Slashdot Mirror
How the GOP (and the Tea Party) Helped Kill SOPA
Hugh Pickens writes "Strengthening intellectual property enforcement has been a bipartisan issue for the past 25 years, but Stewart Baker writes in the Hollywood Reporter that when the fight went from the committees to the floor and Wikipedia went down, the Democratic and Republican parties reacted very differently to SOPA. 'Despite widespread opposition to SOPA from bloggers on the left, Democrats in Congress (and the administration) were reluctant to oppose the bill outright,' writes Baker. 'The MPAA was not shy about reminding them that Hollywood has been a reliable source of funding for Democratic candidates, and that it would not tolerate defections.' That very public message from the MPAA also reached another audience — Tea Party conservatives. Most of them had never given a second thought to intellectual property enforcement, but many had drawn support from conservative bloggers and they began to ask why they should risk the ire of their internet supporters to rescue an industry that was happily advertising how much it hated them." (Read on, below.)
Pickens continues: "Pretty soon, far more Republicans than Democrats had bailed on SOPA, the Republican presidential candidates had all come out for what they called 'Internet freedom,' and now for Republicans, opposition to new intellectual property enforcement is starting to look like a political winner. 'It pleases conservative bloggers, appeals to young swing voters, stokes the culture wars and drives a wedge between two Democratic constituencies, Hollywood and Silicon Valley,' concludes Baker, adding that unfortunately for Hollywood, as its customers migrate to the Internet, it is losing not just their money but their hearts and minds as well."
made popcorn as soon as I saw this come up in red - have at it kids.
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?
The Democrats have been Hollywood's party for a long time now, so of course they would support this sort of bill more than the Republicans. These "two" parties are differentiated only by which set of corporations they work for the benefit of, after all (and the two sets are not even disjoint).
Palm trees and 8
Dems backed by Hollywood and green tech, Repubs backed by fossil energy and military tech; parties found attacking opposition's supporters. Film at 11.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Facts do make a lot of people angry.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Tea Party types like myself HATE HATE HATE SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. We see them for what they are: power grabs by BOTH the MPAA/RIAA et all AND the government. As a generally conservative/libertarian group of people, we want LESS government intrusion and regulation of our lives. Not more.
So the Tea Party HAMMERED the GOP over this one and unlike the Dems, the GOP LISTENED and responded in the way the people wanted.
There are alot of people on /. that consistently say that there is no difference between the parties. I think this serves as an excellent example of why these people are wrong.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Politicians don't want to tick off their funding sources, will do anything to score a cheap point.
This is a surprise to anyone, anymore?
Did some politicians just say that it sometimes helps to listen to the electorate?
MY HEAD A SPLODE.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I don't think so; It looks to me like both parties are pretty damned sleazy here. Dems: "we have to support this because hollywood id paying us to." Repubs: "Hollywood is financing the Dems to pass this bill, so we must oppose it." Note they were for it until they realized opposing it was political gold.
A pox on both their houses. BTW, the opportunity to "mod" a submission is in the fiirehose.
Free Martian Whores!
Seriously, the guy who introduced the bill is in the GOP. Give me a break slashdot.
http://lamarsmith.house.gov/
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
We are forgetting that Lamar Smith, a Republican first proposed this thing, correct? Face it, it wasn't Tea Party supporters or Republicans that stopped this. It was all of us that wanted Internet freedom. It was the threat of being voted out of office that made these politicians reject it, not one party or another. You bet your ass either side would pass it if they thought they could get away with it.
The movie industry is deeply engaged with labor unions. The Democrats tend to favor labor unions, so the movie industry often pushes for Democrat candidates to keep their status quo union agreements.
That's odd, the article says:
Ever since GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole claimed that Hollywood produced "nightmares of depravity" that coarsened American culture and made "deviancy" mainstream, movie studios and record labels have enjoyed a spectacularly uneasy relationship with the Republican Party.
So it appears that the "think of the children" supporters of Republican candidates made them tough to buy by the MPAA and RIAA which like to sell "indecent" materials if it will turn a profit.
I'm quite confused by your assertion that the companies and corporations support those who support labor unions. Um, I thought that labor unions allowed workers to band together to turn the screws on the companies that employ them -- thus detracting from the company's massive profits and gaining more benefits and pay for the workers? Why would the CEOs and lawyers that feed off those profits pay into politicians that support the labor unions that could have them shrinking those profits? Is there something special about MPAA/RIAA unions that actually shifts the capital up to those companies like Universal Music Group and the big studio executives?
My work here is dung.
I agree with the Tea Party position here. What's next? Pigs flying? Snowballs in hell?
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
Note that supporting it was literal gold.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Facts do make a lot of people angry.
They do me and I'm no better than anyone else - which also pisses me off because I want to be better than everyone else.
Anyway, I have been making a concerted effort to read and understand the "otherside" myself. As a result, I've become quite moderate - I no longer consider myself libertarian; although my social leanings are quite liberal.
But the thing that annoys me to no end is when I see folks parrot shit they heard or have seen in the electronic media.
"Obama's socialist policies are ruining America!!"
"Really? Which ones?", I ask.
Of course, I very rarely get a conherant answer.
On the other side, last night I heard about a Congressional testimony about Al-Qaeda and how it has become virtually nothing on a global scale and at least on a global scale, the threat of terrorism has declined dramatically. I couldn't help but "blame" Bush, Jr for that or at least getting the ball rolling.
being a moderate in America is very lonely.
Being an Atheirst Moderate means I have to live in a cave - with interent connectivity. I'm sub-leasing Bin Laden's.....
This is the geek-world "Truth That Dare Not Speak It's Name," namely that it is the liberal/democrat machine that continues to give oxygen and sustenance to that e-e-e-e-e-e-evil content distribution industry. Maybe it's because so many of the artists themselves usually espouse left-wing politics, support the democratic candidates, and will not know how to earn a dime if technical progress continues to chip away at the struts in the old content/contract/distribution/residuals system.
"Popcorn," indeed...
Sure. Because broad generalizations are so honest and accurate.
In my experience, both parties lose touch and experience creeping corruption when in power. I have observed, however, that it seems that the Republicans experience it faster than the Democrats do.
As far as your commentary on restricting rights, BOTH parties have their issues, and I do not see the Democrats as being worse than the Republicans by a long shot, especially when it comes to religion (prayer in schools, prayer at government functions, the flagrant display of religious iconography in public buildings, denial of other religions equal access for displays, etc), the right for one to decide how to best manage body medically, and who one is allowed to have sex with, contraception, and who one is allowed to marry. Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry, and how I'm allowed to access content vis-a-vis music and movies on the Internet.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The framers of the constitution designed-into its bosom: protection to those who engaged in commercial corruption. Those who wrote it, intended it so, it was their way, back them. The real failures in the constitution are two: both pointed to by the article: 1. failure to include, provide for and deliver to every human citizen- American full and fair disclosure about the activities of the humans that operate in or for USA, Inc. (DBA Constitutional Government), and 2. failure to provide the governed human Citizen-Americans an independent [of the USA, Inc. scope and authority], an exclusive right of the governed human citizen-American to investigate, depose witnesses, charge, indite, prosecute, convict and punish those persons[human or corporate] acting in, or for, or under color of our government. In other words, if the governed, who are subject to the government, watch-dogged, those who run the government or who contract with those who run the government: the interest the government serves would be better balanced between democracy and commerce. The theory of democratic assurance is that oversight by the governed is required to preserve the integrity of those who represent the governed. Oversight is different from socialism because oversight does not empower the governed to direct the government, but proper oversight would empower the governed to protect democratic integrity and to prevent corruption or abuse by those who operate or contract with the government.
You do realize that is how some of the most dangerous people ever were voted into office?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
ACTA, PIPA, SOPA could make Americans most hated nation on the planet. Get a look at latest events in Poland, Ukraine and other counties.
um - Bin Laden was in a nice Pakistani house.
but I will commiserate with you. The humor (to me) is I'm a moderate evangelical. So we are different but experience a similar disconnect with the majority groups. (I assume - it sure sounds like it anyway)
For me it's a huge disconnect between the conservatives who are supposed to be more Christian and Christian values. At the same time I'm stumped as to why so many liberals seem to be completely fine with ramping up our over-seas assassination program to entirely new levels. As you say, Bush got the ball rolling, but Obama's numbers leave any other US president in the dust when it comes to blowing up foreigners (or the occasional American on foreign soil).
I quit paying too much attention a long time ago though - I realized I wasn't going to reconcile it all or change it. I don't have a team to route for and that's what it has all boiled down to.
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?
Are we shocked that this was the reaction? I mean at least it was nice to have the opinion of the public hit the ears (or wallets) of our Congressmen and Senators and they actually did something with it. But I think we've known for a long time that most of the people in those chairs are more concerned with staying there instead of doing something "in the interest of the country and citizens."
Let's face it, they would have supported this thing right until the end without giving a single thought about the consequences beyond the cash flow from the people who tried to buy this through. This isn't a Rep/Dem issue except where they'll try to leverage it in the next election cycle. I still say kudos to the entire public effort to raise awareness, and I'll just take the small bit of good news that came from this effort to stop PIPA and SOPA. I know the war's not over by any stretch, but it was nice to be heard by our federal lawmakers.
