Slashdot Mirror
Obama To Veto Anti-Net-Neutrality Legislation
An anonymous reader writes "In a statement of policy on Tuesday, the White House announced that President Obama will veto upcoming legislation that would undermine the FCC's net neutrality rules. According to the statement (PDF), the rules 'reflected a constructive effort to build a consensus around what safeguards and protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment and to spur innovation.' The statement continued, 'It would be ill-advised to threaten the very foundations of innovation in the Internet economy and the democratic spirit that has made the Internet a force for social progress around the world.'"
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I don't live in America, but it's nice to see that some people in the government appreciate the internet for what it is.
So far FCC and net neutrality has failed to hold up in court so this is symbolic. The FCC doesn't not have jurisdiction over the Internet and as such the law is baseless. Hot air just like everything else he done his whole life.
But he's so pretty.
ACTA is a Trojan horse for anti net neutrality.
quoting: protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment
I do not want it to 'attract investment'. that usually means money and business people and those are the very ones who have ruined what was an excellent and freedom-based comms medium.
investment means 'I own this!' from some big daddy's point of view.
that's always going to be bad.
the more you throw those insane business-minded folks at what we have, the more they ruin it. its like farting in a pool. we don't want those guys around; they ruin everything they touch.
when the internet was run by techies, it worked. now its well on its way to beign a segmented totally-ruined system. ALL because the money folks came in and polluted what we had. bascially they hijacked our internet as a 'sales tool' when it was SO MUCH more than that and so much more elevated in what it was accomplishing.
10 years from now, the internet is going to be like what TV (broadcast) is now. no one intelligent will be able to stand the bullsht that it will grow to become. I cannot stand to sit in front of a tv anymore; even 1 commecial turns me off and the 'programming' is insulting at best. give the internet 10 more years at the direction its going and it will be worthless to anyone with half a brain cell.
hope there's a new thing that we can jump to before the knuckledraggers come and ruin THAT, too.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
So if I asked to see your SSN and Birth Certificate you'd be ok with it?
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Not to nitpick but you also started a new thread to address this instead of just replying to yourself?
Sorry.
when its 5.30am and you have not had your coffee yet, sometimes tags don't get balanced. sigh. again, sorry I left out a close-bold tag. yeah yeah, preview mode. duh.
Don't sweat it! Your comment was right on target.
At least he isn't TRYING to get us killed.
I know you're just trolling (and/or being ironic) but Pres. Bush was barely literate? He went to Yale and Harvard and did just fine (I'd wager, much better than many people on /. would do). He was quite bright (estimates based on SAT scores) and is a voracious book reader (mostly biographies and histories). Just because Pres. Bush was not an in-your-face-I'm-smarter-than-you type of person doesn't mean that he is barely literate and useless.
You might disagree strongly with his politics and his presidency - that's completely fine - but calling him names and resorting to insinuations about his intelligence adds nothing useful to the public political discourse.
Further, what's your evidence that Pres. Obama is a good lawyer? I'm not saying he wasn't, I just only know what little there is on Wikipedia about his legal work. He only practiced law for 3 years before he entered politics (and became a consultant for a law firm). Obama was never really a lawyer, he wanted to be a politician - law was a means to politics (I'm not saying that's necessarily bad). He's never done anything long enough to get a good gage of how good or not he is at it (other than running grassroots campaigns). He's very successful but a few years doing one thing and then a few years doing something else doesn't leave much of a trail by which to judge the quality of his work. Based on his record, a 4 year presidency would fit the pattern of his life.
I'm not saying these things to be negative, I'm simply offering critiques.
Not to nitpick but you also started a new thread to address this instead of just replying to yourself?
Sorry.
How would you have nitpuck if picking nits would have been what you would have went in for?
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
I'm sorry to announce this is a trap. Net Neutrality rules the FCC have passed are not about being neutral, they're about picking sides (or rather, the government picking sides for you).
Think about it: who regulates the Internet right now? The ISPs. You may have your complaints about the ISPs, but you can switch to another one if you don't like the one you're on.
