>>>He'd like to balance the budget while simultaneously eliminating the federal income tax and the IRS.
FALSE.
I really wish people would pay better attention. His plan is to phase-out the income tax *over twenty years* time. To quote him: "It took a long time to get this deep in debt, and it would take a long time to pay it off. We need to phase it out gradually."
- Washington freed his. - John Adams live in the north where slavery was illegal. - And Jefferson tried to free his slaves but the Bankers over-ruled him ("WE own those slaves, not you."). So Jefferson never owned the slaves - they were the property of wealthier men who collected them immediately after Jefferson's death.
He did manage to bring us religious freedom (amended to the US and Virginia Constitutions), which would won him a lot of votes, even today.
I'm about to be fine ~$1000 because I didn't insure my body.
How is that "bettering" my life? I would argue that, just as a woman owns her body and has a right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, I too own my body and have a right to decide whether or not to sell it to Nationwide, Allstate, AARP, and other insurance companies. (I choose not to.)
Why should I be PUNISHED because of my decision? Answer: Because the congress (except ron paul) has sold out to the insurance companies and hatched this plan to give them ~50 million new customers. I'd frankly prefer the Reps did nothing, then pass ridiculous laws that punish americans for making the "wrong" choice.
"Freedom is not safe as long as Congress is in session." - Mark Twain.
You said a negative thing about Obama. (steps back to avoid flames)
BTW "The Obama Deception" was yanked off youtube by Google & Biden cooperating with one another. Along with several hundred blogger websites. So much for fucking freedom.
I saw several Republican congressman READ directly from the bill, followed by explanations of why they think that section needed to be modified, as Obama listened. Why you missed that is beyond me, unless you fell asleep or are so filled with anti-Republican hate that you refused to hear what was going on.
Recently the UK government came-up with the idea of taking people's paychecks. Completely. And then handing-back an allowance to the citizens. I suspect that's what Obama truly desires which is why he said, "The Republicans should sit in the back and keep quiet." Does that sound like a president desiring to have open exchange???
Of course you'll now claim you never heard Obama say that, but that merely demonstrates you are not informed. I've seen the video on TV and aired on radio, multiple times. Obama is the one who was close-minded.
Dems or Repubs. They are both fuckign dicks. Why you people continue to "defend" the Dems/Obama Bush/Repubs makes no sense to mer. You are fucking fools. WAKE UP people.
Why would you oppose treating Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs as common carriers (like phonelines) required to carry all websites regardless of content? I don't get it.
>>> Bush regularly got votes from Democratic politicians even on controversial items like the Patriot Act.
No surprise there. It was written by a Democrat (Biden).
As for Obama, the media is in love with him. See the MSNBC videos of reporters crying because they were so happy, and they still love Obama (although that is starting to fade). And finally: As I told someone else below, the Republicans met with Obama in late-2009 and tried to compromise with him on the Healthcare Bill (it was broadcast on national tv) but he was unwilling to listen: "No I'm sorry I'm not changing that section."
Don't believe me? Remember what Obama said: "The Republicans can just take a seat in the back and keep quiet."
John McCain. He believes Net Neutrality is just an internet version of Fairness Doctrine.
Most republicans do, and I suspect a lot of Democrats also think NN==FD which is why they support it (Dems love that doctrine). See recent Democrat Congressmen's comments about yanking FOX News and MSNBC off the air and/or requiring them to be government-regulated to ensure balance in their reports.
I wonder if any of the original Founders would be electable.
George Washington was a war hero, so yeah probably, but I doubt we'd see John Adams or Thomas Jefferson get into the modern presidency..... which is rather sad when you think about it. Adams would be labeled a "nerd" and "too ill to serve" while Jefferson would be labeled an anti-government anarchist (like Ron Paul gets labeled) and crushed by the modern media.
>>>that is what defines the Republican Party: all opposition all the time; let there be no successes under Democrats.
Good. The Democrats deserve to be opposed when they are trying to take-away your Pro-Choice rights. Look at that ridiculous fine they just passed: "Buy insurance else you'll be punished $950." The Democrats and their supporters don't seem to understand:
It's MY body and I have a right to decide whether or not I wish to insure it, just as a woman has a right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to its en. But the Democrats oppose body rights - hence the passage of the law to FINE you if you don't sell your body to Nationwide or Allstate or AARP or some other insurance company.
Her supporters also get riled-up when the Democrats call Palin a "dumb bitch" or her daughter a "hooker".
Well: At least Palin and Obama agree on one thing. "Track down and arrest the Wikileaks founder." I'm surprised a crack has not opened-up and led to another universe. On second though no I'm not surprised: Regardless of party, leaders love to silence people who challenge their power. I'm surprised Assange has not been assassinated yet.