SOPA would never have gotten out of committee without a majority of Repugs supporting it, it never would have gotten to the floor without John "Corruption Is My Middle Name" Boehner's support. THR conveniently leave that fact out of their reporting
SOPA never made it out of committee to the floor in the House. That's probably why THR didn't report any of that.
Facts are a terrible thing when they disagree with a liberal.
Sure. Because broad generalizations are so honest and accurate.
When the entire POINT of political parties is to lump people into categories so that their positions become similar, broad generalizations come with the territory. Assume that everyone of a particular race or creed has a drinking problem and you're a bigot. Assume that everyone who attends AA has a drinking problem and you're likely pretty close to on target.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I know how you feel, but I don't think that the Republicans are any better. I don't make enough money to feel restricted by the Democrats, but the Republicans :
A - Want a presence in my bedroom, and I absolutely can't stand that.
B - Favor my employer's rights over my rights, and if I look what has been happening to workers' pay vs executive pay and profits over the past decade, I don't think they need additional favoring.
I don't like what the Democrats are doing either, but I feel more personally threatened by the Republicans.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The problem is just that the Democrats have more or less taken over the GOP and Ron Paul is the only real Republican left.
I know it's hard to believe after 12 years of Bushes, but the GOP used to be a party of small government, non-interventionism and individual rights.
When Clinton reduced social spending while the Bush before and after him increased it - who do you vote for when you are against big government?
So as far as I am concerned, it is either Ron Paul or a big-government-pro-war-bread-and-circuses president. It does not matter whether his name will be Obama, Romney or Gingrich.
And I fully know that the Libertarian party can never garner enough support to do anything significant, that is why I am throwing my support on the Republicans
I'm not sure why you say this, it sounds like Dem/Repub propaganda. Even if the Libertarian party (or any third-party) doesn't win the presidency or a federal congressman, every vote helps push their platform. If Libertarians start getting enough share of the vote, then Democrats and Republicans start to notice and think about what they can do to appeal to some of those voters. You may not agree with much the Tea party platform, but the protests did demonstrate that a popular movement (even when they are later co-opted by a major party) and non-mainstream candidates actually can affect the outcome of elections.
Obamacare - Government run health care because the Government knows better than you or your Doctor.
Bailouts of GM. et al, i.e. government ownership.
Support of Unions over the best interests of the country - Specifically SEIU.
There's three.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things --- ``Fast and Furious'' and ``Operation Gunrunner'' are a travesty of justice, and it's criminal that the State Department is blocking the return of surplus WWII-era M1 Rifles and Carbines from Korea (which would then be administered by the Civilian Marksmanship Program and sold participants in its programs)
who was... wait for it... A democrat.
I'm not going to blame either side for this... I think we can agree that both parties have been on both sides of this issue.
Lets just be happy SOPA died and remember in the future that MAYBE the "other" party which ever that might be for you MIGHT not be made up entirely of vampire demon nazis... and might just be okay people with a different perspective on things.
Honestly, most of the political disagreements would go away if we stopped trying to impose things on people that don't want to participate. If you have a great idea... great. Anyone that actually likes that idea will support it. If your idea involves forcing people at gun point to do what you say though... maybe it isn't such a great idea.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Sounds like a simple case of, "We don't like them, and we don't like you, so since they give you money, we'll oppose it."
When Clinton reduced social spending [wikipedia.org] while the Bush before and after him increased it - who do you vote for when you are against big government?
The Republican who worked closely with Clinton to pass PRWOA? Hint: he's a 2012 presidential contender.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
My thoughts exactly. It's not like they were the heroes in this; they just happened to do what they felt was politically expedient, which doesn't bode well for the next round.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
And I fully know that the Libertarian party can never garner enough support to do anything significant, that is why I am throwing my support on the Republicans
I know I mentioned Tactical Voting the other day in another article and I know some of the responses indicated it's a very effective tool. However, I still maintain that if everyone who felt like you do on this actually just voted for who they actually wanted to be president, we might end up with someone in office other than the mainstream Dem and Rep candidates we always end up with.
Food for thought.
The Republicans deserve credit for how they stand up for freedom in general and against SOPA in particular. If I were a single-issue voter, this would make me vote republican. They have the correct position on this issue.
Of course, I'm not a single-issue voter, and the Republicans are pants-on-head-retarded about almost everything else. But give them credit for being right this once.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
I think the point should be to focus on the CANDIDATE instead of the party affiliation.
I'm registered with one party for the sole purpose of being able to vote in their primaries (Which is all ANYONE really gets for party registration unless they are a candidate). However, I've spread my vote pretty evenly across the two parties over the years because at the end of the day I vote for the best person for the job. It doesn't matter what the local comptroller or county commitioners view on abortion? global warming? evoloution? etc. What does matter is their qualification for, and ideas about topics relevant to the job they are asking me to hire them for. If that job has no chance of touching on those topics, then their oppinions are irrelevant.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
You obviously didn't notice the distinct lack of concern over social conservative issues at most Tea Party rallies. The uniting issues across the Tea Party movement are fiscal policy, civil liberties, immigration control and strong national defense. In fact, some of the major Tea Party figures have openly said that the Tea Party as a movement is welcoming to social conservatives, but that it simply does not have a social issue stance as a movement.
Yes, the democrats have taken over the GOP, by moving steadily to the right for the past 30 years. Todays Democrat party is very much like the Republican party of 30 years ago. Obama is a conservative somewhere between Reagan and Nixon.
The GOP was never a party of small government, non-interventionism, and individual rights. Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency. Who started the War on Drugs? Nixon coined the term, Reagan made it policy. Nixon, pre-presidency, was a hawk on Vietnam. Hell, the "Reagan Doctrine" was explicitly interventionist!
How is it that you can get the basic facts of our political history so utterly wrong, and still be 100% correct when you say this:
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I love how it's always "because the government knows better than you or your Doctor", but I never see "because the insurance company whose main purpose is to make as much profit as possible knows better than you or your Doctor"
I don't think it's so much that the Democrats took over the GOP, but that the religious right has. The GOP candidates, except for Ron Paul, seem to think that laws should be made based on religious views. Santorum really scares me with some of his talk about banning abortion even in cases of life of the mother (he thinks it's an "excuse") and banning contraception. For the latter, he would leave it's legality "up to the states." Translation, you'd have states where posessing a condom would be a crime even if you were married and simply didn't want another child. Is it any wonder that the Duggars support him? (For the record, I'm religious - Jewish - but don't feel the need to force my religious views on anyone. I want my politicians to be religiously neutral.)
I wish there were more Ron Paul-style GOP members. I might actually vote Republican then. As it stands, I vote Democrat because I agree with them more. Not 100%, but more than with the usual Republican offerings. Maybe Ron Paul and other classic small government Republicans should leave the GOP and form a new centrist party. A good centrist party would quickly pull voters from the Republicans and Democrats. (Precisely why both parties would make sure said centrist party never happens.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Even if the Libertarian party (or any third-party) doesn't win the presidency or a federal congressman, every vote helps push their platform. If Libertarians start getting enough share of the vote, then Democrats and Republicans start to notice and think about what they can do to appeal to some of those voters.
Except in a system where every vote is plurality takes all (sometimes called "first past the post"), even a 10% share (which Libertarians poll at but rarely get) is unnoticed by the main parties. They're not worried about attracting Libertarian votes, they're worried about getting 45%+1 out of the 90% who vote for one of the two main parties, and they don't give a shit about the rest.
And they're entrenched. Gerrymandering has made it even LESS necessary to have a majority. Look at Texas: Republicans are maybe 35% of the electorate, but thanks to careful gerrymandering they control 2/3 of the state legislature and 2/3 of the congressional delegation, and careful disenfranchisement - witness their neutering of early-voting this year after they realized enhanced access to the polls meant democrat voters, who actually have to work on election day rather than being greedy lazy assholes, went and voted on the available weekend days and almost threw a number of the GOP-constructed "52/48" districts to the Dems - takes care of the rest.
Alomst every intrusion Bush pushed; Homeland Security, NoNock warrants, NoTell warrants, warrantless searches, control of the Internet, indefinite arrest without charges - The Obama administration has enlarged on.
And I not only voted for him, I campaigned for him.
It isn't that the republicans get corrupt faster so much as they wear it on their sleeves more. Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich. This is very easy to see and very easy to blame. The democrats on the other hand are just more subtle, but no better overall. They tend to serve special interest through either restriction of rights or providing broad funding to over-bloated graft. It doesn't become readily apparent until you look at their spending habits. Republicans don't like to tax for what has to be spent and democrats like to spend what they don't have, all to try and serve their special interests without upsetting anyone enough to raise a shit storm.
AJ Henderson
This is flamebait but I'm compelled to respond.
Racism is a pretty damned weak excuse for this. I mean really someone explain it to me - how does a "racist" thought in a white man's mind force a black man to abandon his children?
Because racism is not "thoughts." I find it helpful to distinguish bigotry from racism. I consider bigotry to be in the realm of individual thoughts. Racism is about power. Racism is more about social constructions than individual thoughts and actions. For example, Jim Crow laws are racist.