But now, the FCC is trying to usurp the power to regulate the Internet from the ISPs, thus restricting the freedom of the consumer to choose the ISP he likes best- which would almost inevitably be the one with the least restrictions.
It's similar to situation with lightbulbs; pretty soon we're going to have to buy $7 mecury-filled lightbulbs- supposedly to combat global warming. See, this decision could have been made at the state or local level (local= ISPs, see the relation?), but now the government has made the decision FOR YOU.
Net Neutrality, in most cases, is a code-word for 'regulation of the Internet'. BE WARY, do your homework, don't let the government defile the greatest tool of free speech man has ever held.
He got a 1206 on his SAT's. That doesn't make him bright but pretty much average - even I scored higher. He went to Yale and Harvard because of who his father was and we have no evidence of how much work he really did while there.
Of course, it is possible that he intentionally played dumb to be more attractive to his illiterate constituency. Some say the same thing about Sarah Palin. If you want dumb people to vote for you then you have to relate to them on their level.
It's not that the military discriminated against homosexuals. You could fight in the army no problem. Just don't let anyone know your sexual preferences. Then again, I didn't see an entry for "Sado Masochism" in the "Sex:" part of the application form, so I'm assuming that the military aren't interested in your sex life.
Is "freedom-based comms medium" some sort of code for POTS?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yeah thats exactly what we need - more lawyers, especially one who has 3 different aliases, 2 different social security numbers including one in Connecticut, and can't even cough up a birth certificate.
Here ya go -> http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
GENERATION 24: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
I don't care your position on the matter, one way or the other. If there's a complicated rule that wasn't clearly given as a task for a regulatory body, the rule should come from Congress.
I would rather be ruled by a democratic, if incompetent, body than a bureaucracy that has aggregated powers to itself.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Ok just a small correction: the SAT scores have been "re-centered", and 1206 is actually a bit higher then 1300 right now.
"we have no evidence of how much work he really did while there." -- troll aloud. That's a very faulty argument, specifically designed to discredit the facts when they in fact exists, and targeted at the "dumb" public. I can say that there is absolutely no evidence your mom did not spend a night with me a few years ago....
If you want an elitist snob as your leader then go ahead. You have to know though, that the reason average American people prefer a guy whom they can relate to is because he will understand they wants, struggles and problems. I bet you that a person like Obama before he became a senator and a president would not even let you within 100 feet of him. He can not relate to ordinary people, he only pretends to care about the poor. He once said: "it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
This is why it is so good to have a President who is also a good lawyer, instead of that barely-literate, inbred President Dunsel we had before him.
I fail to see anything better coming out of Dunsel the Second. Drones instead of troops, and the troops can announce their sexual preference before they get sent to die in the desert. Woopee he's defending "Net Neutrality" - completely worthless once PROTECTIP or E-PARASITE gets passed.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
it's what the internet was created for
rewriting history since 2109
Doing a quick google on the subject, that puts his IQ in the 130 range. Yes, I used a different source than the one that put his IQ at 125 at the bottom of their chart - apparently the SAT was changed, and the older one had slightly different results.
Which, last I looked, made him bright. Not necessarily brilliant, but bright. Say, in the top 5% of the population.
The fact that you got higher doesn't imply that HE is stupid. It simply implies that you are less stupid.
Note that I also got higher, and while I tend to think most people are idiots, this doesn't actually mean "I got a higher score than XXXXX, therefore he is a moron"...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I don't mean to talk in absolutes, but the tech industry seems to be one of the few left that is still actually working and working well. If i were in charge i definitely wouldn't be messing with it.
You can't seriously believe anything you said. Obama an elitist snob? He is probably the most approachable president we've had since Carter. I can easily see sitting down and having a beer and talking sports with Obama.
And he cares a lot more about the poor than anybody running for the Republicans right now who want to tax them more and the wealthy less.