NPR has trained you well. Repeat the NPR mantra after me: "Libertarians? Morons. Constitutionalists? Morons. Pro-small-government? Morons. We shall do everything we can to marginalize or just plain ignore these anti-government persons... including firing our one and only Libertarian off the staff for something he said while off the clock."
>>>Do you have a regular landline? That is regulated as a common carrier by the FCC? >>>I thought not.
No you assumed wrong. (Fell into that didn't ya?) I still have a landline. It's how the both the phone signal and the DSL comes into the house. The FCC also regulates the Coax cable line that runs into homes (must carry rules, et cetera). The FCC has the power to label both these as "common carriers" and require they carry all traffic regardless of content. But for some reason, they refuse to do it.
>>>if you seriously believe that even House Republicans are stupid enough to believe that,
Belief is no required. Just listen to Beck or Limbaugh or Hannity. They ALL equate Net Neutrality to a revival of the Fairness Doctrine, but under a new name. They strongly oppose FD therefore they oppose NN.
>>>You're out of your gourd
No I pay attention to what Republicans are saying. You apparently do not. .
>>>that is what defines the Republican Party: all opposition all the time; let there be no successes under Democrats.
Good. The Democrats are national socialists. They deserve to be opposed when they are trying to take-away your Pro-Choice rights. Look at that ridiculous fine: "Buy insurance else you'll be fined $950." It's MY body and I have a right to decide whether or not I wish to insure it, just as a woman has a right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to its end. But the Democrats oppose body rights - hence the passage of the law to FINE you.
Anon. Coward writes: >>>Go tell whoever is paying you to be a troll that we are on to you.
Oh. I know you! You're a conspiracist! You're Alex Jones. Hello Alex. And no I'm not getting paid to troll so try a different theory that's nut so..... nuts.
Exactly. Republicans believe Net Neutrality is simply a new name for an old idea: Fairness Doctrine. And they oppose the Fairness Doctrine, because they think it means Rush Limbaugh (or Glenn Beck) will be yanked off the air and replaced with Rachel Maddow, per the requirement of the Fairness Doctrine.
They also think the doctrine violates Amendment 1 (your website will have to give equal time to opinions with which you disagree). So anyway - they oppose FD therefore they oppose NN, because they consider them the same thing.
Actually the antecedent is "Republicans" in your message:
"House Republicans have already promised to oppose..... I'm always amused that politicians talk about intelligence and maturity and wisdom but then they act like a three year old..." It's pretty obvious you were taking a slam against the R party, but nice try to backpeddle. You did it as well as a politician does it.
In any case do you think the result would be any different if this was 2007? If Bush's FCC was trying to push through net neutrality, then you'd have the Democrats saying they'll oppose it simply because it's Bush doing it (just as they opposed Eisenhower's Civil Rights Act in the 50s). These idiots don't have any loyalty to the Country. They are too busy fighting each other as if it were the super bowl.
>>>repubs flat out as a party refused to discuss any issue related to the matter.
The fact the Republicans met with Obama in late 2009, brought copies of the healthcare bill, and discussed with the president which *specific* sections they liked or did not like, disproves your assertion. Would you like me to post the video? The Republicans demonstrated a willingness to be open-minded and work with the president, but he shot them down almost every time they opened their mouths by saying, "No sorry I'm not willing to change that section."
So your comment that Repubs refused to read or meet or discuss the Bill is wrong, wrong, wrong. The reason the Health bill barely passed was because of opposition *within* the Democrat party. Else it would have passed easily with ~60% (the number of democrats in the Congress) and not needing one single R vote.
What's more foolish? The Republicans? Or the fool who thinks the Democrats are any better? They aren't. They are both dicks.
Anyway they oppose the FCC Chairman because they think he's trying to yank rushlimbaugh.com, glennbeck.com, and others off the net using a modern variant of the Fairness Doctrine (but called net neutrality). It's not about opposing for the sake of opposing. The Republicans generally think the FCC CHAIR is trying to censor the net.
And given what the FCC has done in the past (see their lawsuit against a christian station that refused to air Democrat ads), I can understand the R's fears.
You know, prior to government regulation (i.e. late 1800s and early 1900s), people had choice among many electricity providers. Wires were running everywhere and you could choose which company you wanted. Then the city or county government stepped-in, picked their favorite company, and gave said company a monopoly.
Your belief that government does not like monopoly is mistaken. Governments LOVE monopoly and if local governments stopped giving "exclusive franchises" to Comcast, we'd probably be able to choose from Comcast or Cox or Cablevision or ATT or Verizon or AppleTV or..... There'd no longer be any restriction to who could enter your neighborhood and sell you service.