Racism is indeed the cause of your observations. Education disparity is a gigantic problem in this country. It's difficult to overcome because we have several centuries of public policy in place that closed educational opportunities to people of color. We've eliminated most of the official policies but we have hundreds of years of effects of those policies to undo. Simply fixing the law isn't enough. We've set an entire class of people on a certain track for hundreds of years and it will take active undoing of that to set them on a different track.
When you don't have access to basic education, you don't have access to higher education. If you get rid of the legal barriers now you have to deal with all sorts of cultural issues such as teachers not understanding your background and experience as a person of color, lack of teachers who have shared that experience and so on. This is very complicated stuff, not easily changed by simply repealing some laws. Maybe you'll dismiss it as "touchy-feely" nonsense but I assure you that every person of color I've engaged around this stuff tells me it's real, whether they are Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American or whatever.
Drug and alcohol abuse follows. When you have little hope to get a job because demonstrated bias in employment still exists, what motivates you to even try? That's not an excuse, it's simply reality. Some blame it on "inferior culture" or similar nonsense but imagine growing up and seeing your grandfather, your mother, you father, your brother and your sister treated like dirt. I don't know about you, but that would get to me.
I will honestly say I struggle with the single mother family statistics. My wife and I talk about this from time to time, trying to figure out where that comes from. I don't know. But when I see a strong trend in a group, I tend to think that there is something deeper driving that trend than simply a culture of irresponsibility. We have to ask ourselves why we observe what we do, not simply blame people for the observation.
They are a broken people, unfortunately, and only they can fix themselves.
There's that bigotry thing. Start passing laws motivated by an attitude like that and it becomes racism. No people is "broken" and the poor and opporessed can rarely help themselves.
You do realize that is how some of the most dangerous people ever were voted into office?
Yep, I concur. After all, the timing is just perfect to appease the masses. Forget parties, look at the public reaction to SOPA - If I wanted to a government position in the upcoming elections, with a topic this hot I'd side with the people voting for me, not necessarily the ones who have/will sign me checks. A few bold statements shunning SOPA/PIPA, and I wind up getting all the advertising I need across newspapers nationwide.
Is that increased payment to lower earners a product of getting more actual value in the form of better health care and benefits? Or is it just from the rising cost of those benefits -- as their actual usable return value stagnates or even drops?
The poor having more and more of their economic gains eaten up by the rising cost of benefits -- while what they actually get from those benefits stagnates -- is *not* something to brag about. That's just more money creeping from the powerless to the powerful.
Porquoi?
Yes, there is corruption in both parties, yet every time I watch Fox News or hear people like Glent Beck, Sarah Palin, or Rush Limbaugh talk, I wonder how it is possible for any sane person to support the Republican Party.
There are some decent folks in it, for sure. But the signal to bullshit ratio is so extremely low.
Also I believe that Republicans are the worst offenders in partisan politics. Everything coming from a democratic president has to be put down by principle. There is no common ground in the interest of the american people, ever.
Also, Republicans like to preach how they want to have a smaller government, cut expenses, less debt, etc. In reality what they do is funnel public tax money directly into their favorite corporations, usually oil and military-industrial, with contracts, subsidies and wars. All the time speaking of tax cuts, never mentioning that they apply only to the rich and corporations.
The Republican Party is the political wing of rich America, nothing else. Their tactics are fear mongering and ignorance.
Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. He's a States Rights-er. Big difference.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The GOP candidates, except for Ron Paul, seem to think that laws should be made based on religious views.
On the contrary, he thinks that there should be no separation between church and state, and rather that laws should be based on Christian religious views. Ron Paul is pro-life because of his religious views. And, rather than thinking the government shouldn't be involved in private medical decisions, he thinks it should be criminal, and investigated and punished.
Ron Paul also doesn't believe in evolution.
Republicans may experience it faster but Democrats experience it way longer. Democrat voters don't care how long a politician serves (Byrd), how corrupt (Dodd) or stupid (Frank) they may be. As long as they keep getting re-elected and can keep telling their people at election time, how much of a fight they are putting on for you.They say that they are fighting the good fight, that our country would be going to hell in a hand basket if they weren't there and they will continue to fuck you over with a smile.
I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
Sure, in places with real functioning political parties like Europe this is the case, but not so in the US. There are just too many variables to make a case that Republicans believe X and Democrats believe Y. Case in point: wars. Out of the 5 major contenders in the 2012 race (Obama, Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich) which is the only one that is anti-war? That would be Paul who is running as a Republican in the primaries. But traditionally you think as Democrats as anti-war, but yet Obama is a very pro-war president.
In our 2 party system it is impossible to lump people together in different categories based on which of the 2 parties you vote for, unlike Europe which has a more functional political party system.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Liberal != Liberty.
Step through the YRO section here - the vast majority of stories about liberties being screwed with are happening at the hand of democrats. Sad state of affairs.
This is not true. The Affordable Healthcare Act did not produce "Government run health care". It mandates that everyone must have health insurance, without expanding any of the state-run programs at all. This means the private insuance companies which lobbied for it make more money. No hospitals, other than those already run by the VA, have or will be taken over.
This is not socialist. Socialist would be full-on nationalization, like British Leyland, British Steel, British Telecom, British Coal, and British Rail prior to their privatization. There are no government-appointed board members on any corporate board that took bailout money.
What on earth are you talking about? First, what support of Unions, "specifically SEIU", that favors any union over the best interests of the country, and whose view of best interests?
;)
Second, do you have a problem with Unions - associations of people, of citizens, of wealth producers, organizing to protect their interests? Do you really think it's wrong for people to unite to protect their common interests? Do you have a problem with "We the people, in order to create a more perfect Union..."? In fact, to quote Lynne Cheney, why do you hate America?
I vote for every libertarian on the ballot no matter the views or qualifications. Due to the fact, they are not going to get elected anyway, but if another candidate sees that they lost because of a libertarian it 'may' get them to rethink their position and move slightly away from the totalitarian principals that the two current dominant parties have.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Problem with the Libertarian party is cannibas. Everytime I see a booth, every time I see anything from the Libertarian party - all they talk about is pot.
I'm like "Hey you bloody f***tards, don't you realize our country is falling apart. And all you care about is getting stoned. Can we please talk about real issue!"
And that alone is the comment I hear from almost everyone I meet who has been turned off by the Libertarian party.
Most of us just don't give a damn about your pot. We couldn't care less one way or the other, and that seems to be the primary issue talked about by party members promoting the party.
This made me think of one of my favorite Douglas Adam's quotes from So Long and Thanks for All the Fish:
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
..Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry,...
Let me preface my reply by saying that I am born and raised New York City liberal.
What good are you "closer to home issues" if the inalienable right to defend your very life and possibly defend your country and constitution from tyranny if your right to arms are severely curtailed or outright banned?
I'm a libertarian at heart
I cannot be. The first reason is that I believe corporations need strong regulation in order to prevent them from screwing the general public. The second reason is that I believe taxation should be aggressively progressive to the point that salaries are for the most part only used for luxuries or buying better quality non-luxuries (itself a kind of luxury), the extra taxes would go to non-luxuries and shared infrastructure. The third reason is I think anything that uses shared infrastructure should have the infrastructure provided by the government.
As for SOPA and Republicans, I don't know how this will play out. Typically I find the internet to be left-leaning, but that's partly to do with the involvement of non-Americans (on average the American middle is to the right of the rest of the developed world) and partly to do with where I spend my time. My hope is that getting more involved in something like this would shift Republicans more towards libertarianism (which means I still wouldn't vote for them, but we would have less regulation of personal freedoms). I tend to support the Democratic party, but they tend to drop the ball on some issues. My problem is that outside of Vermont there is no significant left party other than the Democratic party.
He effected a bored affect.
Vote for individuals. In any given debate across the aisle there are defectors. Not all Democrats will vote the same and neither will all Republicans. Vote for, not against. Voting for someone only because you are against the other side only reinforces the nonsense that is Washington.
Depends on how you mean it.
If you mean: freedom to be an Atheist, then yes. Absolutely. Freedom of Religion also means the freedom to be an Atheist or an Agnostic or simply not care one way or the other.
If you mean: Freedom from ever having to hear or be influenced by anyone else's religion and actively preventing religious people and politicians from acting upon their religious conscience or proposing laws in line with that conscience, (IE: Freedom FROM Religion) then no. That would mean impinging upon someone else's freedom of religion and freedom of expression and would be a violation of the Constitution.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Really, that's funny. Cause that's how I feel when I listen to David Letterman, Barbara "pass it then we can decide what's in it" Boxer. Chris "congressmen should do what the campaign donors tell them" Dodd.
"Everything coming from a democratic president has to be put down by principle."
Really, really, are you that blind. How many of President Bush's top judge appointments were blocked. Versus how many of President Obama's.
You think this, because you only hear when Republicans block stuff, because you read news from sources biased to your views. Likewise, Republicans feel the same way, cause they get news biased toward their view. So they feel the Democrats are always blocking things.
Like President George W. Bush's request to regulate Fannie & Freddie years before the collapse.