He is right about the guns, religion, and xenophobia (and I would add homophobia). These are people screwed and lied to for years and because their education system is so horribly flawed they are clinging to what they know and the Republicans are capitalizing on that while having no intention of fixing it.
You mean something may actually pass both houses?
of the 2012 presidential election scampaign ?
It's right more often!
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
The FCC's original mandate was to regulate the airwaves not their content. Eventually of course that all changed. I expect the very same thing to happen to the internet ... you know ... to protect children, america's business interests and to fight terrorists of course.
First, writing bold doesn't make your point better. Stop it.
Second, your point is actually good, but I think it's a bit pessimistic. I don't think investement ruined the internet already. It has more content, more accessible than ten years from now and it's more userfriendly. (And for goddamn sake, the average webpage is now actually readable.)
Then it has its drowbacks... Investors like to get much for their money... So some design aren't what makes sense technically... streaming and online money operation comes to mind, and I'm sure there are other stuffs... But what would be Internet without investors? A collection of half empty pages barely readable for huma eye with pretty much no visibility? Well You can always find that web. It's still there somewhere...
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
Applying regulation to the internet is the gateway to further government control. A LOT of control. Oh well, we didn't care about freedom anyway I guess.
Anytime someone in the thrall of Hollywood votes on something that pertains to an open network, be afraid... be very afraid.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Obama is faced with reversing eight full years of extensive Bush/Republican wreckage!
My theory is that Obama wants to help America go in a sane and good direction, but that he knows that only four years as president would not be enough time to accomplish his goals, and that being followed by a Republican president would totally sabotage whatever progress Obama had made.
So, Obama does what he can to accomplish positive results for America, but cannot risk losing a second term.
I'm hoping that Obama gets a second term and then feels more comfortable advocating changes to government to improve circumstances for the average citizen.
But perhaps Obama really is beholden to big businesses (e.g., copyright and intellectual property holders), bankers, and government itself (e.g., protecting fellow politicians and bureaucrats from the citizens, instead of the other way around; and caring more about supporting government powers instead of supporting the rights of citizens).
I'd like to give him credit, but I see this more as a move to keep power in the executive branch. Obama has been as ferocious as Bush/Cheney to move authorities over to the executive and has challenged pretty much any legislation that would take power away from him. (ex: war power in Libya, Patriot Act extensions, civil liberties)
You might disagree strongly with his politics and his presidency - that's completely fine - but calling him names and resorting to insinuations about his intelligence adds nothing useful to the public political discourse.
While I completely agree with your points, I'd like to point out the *ahem* high level of critical analysis usually proffered by Obama's detractors regarding his parentage, intelligence, species, etc. duing their "whining" about him being elected.
Granted, W. had above average intelligence, but one episode from his youth crystalizes my opinions about his "fitness to lead" - something about a joyride in a military jet? By itself, not a damning act, but coupled with "Mission Accomplished" and all of his other antics as CINC, I'm sure people who knew him knew all of that was coming before he did it. They should be deeply ashamed of having promoted him to the highest office.
The SAT is not an IQ test, and should never be used as a means to determine who is "smart". As with most standardized tests, it tests you on your ability to take a test. Along with some test of knowledge of Math and vocabulary.
Not only that, but when he would have taken the SATs, most colleges other than community colleges would not have accepted a 1206. 1350 -> 1400 was the usual that most prestigious colleges required.
Standardized testing is just stupid in most cases though. I've seen exceptionally bright people who scored low and not quite bright people who've scored high. Not just on the SATs but in general. Some people who are really smart, just have a problem taking tests. Other people who aren't the smartest, are just really good at taking tests. When I was preparing for the SAT, it consisted of mostly standard test-taking strategies. The actual content and knowledge wasn't the focus. I assume it's like that for many people.
First, writing fixed width doesn't make your point better. Stop it.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
He was quite bright (estimates based on SAT scores) and is a voracious book reader (mostly biographies and histories).
