Christopher Tolkein is an asshole. He greedily hangs onto the JRRT manuscripts he's hoarded, "completing" them when he finds the time, then releases unreadable garbage. The Silmarillion, which he barely touched, was OK, but clearly lacked the JRRT editing which produced the LotR masterpieces. Unfinished Tales should have been left unfinished, though mostly JRRT content. Tales from the Elvish showed that CT is a poser putting out worthless crap, as has everything else following.
To complete the picture, CT also said the LotR movies were bad, because Jackson wouldn't let him butcher it (or get much more money for his "efforts").
The more CT touches anything, the worse it is. And despite the greatest role model in the world, he's no Frodo to JRRT's Bilbo.
I mentioned the source for the "claim vs fact" of Rice's statement: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJR J8OVF&b=44918, which included LA Times and WhiteHouse.gov sources for those Genoa statements. But the LAT page is gone, and the WH page doesn't support the citation. After this problem was brought to my attention a few minutes ago, I emailed the AmProg website complaining, asking for an explanation. Until I get one, I'm no longer posting anything on the subject.
Imagine for a moment that the cartel was broken and oil could be sold by one supplier for a lower price. That supplier would sell all the oil, and make even more profit, though at a lower margin. Since that isn't happening, it's clear the cartel isn't broken.
Price caps are far from the only tool the people in a market use to protect ourselves from market manipulation.
Maybe I did, though a perplexing one. I just copied the links to LAT/WH from the page from which I copied the linked text. The WH page is deleted, but remains in the Google cache. It's a Q/A session with Rice from Genoa on the cited date, but it doesn't mention the planebomb threat or that kind of subject at all. The LAT story isn't in their own archive, and though that issue is in the Wayback Machine, I can't find it so easily.
The WH page status is especially fishy. I'm sending this message to the American Progress website to find out what's going on, before I post on this subject again. Thanks for checking this out and revealing the problem with it.
There's a free market in oil corp stocks, and I applaud your use of their profits to undermine them.
There is not, however, a free market in retail gas. Or oil for that matter. If there were, then some oil corps would be charging less, losing some profitability per barrel, and selling more barrels, making more profit - the entire point of the game for these master game players. The huge profits and same prices across the board mean they're in collusion, and there's no free market.
I just hope the power grid is still a free market for prosumers like you by the time everyone is doing it, and oil corps control that business too, the Enron bizmodel.
"Since 2001, 1.7 million new jobs have been added in the health-care sector, which includes related industries such as pharmaceuticals and health insurance. Meanwhile, the number of private-sector jobs outside of health care is no higher than it was five years ago."
The article says there are no new jobs outside healthcare. Don't bother looking for more complex stats to derive. My numbers are clean.
And of course I'm not saying healthcare should be creating more jobs. In fact, as the article also states about healthcare's inefficiency, healthcare is sucking the rest of the economy's money into inefficient jobs. Healthcare jobs should be decreased for more productive use of the money propping it up, and for better healthcare, not just more healthcare.
The messed up part of you reading my post is not at the end where my numbers or words come from.
How about encouraging reduced demand through efficiency, like the CAFE standars?
How does increasing the refining capacity decrease the vast profits American oil corps are making?
If you don't see how the huge layoffs at US carmakers, as an example of the rest of our economy in decline, is related to the "Much Ado about Gas Prices", then you're not reading my post. You're just spinning the same stuff the oil corp execs spun at the Senate hearings where they weren't even sworn in.
GM's layoffs are especially relevant to the way I made my point. GM blames healthcare costs, the other big story on the US economy on Slashdot today, for their layoffs. Decreased demand for 12MPG SUVs at $3:gal gas couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.
I didn't say anthing about how to recover those jobs. But I did point out that oil corp profit is quintuple. The tweaks and spin you mention are peanuts compared to the real factors at work: the unregulated profiteering. Which is in turn war profiteering, as the price rises are justified by "increased risks", like botched invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving Osama to run free...
Oil still costs about $12:bbl to extract from the ground, and deliver to the refinery as it did in 2001. It still costs the same to refine it to gas and deliver it to your pump. But oil costs about $75 now, not $25. That means that we're not looking at just a tripling of price in 5 years, but rather almost five times the profit. While the rest of the country's economy, except for these energy corporations and banks, is stagnant or shrinking.
