discussed.

      As for Obama's appointees. Several have never been put up for formal vote because of the push on health care, even ones the GOP had no objections to, and some were so terrible even several Democrats were on record as opposing them so Reid knew there was no point in even trying.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  74. Non-motion picture isn't porn, I seen a video tho! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seen a nekkid dog come out of the water, shake a little longer than necessary, and then it cut to a still photograph that nekkid Harkonan animal was shaking towards! You know, there's a common rule about how long you should shake before calling it masterbation, and I think there was a little too much shaking going on. I couldn't tell because whomever was letting me ignore the Senate session entirely, well he kept his priorities more than mine because he kept switching back and forth. Would be nice if he wasn't too busy with his job. Ignore my seat in the Senate, I'm pissed that he can multi-task and I can't.
      -Senator Anon

  75. Obligatory: by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

    Unless you're a senator.

  76. Screen filter by Ours · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to invest in one of those screen filters. They can just say it's for State secrets and pass it as a business expense.

    --
    "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
  77. Black-listing attachments/MIME-types? by wrencherd · · Score: 1

    Will it ever be possible to filter email attachments before they are opened by recipients?

    If it were (putting aside the legal/political implications) could certain attachments be black-listed in the same way that websites are?

    Just wondering.

  78. Life imitating art by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

    Eerily similar to one of my favourite sketches from Brasseye

  79. Meh by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

    I'm not that surprised. Haven't you seen what the Florida state capitol building looks like? Check it out.

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  80. chicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not sure about the others, but the redhead is pornstar Ariel..

  81. Re:Republican - this isn't flamebait. by jackpot777 · · Score: 1

    Or at least: the statement about Dems not keeping out of your wallet is the actual flamebait. This graph shows how, over the last eighty years, the Democratic Party has generated more wealth for the country than the GOP. Even if you ignore Herbert Hoover, it's not even close. When broken down by State as shown by this graph, eighteen states pay more in Federal taxes than they receive in Federal spending. Only one is Republican (Texas), and it doesn't even hit the top 15. The reason the Tax Foundation (a libertarian-leaning think tank) gives is that the more urban Blue states supplement the more rural red states. This shows through to the local level too. "What is most clear is that on a per capita basis the transfer of tax dollars through the state’s fiscal system flows from rich to poorer places and from urban to rural places. This is consistent with the results by analysts from other states who examine the distribution of state government finances" were the findings from this in-depth study (page B:7, 9 of 12, PDF). The urban Democratic areas are the ones paying out of their wallets, whether it's at the local, state or national level. If your opinion is different, then you believe in something that isn't fact-based. It really is as simple as that. The numbers don't care what your political leanings are.

    --
    Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
  82. Inaccurate by JonStewartMill · · Score: 1

    Cheesecake != porn.

  83. it was a setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the sunshine news group or whatever they are called could been the ones who sent the email. they could have had their cameras already trained on the senator to get the shot.

  84. Re:Hmm...For Completeness by Gabrosin · · Score: 1

    ?

  85. Pot... kettle... black... by ShinmaWa · · Score: 1

    This guy is not paying attention, yet will be voting on bills that will affect our entire country.

    Speaking of people not paying attention.....I realize that you might not have read the article, but you could have at least read the TITLE, which said he's a state senator -- meaning that he votes don't affect the entire country -- just Florida.

    --
    The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
  86. Porn?!? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    I've seen better porn than that in the pages of National Geographic!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  87. say wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if I get caught looking at porn at work, I get fired. Double standard?

    Slashdot is ok at work though. I'm doing research. :)

  88. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing the acrimonious debate here on such a small thing shows that our country is a heap o' trouble. In David Brin's "Earth" people on the net came together to solve big, earth-endangering problems. In the real world, idiots argue over an ignorant politician's viewing of porn-erotica-art-whatever, and meanwhile there's an environmental disaster going on. Phooey on the whole human race (who will probably take the rest of the world's inhabitants with them when they go).

  89. Could be worse by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    At least he wasn't looking at willies...

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Could be worse by Froboz23 · · Score: 1

      The good senator from Florida should count himself lucky he wasn't caught looking at a goatse link from slashdot. That would be "a hole" lot worse.

      --
      Take off every Sig. For great justice.
  90. No porn; there has been a hearing on this by arisvega · · Score: 1

    This was no porn. As the Senate heard, this was a CLASSIFIED about a CLASSIFIED CLASSIFIED CLASSIFIED, that in lack of CLASSIFIED it was necessary to CLASSIFIED the CLASSIFIED before the CLASSIFIED could become CLASSIFIED.

    Isn't it clear now?

    --
    The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
  91. Is it just me... by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

    or were others a little worried at work about clicking the link at the bottom of the post that said "Watch Video"?

  92. Why did you avoid questions asking this of you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have a degree in computer science or computer information systems gmhowell? No, of course not. You're just another dime-a-dozen wannabe slashdot "expert" (not, far from expert minus those degrees, you talker/slacker).

  93. Answer us a question gmhowell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have a degree in computer science or computer information systems? No, of course not: You're yet another dime-a-dozen slashdot wannabe computer expert (not, not minus those degrees slacker. You're no expert by any means).

    1. Re:Answer us a question gmhowell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How those qualifications stack up. This is a comparison of the known qualifications of each of the individuals APK is stalking with APK:

      Has written software generally considered Malware?