"The Republican Party is the political wing of rich America, nothing else. Their tactics are fear mongering and ignorance."
Serious, that's the tactic of both parties. I've listened to Democrat politicians tell inner city folk that Republicans want them dead and their children in prison.
Oh, and let's not talk about fear mongering. George Bush's medical lawsuit reform would leave you with only $250,000 if you lost your sight or a limb from malpractice. Total BS lie, but it was what the Left propigated.
Lies, fear, are how politics works. Both parties are guilty of it. Only a moron is too stupid to realize that BOTH do it at, and pretty much so at the same rate.
Right. Today's Republican party has more in common with the John Birch society that was shunned by the Republican establishement for decades.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I somewhat agree with your concerns about social conservatives. They don't actually seem to control the republican party, and definitely do not control tea partiers. Since overall on those issues government is getting better, not worse, while on the issues I have with democrats the government is getting worse, I tend to vote republican unless there's an actual libertarian option. I do find that displaying a cross or celebrating christmas for government agencies is much, much, less intrusive into my life than decreeing that I'm not allowed to cary a gun, or that I have to agree to a virtual strip search to fly on a plane, or that insurance companies aren't allowed to offer low cost high deductible personal medical insurance plans, or that employers can't decide who to hire/fire based entirely on an objective merit, etc.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Except that Hitler was appointed, not voted, into power initially.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Most of your comment is spot on, but this one little point jabbed me:
Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich.
Here we have Republicans supporting consumers over business and small business over big business, which is the exact opposite of what you said. It's not just you, but it seems to me that no matter what Republicans or conservatives do, they are going to have the standard criticisms heaved upon them. If they do anything enforcing existing and Constitutional immigration laws, they are labeled racists. If they oppose abortion, they are labeled as anti-woman bigots. If they support a strong defense, they are accused of supporting the "military industrial complex". If they want to lower taxes for everyone, they are accused of only supporting the rich. If they they give workers the right to accept a job without joining a union, they are labeled as being anti-worker and in the pocket of big business. If they want to improve education and/or cut educational costs, they are accused of being anti-teacher.
No matter what conservatives do, those opposed the conservatives, not even necessarily their programs, will find a hyperbolic stereotype to label them with. Even when conservatives do something that is completely counter to the stereotype, the old stereotypes as still applied. Granted, the Shiite is flung both ways, but I tend to see a lot more of being flung at conservatives.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Go read on the GM loans. All the loans to banks. They've done funny math to say they've been repaid. In reality, they've not....
----
But as with Marchionne, Whitacre didn't tell the full story. The Obama administration -- through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- committed approximately $52.4 billion to help right GM.
Only a fraction of that, $6.7 billion, was in the form of loans. Most of the government's GM investment was converted to an ownership stake in the New GM, the company that emerged from bankruptcy: $2.1 billion in preferred stock; and 60.8 percent of the company's common equity. The jury is still out on how much return the government will get on that investment.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/may/26/are-auto-companies-paid-up-american-taxpayers/
Wow, that will help them buy half a bumper sticker.
It's not about your support or my support any more. It's about the support of the super rich.
The average donation to a Super PAC starts at $100,000, and you don't have an extra $100,000 you can donate. Do you know why the number of commercials run by campaigns this year is DOWN by almost 75%? Because they don't have to run them any more, since the Super PACs are doing their work for them.
I'm not saying there is no difference between the parties, I'm saying they don't matter. Parties don't matter, elections don't matter. This has become a game of RISK between groups of billionaires. Our fucking country has become a LAN party for the super rich and the rest of us can only look on in horror.
I don't care what your political affiliation is, the only way an individual is going to affect the outcome is to GET IN THE WAY. You have to take your body, and move it off your couch, and get in the faces of politicians. And you have to do it with a group of 5000 of your closest friends.
TacoCowboy, if you throw your "support" on the Republicans, you are a fool. Throw your support to your community. To your family. To those 5000 of your closest friends who will go stand in front of your congressman's office and demand that they do something or not do something. Your "support" doesn't mean anything, to anybody. Now, if 5000 of your closest friends come to honestly believe that Mitt Romney (or Barack Obama) is actually going to have any impact on anything (historical data says no) then go in peace and line up 5000 strong to support him. It makes you a fool, and delusional, but I support the right to be foolish and delusional almost religiously. But your "support", coming from a computer keyboard, is pissing in the wind. The political discourse on the Internet is nothing but jacking off, unless the goal is to meet up with those 5000 friends and GO OUT and do something. Anything else done by a non-billionaire is just energy you could be using to do something good and throwing it down the shitter.
You are welcome on my lawn.
He's a libertarian and pro-states rights. He happens to be pro-life, so thinks state governments should have laws against abortion (because it's murder), but nonetheless things the federal government shouldn't be involved.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
This is sheer genius - sheer fucking genius. Here's what we do: we start an organization and solicit funds to portray the incumbents as lizards. Everyone at every level who's up for re-election gets their own web page, flyer, mailer, poster, TV ad, every major form of promotional material, where they look like lizards. The tag-line: "Why would you vote for a lizard? You don't like lizards. Lizards don't like you. Why would you vote for a lizard?"
Ok, it needs polish, but this could actually make a dent in the voting process - as well as drive up the need for pictures of lizards. That'll be my task. I'm a gonna dust off my camera and start snapping lizard pics. You organize the organization and round up the funds while I'm shooting lizards.
BOTH parties have their issues, and I do not see the Democrats as being worse than the Republicans by a long shot, especially when it comes to religion (prayer in schools, prayer at government functions, the flagrant display of religious iconography in public buildings, denial of other religions equal access for displays, etc), the right for one to decide how to best manage body medically, and who one is allowed to have sex with, contraception, and who one is allowed to marry. Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry, and how I'm allowed to access content vis-a-vis music and movies on the Internet.
I agree, I support equal rights. I don't like the term 'gay rights', it isn't like they are asking for anything I don't have. If they want to get married I say fine, you don't want that in your church, Fine. Marriage stopped being a religious act a long time ago. If you want to split hairs, if there wasn't an ordained priest you've got a civil union not a marriage, hence the paperwork for the state.
I am also a gun owner and a member of the NRA, but I don't support unfettered access. I don't mind the paperwork, I just wonder why I am required to report the sale of my car within 30 days, under penalty of law, but I can sell a gun at a garage sale and no one cares. It is this kind of political blind spots that annoy me. I'm good, I work hard, pay my taxes and yes it annoys me when someone who sits on their ass and get paid $20 million pays lower taxes than me. Don't give me the double taxation crap either, only 3 of the Fortune 500 actually paid any tax in 2010.
I support equality and opportunity. I support religious freedom but if you are a hospital religious or not you must provide services and benefits in allignment with your employee's faith not your own.
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." ~Ozzy Osborne
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things
In defense of reasonable Republicans, not all of them feel the only way to address disagreements on policy is with guns. The few that are left believe compromise is better than violence.
Alomst every intrusion Bush pushed; Homeland Security, NoNock warrants, NoTell warrants, warrantless searches, control of the Internet, indefinite arrest without charges - The Obama administration has enlarged on.
And I not only voted for him, I campaigned for him.
Okay, so you have an emotional attachment, and you're angry and want to punish him. I get that. I voted for him too, and I'm disappointed.
But take a minute and look at this from a financial standpoint. Think about all the wrong things he's done, and consider them all sunk cost. They're done and (at least this election) you can't get them back.
Then focus on future costs. Of the two available options, which one will be worst moving forward? I see no indication that the Republican nominee would undo any of those things. Indeed, comparing Obama and Romney/Gingrich, I think Romney/Gingrich would trample first and fifth amendment rights faster than Obama would. Romney/Gingrich want smaller government, but only where it regulates business or taxes rich people or helps poor people. Neither of them have any interest in stopping the things you hate about Obama, and I suspect both of them would further intensify those things so as to pander to the warhawk/"nothing to hide"/"with us or against us" base.
So by reacting with your emotions, I think you'll end up making things even worst. "Cutting off your nose to spite your face", so to speak.
Obviously your opinions about Obama's second term versus Romney/Gingrich's first might differ, but at least make sure you've thought them through before you vote.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Well to me, the democrats are
A - in my gas tanks = forcing green energy before it is commericaily economical is costing us all, rather than waiting for the technology to mature. Can you imagine if the government mandated that the model T had to have 10 airbags, and get 50 MPG?
B -favor union leadership over workers rights. See when I work directly for an employer, I negotiate with said employer. The company is my boss. But if I am in a union, than I pay my "boss" for the ability to work for a 3rd party?? It almost sounds like the soparanos "oh, you want to work for ford? well you need to pay us protection money if you want to work for ford, every paycheck. If we decide we dont like what ford does, than we force you to stop working,even if you agree with what ford is doing."
so while you may look at it that the democrats are the ones "for the people" I see them, using the same information you have to draw a different conclusion
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency.
And yet they were still lower than when he took office. this is the stupidest quote I've ever heard trying to say he was against big government. He lowered taxes farther than he should then slowly raised them to help find the sweet spot, which is how it should be done.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things --- ``Fast and Furious'' and ``Operation Gunrunner'' are a travesty of justice
For the record, Operation Gunrunner was started by the (G.W.) Bush administration; it wasn't until a border patrol agent was killed that it garnered public attention.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Except that Hitler was appointed, not voted, into power initially.