When the biggest corporations are having the best years of their lives at the expense of the people having some of their worst years, we should be hearing about it. We should be hearing about it even more. Speaking of hearings, when Congress has hearings on the subject, they should put these oil corporation tycoons under oath, but they don't. The CEO of Exxon/Mobil who was given the photo op for lying to the Senate was then given a $400 million bonus when he retired.
Oh yeah, people talk about that, especially when they get laid off. In a decent country, people would be talking about how those abuses led to the American oil/gas cartel getting broken up and reined in.
In July 2001, Rice was the top national security advisor with Bush at the G8 Summit in Genoa. They were told that Islamic terrorists might crash planes into the summit, and the airspace was closed, with antiaircraft guns posted at the airport she used.
In August 2001, Rice and Bush got the PDB saying "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US", a title she remembered when publicly questioned in 2002.
In September 2001, Islamic terrorists crashed planes into the WTC and the Pentagon.
In 2002 she said she didn't remember the Genoa warnings, or any other.
She also lied through the entire 2001-6 period to support lies about Iraq being a cakewalk, connected to Osama, any number of lies to protect her job after blowing it.
If you think she didn't remember in 2002 the warnings that directly threatened her life and Bush's in 2001, then you have as much business commenting on state matters as she has in running them.
The sources cited for Rice's lies are the 9/11 Commission Report, the LA Times and the White House. You find an excuse that they're collated by American Progress, a progressive (not "anticonservative", though they're not "Conservative") group, to question their veracity. You say "no one told us" and "she was told" aren't contradictory. You call that kind of simple question "microanalysis", and say she shouldn't be expected to remember anything at all. Because somehow answering lots of questions about the most important matters makes them harder to remember for the most powerful people, on whom we depend to protect our lives and liberty.
Any honest person would look at Rice's statements and know she's obviously lying. Anyone with any doubt would actually look at the sources for more detail, rather than find an excuse to dismiss them because they were collated by a progressive group. You have outed yourself as one of these fake "Conservatives", the kind of radical who keeps Bush and Rice in office where they lie and fail. You are a liar. The point I dug up exposes not only Rice, but you too.
You can go ahead and try to defend your lies. But when you post something like that, starting out with fancy lying like "Not that I'm going to defend Ms. Rice's truthfulness of lack thereof" followed by defense of her lying, it doesn't matter what you say anymore. Your lies are as worthless as Rice's. If only Rice were as irrelevant to my safety as you are.
"Since 2001, 1.7 million new jobs have been added in the health-care sector, which includes related industries such as pharmaceuticals and health insurance. Meanwhile, the number of private-sector jobs outside of health care is no higher than it was five years ago."
The medical industry just isn't meeting the challenge. We can't blame Bush for that, because he's maiming as many people in Iraq and Afghanistan as he can (numbers higher in secret CIA prisons).
Citing Rice assuring us that the 2004 elections would be held to reassure us that the 2006 or 2008 or 2010 elections will be held is meaningless rhetoric.
Citing Rice assuring us of anything is meaningless rhetoric. Her poster is captioned "even a broken clock is right twice a day".
Arguing with you about the 2004 elections is for straw men. Citing Rice is for fools.
They can be counted on to lie. Especially when lying gets people to ignore their crimes. At this point, anyone holding their uncorroborated statements up as proof of anything is a liar, too.
Condoleeza Rice: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." [responding to Kean] FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01; White House release, 7/22/01]
Rhetoric? You cite Rice's reassurance that her gang won't postpone elections as reason to "cool the rhetoric"? Why wouldn't she lie, especially if it got people off our guard?
I bet you didn't say anything like that in public in 1996 when Clinton was reelected, reassuring us that any purported Democratic vote fraud was "nothing new, don't worry your pretty little head about it".
Democrats didn't "stand by idly", but were locked out of any action. As you'd know if you'd RTFA, rather than just rush to First Post some spin to excuse Republican vote fraud "because everyone does it".
Don't you think that Harris saying 2004 in Ohio was as bad as it's ever been, meaning it's worse than almost every other election? If 2006 is rigged even worse, will that still be OK? Where is your limit to accepting vote fraud, where you no longer think "bad enough" is OK? When Democrats do it someday?