>>>They're against govt. regulation and pro business
So too are the Democrats. How else do you explain the D White House yanking websites? Or pushing COICA in the congress? Or running-around the world and demanding countries sign the ACTA? Or supporting 3 Strike Laws w/o a right to trial? Obviously: To protect their business friends in Hollywood and crush those teenagers who dare download Britney Spears.
D or R - it matters little. They're both a-holes. Both shills of their corporate masters. The fact you (and many others) can't see it, I find very troubling.
No mostly the former. Republicans believe Net Neutrality is simply a new name for an old idea: Fairness Doctrine. And they oppose the Fairness Doctrine completely and totally, because they think it means Rush Limbaugh (or Glenn Beck) will be yanked off the air and replaced with Rachel Maddow, per the requirement of the Fairness Doctrine. They also think the doctrine violates Amendment 1 (your station can say anything it wants w/o restriction).
So anyway - they oppose FD therefore they oppose NN, because they consider them the same.
It's difficult to compromise when the choice is between enslavement with chains around your neck, or a plush felt collar. The latter IS a better compromise but the end result is still Anti-choice and Anti-freedom.
Obama keeps pushing ideas that would take away freedom of choice, and leave us as Wards of the new Lords... like serfs. He who holds the money, holds a monopoly and the citizens are left with no options.
>>>You need a hybrid system where critical economic infrastructure is protected from wild fluxuations in price, and where there is government oversight to prevent any corporation from monopolizing such infrastructure >>>
Hey Mussolini! Is that you? Yep. We should have private corporations but under the control of government, to order them when and what to build. AKA national socialism, aka fascism. Preach it man.
>>>Free (unregulated) markets don't work.
Damn straight. What we need is an ANTI-choice market. Everything controlled by government because the People are too damn dumb to make their own choice. Govt-run public or private monopoly is the way to go. What do people need 10 grocery stores or car makers or ISPs for? 1 is enough. No choice but the approved choice./end sarcasm
Slashdot Mirror
>>>He'd like to balance the budget while simultaneously eliminating the federal income tax and the IRS.
FALSE.
I really wish people would pay better attention. His plan is to phase-out the income tax *over twenty years* time. To quote him: "It took a long time to get this deep in debt, and it would take a long time to pay it off. We need to phase it out gradually."
None of these men owned slaves.
- Washington freed his.
- John Adams live in the north where slavery was illegal.
- And Jefferson tried to free his slaves but the Bankers over-ruled him ("WE own those slaves, not you."). So Jefferson never owned the slaves - they were the property of wealthier men who collected them immediately after Jefferson's death.
He did manage to bring us religious freedom (amended to the US and Virginia Constitutions), which would won him a lot of votes, even today.
I'm about to be fine ~$1000 because I didn't insure my body.
How is that "bettering" my life? I would argue that, just as a woman owns her body and has a right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, I too own my body and have a right to decide whether or not to sell it to Nationwide, Allstate, AARP, and other insurance companies. (I choose not to.)
Why should I be PUNISHED because of my decision? Answer: Because the congress (except ron paul) has sold out to the insurance companies and hatched this plan to give them ~50 million new customers. I'd frankly prefer the Reps did nothing, then pass ridiculous laws that punish americans for making the "wrong" choice.
"Freedom is not safe as long as Congress is in session." - Mark Twain.
You said a negative thing about Obama.
(steps back to avoid flames)
BTW "The Obama Deception" was yanked off youtube by Google & Biden cooperating with one another. Along with several hundred blogger websites. So much for fucking freedom.
I saw several Republican congressman READ directly from the bill, followed by explanations of why they think that section needed to be modified, as Obama listened. Why you missed that is beyond me, unless you fell asleep or are so filled with anti-Republican hate that you refused to hear what was going on.
Recently the UK government came-up with the idea of taking people's paychecks. Completely. And then handing-back an allowance to the citizens. I suspect that's what Obama truly desires which is why he said, "The Republicans should sit in the back and keep quiet." Does that sound like a president desiring to have open exchange???
Of course you'll now claim you never heard Obama say that, but that merely demonstrates you are not informed. I've seen the video on TV and aired on radio, multiple times. Obama is the one who was close-minded.
Dems or Repubs. They are both fuckign dicks.
Why you people continue to "defend" the Dems/Obama Bush/Repubs makes no sense to mer.
You are fucking fools. WAKE UP people.
Why would you oppose treating Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs as common carriers (like phonelines) required to carry all websites regardless of content?
I don't get it.
