GW Bush is censoring free speech because NBC won't let Michael Moore use a clip from Meet the Press.
And John Kerry is censoring free speech because his friend George Butler won't let people slandering John Kerry use a picture he took for their book cover.
Uh huh.
You got something to say, then say it. You don't need these stage props to make your point.
Frankly I think it's a creative point-making excercise by the RIAA. You complain about good CDs costing money, but you forget the fact that they've got 10,000 copies of Whitney Houston's recording of the Star Spangled banner sitting in a warehouse cause nobody wants that crap.
For every good CD that you want to buy, there are 20 others published that very few people give a shit about.
The CD prices are fine, quit your whining. If you don't like it, don't buy CDs! That's the only way you are going to hurt them, with your free market wallet.
At our company, our login script will call a PERSONAL.BAT file if it exists in your user directory.
So I have the login script change registry entry preferences for things that I find exceedingly annoying. Like now I have explorer default to detailed view, show hidden files, yada yada...
If we had clippy showing up, that preference would have been in my personal login script.
I take it you don't know how to do something similar?
These stupid things are the fault of the Secret Service. They've been doing this to Bush for years now.
It's forced Bush to become out of touch with how real Americans are thinking. I hope the same doesn't happen to the Democrats as a result of this convention.
Last weekend, I converted three people from IE6 to Moz FF 0.9.1, based on the facts that it's more secure than IE.
I'm pretty sure you mean 'based on the claims' rather than facts.
This exploit and patch pretty much proves that Firefox is not more secure than IE, something I was trying to tell slashbots last week and got flamed for.
Tens of thousands of IIS sites are currently compromised, and there's been no patch from Microsoft.
And you wonder why I don't take your word seriously?
Microsoft provided a patch for this IIS exploit back in April.
Look at the Netcraft numbers. There's a reason why Apache is used more often than IIS, and it isn't the price (although that's a nice benefit). It's just a superior product, all around.
Apache is a superior product for hosting millions of 'Website under construction' pages?
You should subscribe to Netcraft's internal survey data, where they show what people are actually using to build corporate websites supplying real content.
Q: What's the difference between a used car salesman and a computer salesman?
A: The car salesman knows when he is lying.
You're a wonderful example of the ignorance which is so pervasive through this industry.
Bush was outraising the Democrats by quite a large margin through the primary season. The last word I heard he'll have collected some $250 million by the GOP convention in September.
You have to understand, after the convention, you can't contribute to the Presidential candidate any more... It's kind of weird, but they both accept public financing(about $75 mil) and that's all they can spend. The $200 and some million they've each raised so far has to be spent prior to convention.
Understand, however, that this chart also shows contributions made to other candidates in state and local elections. Not just Presidential. For those, you can usually contribute all throughout the season.
These figures from opensecrets are a bit deceptive. They're really the sum total of not just what the company gave, but what individuals who reported that they worked at Microsoft gave.
You won't see Soft money given by the company to parties, as that's now been outlawed by McCain-Feingold.
1998 was the wake up call for Microsoft, when they were told "Look, your competitors are giving money, you better follow suit). That's when you saw the big increase not just in corporate giving, but even individual. That's the only way you can really read this, and I believe it shows first hand the effect that government intrusion into markets has on our political landscape. (If you want to stop corporate lobbying, stop government from interfering in markets, then they'll have no reason to want their voice heard)
I'm not a Republican defender by any means, but... perhaps they are just smarter than you?
The fact that the Republican party would choose to use an inferior commercial software package (IIS) when a superior free version of the same software is available (Apache) goes a long way towards showing what type of party they are.
Oh good grief, there's nothing about Apache which makes it superior to IIS.(I can't believe people are still going around pandering this lie)
As much as they say they want "small government", when it comes down to it, they want "big government" propping up "big companies" with taxpayer subsidies. Plain and simple.
I don't disagree here. The Republican party has several main interest groups and one of them is Corporate. Corporations are not necessarily bad, but you can take your protection of corporate interests to an extreme.
On the one hand you could argue that the Bush administration using Microsoft technology shows that they support American businesses. I don't see how you can conclude anything much beyond it from that. They aren't likely giving Microsoft a lot of business, they certainly aren't advertising for them.