Universities generate $millions, sometimes $BILLIONS, in profits, justified by their teaching mission. Meanwhile, cheating jeopardizes entire careers, or at least expensive investments in college careers. That sounds like a big demand for countercheating software and techniques. And colleges are full of people who produce software.
It really sounds like catching cheating isn't a priority for colleges, which are the missing link in those mechanics. Maybe they just don't want to make their product, diplomas, more expensive.
I know. I started the discussion stating that contingency, but dropped it in subsequent discussion. Maybe it's the time dilation after successive rapid rotations around a dense point.
Bush restructured FEMA into Homeland Security, his biggest claim to fame. He appointed Chertoff. Brown was a Republican crony exactly like hundreds, thousands in Bush's administration.
Bush is responsible for all that. That's how being the boss works. Bush worshippers respond to Bush's stupidity by saying "but he picks smart people to work for him", then say it's not Bush's fault when those people are stupid or worse.
It's absolutely consistent that you would say that Bush isn't also responsible for the Katrina disaster, chiefly so. I'm surprised only that you didn't claim that "no one anticipated that the levees would fail" to protect Bush. And I'm not surprised that you cough up that same old Republican gibberish about me "blaming everything wrong in the world on Bush". I make specific charges, where Bush is responsible. Your hyperbolic straw man is Republican 101. As is trying to switch the argument to "Democrats aren't blameless in everything".
Of course it's a waste of time arguing like that with me. But it's not a waste arguing with you. Because reality is on my side. Eventually the facts will sink in, even to stubborn deniers like you. For every American's sake, I hope you get it before much more damage is done. Especially if you can open your ears before November 7.
Another way to look at the rise of American communism during the depression, and the installation of Social Security, is that Americans, like everyone else in the world, gradually expected our government to protect the basic economic survival of everyone in the country, at the cost of everyone in the country. Social programs offered a degree of socialism that satisfied what would otherwise have let Americans go overboard with full "communism".
This happened practically everywhere in the world. Despite communism being designed for an industrialized country, the industrialized countries have produced socialism, which is most certainly not communism (as any reading of Marx/Engels or any actual communist political economics will make clear). Only agrarian countries became communist. America reflected that difference, as a huge country mostly agrarian but containing a huge industry elsewhere as well. As we industrialized the agrarian areas during the 20th Century socialism has become more popular, while communism is basically dead except among a tiny fringe of political radicals who mostly don't really understand economics.
In other words, the American flexible, self-modifying representation political system took the pressure off to dodge the communism bullet.
I agree with your take on the Republicans march in the other direction, into fascism. But do you have a citation for this "24 million Americans in concentration camps" Bush plan that you mentioned?
I said "the Republican Congress is facing losing reelection in only 7 weeks, on November 7, 2006". You can't see that that means "replacing the Republican Congress could change policy at the FCC". I quote Bush talking about how lowering expecations is his job, but of course that applies only to his reading list - even though he has repeated that policy whenever he though he could get away with calling it a "joke", and anyone watching can see he lives it.
If I go so far as to say people should vote for Democrats instead of Republicans, then of course I'm a "Flamebaiter" or a "Troll"... or "Offtopic", or "Overrated", according to the anonymous moderators who suppress my posts when it offends their ever vigilant defense of our pathetically weak, yet destructive, president.
You're a Republican apologist. You go out of your way to twist into defending Bush, and into attacking me because I didn't post what you would post. You go ahead and say people should vote for Democrats instead of Republicans, instead of making the simple point that the FCC is the product of Republican rule, led by Bush who's in charge of Republicans, the FCC, and practically the entire government.
I point out that "news" need not be surprising, and you've got a problem with that, too. Sure you're not a Republican. Maybe you're a witch or a communist. You've got the basic problems with logic that qualify you.
Slashdot Mirror
The many broken Diebold problems in so many ways make it clear that Diebold's execs have nothing but contempt for voting. Why do they hate America?
Christopher Tolkein is an asshole. He greedily hangs onto the JRRT manuscripts he's hoarded, "completing" them when he finds the time, then releases unreadable garbage. The Silmarillion, which he barely touched, was OK, but clearly lacked the JRRT editing which produced the LotR masterpieces. Unfinished Tales should have been left unfinished, though mostly JRRT content. Tales from the Elvish showed that CT is a poser putting out worthless crap, as has everything else following.