>>> Bush regularly got votes from Democratic politicians even on controversial items like the Patriot Act.
No surprise there.
It was written by a Democrat (Biden).
As for Obama, the media is in love with him. See the MSNBC videos of reporters crying because they were so happy, and they still love Obama (although that is starting to fade). And finally: As I told someone else below, the Republicans met with Obama in late-2009 and tried to compromise with him on the Healthcare Bill (it was broadcast on national tv) but he was unwilling to listen: "No I'm sorry I'm not changing that section."
Don't believe me? Remember what Obama said: "The Republicans can just take a seat in the back and keep quiet."
>if that includes any in office
John McCain. He believes Net Neutrality is just an internet version of Fairness Doctrine.
Most republicans do, and I suspect a lot of Democrats also think NN==FD which is why they support it (Dems love that doctrine). See recent Democrat Congressmen's comments about yanking FOX News and MSNBC off the air and/or requiring them to be government-regulated to ensure balance in their reports.
I wonder if any of the original Founders would be electable.
George Washington was a war hero, so yeah probably, but I doubt we'd see John Adams or Thomas Jefferson get into the modern presidency..... which is rather sad when you think about it. Adams would be labeled a "nerd" and "too ill to serve" while Jefferson would be labeled an anti-government anarchist (like Ron Paul gets labeled) and crushed by the modern media.
>>>that is what defines the Republican Party: all opposition all the time; let there be no successes under Democrats.
Good. The Democrats deserve to be opposed when they are trying to take-away your Pro-Choice rights. Look at that ridiculous fine they just passed: "Buy insurance else you'll be punished $950." The Democrats and their supporters don't seem to understand:
It's MY body and I have a right to decide whether or not I wish to insure it, just as a woman has a right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to its en. But the Democrats oppose body rights - hence the passage of the law to FINE you if you don't sell your body to Nationwide or Allstate or AARP or some other insurance company.
--
Her supporters also get riled-up when the Democrats call Palin a "dumb bitch" or her daughter a "hooker".
Well:
At least Palin and Obama agree on one thing.
"Track down and arrest the Wikileaks founder."
I'm surprised a crack has not opened-up and led to another universe. On second though no I'm not surprised: Regardless of party, leaders love to silence people who challenge their power. I'm surprised Assange has not been assassinated yet.
Ron Paul is worthless?
He's anti-war.
Anti-global US empire.
Anti-US acting as world's policeman.
And pro-balance the budget and pay off the enormous debt.
I'd like to clone him about 435 times and let them run the Congress.
>>>morons here
NPR has trained you well. Repeat the NPR mantra after me: "Libertarians? Morons. Constitutionalists? Morons. Pro-small-government? Morons. We shall do everything we can to marginalize or just plain ignore these anti-government persons... including firing our one and only Libertarian off the staff for something he said while off the clock."
Well done Citizen.
NPR admits Liberal Bias - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200311/ai_n9317144/
>>>Do you have a regular landline? That is regulated as a common carrier by the FCC?
>>>I thought not.
No you assumed wrong.
(Fell into that didn't ya?)
I still have a landline. It's how the both the phone signal and the DSL comes into the house. The FCC also regulates the Coax cable line that runs into homes (must carry rules, et cetera). The FCC has the power to label both these as "common carriers" and require they carry all traffic regardless of content. But for some reason, they refuse to do it.
>>>if you seriously believe that even House Republicans are stupid enough to believe that,
Belief is no required. Just listen to Beck or Limbaugh or Hannity. They ALL equate Net Neutrality to a revival of the Fairness Doctrine, but under a new name. They strongly oppose FD therefore they oppose NN.
>>>You're out of your gourd
No I pay attention to what Republicans are saying.
You apparently do not.
.
>>>that is what defines the Republican Party: all opposition all the time; let there be no successes under Democrats.
Good. The Democrats are national socialists. They deserve to be opposed when they are trying to take-away your Pro-Choice rights. Look at that ridiculous fine: "Buy insurance else you'll be fined $950." It's MY body and I have a right to decide whether or not I wish to insure it, just as a woman has a right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to its end. But the Democrats oppose body rights - hence the passage of the law to FINE you.
Anon. Coward writes:
>>>Go tell whoever is paying you to be a troll that we are on to you.
Oh. I know you! You're a conspiracist! You're Alex Jones. Hello Alex. And no I'm not getting paid to troll so try a different theory that's nut so..... nuts.
>>>This is more ignorance than evil.
Exactly. Republicans believe Net Neutrality is simply a new name for an old idea: Fairness Doctrine. And they oppose the Fairness Doctrine, because they think it means Rush Limbaugh (or Glenn Beck) will be yanked off the air and replaced with Rachel Maddow, per the requirement of the Fairness Doctrine.
