Is everyone sure that the war was a bad idea? It seems to me trying to stabilize the region is a good idea. Previous attempts haven't worked very well and have just created an environment that creates terrorists.
Yes, Iraq was a horrible idea. At the very least we should have finished up in Afghanistan first, made sure than nation was stable and not producing 75% of the world's opium crop, leading to massive corruption and undermining the authority of the Kabul government.
Bush took a risk. I like that fact that he didn't contiue with the same old policy of containment. Real change is what was needed. Let the people have some sense of self determination.
Fine. One thing at a time. But whereas Afghanistan was an immediate threat to the security interests of the US, Iraq never was, and starting a war for purposes other than immediate threat is both immoral and sinful. We cannot go off on global adventures merely at the whim of a fundmantalist president who thinks there may be some danger far off in the future.
I'm pissed when I get modded down for any of my pro-Bush comments, but this is just blatant bias in the text of an article. A little more objectivity wouldn't hurt here.
And what about when objectivity comes down on the side of "Bush is an evil fuck", hmm? Going by how the Republicans whine, objectivity is about making sure the GOP comes out smelling like roses, even when the facts are against them.
Screw that. George Bush is objectively evil. This war was a horrible idea, poorly executed, and has increased the danger to America while draining it of treasure and international goodwill. THAT is the objective truth, and partsian whining about "bias" can go screw itself.
You're comparing George Bush to Saddam Hussein? Wow man, thanks for being upfront with your fascist tendencies. I mean, I think they're both evil, but I'm not really sure that saying "George Bush: not as evil as Saddam" is all that much of a platform.
Is it obvious much that michael is a Kerry supporter? Is it any surprise that anyone critical of this blatant astroturfing is modded down? I didn't realise Slashdot was a forum in which to impose your political views on others, I thought it was a bookmark collator for IT news. How stupid of me.
Wahh wahh wahh whine whine whine. Look I'm a Republican! Media bias! It's not FAIR! MOMMY! MOMMY! Wah wah wah!
How many stories has the token Republican editor Pudge posted here? Would it be not a million miles from ZERO?
Here, have a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up, pussy. You want Republican propaganda go turn on the radio or point your browser at Free Republic, k? Bush is a complete and utter fuckup and the whole world realizes it, at least those who don't suck Sean Hannity's (et al) cock on a daily basis.
I blame the line item veto (the real reason the budget declined during the Clinton years), which was removed following the impeachment trial.
The line item veto was never actually implemented. As soon as the bill was signed by Clinton it was challenged on constitutional grounds and kept from going into effect. The SCOTUS eventually ruled it unconstitutional, and the OMB afterwards announced that the 40 items that were line item vetoed would have their funds released.
The budget deficit looked good because Clinton was a fiscally responsible president.
I don't believe that the station owners are in the business of losing money. If there was not a market out in this country for political talk shows then those shows would go out of business.
What's good for their bottom line is not necessarily good for the republic, and in fact in this case I would argue that it is specifically damaging to the republic.
See here for an overview of battleground state endorsements. Of course, the Republican radio propaganda network will chalk this up to the "liberal media", but this isn't good news for Bush, and is therefore good news for America and the world.
Is this a division between the more intellectual America reading and writing newspapers, and the popular opinion?
More of a reflection that newspaper editorials only have a limited impact. There is far more of an impact from the previously mentioned propaganda network: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, etc., etc. In my hometown (Dallas) there are currently *two* radio stations, with pretty significant market share, whose only purpose is to spread GOP propaganda, 24 hours a day. The Democrats have no such partisan network.
Iraq, etc., is not about democracy. I'm not 100% sure *what* it's about, exactly, but democracy it is not. The modern GOP is primarily concerned with maintaining power, not democracy, or liberty, or justice in any meaningful sense.
Does any American truly believe it when they accuse someone of siding with the terrorists?
For your answer, look at the best seller list on Amazon.com today. Unfortunately, many Americans do believe exactly that, or have been led to believe it by unscrupulous partisans.
The so-called "war on terrorism" has become the new cold war: excuses for politicians to spend, spend, spend, and if their political opponents oppose that spending then they can accuse them of being "soft on terror", or even colluding WITH the terrorists (Michael Savage, Anne Coulter, et al). Add to this the Bush administration's disdain against what they call the "reality based community" (their words!) and you can see why our current fiscal and security situation is, in fact, so lacking.
A split government is better for all America. I support Kerry and the Democratic party in general, but I am *extremely* skeptical about having a one-party government.
Because for the president of the United States, the supposed defender of our constitution and the rights of all Americans, to have people arrested who are guilty of nothing more than being energetic about our liberties, is both tragic and criminal, and shows how little the president actually cares for those liberties whenever it comes time to put words into action. Given a choice between accepting a difference of view, or even encouraging those who wish to broaden our liberties, the president has them arrested. That, in my book, is the very definition of anti-American.
And how applicable are they to modern libertarian thought? Very little, I would argue. The primary motivator of libertarians and the libertarian party today is Ayn Rand, and her philosophy is indeed based upon the primary importance of selfish greed.
I know it's fashionable these days to claim to be a libertarian of one stripe or another, but the fundamental philosophy of libertarianism -- "greed is the ultimate good" -- is to share a large part of the blame here. The almost exclusive focus libertarianism gives to short-sighted individual gain has had grave consequences to the environment our descendants, and what almost all cultures throughout history have come to realize constitutes the "good". It is also, I believe, a large reason why so much of the planet considers Americans to be almost completely immoral.