He was leader of the largest party in a democratically-elected parliament (don't know how fair the election was) and thus was given first chance to form a coalition (which he did, before rapidly sidelining his coalition partners through assorted shenanigans). That was the way the German system officially worked at the time; Chancellor was (and is) an appointed position where the appointment is made by the (largely ceremonial) head of state, with convention being to put someone in post who can form a stable government somehow, and that in turn is typically determined by how well they did at the election.
The system is very different in the US, where the head of state is also the head of the executive branch, but those are separate roles in most european countries. (In fact, I can't think offhand of anywhere where this isn't true. Byelorussia maybe?)
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Okay, I agree with all that - but the original poster's point was that due to the Democrats' restriction of rights, he's supporting the Republicans.
As you say, all of those things were initiated by Republicans and expanded upon by Democrats; thus, none of those things are rights that Democrats are restricting and Republicans aren't.
That would be Paul who is running as a Republican in the primaries. But traditionally you think as Democrats as anti-war, but yet Obama is a very pro-war president.
If Paul were somehow to win he'd rightfully be classed as a non-interventionist. Were the United States directly attacked I have no doubt that he would respond forcefully and decisively. Interventionism is an entirely different animal and much harder to classify than simply saying someone is "pro" or "anti" war. For better or worse both major parties have been interventionists since FDR and WW2. Pearl Harbor and the specter of Communism after WW2 conspired to neuter the isolationist/non-interventionist wing of both major parties. I doubt that's likely to change in the next generation or so.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Smaller difference than you may think. I am very libertarian when it comes to federal government, less and less so as government gets closer to me down to being 100% for a benevolent dual-dictatorship within my own house over my family.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
So, to restate: More than a decade after the technical experts on the implementation side began explaining that centralized inhibition of copyright infringement is a costly boondoggle which will do far more to harm the public than to prevent copyright infringement, and more than a year after more fiscally minded people started asking whether we should be reducing copyright grants and enforcement instead of increasing them on a pure GDP maximization basis, the Tea Party decide to test the waters of supporting the rational, societally beneficial side. They did so when we technologists finally got so fed up that we started turning off the Internet. Actually, it wasn't just that -- they also realized (and frankly it was mostly this) they could use it as a political wedge issue to angle a few more seats in the power-and-pork circus.
Yeah, that's great. Nice work guys. Today you are truly statesmen.
I'll make you a deal -- you start showing some actual leadership on this issue. Start doing some research on the cost effectiveness, publishing the results, and using your offices as a serious bully pulpit to explain why the very spirit of America demands unhindered free speech on the Internet. You show that you understand why every step we have taken on digital copyright enforcement from the DMCA forward has been a direct violation of America's most sacred principles. You start trying to explain that to the populace, instead of just flapping in the breeze of popular emotionalism. You do that, then I'll stop thinking you are shameless opportunists who are only slightly less despicable on this particular issue than any of the other corrupt vermin in D.C.
Oh, and one more thing: You better make it clear that free speech means radical Muslims and American dissidents too. Everyone gets to speak, even if they are insane, evil, violent assholes.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
You do realize that Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit, is probably not the most accurate source for political positions? For example, within the link you posted you will find the following statement:
"In October 2011, Paul released a federal budget proposal for 2013, entitled the “Plan to Restore America.” The plan calls for cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget in the first year, along with other measures which Paul says would balance the federal budget within 3 years. To achieve these ambitious goals, the plan would seek [to]... privatize the Federal Aviation Administration and the TSA"
That statement is a blatant lie, easily disputed by those who actually pay attention to the candidate's positions. Paul wants to eliminate the TSA, not privatize it.
One can only guess how much of that particular Wikipedia entry is also dubious.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Please allow me to reply as a conservative.
A - Want a presence in my bedroom, and I absolutely can't stand that.
No one really cares what you do in your bedroom or with who. It's what you do on the park bench that offends us. It's what you want to teach our children. It's Girl Scouts admitting gender confused pre-teens. It's the banning of communities from renting public land to Boy Scouts because Boy Scouts' parents don't want gay men taking their boys camping. It's the handing out of contraception or sexual literature to elementary school kids. It's explaining to first graders that it is OK to explore your sexuality.
It's not what you do to whoever or whatever in your bedroom. It's the fact that you want to force me and my kids to accept it, and before we can do that, you have to tell us what it is. Frankly, we don't want to know.
B - Favor my employer's rights over my rights, and if I look what has been happening to workers' pay vs executive pay and profits over the past decade, I don't think they need additional favoring.
I assume you are talking about "right to work" laws. Right to work laws allow workers to accept a job at place where unions exist without being forced to join the union, or paying union dues whether they join the union or not. It also prevents companies from taking retaliatory actions against workers who want to start or join a union.
What's the problem? Do you really believe that I should I be forced to pay union dues that will contribute political money to an organization I disagree with just so I can have a job? That's a clear violation of my rights in favor of unions, which is exactly of what you are accusing the Republicans of doing.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
"Sure, in places with real functioning political parties like Europe this is the case, but not so in the US."
I contradict that assertion with my assertion that the political parties here are indeed real and functioning, representing the actual dispersal of ideas in a populace, and that the European model is simply a decayed version of familial alignment via aristocracy support.
Or are you saying that Europeans actually only think in terms of black and white?
He's a States Rights-er.
You say that as if you think that's a bad thing; it's not. In fact, if you actually read the damn Constitution, you'll note that the founders were also big supporters of state's rights and limited federal government.
*sigh* How far we've fallen from the lofty ideals of our Republic's fathers...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
And yet it continued under Obama.
Stop trying to blame one party or the other. Both are at fault, and both should be punished. Vote third party.
You assume that Gore would have been different from Bush. That is unlikely, especially given the degree to which Obama has been no different from Bush.
That would be Paul
Paul is not "anti-war". He is anti-MIC (Military Industrial Complex).
But traditionally you think as Democrats as anti-war,
Democrats are only "anti-war" to people that don't read history books. Here is a list of the major wars of the 20th century, along with the party in power when the US went to war:
You might want to check into A there. The Dems simply want a different presence.
Probably not. In the case of Libertarians, one needs to realize that a truly Libertarian society is pretty much alien to the current system we have. So much so that we would probably have to have some sort of serious upheaval, disaster or revolution before it could even happen. I'm serious, you'd probably have to have blood in the streets.
That's not an indictment of Libertarianism, it's a situation due to inertia. People may know that things like Social Security and government sponsored health care have serious potential problems in the long term, but the fact is that we now rely on those things due to the fact that other alternatives eventually dry up.
Consider Social Security. What did people do when they got old in the past? Did they die en masse in the streets? No. They generally had families support them or there were private charities that helped out. However, now we are so used to the government taking care of things, there has been a social shift away from families taking care of their elders and now that is firmly ingrained in our society. So now, we couldn't go back now if we tried, unless we accept the pain that it will cause.
That said, that pain doesn't mean that Social Security is the best idea, it just means that the costs of moving to some other solution are prohibitive. And frankly, as government gets bigger and these programs get harder to reform, we're in real trouble going forward.
Fuck Godwin's law. All it was was a silly Usenet post decades ago, and we've allowed it to arbitrarily constrain debate ever since. Comparisons with the Nazis are forbidden (maybe I should say verboten) forever more. Nothing could ever be that bad again, right? Until it is, and then we forbid ourselves from realizing it because of some stupid fucking comment made in jest by a guy none of us have ever met. No, fuck Godwin's law. I don't operate my mind according to rules of thumb like that, because I'm not a fucking idiot.
"Tea Party"
Please try to show me what issue of freedom the Tea Party is opposing. And try to do something besides "abortion".
Seriously...
Tea Party has opposed Patriot Act, TSA, SOPA, supported Net Neutrality, argued that government shouldn't even be involved in marriage, argued to end the drug war.
Okay, granted, the Tea Party has argued for tighter border controls. I'll give you that...
Not being able to stand Democrats doesn't mean supporting the Republicans. In fact, standing against restricting the rights of everbody on the planet would mean standing at least as hard against the Republicans.
Everyone knows Republicans act far more as a unit, voting with their party, than Democrats ever do. Democrats are much more a case of "rotten apples" than Republicans are - Republicans are a rotten apple tree.
You call yourself "libertarian", but you're just like every other Republican who denies your loyalty to the Republican Party - while standing behind it 100%. It's irrational, no matter what mask you put on it.
--
make install -not war
Oh yeah, because the rising cost of healthcare is something that will make the masses happier.
Oh gee, you put it that way and I'm freaking estatic that I'm now paying an arm and a leg to keep my arms and legs.
Now lemme see... Who tried to fix that recently? Oh yeah, that was Obama's big push. The democrats got behind that.
And who fought them tooth and nail, and are still trying to get it anulled? Yep, that's the republicans.
So THANKS.