To complete the picture, CT also said the LotR movies were bad, because Jackson wouldn't let him butcher it (or get much more money for his "efforts").
The more CT touches anything, the worse it is. And despite the greatest role model in the world, he's no Frodo to JRRT's Bilbo.
I mentioned the source for the "claim vs fact" of Rice's statement: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJR J8OVF&b=44918, which included LA Times and WhiteHouse.gov sources for those Genoa statements. But the LAT page is gone, and the WH page doesn't support the citation. After this problem was brought to my attention a few minutes ago, I emailed the AmProg website complaining, asking for an explanation. Until I get one, I'm no longer posting anything on the subject.
Imagine for a moment that the cartel was broken and oil could be sold by one supplier for a lower price. That supplier would sell all the oil, and make even more profit, though at a lower margin. Since that isn't happening, it's clear the cartel isn't broken.
Price caps are far from the only tool the people in a market use to protect ourselves from market manipulation.
Maybe I did, though a perplexing one. I just copied the links to LAT/WH from the page from which I copied the linked text. The WH page is deleted, but remains in the Google cache. It's a Q/A session with Rice from Genoa on the cited date, but it doesn't mention the planebomb threat or that kind of subject at all. The LAT story isn't in their own archive, and though that issue is in the Wayback Machine, I can't find it so easily.
The WH page status is especially fishy. I'm sending this message to the American Progress website to find out what's going on, before I post on this subject again. Thanks for checking this out and revealing the problem with it.
There's a free market in oil corp stocks, and I applaud your use of their profits to undermine them.
There is not, however, a free market in retail gas. Or oil for that matter. If there were, then some oil corps would be charging less, losing some profitability per barrel, and selling more barrels, making more profit - the entire point of the game for these master game players. The huge profits and same prices across the board mean they're in collusion, and there's no free market.
I just hope the power grid is still a free market for prosumers like you by the time everyone is doing it, and oil corps control that business too, the Enron bizmodel.
"Since 2001, 1.7 million new jobs have been added in the health-care sector, which includes related industries such as pharmaceuticals and health insurance. Meanwhile, the number of private-sector jobs outside of health care is no higher than it was five years ago."
The article says there are no new jobs outside healthcare. Don't bother looking for more complex stats to derive. My numbers are clean.
And of course I'm not saying healthcare should be creating more jobs. In fact, as the article also states about healthcare's inefficiency, healthcare is sucking the rest of the economy's money into inefficient jobs. Healthcare jobs should be decreased for more productive use of the money propping it up, and for better healthcare, not just more healthcare.
The messed up part of you reading my post is not at the end where my numbers or words come from.
How about encouraging reduced demand through efficiency, like the CAFE standars?
How does increasing the refining capacity decrease the vast profits American oil corps are making?
If you don't see how the huge layoffs at US carmakers, as an example of the rest of our economy in decline, is related to the "Much Ado about Gas Prices", then you're not reading my post. You're just spinning the same stuff the oil corp execs spun at the Senate hearings where they weren't even sworn in.
GM's layoffs are especially relevant to the way I made my point. GM blames healthcare costs, the other big story on the US economy on Slashdot today, for their layoffs. Decreased demand for 12MPG SUVs at $3:gal gas couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.
I didn't say anthing about how to recover those jobs. But I did point out that oil corp profit is quintuple. The tweaks and spin you mention are peanuts compared to the real factors at work: the unregulated profiteering. Which is in turn war profiteering, as the price rises are justified by "increased risks", like botched invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving Osama to run free...
Moderation 0
50% Troll
50% Interesting
TrollMods aren't interested in our destroyed economy. Unless maybe they're getting a check.
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
More proof that TrollMods are Republican liars.
Oil still costs about $12:bbl to extract from the ground, and deliver to the refinery as it did in 2001. It still costs the same to refine it to gas and deliver it to your pump. But oil costs about $75 now, not $25. That means that we're not looking at just a tripling of price in 5 years, but rather almost five times the profit. While the rest of the country's economy, except for these energy corporations and banks, is stagnant or shrinking.
