Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congressman Wants YouTube Video Covered Up

Posted by timothy on from the played-by-ben-afleck-I-hope dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Wisconsin Republicans claim that no one else can republish a video of United States Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI) complaining about how he is 'struggling' to get by on his $174,000 salary without their permission, even though they originally released the video on YouTube for the whole world to see. Now the GOP is trying to take legal action to stop anyone else from republishing the video. The tape caused a stir for Duffy, a first-term conservative best known for his past as a reality TV show star on MTV's The Real World after Democrats flagged the comments about his taxpayer-funded salary, which is nearly three times the median income in Wisconsin, and criticisms began to flow Duffy's way. Here's a one-minute clip, excerpted from roughly 45 minutes of video of the public Duffy townhall, that the Polk County GOP doesn't want anyone to see."

20 of 884 comments (clear)

  1. Ah, the Republican Party ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... champion of traditional American values like free speech and personal responsibility!

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    1. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even though I personally think the Republican party is worse there is little integrity from any political party right now. They are for openness until it runs against their own interests then they are against it. They want cuts until it hurts their re-election in their district. They will take any side they are paid to take. Our system has totally broken down and is beginning to resemble the systems that people in the middle east are currently protesting about. It's very sad... the whole thing is going to hell.

    2. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... champion of traditional American values like free speech and personal responsibility!

      The difference between the Democrats and Republicans - In a nutshell:

      When the Democrats do something stupid, it's because it's expected from the diverse, working class roots they largely come from.

      When the Republicans do something stupid, they deny it happened at all and is a liberal conspiracy.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Democrats have done plenty of nasty stuff, to be sure, but I honestly can't think of anything they've done lately, all on their own, that's so blatantly anti-American as this. It's not Duffy's statement itself that gets me, as dumb as it is, as the attempt to use legal means to remove information that's already been deliberately released to the public, which is the exact definition of censorship. The Wikileaks frenzy is similar, but that's a bipartisan madness. This one is all on the Republicans.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll take a shot: Have you heard of Obamacare?

      AKA, Romneycare? When you're doing nothing but parroting talking points, it means it's too late to look in the mirror.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    5. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      no your insurance premiums went up because your insurance company is ran by greedy assholes.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 5, Informative

      I know my rates were going up and coverage was getting going down long before Obama took office. In fact it nearly doubled about 5 years ago.

      Do you actually believe that if it were repealed immediately your premiums would drop by 20%?

      Not a chance, your coverage would drop to previous levels, but your premiums certainly wouldn't go down.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    7. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Social services are one step away from paying cash for votes.

      Really? Then what would you call a $3.2 billion dollar tax credit given to General Electric on top of zero corporate income tax? What would you call allowing corporations to pay unlimited amounts of money to finance campaigns of people who will vote for giving them this corporate welfare? That's that's not even one step away from "paying cash for votes". That skips over the whole "votes" thing entirely and is simply paying cash for favorable laws.

      "Social services" have not put this country in debt, despite the common meme. The only reason there is a single dollar of government spending in Social Security is because congress after congress sold securities using Social Security money as collateral and now they've got to make those securities good. You could argue that if there had not been the Social Security trust fund (and yes, it's an actual trust fund with actual value) the federal surplus would be much much higher. Social Security is actually keeping the deficit down not increasing it. Social Security has not added one nickel to our debt or deficit.

      When Bill Clinton raised taxes on the top tier 3%, to a total 39% (which ends up being about 12% (or less) on total income of the wealthiest) we ended up with a surplus.

      Every single time the tax rate on the highest income level went below 50%, GDP dropped, unemployment increased and bubble economies developed because the top income group had to find places to put their money. Every time the tax rate on the highest income levels went ABOVE 50%, GDP increased, unemployment decreased and there were no bubble economies. When tax rates go above 50%, wealthy people start looking for longer term ways to grow their money to avoid paying taxes on it, so they invest in their companies' infrastructure, hire new people, pay dividends, etc.

      If you look at a graph of the US economy and overlay a graph of tax rates on the top incomes, you'll see something very remarkable. The most certain way to increase employment, increase GDP, shrink the debt, prevent economic bubbles and to insure long term growth is to simply increase the tax rates on the richest, even though this does not require them to pay more taxes.

      Instead, we're looking to blame "social programs" and those greedy, freeloading schoolteachers, firemen, police, janitors, garbage men, clerks for our economic woes. The budget that was recently passed by the Republican House of Representatives, cuts nutrition programs to infants and pregnant women in poverty (the "WIC" program) in order to pay for tax cuts for millionaires. What kind of a third-rate country are we going to become with these jackoffs in control?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by scot4875 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A union member, a tea party member, and a CEO are all sitting around a table with a dozen cookies.

      The CEO takes 11 of the cookies. He turns to the tea party member and says, "look out for that union guy. He's trying to take your cookie."

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    9. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What we need, of course, is to ban political contributions by all groups of people working together. If individuals want to donate money and indicate that they are donating money on behalf of an organization, that's fine, but it should have to be the individual writing the check from his or her own bank account.

      It should be illegal for any organization—union or corporation—to take money entrusted to them by shareholders or members and use it for political contributions. This small change would significantly reduce the ability of corporations to buy votes, and would do so in an evenhanded manner.