One thing I do know, and that is that the Republican party is spending a lot more on technology than the Democrats, and they are targetting it in ways which are more effective for holding power. If you witnessed the congressional redistricting down in Texas, that was one of the most advanced uses of demographic data combined with a GIS system I've seen in a while. i.e. they put effort into it, building that database and doing the GIS modeling to come up with those maps.
Sure, the webserver expenditures are only a small part of it, but it shows how completely the GOP has been bought and paid for by large corporations.
You're overreaching. Their goal is to put together whatever they can that they think will help them be better organized. The one thing the Republicans have is a lot more money, and so they're able to buy some stuff. Although it's a bit of a dotcom goldrush spend money mentality, if you've seen the burn rates of Bush/Cheney, they aren't very well managed.
I'm not saying the Dems are completely innocent as well, but let's face it, they're much less in the pocket of large defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, and yes, software monopolies.
By and large yes. The Democrats believe more in free market capitalism than the Corporatism that the Republicans promote.
But again, I don't think you can conclude that based upon what they use to build a website. Technology is about doing, not religious or political statements.
So, since I'm an advocate I spend a lot of time on both of these websites and have watched them as they were developed. I also had up my own website last year as part of a state effort for Wes Clark's candidacy. These things start off by someone volunteering something, usually time, and they use what they know. It starts from there.
The Kerry website is better designed visually, it's less hectic, easier to find the critical information you want.
But the Bush website has better tools, they have a very nice database of contributors that you can search. They've put together nifty features with video, automatic creation of PDF posters and different things like that.
Whatever.
It's not the tools people, it's what you do with them that matters.
Our company is doing.NET. We've been in contact with vendors and consulting companies such as Borland, Thoughtworks and so forth who have done a lot of Java in the past.
They're all moving into the.NET world.
I see no mass migration away from Microsoft, but I do see an extreme amount of interest from Java development shots to look at.NET.
These Express tools are obviously intended for the hobbyist market, to help build mindshare, in other words to compete against PHP and mySQL and such.
Anyway, you're simply making an argument by assertion without evidence.
Well that pretty much answered my question from this post... http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11256 3&cid=954 8638
I can't believe you are stupid enough to try to defend Rush Limbaugh's "honesty". Rush calls his program entertainment. He's not trying to be at all factual, he's trying to be entertaining.
Give me any given daily transcript from Limbaugh, and I'll point out a lie in it.
And to think you attack liberals for defending Michael Moore... Sheesh.
Not sure. No Child Left Behind is kind of an odd-ball. It's chuck full of unfunded mandates and a belief that the Federal govt knows better than local municipalities how to best spend their money. The goal, of course, is because it's for the children. So I guess you could call this classic bad-liberalism. But I think Republicans had an ulterior motive, that is they intend to destroy the public school system.
There's no Medicare Reform out there that I'm aware of. There is the prescription drug coverage add-on. That one isn't really a social program, it's just bad government.
Seniors could have gotten the same discounts had the Feds put together a bill pushing for collective bargaining power. Roughly 10-15%. Instead what we got is the Republicans offering to give US Tax dollars to the drug companies to pay for that 10-15% off.
It's pure redistribution of wealth, not in a liberal sense, but in a sense of taking it out of the back pockets of Americans and giving it to wealthy corporations.
I feel that it's the usual partisan politics
I often see this when people are trying to ignore arguments.
There's a reason why I'm partisan. It's cause the Republican party is the party of Bad Ideas.
You have just committed the error of assuming that just because I criticized a liberal, I am a conservative. But what's worse, you publicized that misrepresented opinion in a public forum, which is similar to what Moore has done with his opinions about what goes through Bush's mind.
Ahh, then I will apologize when you show me something you have written online criticizing the work of Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Hannity. Or better yet, Bush for using the exact same tactics you accuse Moore of.
You people need to stop applying your liberal spin to every anti-Moore criticism and do what Moore cannot -- consider it objectively!
You people? Now that's just silly, because you are now doing exactly what you accused me of doing.
Just think that's laughably funny, as I've never been a fan of Michael Moore. I guess I used to think it was bad for liberals to behave in the same distort the fact manner as conservatives.
But after what the Republicans pulled in 2000 through the Iraq war. I say fuck 'em, let them get a whiff of their own medicine.