That is true, but what's also true is that Bush deliberately cultivated the "Bush is a dummy" meme. "Jes' one o' the boys", as ignorant as the drunken off-duty construction workers he was wooing. An example -- once he was praising some intellectual (I don't remember who) who "Wrote four books when he was in college. I read a book when I was in college," Bush said.
The GP's incorrect vision of Bush lays at Bush's own feet. People think Bush was stupid because he wanted us to think he was stupid.
Free Martian Whores!
The president preceeding Obama managed to convince many people he was a barely-literate, inbred "President Dunsel". He had to have been pretty intelligent to effectively pull that off.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Hey hey, lets be fair; W. wasn't trying to get US killed, just all you little people without money.
I got here through a series of tubes
Oh yeah?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
We need to let Obama know of our support for this action. You can kevetch and criticize other things or the timeing or the lateness, but you need to show your support (as in email to the White House) for things done right and that emboldens him to do more and take more postitive steps because he knows he is working from a supported position.
If you want an elitist snob as your leader then go ahead. You have to know though, that the reason average American people prefer a guy whom they can relate to is because he will understand they wants
Wow, using "whom" and ebonics in the same sentence
*head asplodes*
I bet you that a person like Obama before he became a senator and a president would not even let you within 100 feet of him
*head asplodes again*
And the high-born Bush would have sat down with you at Felber's bar and bought you a beer?
He can not relate to ordinary people,
You weren't alive when Bush's dad went to Wal Mart and was impressed by the fact that they had bar code scanners? Bush is ordinary people? Boy, he sure fooled you!
At least there's a pretense there, and there's no evidence that he is, in fact, pretending. Except for t he fact that he's done much of what Bush did (spending, bailouts, TSA, etc). Bush held no such pretense. Like most Republicans who were born rich, he's of the opinion that poor people are poor because they're stupid and lazy and deserve no help whatever.
Sorry, son, but you've let the 1% brainwash you.
Free Martian Whores!
Yea. These are problems left behind by Bush. Link me to an article that says they are building nukes because of Obama being president? That's right... you can't.
Nice.
That's good
That's... also good I guess. I forget if we want laws on this or not.
That's bad
That's... let's see. It's anti-anti-net-neutrality. The anti's cancel each other out so we're just left with... ok that's good.
That's also good although... wait, has Slashdot ever run a favorable Obama headline since he took office? Maybe the stem cells thing...
Schnapple
Had to do a little Googling, but it seems Velex appreciates this move by Campbell's the food company, and buys accordingly: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42740224/campbells-gay-soup-ad-causes-storm-in-a-bread-bowl/?tag=bnetdomain
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Oh. F&F is a Bush thing. Right. No, wrong. You are wrong.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The FCC chose to re-implement rules that were already struck down by federal courts. By re-implementing something that the courts have viewed as outside the power of the FCC, it could be argued that this is a power grab. The proposed law, promised to be vetoed, is Congress' attempt to define the role that the FCC has - and codify what was already ruled upon by the courts.
Why should the FCC have the power?
"Software is the difference between hardware and reality"
F&F?
Uh...what?
Most presidents have been making extensive use of a teleprompter since their televised appearances started actually mattering.
Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, whatever. It's not surprising nor does it really matter.
"you have fallen for it!"
Oh dear god not one of these again.
When the FCC redefined its own role by implementing the so-called Net Neutality rules, it did an end run around America's official representatives in Congress. As the OP noted, the courts have already ruled against a Federal bureaucracy assuming powers it can only be granted by the legislature. This veto, if there is one, can only be framed as Obama & the bureaucratic machine against the courts, the legislature, and the rule of law.
Operation Fast and Furious - where the Obama administration gave guns to Mexican drug lords over the objections of gun shop owners with the stated object of tracking them to catch the bad guys.