When the biggest corporations are having the best years of their lives at the expense of the people having some of their worst years, we should be hearing about it. We should be hearing about it even more. Speaking of hearings, when Congress has hearings on the subject, they should put these oil corporation tycoons under oath, but they don't. The CEO of Exxon/Mobil who was given the photo op for lying to the Senate was then given a $400 million bonus when he retired.
Oh yeah, people talk about that, especially when they get laid off. In a decent country, people would be talking about how those abuses led to the American oil/gas cartel getting broken up and reined in.
In July 2001, Rice was the top national security advisor with Bush at the G8 Summit in Genoa. They were told that Islamic terrorists might crash planes into the summit, and the airspace was closed, with antiaircraft guns posted at the airport she used.
In August 2001, Rice and Bush got the PDB saying "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US", a title she remembered when publicly questioned in 2002.
In September 2001, Islamic terrorists crashed planes into the WTC and the Pentagon.
In 2002 she said she didn't remember the Genoa warnings, or any other.
She also lied through the entire 2001-6 period to support lies about Iraq being a cakewalk, connected to Osama, any number of lies to protect her job after blowing it.
If you think she didn't remember in 2002 the warnings that directly threatened her life and Bush's in 2001, then you have as much business commenting on state matters as she has in running them.
The sources cited for Rice's lies are the 9/11 Commission Report, the LA Times and the White House. You find an excuse that they're collated by American Progress, a progressive (not "anticonservative", though they're not "Conservative") group, to question their veracity. You say "no one told us" and "she was told" aren't contradictory. You call that kind of simple question "microanalysis", and say she shouldn't be expected to remember anything at all. Because somehow answering lots of questions about the most important matters makes them harder to remember for the most powerful people, on whom we depend to protect our lives and liberty.
Any honest person would look at Rice's statements and know she's obviously lying. Anyone with any doubt would actually look at the sources for more detail, rather than find an excuse to dismiss them because they were collated by a progressive group. You have outed yourself as one of these fake "Conservatives", the kind of radical who keeps Bush and Rice in office where they lie and fail. You are a liar. The point I dug up exposes not only Rice, but you too.
You can go ahead and try to defend your lies. But when you post something like that, starting out with fancy lying like "Not that I'm going to defend Ms. Rice's truthfulness of lack thereof" followed by defense of her lying, it doesn't matter what you say anymore. Your lies are as worthless as Rice's. If only Rice were as irrelevant to my safety as you are.
"Since 2001, 1.7 million new jobs have been added in the health-care sector, which includes related industries such as pharmaceuticals and health insurance. Meanwhile, the number of private-sector jobs outside of health care is no higher than it was five years ago."
We had 283M people in 2001 and have over 297M now, 14M more people. But only 1.7M more jobs. 88% of the growth is jobless.
The medical industry just isn't meeting the challenge. We can't blame Bush for that, because he's maiming as many people in Iraq and Afghanistan as he can (numbers higher in secret CIA prisons).
Citing Rice assuring us that the 2004 elections would be held to reassure us that the 2006 or 2008 or 2010 elections will be held is meaningless rhetoric.
Citing Rice assuring us of anything is meaningless rhetoric. Her poster is captioned "even a broken clock is right twice a day".
Arguing with you about the 2004 elections is for straw men. Citing Rice is for fools.
They can be counted on to lie. Especially when lying gets people to ignore their crimes. At this point, anyone holding their uncorroborated statements up as proof of anything is a liar, too.
I didn't say you're a Republican. But I did ask you several other questions. Why don't you answer those, instead of changing the subject?
Citation for parent post: "Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission"
Condoleeza Rice: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." [responding to Kean]
FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01; White House release, 7/22/01]
Rhetoric? You cite Rice's reassurance that her gang won't postpone elections as reason to "cool the rhetoric"? Why wouldn't she lie, especially if it got people off our guard?
I bet you didn't say anything like that in public in 1996 when Clinton was reelected, reassuring us that any purported Democratic vote fraud was "nothing new, don't worry your pretty little head about it".
Democrats didn't "stand by idly", but were locked out of any action. As you'd know if you'd RTFA, rather than just rush to First Post some spin to excuse Republican vote fraud "because everyone does it".