They also think the doctrine violates Amendment 1 (your website will have to give equal time to opinions with which you disagree). So anyway - they oppose FD therefore they oppose NN, because they consider them the same thing.
Actually the antecedent is "Republicans" in your message:
"House Republicans have already promised to oppose..... I'm always amused that politicians talk about intelligence and maturity and wisdom but then they act like a three year old..." It's pretty obvious you were taking a slam against the R party, but nice try to backpeddle. You did it as well as a politician does it.
In any case do you think the result would be any different if this was 2007? If Bush's FCC was trying to push through net neutrality, then you'd have the Democrats saying they'll oppose it simply because it's Bush doing it (just as they opposed Eisenhower's Civil Rights Act in the 50s). These idiots don't have any loyalty to the Country. They are too busy fighting each other as if it were the super bowl.
>>>repubs flat out as a party refused to discuss any issue related to the matter.
The fact the Republicans met with Obama in late 2009, brought copies of the healthcare bill, and discussed with the president which *specific* sections they liked or did not like, disproves your assertion. Would you like me to post the video? The Republicans demonstrated a willingness to be open-minded and work with the president, but he shot them down almost every time they opened their mouths by saying, "No sorry I'm not willing to change that section."
So your comment that Repubs refused to read or meet or discuss the Bill is wrong, wrong, wrong. The reason the Health bill barely passed was because of opposition *within* the Democrat party. Else it would have passed easily with ~60% (the number of democrats in the Congress) and not needing one single R vote.
What's more foolish? The Republicans? Or the fool who thinks the Democrats are any better? They aren't. They are both dicks.
Anyway they oppose the FCC Chairman because they think he's trying to yank rushlimbaugh.com, glennbeck.com, and others off the net using a modern variant of the Fairness Doctrine (but called net neutrality). It's not about opposing for the sake of opposing. The Republicans generally think the FCC CHAIR is trying to censor the net.
And given what the FCC has done in the past (see their lawsuit against a christian station that refused to air Democrat ads), I can understand the R's fears.
You know, prior to government regulation (i.e. late 1800s and early 1900s), people had choice among many electricity providers. Wires were running everywhere and you could choose which company you wanted. Then the city or county government stepped-in, picked their favorite company, and gave said company a monopoly.
Your belief that government does not like monopoly is mistaken. Governments LOVE monopoly and if local governments stopped giving "exclusive franchises" to Comcast, we'd probably be able to choose from Comcast or Cox or Cablevision or ATT or Verizon or AppleTV or..... There'd no longer be any restriction to who could enter your neighborhood and sell you service.
But government doesn't want that.
>>>They're against govt. regulation and pro business
So too are the Democrats. How else do you explain the D White House yanking websites? Or pushing COICA in the congress? Or running-around the world and demanding countries sign the ACTA? Or supporting 3 Strike Laws w/o a right to trial? Obviously: To protect their business friends in Hollywood and crush those teenagers who dare download Britney Spears.
D or R - it matters little. They're both a-holes. Both shills of their corporate masters.
The fact you (and many others) can't see it, I find very troubling.
No mostly the former. Republicans believe Net Neutrality is simply a new name for an old idea: Fairness Doctrine. And they oppose the Fairness Doctrine completely and totally, because they think it means Rush Limbaugh (or Glenn Beck) will be yanked off the air and replaced with Rachel Maddow, per the requirement of the Fairness Doctrine. They also think the doctrine violates Amendment 1 (your station can say anything it wants w/o restriction).
So anyway - they oppose FD therefore they oppose NN, because they consider them the same.
It's difficult to compromise when the choice is between enslavement with chains around your neck, or a plush felt collar. The latter IS a better compromise but the end result is still Anti-choice and Anti-freedom.
Obama keeps pushing ideas that would take away freedom of choice, and leave us as Wards of the new Lords... like serfs. He who holds the money, holds a monopoly and the citizens are left with no options.
>>>You need a hybrid system where critical economic infrastructure is protected from wild fluxuations in price, and where there is government oversight to prevent any corporation from monopolizing such infrastructure
>>>
Hey Mussolini! Is that you? Yep. We should have private corporations but under the control of government, to order them when and what to build. AKA national socialism, aka fascism. Preach it man.
>>>Free (unregulated) markets don't work.
Damn straight. What we need is an ANTI-choice market. Everything controlled by government because the People are too damn dumb to make their own choice. Govt-run public or private monopoly is the way to go. What do people need 10 grocery stores or car makers or ISPs for? 1 is enough. No choice but the approved choice. /end sarcasm