In reality, they did no tracking, and when law enforcement agents were KILLED with those guns, tried to cover things up and blame illegal gun sales for their own 'screwup' (and no, I'm not entirely sure it WAS a screwup, that this wasn't just another attempt to weaken the Second Amendment in the eyes of the public). Holder for sure is responsible (especially since he lied about it - they call it 'inconsistent testimony', but it was pretty clearly lies) - which makes it Obama's problem.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
See? You have no idea. Try getting your news from more than one point of view, just to have a shot at getting the truth. If you dunno what I am referring to as 'F&F', you're out of the loop. Get back in...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Now ISP's can regulate how much bandwidth you're allowed based on what your streaming or downloading. Want to watch netflix in your livingroom - no problem, want to also watch it in the bedroom at the same time - I don't think so. Comcast has already regulated their Internet, who want's these companies to dictate how we use the Internet. I'm not fond of the Government but at least I know how they will regulate it.
What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Of-course there shouldn't be any legislation to regulate any business, federal government is NOT authorized for any of this by the Constitution.
But once you start killing people based on a hunch, go to wars without declaration and 'forgive' trillion of dollars by abusing the executive order.... what difference does it make then?
Of-course this is a veto of legislation, so I am for it.
You can't handle the truth.
>In early 2011, the operation became controversial when it was revealed that Operation Fast and Furious and other probes under Project Gunrunner had allowed guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels since as early as 2006.[2][3]
Emphasis mine.
So Obama was President in 2006?
--
BMO
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like title (of both the original article and the slashdot post) is misleading as the article uses very precise wording.
The Senate measure, which mirrors the House resolution, says Congress “disapproves” of the FCC’s net neutrality rules, which “shall have no force or effect.”
Congress, and the EFF as well, disapprove of the FCC having this sort of power over content restrictions on the internet. This power to determine what can and can't go through internet pipes (and what can't be restricted) should be restricted to the legislative branch of the government, not an agency headed by appointed members.
This legislation is not anti-net neutrality; it is keeping the FCC's power in check, which I am all for.
Besides the fact that the FCC doesn't have to listen to voters as much as Congress does, the net neutrality rules that the FCC wants to put into place are far from perfect, and (at some point at least; I am not up to date on the detail) it even included an exception to net neutrality rules in order to aid compliance with copyright enforcement.
Sources:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise (Oct 2009) - regarding FCC's drafting net neutrality rules
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/net-neutrality-fcc-trojan-horse-redux (May 2010) - issue revisited
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/14 (Jan 2010) - EFF comments on net neutrality loophole regarding blocking copyright infringement.
Yeah ... I pretty much agree with this ... except it may come sooner than 10 years from now ... if things aren't bad enough already.
Yea. These are problems left behind by Bush. Link me to an article that says they are building nukes because of Obama being president? That's right... you can't.
Right. Obama has all the nukes he needs. He's busy building drones instead.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
A balanced and well written comment. I like it!
>In early 2011, the operation became controversial when it was revealed that Operation Fast and Furious and other probes under Project Gunrunner had allowed guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels since as early as 2006.[2][3]
Emphasis mine.
So Obama was President in 2006?
-- BMO
I don't know where you got your information (you neglected to include the references), but I can only assume you are referring to an earlier Bush Administration program called “Wide Receiver.” It was similar in that it also involved letting guns walk into Mexico. It's very different, however in the (1) the guns were actually traced the whole time, and (2) the Mexican LEO authorities knew about, were involved, and continued tracing the guns when they crossed the border.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
*shrug* I said it was his problem, not his initiative. Gunwalking wasn't resulting in dead US enforcement agents under Bush, AFAIK (I could be wrong) - 'just' Mexicans, so few paid attention until F&F and the Obama administration.
Also, the intimation that it was 'easy availability' in the US that was why the US was the source of the guns (when the easy availability was actually encouraged by the ATF operation, and contrary to what the gun shop owners wanted and current laws permitted) is where the outrage comes from. Essentially, the ATF actually was supplying the guns for crime in mexico, and the anti-2nd crowd was behaving as if that pesky 2nd amendment that should be curtailed, rather than gunwalking.
And as I said, it's Holder that should be held accountable. And that IS Obama's problem.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
You mean the operation that started in 2006? Care to point out when Obama was elected again?