And if you read some of the information regarding that "photo-op" he deliberately stayed so as to present a strong front.
Wow, that's major spin. Bill O'Reilly would be proud!
You watch that video yourself... http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush -911.htm
And you tell me that vacant look shows a strong front.
This photo-op was then followed up by Air Force One running around the south countryside like a chicken with it's head cut off.
That also made no sense. I would think that standard operating procedure would be to get AF1 off the ground, provide a fighter escort and shit tail for Offutt AFB in Nebraska where US Strategic Command is based, or some other safe haven.
Do you realize that "the threat was building" during the entire Clinton administration?
I realized that. Clinton realized that. Bush didn't. It took the events of 9/11 to wake him from his vacation.
BTW, I generally felt that it was inappropriate to blame anybody for not doing enough to stop 9/11. That was up until the so-called conservatives started trying to blame Clinton. Unfortunately this has been a pattern, they also liked to blame Clinton for Ruby Ridge which happened six months before he took office.
Clinton just just got a blow job in the closet, which means he loves America I guess?
It's always amazed me how so-called conservatives were willing to go after Clinton for his misdeeds, but give a pass to Bush. Talk about lack of consistency.
How the hell is this some kind of calculated photo op?
That isn't the complaint. Presidents do photo ops, it's part of the job, and it's a good thing to get out amongst the people and find out how they live their lives.
Give me a break, your review makes this movie sound like exactly the BS I imagined it would be.
If so-called conservatives spent as much time going after Osama bin Laden as they do trying to discredit fellow Americans... We'd have caught bin Laden years ago.
He highlights the bin Laden and Saud connections to show that Bush panders to Saudi Arabia. the criticism being that majority of the highjackers came from Saudi Arabia, that the leader is a family member of friends of Bush's.
And so when we went to go after terrorists, we hit Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11... instead of putting pressure on Saudi Arabia.
Now had we gone after Saudi Arabia, would Moore have found a way to criticize Bush... probably. But regardless, I think there is some serious questions regarding our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Those questions have been raised by a number of people educated on the region including a CIA station chief who will have a book coming out next month.
Instead of claiming Moore is biased, why don't you dispute the facts and tell us how Bush receiving money from foreignors is not a bad thing.
Republicans seemed very willing to criticize Clinton and Gore for far less. Why are you so unwilling now to criticize Bush?
I haven't seen Bowling for Columbine, but my understanding is that the film tries to highlight the gun culture that has grown up in America.
Moore's point that a Bank is giving away guns appears to be substantiated through the links you provide. In fact the original complaint made of Moore is not that his statement is wrong, it is that he didn't properly show how one obtained the gun.
But that criticism doesn't address Moore's original complaint of the gun-culture and how much gun's are promoted in this country. So you really haven't proved a lie, or discredited Moore in any way.
I'm largely ambivalent towards gun-control. I don't think it's possible, because I figure if people 100 years ago could make a decent bolt action rifle using steam engines and other crude machinery. I can probably do something similar with precision machining tools that I can buy myself and utilize in my garage.
That being said, I also note that Moore's point is gaining ground. Last year I went to ToysR'Us looking for a squirt gun. I couldn't find one because it was fall and they were "out of season".
On the other hand I noticed looking around the whole store... I couldn't find any guns at all.
When I was a kid it was pretty easy to find cap guns in toy stores.
George Bush's arguments for most of his policies have been "will somebody think of the [starving children/poor/etnic/racial/linguistic/religious] minorities".
So what exactly are you saying?
I happen to be one who is more interested in economic policy. Theories that originate with men like Adam Smith. It's for that reason I can't vote Republican.
Now the real question is, if you visit Taiwan can you say you have visited China? There are some people living in Taiwan who consider themselves now independent from China who would say no, many others would say yes.
Slashdot Mirror
GW Bush is censoring free speech because NBC won't let Michael Moore use a clip from Meet the Press.
And John Kerry is censoring free speech because his friend George Butler won't let people slandering John Kerry use a picture he took for their book cover.
Uh huh.
You got something to say, then say it. You don't need these stage props to make your point.
Fucking whiner.
Obviously a comment written by someone who cannot type very fast.
And I'm not talking about the RIAA.
What did you expect?