I assume you are against giving the government too much power over the lives of the people. Well, here is something you may not have considered; Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. If government is paying for your health care, they make the rules covering your health care. Note ELECTED officials, mind you, but those appointed by various "super committees" whose members are also appointed and not responsible to voters. How long do you think it will be before the committees realize that tax dollars are paying for cancer treatments because someone chose to smoke? How long before the outrage over the billions spent on heart medication because these people are too lazy to exercise and don't have the self control to stay away from cup cakes? How long before treatment depends on your government mandated health lifestyle score and how do you think that score will be determined?
You don't want government in your bedroom. Can you imagine government at your dinner table, prodding your to get off your couch or monitoring your alcohol consumption and workout schedule? How long until someone asks a smoker, "Why should I pay the medical bills for your poor life decisions?" At what point does good health become the law?
Maybe a better idea would be to allow consumers to pool their resources together, much like a company does, to get better rates or allow consumers to buy insurance out of state.
Everyone else, fyi:
The Cato Institute is a proprietarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States
Just so you know where this little blurb is coming from. Corporate Kochs.
So? Ad hominem much?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
It's not what you do to whoever or whatever in your bedroom. It's the fact that you want to force me and my kids to accept it, and before we can do that, you have to tell us what it is. Frankly, we don't want to know.
hey, when heterosexuality is kept quiet and no one mentions it in public, I'll accept your argument here as legitimate. Until then, allowing one view point to be expressed as openly as desired and requiring a different view point to only be held in private is not equality.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency.
And yet they were still lower than when he took office. this is the stupidest quote I've ever heard trying to say he was against big government. He lowered taxes farther than he should then slowly raised them to help find the sweet spot, which is how it should be done.
And yet in today's Republican Party the vast majority of politicians have taken an explicit public oath never to raise taxes at all. Net rates can only ever go down, never up. How can you "find a sweet spot" when only a one-way ratchet is permitted to exist?
Oh, and Reagan equalized the treatment between capital gains and regular income in the 1986 Tax Reform Act.
The point is dead-on: today's Republicans's exhibit an ideological rigidity, and a preference for special treatment for the rich, that was absent with Ronald Reagan, who would be mocked as a RINO today if judged by his actual policies.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
I think this is doubly true now that "the two parties" seem to be largely defined by opposition to each other rather than any clear political platform intended to benefit the country and its general citizenry.
These days, "The Democratic Party" doesn't really have a clear platform, as it is really made up more or less of everybody who, regardless of their real political views, doesn't want to be "Republican(tm)" but still wants to be affiliated with a large enough political corporation to have a chance of being allowed to win an election (c.f. "Blue Dog" democrats, and President Barack Obama, who is often accused/praised as a good "moderate Republican president"). In short, they're really only definable these days as "not-Republicans". "The Republican Party", on the other hand, does seem to have a very concise and well-enforced political platform. Unfortunately, that platform is "the opposite of whatever 'The Democrats(tm)' want". They're "The Anti-Democrat Party".
tl;dr: "The Two Parties" are the "Not-Republicans" and the "Anti-Not-Republicans". Also: the US political system is a complete fustercluck, or perhaps just a circus put on by whoever is really running things...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
It paid back one loan with money from different government loans that it got at lower interest rate.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Oh yeah, because the rising cost of healthcare is something that will make the masses happier.
Hate to break it to you but guaranteeing a right to healthcare is probably about the best way possible to raise premiums.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Term limits was debated during the constitution conventional. IIRC Franklin and Jefferson were supporters and there were others. Eventually, they decided to leave it out mostly on the basis that it was not needed because the congressional pay was so low that no-one would want to stay in office overly long.
Yeah, you most certainly could change your insurance company.
Unless, of course, you wanted to change because you were dissatisfied with the way your current provider was dealing with your current condition.
You are absolutely correct and its been working. The left has been using that strategy forever. The 'genius' if you will of the likes of Karl Rove during the Bush era and now as well as some of the new anti-Obama super PACs and similar is that Conservatives have started to do the same thing to and about liberals.
You can't have an intelligent debate when the other side is permitted to get away with name calling and baseless hyperbole that is not subject to challenge. The right finally figured out its not worth holding the moral high ground if it means losing the election. The result is the political discourse in this nation has been reduced to level children on playground exercise. Until the public demands better and everyone gets together and agrees to something better the right thing to do is whatever it takes to win.
If Romney wants to win this thing the moment the GOP primary ends he SHOULD go hard negative on Obama. He should adobt Newt's nonsense about the food stamp president, label the president an apologist who hates America, etc etc. He should set the PACs about going after Obama's family. Tell people how even Michelle is a totalitarian who hates your freedom to even decided what to eat or feed your children. Remind people how Obama told his daughter she'd make her first million before 18, and accuse the entire family of just having their hand in the cookie jar, of nepotism, of looting.
None of it needs to be true, fair, or reasonable. Newt's SC success is proof of this. The more vapid and empty the better, in fact. I'd make this the UGLIEST election this Nation has ever seen, first because its the way to win and second because maybe just maybe when the dust finally settles people would wake up and decide they are truly tired of it.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I think one of the causes for the difference is most European Countries are on a form of Parliamentary Government, and in a Parliamentary Government minority parties can wield power through coalitions; right now this happens mainly in the conventions. Now if we moved to a system where a portion of our House of Representatives were elected by popular party votes and you would start see Libertarians, Greens, Socialists and Communists sitting in congress with Democrats and Republicans, now that would considerably change the way power worked in our country. The Tea Party and Occupy might even become full fledged political parties. Democrats really aren't as anti-war as you think, to me it seems their anti-Big Business leanings teaming up with the competitions of their beloved social programs for tax money makes them more anti defense-contractor than anti-war.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The only union dues that a worker can be forced to pay are those that go towards collective bargaining. You can never be forced to pay money that is used for political contributions.
Change your insurance company.
Yeah, right.
The vast majority of Americans get insurance through their employer, and could not possibly afford the employer subsidized premiums.
You're as locked in to your insurance as you fear you would be under a government plan.
You just have an illusion of choice.
Check your premises.
To me republicans are....
A - too uneducated to realize the technology IS there and IS mature. but they throw around dumb statements like " Can you imagine if the government mandated that the model T had to have 10 airbags, and get 50 MPG? " And the US government DID require safety things on the Model T, the hand crank was mandated to be a cam type that would kick out when the motor started instead of whipping around and breaking an arm.
B - You are complaining about something that is not "Union" but general Politician. The Republicans do this as much as the dems. Hell your Republican Christ figure,Ronnie Regan himself said, "union labor is important to the United states" It seems you guys cant see the corruption and stink that is all over in your own party, but it's clear as day in the Democrats. Everything you say about unions are the fault of lobbying and ALL politicians being dirty. Republicans are as at fault as the Dems on this.
Both parties are nothing but corrupt scumbags. And you are foolish to align yourself with such people, it degrades what others think of you.
How about stop frothing at the mouth and regurgitating what others tell you to say and speak for yourself. Learn about something before you spout half truths and outright lies as if they were fact. You end up looking far more credible and people will actually pay attention to what you say.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Godwin's law doesn't 'forbid' anything. It's not a legal law, it's a law of nature, like Murphy's law.
For example, Anne Coulter has written books that accuse anyone who disagrees with conservatives is a traitor to America.
Have you read her books? Until then, you don't really know what you are talking about.
But to get back on topic, how much air time does Ann Coulter get? Quite a bit, I'm sure. She writes a book every two to three years and gets a few minutes on a few TV talk shows to promote her new book or being the conservative "talking head" on a panel full of liberals. This lasts for a couple of weeks until the next book comes out. How much time does Rachel Maddow get? How about Joy Behar or Whoopi Goldberg or Ed Schultz or Bill Maher or Christiane Amanpour or the entire cast of Glee? For every minute Ann Coulter calling liberals traitors on television, any one of these liberals are calling conservatives racists for more than 20 hours. Do your own math.
I'm inclined to believe, in fact, that the flow is the opposite direction that you believe it flows in (and of course, that could be a result of my own confirmation bias).
Granted, on both our parts.
1) Limiting access to abortion and birth control is literally part of the subjugation of women.
Wrong. You say that, but deep down, you know it's a lie. I'm conservative. I don't want to "subjugate" women. For that matter, I have no problem with contraception. I agree with the President that they should be covered by insurance, at no additional cost to the insurer and no copay. Where I don't agree is that insurances companies must be forced to provide birth control. At the very least, it should have an "opt-out" clauses, even if opting out of insurance provided contraception will not reduce premiums (and it should not).
Abortion is the taking of a human life. You don't think it's a human life? Um, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not? What gives anyone the qualification to determine that? History is full of bad things happening when one group of people determined that another group of people was no longer human, freeing their conscience to justify whatever evil they determined to be necessary.
Also, you will note that those against embryonic stem cell research are against it because it takes a human life. How is the destruction of a discarded human embryo for scientific research "subjugating" women?
And finally, and if you read nothing else, read this. WHY WOULD 51% OF WOMEN BE AGAINST ABORTION AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL?
Fifty-one percent of women surveyed by the Center for the Advancement of Women said the government should prohibit abortion or limit it to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications.
Are you saying that 51% of women support the "subjugation" of women?