Exactly. "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - General George Patton. Drones save lives.
Here's the brilliance of Bush, though: he *was* an elitist snob, but he managed to convince enough that he was just "one of them" to get elected.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
That's right. It wasn't continued under Obama, and the anti-gun nuts weren't calling for greatly increased gun 'control' due to american guns showing up in mexican crimes that happened DURING Obama's administration. Obama didn't keep any of the bad actors from the previous administration and that means that this administration is entirely innocent.
Oh. Wait. Strike that. Reverse it.
I actually LIKE the moderate-to-right approach that Obama has brought to the White House. That's why I voted for him; despite the insane ravings of the right, he is in FACT moderate - but you do no favors to the man by denying that his administration has done any wrong or intimating that his bears no responsibility for initiatives that started with the previous admin - yet continue under his own.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
While I sympathize with your point of view, I generally find that all of the things I loved about the internet in the 80s and early 90s still work, and often better. There are several orders of magnitude more internet thingies that are out there now, including the profit driven stuff, but it's still mostly optional.
Also, the profit driven portions of the internet have funded my paycheck and supported my family for quite a few years now, so I won't moan too much about it. That would be rather hypocritical.
Wait... isn't slashdot a profit driven internet thingy?
WALSTIB!
Operation Fast and Furious and Operation Wide Receiver were completely different aspects of the Gunwalker program. One had the knowledge, approval, and cooperation of the Mexican government, involved less than 500 firearms, attempted to use tracking devices on over a third of the guns, and had aerial assets in place trying to track said GPS signals, and was not brought to the attention of the White House until it was shut down; the other involved one tracking device that did not work at all, was not known about by the Mexican government, involved over 2000 guns, all specifically guns that would violate any of the AWB bills floated past Congress during Obammy's tenure as president, were given to a very specific cartel, and had the full knowledge and backing of Holder, and probably the president himself, although there are no direct communications to that effect so far.
The sight of African Americans scares your tiny little self and you think that it's OK to have others die so that you can keep your false beliefs of being able to leach off of the healthcare of others. Basically, you are a sorry excuse of a human being, and if you don't like Obama, then he's probably doing a good job.
So that's an "I'm a racist piece of shit, because I'm not willing to do something that I've demanded someone else do. And despite that other person doing it several times, I'm still going to bitch and moan that it's not good enough for me, despite being exactly what was requested."
Yes, I called you a racist. The only people who could think any of the birther horseshit was even remotely credible are those that hate Obama because he's black.
LOL! I'm no birther, but I do find it odd that this information is being kept under wraps. Seriously, why would someone in Hawaii have a SSN from Connecticut or wherever it is supposed to be from? Damn peculiar. As an employer, I believe I had a right to know. I've heard bad explanations from third parties, but never have I heard a good explanation directly from the White House.
Still, that wasn't the point of my post. The original question is "So if I asked to see your SSN and Birth Certificate you'd be ok with it?" And my response was, in the affirmative, if you were asking for a job with the benefits as good as POTUS.
And as me being a racist, well, I would defer that question to my wife and kids. See, they are minorities, but I never really thought of it 'til you mentioned it. Guess I need to be more "sensitive" around the house. But as for Obama, I'm curious, which race would I be hatin' on? The white half or the black half? Should I only hate him half-way or is OK to go full retard even though he's only half of whatever group I'm racist against? Another thing, do I hate white people living here from South Africa? I mean, they are white, but they are African Americans. Am I still a racist if I support Cain or does supporting Cain absolve me from racism but make a bigot? Would those people that claimed that John McCain was ineligible to run the WH because he was born in Panama racists too? Sorry, for the questions. I'm new at this "racist" thing and want to make sure I'm doing it correctly. You seem to be an expert.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Crushing? Hardly. I guess you are one of those fools that believe not in arriving at the truth through discussion, but rather supporting your 'team', right or wrong, eh?