Frankly I think it's a creative point-making excercise by the RIAA. You complain about good CDs costing money, but you forget the fact that they've got 10,000 copies of Whitney Houston's recording of the Star Spangled banner sitting in a warehouse cause nobody wants that crap.
For every good CD that you want to buy, there are 20 others published that very few people give a shit about.
The CD prices are fine, quit your whining. If you don't like it, don't buy CDs! That's the only way you are going to hurt them, with your free market wallet.
At our company, our login script will call a PERSONAL.BAT file if it exists in your user directory.
So I have the login script change registry entry preferences for things that I find exceedingly annoying. Like now I have explorer default to detailed view, show hidden files, yada yada...
If we had clippy showing up, that preference would have been in my personal login script.
I take it you don't know how to do something similar?
These stupid things are the fault of the Secret Service. They've been doing this to Bush for years now.
It's forced Bush to become out of touch with how real Americans are thinking. I hope the same doesn't happen to the Democrats as a result of this convention.
Last weekend, I converted three people from IE6 to Moz FF 0.9.1, based on the facts that it's more secure than IE.
I'm pretty sure you mean 'based on the claims' rather than facts.
This exploit and patch pretty much proves that Firefox is not more secure than IE, something I was trying to tell slashbots last week and got flamed for.
Tens of thousands of IIS sites are currently compromised, and there's been no patch from Microsoft.
And you wonder why I don't take your word seriously?
Microsoft provided a patch for this IIS exploit back in April.
Look at the Netcraft numbers. There's a reason why Apache is used more often than IIS, and it isn't the price (although that's a nice benefit). It's just a superior product, all around.
Apache is a superior product for hosting millions of 'Website under construction' pages?
You should subscribe to Netcraft's internal survey data, where they show what people are actually using to build corporate websites supplying real content.
Q: What's the difference between a used car salesman and a computer salesman?
A: The car salesman knows when he is lying.
You're a wonderful example of the ignorance which is so pervasive through this industry.
Bush was outraising the Democrats by quite a large margin through the primary season. The last word I heard he'll have collected some $250 million by the GOP convention in September.
You have to understand, after the convention, you can't contribute to the Presidential candidate any more... It's kind of weird, but they both accept public financing(about $75 mil) and that's all they can spend. The $200 and some million they've each raised so far has to be spent prior to convention.
Understand, however, that this chart also shows contributions made to other candidates in state and local elections. Not just Presidential. For those, you can usually contribute all throughout the season.
These figures from opensecrets are a bit deceptive. They're really the sum total of not just what the company gave, but what individuals who reported that they worked at Microsoft gave.
You won't see Soft money given by the company to parties, as that's now been outlawed by McCain-Feingold.
1998 was the wake up call for Microsoft, when they were told "Look, your competitors are giving money, you better follow suit). That's when you saw the big increase not just in corporate giving, but even individual. That's the only way you can really read this, and I believe it shows first hand the effect that government intrusion into markets has on our political landscape. (If you want to stop corporate lobbying, stop government from interfering in markets, then they'll have no reason to want their voice heard)
I'm not a Republican defender by any means, but... perhaps they are just smarter than you?
The fact that the Republican party would choose to use an inferior commercial software package (IIS) when a superior free version of the same software is available (Apache) goes a long way towards showing what type of party they are.
Oh good grief, there's nothing about Apache which makes it superior to IIS.(I can't believe people are still going around pandering this lie)
As much as they say they want "small government", when it comes down to it, they want "big government" propping up "big companies" with taxpayer subsidies. Plain and simple.
I don't disagree here. The Republican party has several main interest groups and one of them is Corporate. Corporations are not necessarily bad, but you can take your protection of corporate interests to an extreme.
On the one hand you could argue that the Bush administration using Microsoft technology shows that they support American businesses. I don't see how you can conclude anything much beyond it from that. They aren't likely giving Microsoft a lot of business, they certainly aren't advertising for them.
One thing I do know, and that is that the Republican party is spending a lot more on technology than the Democrats, and they are targetting it in ways which are more effective for holding power. If you witnessed the congressional redistricting down in Texas, that was one of the most advanced uses of demographic data combined with a GIS system I've seen in a while. i.e. they put effort into it, building that database and doing the GIS modeling to come up with those maps.
Sure, the webserver expenditures are only a small part of it, but it shows how completely the GOP has been bought and paid for by large corporations.