3) If the Republicans lower taxes for everyone but a disproportionate amount of that tax break goes to rich, then it's pretty obvious that they are favouring the rich.
So if you cut everyone's taxes by 2%, that favors the rich? Seems to me that everyone would get the same percentage of tax cuts. How about if a president, say, gave everyone who pays taxes $600? Would that be more fair? Actually, GWB, a Republican, did just that, but he was favoring the rich, right?
Tell you what. I'm sure you make more than me. Why don't you figure out what you saved from any tax cuts you say favor the rich, and simply send it to me. See, because compared to me, you are RICH! So why shouldn't I have the RIGHT to take what is yours? If you think for some reason I make more than you, you are still still rich compared to someone. Go give them whatever you think you have saved from tax cuts over the last 20 years, because YOU, being rich, has benefited more from Republican tax cuts that whoever is poorer than you.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
What were the four slogans of IngSoc?
War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is power. Democrats and Republicans are opposed to each other.
My dear US-ians... You live under a single party system. Yes, a bit disguised as two parties, but so close to each other that they mean exactly the same in the end. And there are more parties, sure, but the system is crafted so that none of them will ever achieve anything. With a 48% vs. 47.5% (or whatever...) effective support, nothing will ever change, while it gives the illusion of balance and competition. Which is completely bogus.
The USA is about as democratic as the countries whose political systems it has subverted over the past century.
But traditionally you think as Democrats as anti-war,
Democrats are only "anti-war" to people that don't read history books. Here is a list of the major wars of the 20th century, along with the party in power when the US went to war:
Perhaps Democrats are seen as anti-war, and thus other governments feel greater license to do more provocative things when they are in power. I've known kids who pull stunts around Mom that they wouldn't around Dad, because they know their Dad draws the line sooner. But eventually they cross the line even for Mom, who is forced to act. If Dad had been around, he wouldn't have had to act because his reputation acts as a deterrent.
Missed one:
4) If they give workers "the right to accept a job without joining a union" they are labelled as being "anti-union" because that policy weakens unions, by encouraging workers to free-load. They get to enjoying the benefits of the union's negotiations without paying for them.
Really? Because I work in a "right to work" state and we don't have that problem. While working at Kroger many years ago, union members received one set of benefits and pay scale. Non-union members received another.
There is no union at my current job. I enjoy full health benefits for me and my family, decent salary, fair treatment, plenty of vacation and sick days, maternity, 401k and a slew of other benefits I'll probably never use. Don't assume that without unions, the worker gets screwed. The worker only gets screwed when there are 20 other workers willing to take his place for less money. If that's the case, you need to find a new line of work.
But that doesn't matter. Are you saying that I should be forced to give my money to a union, that will turn around and give to the Democratic party? Would you feel the same way if getting a job meant you had to support the Republican party? I would be much more receptive the idea if unions were banned from politics, but that's not the case.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I'm not saying it like it's a bad thing, idiot; you're reading what I said and assigning a meaning according to your own prejudices.
The difference is that a mere states-rightser will say "OK, you states can be just as tyrannical as you like, the federal government shouldn't be able to stop you", which is the vibe I get off Ron Paul, while an actual libertarian will say "OK, you governments can't be tyrannical".
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
You are absolutely correct. The perfect example is the No Child Left Behind law. It was essentially written by Senator Ted Kennedy (well, his staff), yet the "left" derided it as a terrible law enacted by George W. Bush. It is a terrible law, yet many of the things in it that the "left" condemned had long been on their list of proposed education reforms.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Its obvious that most leftists are against this. Espcially most grass roots orgs.
Its really time for the grass roots leftists to realize that celebrites and the media industry does NOT have their best intrests at heart and just plays them.
The Republicans are in bed with their own corporate agendas, and no one is suggested they aren't. but ever since the tea party has been around they've had an angry populist base to keep them in line.
While the democrats are busy getting their grass roots activists worked up and paranoid about the tea party, what they really should be doing is making their own grass roots organization instead of bitching about the tea party.
Its also funny to point out there is a grain of truth in republican propaganda about "liberal elitests". By that we can soley mean the democratic party and its agents in other leftist organizations. Instead of fixing the issue, they just throw their base under the bus. The solutiuon isn't swallowing republican values hook line and sinker, but instead forcing the democrats to listen to their base, not their source of bribes. That said, they make a valid point of bold face democrat hypocracy. This won them elections in 2010.
I'll go further. The media machine is also what sells votes to special intrest groups, being that most PR firms have heavy ties to washington AND hollywood. Money would NOT be able to buy votes without the paid work of advertising men who learn their trade at the same schools and institutions as movie dirrectors. They are the same source. They do the same thing. There is no diffrence.
The republican party in the last 5 years has been quick to adapt to new a new base. They've gotten good with new media. The Obama campaign was an exception to the democrat rule.
again the solution is more grass roots movements, and to keep all special intrests out peroid. While free speech on line is only an issue, its been pointed out its a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. Its a new tool for coreting the horrible ballance away from a few elites to the populace at large. This lets people talk to people without a middleman to censor and mix up ideas.
It also makes it harder to "buy" an election with advertising money. I mean what would the point be if not one really took the TV seriously? You can buy out every blogger. There are potentially unlimited blogs. Nothing from keeping the people of speaking about "sell outs"
Only in America is changing a view with new data considered flip flopping. Bush and Cheney would , literally, go to one place and say one thing, and then 2 hours later be saying the exact opposite to a different group. Thtat's flip flopping, and the media never called them on it. They did this over and over again.
remind me which news source called it flip flopping? oh, right Fox.
Florida is why any race that falls withing the margin of error should be declared invalid and a stricter revote should happen. I wonder why those people that dump votes and intimidated vote counters were never brought to court?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oh dear. I guess I'm a troll for challenging the fact that Ron Paul is anything less that a God-King.
Yes, you are; and apparently quite the drama queen to boot.
Rather than engaging your turd-mined example of untruth from an unrelated portion of my source, let's find sources for the on-topic claims I actually made about Ron Paul's political positions:
Ooh, a high-and-mighty drama queen, even better!
Would allow prayer in schools: "The federal government has no authority to tell your public schools whether you have a prayer in school or not"
It doesn't; According to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" What part of that statement are you having trouble comprehending?
Church and state: "But, as far as church and state goes, the first amendment gives us a pretty hint: the Congress shall write no law, there are no prohibitions."
Again, read the Constitution. It states very clearly that the federal government is prohibited from passing laws in regard to religion; it does not, however, extend that limitation to the states. Therefore, if, say, Texas wanted to become a theocracy, that's Texas' business.
Personally I find that interpretation naive to the point of idiocy
Only because either A) you lack a basic understanding of context and the English language, or B) you disagree with it.
Sexual harassment: He wrote this in a book: "Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."
Source citation or it didn't happen.
Gay marriage: He sells cards of talking points in favor of DOMA on his website. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/protect-marriage-issue-cards-pack-of-100/
Ron Paul quote from the aforementioned cards:
I will stand against unconstitutional federal power grabs and will fight to protect each State's right not to be forced to recognize same-sex marriage against the will of the people."
Sounds like more of a state's rights issue to me. Nice misrepresentation there, tho; The question is, was your mistake intentional or out of ignorance?
Abortion: He sells similar talking point cards that dismiss even the possibility of a medically necessary abortion. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/a-pro-life-champion-issue-cards-pack-of-100/
Well, surely you're right on this one, and not again misrepresenting Paul's platform to support your own agenda... let's see...
From the card:
Ron Paul's "We The People Act" effectively repeals Roe v. Wade and would prevent activist judges from interfering with state decisions to protect life.
So again, we see that you are (likely intentionally) misrepresenting Paul's words to make his platform of state's rights seem more onerous than it actually is.
DADT: He voted to repeal it, but has now taken up the stance that it should be repealed...because he's so consistent and courageous, right?http://www.dailypaul.com/136125/patriot-ron-paul-changes-stance-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-votes-for-repeal
Yea, sounds like it; unless, of course, you're an abject failure at the basic art of proofreading... since surely someone who thinks as highly of themselves as you do
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Maybe a better idea would be to allow consumers to pool their resources together, much like a company does, to get better rates or allow consumers to buy insurance out of state.
You know, you're right! We should come together as individuals to form groups that would be bigger and more powerful to demand better rates. JUST LIKE A COMPANY DOES.
HEY! I have a FANTASTIC IDEA!
How about we ALL band together to form the BIGGEST group to demand the BEST rate from the insurance companies! All of us. Together. Of course, someone will have to lead this new-found group of insurance buyers. Since we're all in this together, how about we be democratic about and elect someone. Well, not just one person, there are a lot of sub-groups and interests among us, so how about a system of representatives along with the main dude. Well this is kinda complicated, so how about we have a side-group that's entirely dedicated to settling squabbles.
GEE, if only something like this ALREADY EXISTED.
So? Ad hominem much?
Not as much as you try to ignore the tainted nature of that guys links. The Koch family is typical pro-corporate wealthy republican. And boy are they pushing their agenda. You can't take anything they say about commoners' income seriously because they are so disconnected from that entire class. Facts like the GP's don't exist in a vacuum. There really is a difference between a poor starving child telling you to suck it up and be happy, and a wealthy businessman doing the same.
so let me get this right, I am allowed to move, as long as I dont say why I am moving??? doesnt that sound retarded to you??? To me it should be clear, "we cannot deal with your thug unions any longer, therefore we are moving to a more viable location" Why shouldnt the business be allowed to move, or even close its doors if it wants to??