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
Every valuable real estate, market segment, marketplace, position, technology, system, etc etc etc will *ALWAYS* be regulated. The choice is whether it's regulated by the force of those who wield their power in secret, preserved by any means necessary including deadly force.... Or by an imperfect set of entities whose names are publicly known, are occasionally and inconsistently subjected to public scrutiny, and inconsistently removed from their positions of power.
As imperfect as "government regulation" is, regulation by thugs running the marketplace is consistently less competent, consistently more violent and consistently less productive.
I'm no birther, but I do find it odd that this information is being kept under wraps. Seriously, why would someone in Hawaii have a SSN from Connecticut or wherever it is supposed to be from? Damn peculiar.
No, it's not. When Obama was born, SSNs weren't yet effectively tatooed on people's foreheads at the hospital upon birth, like they are now. A lot of kids born "back then" didn't even have an SSN until they entered the workplace. I was born in 1956, and I didn't have an SSN until my Mom took me down to the SS office to get one at around 6 years old. So, if Obama was living with a relative in CT at that time, it would be perfectly logical for his SSN to be from there.
As an employer, I believe I had a right to know.
You may BELIEVE that; but the fact is, you don't.
I've heard bad explanations from third parties, but never have I heard a good explanation directly from the White House.
No, what you really mean is, you will be dammed if ANY explanation will "do".
Still, that wasn't the point of my post. The original question is "So if I asked to see your SSN and Birth Certificate you'd be ok with it?" And my response was, in the affirmative, if you were asking for a job with the benefits as good as POTUS.
Newsflash: When you have the education and credentials of B.O., there are a LOT of higher-paying jobs you qualify for. Most successful attorneys make over $200k/yr. And if you trade that in for, say "TV talk show host", or "CEO" you can make MILLIONS per year.
;-)
Heck, local Indianapolis RADIO hosts (now syndicated) "Bob & Tom" reportedly made $225k/yr APIECE in the early 1980s, and that was BEFORE they were syndicated worldwide. When Cheney was V.P., he had his FORTY-TWO MILLION DOLLAR-PER YEAR salary "escrowed" while he was in Office.
POTUS isn't that high-paying of a job; that's why it's so hard to get good talent for it!
In 2003, Gaddafi abandoned his WMD programs and made many other concessions to Western powers, in exchange for normal relations. The West basically turned around and disposed him, when the opportunity presented itself. Shows how trustworthy the West can be.
Deposed, you twit. Deposed.
And what the fuck did we owe Ghadaffi aside from not invading him at that particular time? It's not like we married the guy.
No, what you really mean is, you will be dammed if ANY explanation will "do".
No, what I said was, "I've heard bad explanations from third parties, but never have I heard a good explanation directly from the White House" and that happens to be what I mean. I hear lame explanations like, "If Obama was living with a relative in CT at that time, it would be perfectly logical for his SSN to be from there." IF Obama was living with a relative? If? Well, was he? The guy is the friggin POTUS. Isn't where he lived public knowledge? Why hasn't the WH released an official explanation? It's not like we are accusing him of rape or something outrageous like that. We just want to know why his SSN does not reflect where he was residing at the time of its issuance. It's not that big of a deal. I don't want to see President Biden... EVER! But it raises questions, has a bad smell and would simply go away like the birth certificate issue if he would simply release a statement through his press office.
Newsflash: When you have the education and credentials of B.O., there are a LOT of higher-paying jobs you qualify for. Most successful attorneys make over $200k/yr. And if you trade that in for, say "TV talk show host", or "CEO" you can make MILLIONS per year.
OK, I'll grant the education part, but what business experience does Obama have? Did his previous job of "community organizer" offer the benefits that POTUS does?
POTUS isn't that high-paying of a job; that's why it's so hard to get good talent for it! ;-)
I'll agree with that, but again, none of that was my point. I give every employer I've ever worked for my SSN and had to prove that I was legally authorized to work in the US, and no job I've ever had is worth 1/4th what the POTUS makes if you consider the lifelong benefit package that comes with it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I think you've got a point here...
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world