      Next, we should make it illegal for someone to accept money in exchange for lobbying. Paid lobbyists unfairly elevate the voices of a small number of individuals (corporate CEOs) over the public as a whole in a way that cannot effectively be countered except with an outright ban on the activity.

      People should be free to lobby for their employers' positions on their own time if they choose to do so, of course, but paid lobbyists are an affront to democracy, and it should be illegal to do so on company time. Similarly, it should be illegal to punish a worker for not lobbying on their own time.

      Finally, we should cut the salaries of everyone in Congress to levels comparable with those of people in their districts, provide members of Congress with free paid government housing in D.C. so that they can afford to come up there to work, and mandate that politicians spend a minimum of two-thirds of their time in their districts to be eligible for reelection. This would ensure that politicians continue to understand what's happening on the ground in their districts.

      When our government was originally conceived, Congresspeople were supposed to meet for a couple of weeks out of the year. It is the perversion of Congressional duties into a year-round job that has done more harm to our government's ability to represent the people than probably any other mistake in its history. Imagine if lobbying firms had to send lobbyists out to a hundred, two hundred, three hundred different towns across the United States instead of sending a couple of people to Washington D.C. You get the picture.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. The hypocrisy of Walkeristan, exposed. by sethstorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's OK if you use FOIA to threaten academics, but it's not OK if the GOP gets caught with their pants down?

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  3. This man is struggling to survive, please help! by merc · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's currently a charitable food and clothing drive designed to assist our indigent struggling Republican Senator.

    WON'T YOU PLEASE HELP!

    http://upt.org/misc/SeanDuffyCharity.jpg

    --
    It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
  4. 7 kids? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Having 7 kids without the way to pay for them is living outside of your means.

    Isn't that what the GOP hates so much? Why is it so righteous to have so many kids? It's not. It's as bad as the welfare mom that has a Cadillac.

  5. Re:some day by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the mostly lower middle class tea party types will understand...

    Ah, but by then they'll all be retired, collecting Social Security and Medicare, but still bitching about the "welfare state". From The Truth About the Tea Party

    • "I'm anti-spending and anti-government," crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. "The welfare state is out of control."
    • (Reporter): "OK," I say. "And what do you do for a living?"
    • "Me?" he says proudly. "Oh, I'm a property appraiser. Have been my whole life."
    • I frown. "Are either of you on Medicare?"
    • Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!
    • "Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"
    • "Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."
    • "But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"
    • "Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much."

    The article is a sad, revealing story of the hypocrisy of the Tea Party and it's members...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  6. It's "double standard", not "hypocrisy". by khasim · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Government spending is "good" as long as it is for the people who deserve it. People who look like me. People who think like me. Real Americans like me.

    Government spending is "bad" when it is for people who don't deserve it. People who don't look like me. People who don't think like me. The people who are ruining this country.

    The Daily Show covered this. And they always do a great job.

    A banker making $250,000 is barely above the poverty line. Cut them a break! Look at all the good they do for this country!

    A teacher making $50,000 is living a lavish lifestyle on the public's dime. They're spending this country into bankruptcy. And they're doing it in only 9 months out of a year.

  7. Re:republicans by zeroshade · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's see, last time we had a depression and recession, it was fixed by raising the taxes on the wealthy (they went up over 75%!!) and then they decided we needed more jobs (despite having lowered unemployment) so we lowered the taxes on the wealthy and businesses considerably. Yet unemployment continued to rise and it didn't change much.

    Obviously there are other factors involved here, but it's fairly obvious based on history that taxing the wealthy more will either do nothing or will help. Lowering the taxes on them doesn't create jobs they just concentrate their wealth among themselves. Trickle down economics just doesn't work.

  8. Nope. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And that is why my insurance premiums went up 20+% last year.

    Nope. Your premiums went up because the CxO's in your HMO all got bonuses.

    College kids are usually the cheapest for medical insurance. They don't get sick that often. They're healthy.

    1. Re:Nope. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some of that is all factored in. The health insurance industry is a for profit industry. Each year they post record profits and increase rates. Logic would say that rates should not increase unless REQUIRED to cover policy holders.

      But thats not the case. The rates are increased to increase profits.

      Yes, malpractice insurance is high.... but for the same DAMN REASON. So you cant say that its malpractices fault, and none of the health insurance industry's.

      Insurance is insurance. Its a for profit industry that has squeezed the living shit out of both doctors and patients.

  9. Re:methinks Sen. Larry Craig doth protest too much by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you believe providing healthcare to a country's citizens to be facisim, I'm sure there is space available for you in Somalia (a libertarian paradise). You pay taxes for roads, schools, police and fire protection, regulation that protects YOU (DOT, EPA, etc). Healthcare is no different. We're the only first world country with a pathetic healthcare system, and it'd be cheaper to bitch about it than to go all tea party crazy like you're doing.

  10. Re:7 kids? And vacation home, and a place in D.C. by Roogna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And that is probably half the problem right there. Perhaps instead all members of congress/senate/president should be forced to have -no- salary and live in taxpayer provided dorm housing w/ meals. With all upgrades to housing and/or meal plans must be voted on on the national level by the registered voting public -not- by the members of congress themselves.

    Perhaps if it was a actual sacrifice to serve your country in that particular capacity again we might get some people who are half decent running.

    Ahh so much for wishful thinking...