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The pary stance is that two peopel of the same gener shoudn't be allowed to be together.
70 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about black people.
". It's Girl Scouts admitting gender confused pre-teens"
so?
" It's the banning of communities from renting public land to Boy Scouts because Boy Scouts' parents don't want gay men taking their boys camping."
They want to discriminate, so no, they shouldn't have access to government funded programs. Add to that they are a religious organization.
" It's the handing out of contraception or sexual literature to elementary school kids.
because pregnancy is better? Since it has been shown convulsively that abstinence programs do not work, what do you prose? For me, and presumable you, we tlak to our kids. We help them learn and make decisions. Many, many kids never even have the talk with there parents, much less learn how to make good decisions.
Bottoms line: YOU want to shove your religious beliefs down the public's throat.
"Right to work laws allow workers to accept a job at place where unions exist without being forced to join the union,
which would be fine if they didn't get any representation or participation in union contracts. But that doesn't happen.
It also creates an environment where people are hired based on a perception of whether or not they will join an union.
Why should I pay dues and not you even though you get the benefits?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
>You think this, because you only hear when Republicans block stuff, because you read news from sources biased to your views.
Not really. I'm not american, but I'm interested in politics and keep up to date. I keep an eye on CNN, FoxNews, and NBC. Without exception, "leftist" commentators make a much saner impression on me than conservatives. I also remember quite a few instances in the last 3 years in which Obama tried to garner support in order to work with Republicans. All they did in return was hijack the event by trying to look good on TV and confronting Obama with ludicrous, populist statements and accusations ("Mr. Obama - show me your birth certificate!"). Yes, remember that time at the Republican convention? It was painful to watch.
A good example of how the Republican party "works" is the tax policy. Even well known rich people have been telling the government to tax them more. The Bush-era taxcuts for rich people is unfair. Yet the Republican party refuses to let them go, all the while over simplyfing the situation on TV by claiming that Obama wants to raise taxes.
No sir, I am not blind. I am well aware that the Democratic party is not a party of selfless saints. But all what I have said about the Republican party is in plain sight of any neutral observer. It's not a coincidence that if Europe were to vote for an american party, 90% would vote Democrat.
Because they are MY stem cells, MY DNA, and MY eggs. The government doesn't get to tell me what to do with MY cells that make up MY body.
No, they are NOT! Go give a "fetus" a DNA test. You will find that it is NOT YOUR DNA. Roughly half of it came from you, but it is different than yours. Your DNA was yours when you were a fetus. It has not changed. Is your DNA the same as your mother's? Your child is your body just as you are currently your mothers.
And yes, the mother donates the egg. But the father donates the sperm. Just as much DNA is from the father than the mother. So, using your logic, shouldn't the father have just as much of a right to FORCE you to have an abortion? Since you are claiming ownership gives you the right to kill the child, the father is just as much an owner as you are, and, based on YOUR logic, should have the same rights. Or do you think that one sex should have more rights than others?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I'm sorry, I made a mistake. Project Gunrunner was the Bush Administration program. The Obama Administration program is Operation Fast & Furious. I cannot currently find the articles that talked about both the Bush Administration communication with the Mexican government and the lack of such communication by the Obama Administration.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I think they're probably about as good as .38 against a tank.
They guy in the tank has to come out to pee eventually.
The guy in the tank relies on gas from a guy who is not in a tank.
Modern military hardware cannot crush an armed populace wholly against you.
They can easily control an unarmed populace, even without a tank.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In my experience, both parties lose touch and experience creeping corruption when in power. I have observed, however, that it seems that the Republicans experience it faster
Note SEEMS.
You know what that is? Because as soon as a Republican is elected, the press are at them hammer and tongs to find anything that even LOOKS like corruption.
Meanwhile a Democrat elected has a press that buries stories about ACTUAL corruption or anything negative until it is so blindingly obvious that bloggers are embarrassing the media with reports (Edwards, Fast & Furious, etc).
If you are truly against corruption you should vote in the candidates the press actually looks for corruption in. Otherwise, you are just part of the coverup.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The difference being, of course, that under Bush it was managed correctly.
It's clear that Republicans want to lower taxes on the rich. For example, it's Republicans who push for flat taxes. This would shift the tax burden off the rich (who pay a higher percentage) and on the poor (who pay a lower percentage in taxes). Isn't it FOX news that was complaining last year about all the people who "aren't paying taxes" because they're too poor? (Actually, they didn't pay INCOME taxes, but they still paid FICA taxes and property taxes and sales tax.) Last year, one of my neighbors, who was a die-hard TEA party fan, was complaining about this and starting saying how everyone should pay a flat tax with no standard deduction. I said: "So, if taxes are set at 25%, then someone earns a million dollars a year they should have to pay 25% or $250,000 in taxes and someone who earns $20,000 should have to pay 25% or $5,000 in taxes?" Yes, she said. Obviously, compared to the current system, it should shift the tax burden onto the poor (who are trying to pay for food and housing) and off the rich (who will be able to buy another yacht).
Also, several of the Republican candidates this year had tax plans that would eliminate capital gains taxes. Capital Gains taxes are paid almost exclusively by the rich because they're the ones who own stock (the richest 20% of Americans own 91% of the stock). Right now, capital gains taxes are 15% (which is historically low). The reason Romney only paid 15% of his income in taxes last year was because he made virtually all his money from stocks - almost all rich people do. Warren Buffet said the same thing - he makes most of his money from stocks, and that's why he only paid 17% in taxes. Now, we've got Republican candidates talking about eliminating the capital gains taxes? This would mean that ultra-rich people like Romney and Warren Buffet will see their tax rates drop to almost ZERO. Everytime I see Republicans do something like this, I just can't believe how crazy they are, and they just keep managing to get crazier and crazier from year to year.
And Santorum - who's one of the top four Republican candidates - is talking about the dangers of birth control even when it's used by married people?
No, because what you say is incorrect. Unless by "core" you mean two old guys who are now dead.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Well, here is something you may not have considered; Whoever pays the bills makes the rules.
That's a good rule of thumb, but there's an even more important one that overrides it in this case: When you're sick, whomever has the power to provide (or deny) you health care makes the rules.
So previously, unless you are rich, that would be the insurance industry, which was free to deny you coverage, cancel your coverage, price coverage as high as possible to drive you into bankruptcy, and/or refuse to pay for needed services even if you had coverage, using whatever technicality they could dream up.
So while it's fun to imagine potential health care dystopias where faceless bureaucrats control your life through health care, let's not lose sight of the fact that we were already living in such a dystopia beforehand -- it's just that the bureaucrats' primary motivation was to "increase shareholder value". At least when the government is in control, non-rich people have a means to change unpopular policies through voting and political pressure. When it's a private company that's controlling your life, there is no democratic recourse. You take what you get and like it. The standard capitalist remedy of "don't like the service? Switch to a better competing company" doesn't work for health insurance, when you're already sick and no competing company is willing to cover you, and the insurance companies all know that.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
When I became of age, my first part time job was working at Kroger as a sacker. Being the naive teenager that I was, I let myself get duped into signing for the union. The signup meeting among all employees was full of "rah rah rah", you'll never get fired because we will be there for you. Come first few paychecks, I noticed a substantial amount detected to pay for the union dues. As a teen looking for spare income from a suck-ass job, I was pissed.
As for the folks who are full time employees in the Kroger union. Well... Let's just say they're mentally disadvantaged. I'm not talking down on them. I'm simply stating that I did not belong with that group of people if I wished to further my life's goals. God bless them.
Life is not for the lazy.
Abortion is the taking of a human life. You don't think it's a human life? Um, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not?
More importantly, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not?
Excellent point. I'll err on the side of caution and assume that if it has human DNA, independent brain waves and a heart beat, then it is a living human being.
Or, we could wait a few years and ask it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Never mind the fact that the reason your employer offers such benefits is largely because they must compete against companies that offer similar or better benefits...which only offer them because a union in that other shop demanded them.
The existence of unions has drastically improved the benefits, security, and quality of life of all workers in all fields, reguardless if they are unionized or not. The workers rights and benefits unions fight for extend far, far beyond just the workers and shops that are unionized.
My
By that logic, eggs and sperm have the same rights you do.
My GOD! What is wrong with people today? The first dumbass stated that her child's DNA is the same as hers, now this moron is saying that eggs and sperm have the same DNA as a person.
Let me help you out here. There are 23 genes in an egg and 23 genes in a sperm cell. There are 46 genes in a human. Now, since it is obvious that math is not your best subject, let me give you a hint:
23 != 46
An intelligent argument can be made for the idea that abortion is wrong. Yours is not such an argument.
Great! The math major is judging the intelligence of my argument.
there are too many points where you have to make a judgment call about why things are moral.
Judgment call? Um, do a DNA test, listen for a heartbeat, scan for brain activity. Where's the judgment call?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.