      Clone: No

      Squiggleslash: No

      Tom Hudson: No

      Red Flayer: No

      GMHowell: No

      Alexander Peter Kowalski: YES

      Failed English language courses at school? (Or should have done, given inability to spell or use standard English grammar)

      Clone: No

      Squiggleslash: No

      Tom Hudson: No

      Red Flayer: No

      GMHowell: No

      Alexander Peter Kowalski: YES

      Harasses critics?

      Clone: No

      Squiggleslash: No

      Tom Hudson: No

      Red Flayer: No

      GMHowell: No

      Alexander Peter Kowalski: YES

      Promotes bogus "anti-virus" scheme that by own admission doesn't work and lulls users into false sense of security?

      Clone: No

      Squiggleslash: No

      Tom Hudson: No

      Red Flayer: No

      GMHowell: No

      Alexander Peter Kowalski: YES

      Is unable to make friends in real life and uses sock-puppets instead?

      Clone: No

      Squiggleslash: No

      Tom Hudson: No

      Red Flayer: No

      GMHowell: No

      Alexander Peter Kowalski: YES

      Unable to get a real, paying, job and forced to sell self-written crapware instead?

      Clone: No

      Squiggleslash: No

      Tom Hudson: No

      Red Flayer: No

      GMHowell: No

      Alexander Peter Kowalski: YES

      Lifelong open misogyny leading to lifelong virginity?

      Clone: No

      Squiggleslash: No

      Tom Hudson: No

      Red Flayer: No

      GMHowell: No

      Alexander Peter Kowalski: YES

    2. Re:Answer us a question gmhowell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How those qualifications stack up. This is a comparison of the known qualifications of each of the individuals APK is stalking with APK:

      Has written software generally considered to be Malware?

      Clone: No

      Squiggleslash: No

      Tom Hudson: No

      Red Flayer: No

      GMHowell: No

      Alexander Peter Kowalski: YES

      Failed English language courses at school? (Or should have done, given inability to spell or use standard English grammar)

      Clone: No

      Squiggleslash: No

      Tom Hudson: No

      Red Flayer: No

      GMHowell: No

      Alexander Peter Kowalski: YES

      Harasses critics?

      Clone: No

      Squiggleslash: No

      Tom Hudson: No

      Red Flayer: No

      GMHowell: No

      Alexander Peter Kowalski: YES

      Promotes bogus "anti-virus" scheme that by own admission doesn't work and lulls users into false sense of security?

      Clone: No

      Squiggleslash: No

      Tom Hudson: No

      Red Flayer: No

      GMHowell: No

      Alexander Peter Kowalski: YES

      Is unable to make friends in real life and uses sock-puppets instead?

      Clone: No

      Squiggleslash: No

      Tom Hudson: No

      Red Flayer: No

      GMHowell: No

      Alexander Peter Kowalski: YES

      Unable to get a real, paying, job and forced to sell self-written crapware instead?

      Clone: No

      Squiggleslash: No

      Tom Hudson: No

      Red Flayer: No

      GMHowell: No

      Alexander Peter Kowalski: YES

      Lifelong open misogyny leading to lifelong virginity?

      Clone: No

      Squiggleslash: No

      Tom Hudson: No

      Red Flayer: No

      GMHowell: No

      Alexander Peter Kowalski: YES

  94. gmhowell, you're the computer expert, so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have a degree in computer science or computer information systems? No, of course not: You're yet another dime-a-dozen slashdot wannabe computer expert (not, not minus those degrees slacker. You're no expert by any means slacker).

    1. Re:gmhowell, you're the computer expert, so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If apk had a dime for every time he accused somebody of being a dime-a-dozen wannabe, he’d be able to pay for food and heat without getting government assistance.

  95. So a few lightly dressed women is already porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Always funny to get the news from a fundamentalist religious country full of bible-thumpers.

  96. gmhowell now posting as AC to avoid answering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have a degree in CSC or CIS gmhowell? No?? We thought not. You're by no means an expert to comment on anything in the art and sciences of computing then. gmhowell's merely being asked a question, and his avoiding answering that question above, says it all.

  97. Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:gmhowell now posting as AC to av by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh look, it's the troll that's been stalking Clone53421, Squiggleslash, Falconhell, GM Howell, Red Flayer, and Tom Hudson.

    For those new to this, the troll is someone claiming to be a defender of a certain Alexander Peter Kowalski, the author of a tool, apkapp2backgrounddaemonprocessengine, generally considered malware by a large number of anti-malware companies and organizations.

    CA
    PestPatrol
    SpywareDB ("Dangerous!")
    Freedom Anti-Spyware
    Spycheck (Spanish-language) - "Recomendacion: DESACTIVAR Y ELIMINAR"
    Spyware No-More ("Threat risk: High risk", "Advice: Remove This is a very high risk threat and should be removed immediately as to prevent harm to your computer and / or to protect your privacy")

    Mr Kowalski, or his admirer, got upset because someone had the audacity to link to a threat describing Kowalski's attempts to remove some embarrassing comments posted under his name. Rather than deal with it maturely, this person has been attempting to stalk said poster and those who pointed out Kowalski wasn't doing himself any favors.

    So if you see these comments posted as replies to clone, squiggleslash, GM Howell, Falconhell, Red Flayer, or Tom, now you know why they're appearing. And if you feel like joining in, making it clear to Mr Kowalski that spamming, sliming, and stalking are unacceptable, well, come on in, the water's lovely!