You're overreaching. Their goal is to put together whatever they can that they think will help them be better organized. The one thing the Republicans have is a lot more money, and so they're able to buy some stuff. Although it's a bit of a dotcom goldrush spend money mentality, if you've seen the burn rates of Bush/Cheney, they aren't very well managed.
I'm not saying the Dems are completely innocent as well, but let's face it, they're much less in the pocket of large defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, and yes, software monopolies.
By and large yes. The Democrats believe more in free market capitalism than the Corporatism that the Republicans promote.
But again, I don't think you can conclude that based upon what they use to build a website. Technology is about doing, not religious or political statements.
So, since I'm an advocate I spend a lot of time on both of these websites and have watched them as they were developed. I also had up my own website last year as part of a state effort for Wes Clark's candidacy. These things start off by someone volunteering something, usually time, and they use what they know. It starts from there.
The Kerry website is better designed visually, it's less hectic, easier to find the critical information you want.
But the Bush website has better tools, they have a very nice database of contributors that you can search. They've put together nifty features with video, automatic creation of PDF posters and different things like that.
Whatever.
It's not the tools people, it's what you do with them that matters.
Our company is doing .NET. We've been in contact with vendors and consulting companies such as Borland, Thoughtworks and so forth who have done a lot of Java in the past.
.NET world.
.NET.
They're all moving into the
I see no mass migration away from Microsoft, but I do see an extreme amount of interest from Java development shots to look at
These Express tools are obviously intended for the hobbyist market, to help build mindshare, in other words to compete against PHP and mySQL and such.
Anyway, you're simply making an argument by assertion without evidence.
Thank you for conceding both points, even though you did so in a passive-aggressive way.
I think you're going to have to do better than this.
I'm going to need a transcript and an exact quote.
But then you've gone off and defended Rush Limbaugh as honest, and he does the same thing... that is, make up shit and try to attribute it to someone.
Well that pretty much answered my question from this post...6 3&cid=954 8638
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1125
I can't believe you are stupid enough to try to defend Rush Limbaugh's "honesty". Rush calls his program entertainment. He's not trying to be at all factual, he's trying to be entertaining.
Give me any given daily transcript from Limbaugh, and I'll point out a lie in it.
And to think you attack liberals for defending Michael Moore... Sheesh.
Not sure. No Child Left Behind is kind of an odd-ball. It's chuck full of unfunded mandates and a belief that the Federal govt knows better than local municipalities how to best spend their money. The goal, of course, is because it's for the children. So I guess you could call this classic bad-liberalism. But I think Republicans had an ulterior motive, that is they intend to destroy the public school system.
There's no Medicare Reform out there that I'm aware of. There is the prescription drug coverage add-on. That one isn't really a social program, it's just bad government.
Seniors could have gotten the same discounts had the Feds put together a bill pushing for collective bargaining power. Roughly 10-15%. Instead what we got is the Republicans offering to give US Tax dollars to the drug companies to pay for that 10-15% off.
It's pure redistribution of wealth, not in a liberal sense, but in a sense of taking it out of the back pockets of Americans and giving it to wealthy corporations.
I feel that it's the usual partisan politics
I often see this when people are trying to ignore arguments.
There's a reason why I'm partisan. It's cause the Republican party is the party of Bad Ideas.
You have just committed the error of assuming that just because I criticized a liberal, I am a conservative. But what's worse, you publicized that misrepresented opinion in a public forum, which is similar to what Moore has done with his opinions about what goes through Bush's mind.
Ahh, then I will apologize when you show me something you have written online criticizing the work of Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Hannity. Or better yet, Bush for using the exact same tactics you accuse Moore of.
You people need to stop applying your liberal spin to every anti-Moore criticism and do what Moore cannot -- consider it objectively!
You people? Now that's just silly, because you are now doing exactly what you accused me of doing.
Just think that's laughably funny, as I've never been a fan of Michael Moore. I guess I used to think it was bad for liberals to behave in the same distort the fact manner as conservatives.
But after what the Republicans pulled in 2000 through the Iraq war. I say fuck 'em, let them get a whiff of their own medicine.
And if you read some of the information regarding that "photo-op" he deliberately stayed so as to present a strong front.
h -911.htm
Wow, that's major spin. Bill O'Reilly would be proud!