Don't you think that Harris saying 2004 in Ohio was as bad as it's ever been, meaning it's worse than almost every other election? If 2006 is rigged even worse, will that still be OK? Where is your limit to accepting vote fraud, where you no longer think "bad enough" is OK? When Democrats do it someday?
Universities generate $millions, sometimes $BILLIONS, in profits, justified by their teaching mission. Meanwhile, cheating jeopardizes entire careers, or at least expensive investments in college careers. That sounds like a big demand for countercheating software and techniques. And colleges are full of people who produce software.
It really sounds like catching cheating isn't a priority for colleges, which are the missing link in those mechanics. Maybe they just don't want to make their product, diplomas, more expensive.
Is there a grand chart comparing the most popular window managers (and lesser known ones like this) by feature?
I know. I started the discussion stating that contingency, but dropped it in subsequent discussion. Maybe it's the time dilation after successive rapid rotations around a dense point.
Bush restructured FEMA into Homeland Security, his biggest claim to fame. He appointed Chertoff. Brown was a Republican crony exactly like hundreds, thousands in Bush's administration.
Bush is responsible for all that. That's how being the boss works. Bush worshippers respond to Bush's stupidity by saying "but he picks smart people to work for him", then say it's not Bush's fault when those people are stupid or worse.
It's absolutely consistent that you would say that Bush isn't also responsible for the Katrina disaster, chiefly so. I'm surprised only that you didn't claim that "no one anticipated that the levees would fail" to protect Bush. And I'm not surprised that you cough up that same old Republican gibberish about me "blaming everything wrong in the world on Bush". I make specific charges, where Bush is responsible. Your hyperbolic straw man is Republican 101. As is trying to switch the argument to "Democrats aren't blameless in everything".
Of course it's a waste of time arguing like that with me. But it's not a waste arguing with you. Because reality is on my side. Eventually the facts will sink in, even to stubborn deniers like you. For every American's sake, I hope you get it before much more damage is done. Especially if you can open your ears before November 7.
Another way to look at the rise of American communism during the depression, and the installation of Social Security, is that Americans, like everyone else in the world, gradually expected our government to protect the basic economic survival of everyone in the country, at the cost of everyone in the country. Social programs offered a degree of socialism that satisfied what would otherwise have let Americans go overboard with full "communism".
This happened practically everywhere in the world. Despite communism being designed for an industrialized country, the industrialized countries have produced socialism, which is most certainly not communism (as any reading of Marx/Engels or any actual communist political economics will make clear). Only agrarian countries became communist. America reflected that difference, as a huge country mostly agrarian but containing a huge industry elsewhere as well. As we industrialized the agrarian areas during the 20th Century socialism has become more popular, while communism is basically dead except among a tiny fringe of political radicals who mostly don't really understand economics.
In other words, the American flexible, self-modifying representation political system took the pressure off to dodge the communism bullet.
I agree with your take on the Republicans march in the other direction, into fascism. But do you have a citation for this "24 million Americans in concentration camps" Bush plan that you mentioned?
Let me guess... you're a "Libertarian". Riiiight.
I said "the Republican Congress is facing losing reelection in only 7 weeks, on November 7, 2006". You can't see that that means "replacing the Republican Congress could change policy at the FCC". I quote Bush talking about how lowering expecations is his job, but of course that applies only to his reading list - even though he has repeated that policy whenever he though he could get away with calling it a "joke", and anyone watching can see he lives it.
If I go so far as to say people should vote for Democrats instead of Republicans, then of course I'm a "Flamebaiter" or a "Troll"... or "Offtopic", or "Overrated", according to the anonymous moderators who suppress my posts when it offends their ever vigilant defense of our pathetically weak, yet destructive, president.
You're a Republican apologist. You go out of your way to twist into defending Bush, and into attacking me because I didn't post what you would post. You go ahead and say people should vote for Democrats instead of Republicans, instead of making the simple point that the FCC is the product of Republican rule, led by Bush who's in charge of Republicans, the FCC, and practically the entire government.
I point out that "news" need not be surprising, and you've got a problem with that, too. Sure you're not a Republican. Maybe you're a witch or a communist. You've got the basic problems with logic that qualify you.