You watch that video yourself...
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bus
And you tell me that vacant look shows a strong front.
This photo-op was then followed up by Air Force One running around the south countryside like a chicken with it's head cut off.
That also made no sense. I would think that standard operating procedure would be to get AF1 off the ground, provide a fighter escort and shit tail for Offutt AFB in Nebraska where US Strategic Command is based, or some other safe haven.
Do you realize that "the threat was building" during the entire Clinton administration?
I realized that. Clinton realized that. Bush didn't. It took the events of 9/11 to wake him from his vacation.
BTW, I generally felt that it was inappropriate to blame anybody for not doing enough to stop 9/11. That was up until the so-called conservatives started trying to blame Clinton. Unfortunately this has been a pattern, they also liked to blame Clinton for Ruby Ridge which happened six months before he took office.
Clinton just just got a blow job in the closet, which means he loves America I guess?
It's always amazed me how so-called conservatives were willing to go after Clinton for his misdeeds, but give a pass to Bush. Talk about lack of consistency.
How the hell is this some kind of calculated photo op?
That isn't the complaint. Presidents do photo ops, it's part of the job, and it's a good thing to get out amongst the people and find out how they live their lives.
Give me a break, your review makes this movie sound like exactly the BS I imagined it would be.
If so-called conservatives spent as much time going after Osama bin Laden as they do trying to discredit fellow Americans... We'd have caught bin Laden years ago.
Moore never says Bush is connected to Osama.
He highlights the bin Laden and Saud connections to show that Bush panders to Saudi Arabia. the criticism being that majority of the highjackers came from Saudi Arabia, that the leader is a family member of friends of Bush's.
And so when we went to go after terrorists, we hit Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11... instead of putting pressure on Saudi Arabia.
Now had we gone after Saudi Arabia, would Moore have found a way to criticize Bush... probably. But regardless, I think there is some serious questions regarding our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Those questions have been raised by a number of people educated on the region including a CIA station chief who will have a book coming out next month.
Instead of claiming Moore is biased, why don't you dispute the facts and tell us how Bush receiving money from foreignors is not a bad thing.
Republicans seemed very willing to criticize Clinton and Gore for far less. Why are you so unwilling now to criticize Bush?
Do you expect to be detained / questioned it your disowned nephew, with whom you haven't talked in twenty years, goes and kills someone?
Yes.
and it's Richard Clarke. Notice the 'e'.
So, which company is building the pipeline?
So it appears the criticism worked. Democracy in action.
So really they aren't lies.
I haven't seen Bowling for Columbine, but my understanding is that the film tries to highlight the gun culture that has grown up in America.
Moore's point that a Bank is giving away guns appears to be substantiated through the links you provide. In fact the original complaint made of Moore is not that his statement is wrong, it is that he didn't properly show how one obtained the gun.
But that criticism doesn't address Moore's original complaint of the gun-culture and how much gun's are promoted in this country. So you really haven't proved a lie, or discredited Moore in any way.
I'm largely ambivalent towards gun-control. I don't think it's possible, because I figure if people 100 years ago could make a decent bolt action rifle using steam engines and other crude machinery. I can probably do something similar with precision machining tools that I can buy myself and utilize in my garage.
That being said, I also note that Moore's point is gaining ground. Last year I went to ToysR'Us looking for a squirt gun. I couldn't find one because it was fall and they were "out of season".
On the other hand I noticed looking around the whole store... I couldn't find any guns at all.
When I was a kid it was pretty easy to find cap guns in toy stores.
Problem I have with this...
George Bush's arguments for most of his policies have been "will somebody think of the [starving children/poor/etnic/racial/linguistic/religious] minorities".
So what exactly are you saying?
I happen to be one who is more interested in economic policy. Theories that originate with men like Adam Smith. It's for that reason I can't vote Republican.
On Taiwan... both groups call it Taiwan.
Now the real question is, if you visit Taiwan can you say you have visited China? There are some people living in Taiwan who consider themselves now independent from China who would say no, many others would say yes.
Why did ExxonMobil give even $30,000 to the CATO Institute?
You seem to be distracting from that question.
"Cato is what it says it is, and nothing more. I would challenge you to dispute that."
Are you claiming they are not biased?