I believe that there are larger and ultimately more beneficial (personally and socially) virtues than some dogmatic worship of greed and belief that the market, left to its own devices, is perfect and holy, not to be touched by the Satanic hands of government bureaucrats. We *are* sacrificing the ability of future generations to succeed, to live on a planet that is substanaible for human life, and are moving towards a nation where our elders live our their final years in poverty.
That's all you got? Some right-wing blog? Here's the deal, man: I start off with the assumption, based on hard experience, that all conservatives are liars, especially when it comes to the GOP. You point out something with a little more substance, we'll talk. Until then, I've seen a CRAPLOAD more evidence that the RNC is funding vote fraud, including vocal support for such efforts from conservatives like Michael Savage ("those commie idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote!") than I have from the Democrats. See, I AM a Democrat, an active one, and I have NEVER heard a fellow Democrat encourage vote fraude by either word or deed. I HAVE heard Republicans defend it.
I've read about a single case involving less than 100 Democrats' registrations being ripped up. Can you cite references to the thousands? Honest question, I just haven't read about that many.
Would it matter if I did? If you had a strong suspicion that the GOP were actively encouraging vote fraud, I expect that you would avert your gaze or seek to justify it. If there is one thing I have learned about modern conservatives it is that they have wholly abdicated any and all responsiblity and morality.
Of course not. But there are greater and lesser crimes, and this is a much, MUCH lesser crime than the active disenfranchisement of voters as sponsored by the RNC over the past two weeks. This action by the Democrats is tawdry at worst. The destruction of voter registration cards is CRIMINAL, and worthy of no lesser punishment than death.
Let me ask you the same question I have posed elsewhere in this thread. Let's say this is true. Is this worse of a crime, the same, or less of a crime than the wholescale destruction of thousands of voter registraiton cards as carried out by GOP operatives in multiple states over the past few weeks?
So let's say this is true. Is this worse of a crime, the same, or less of a crime than the wholscale destruction of voter registraiton cards as carried out by GOP operatives in multiple states over the past few weeks?
My company outsourced our AS/400 support to a company in India a year and a half ago. The company we outsourced to are contractually obligated to complete five tickets a week. Not per day, per *week*. They have YET to meet that obligation, but management won't admit the failure because then somebody's ass will be on the line.
Moral of the story: no, offshoring doesn't always bring all the beneifts that it is supposed to.
How can this even remotely be called "voter intimidation"? Who is being encouraged or pressured not to vote? This looks like nothing more than the DNC calling on all citizens to raise a hue and cry whenever they experience vote fraud.
And I hate to be the one to break the story, but Drudge isn't he most reliable of sources...
A submission from Indomitus, a left-leaning reader (nothing wrong with that) comes in citing the dailyKOS as a source of news, and the editor doesn't even explain that that site is so unbelievably slanted as to be unreadable.
If you have a problem with the facts, say so. Otherwise please stop with the incessant whining about "bias." The facts as they stand are that the RNC is encouraging if not sponsoring massive vote fraud, the DNC is NOT, and all the movement conservatives seem to be able to offer up in defense is "liberal bias!" and unsubstantiated claims of "they all do it!", neither one of which are justifications nor rebuttals.
My advice to everyone on this particular issue:
1. Send those involved to jail. The GOP should oust the people who decided to fund this fraudulent organization. Yesterday.
No, that would be the ethical thing to do. Instead they just fired them, and then moved them to Ohio to do the same damn thing.
I'm a republican, btw.
I was too, until I realized how deeply criminal the party has become. From Tom Delay to Cheney to Rowland to the treason committed against Valerie Plame to the almost innumerable criminal investigations into Republican activities, it just sickens me. I *was* an Eisenhower Republican, but today that makes me a bleeding-heart liberal.
I'm highly skeptical Powell will give the Democrats a fair hearing since his job and the job of his dad are riding on the outcome of the election Sinclair is trying to swing.
I am as well. The thing is that Hundt actually seemed to take the whole fairness thing seriously. I don't know if you recall, but when Ross Perot was running the major networks refused to air his commercials until the FCC under Hundt stepped in. He was a Clinton appointee, but he acted in the interest of fairness and democracy there, and I respect him for that.
The following letter by Reed Hundt, former chairman of the FCC, was sent to Josh Micah Marshall, and eloquently explains the problem with what Sinclair is doing:
Dear Josh:
Why is it important that Sinclair Broadcasting be urged in all lawful ways that can be imagined to reconsider its decision to broadcast on its television stations the anti-Kerry "documentary"?
Because in a large, pluralistic information society democracy will not work unless electronic media distribute reasonably accurate information and also competing opinions about political candidates to the entire population. Certainly, for the overwhelming number of voters this year, controlling impressions of the candidates for President are obtained from television.
In all countries, candidates for public office governments aspire to have favorable information and a chorus of favorable opinion disseminated through mass media to the citizenry. In a democracy, on the eve of a quadrennial election, the incumbent government plainly has a motive to encourage the media to report positively on its record but also negatively on the rival. But its role instead is to make sure that broadcast television promote democracy by conveying reasonably accurate reflections of where the candidates stand and what they are like.
To that end, since television was invented, Congress and its delegated agency, the Federal Communications Commision, together have passed laws and regulations to ensure that broadcast television stations provide reasonably accurate, balanced, and fair coverage of major Presidential and Congressional candidates. These obligations are reflected in specific provisions relating to rights to buy advertising time, bans against the gift of advertising time, rights to reply to opponents, and various other specific means of accomplishing the goal of balance and fairness. The various rules are part of a tradition well known to broadcasters an honored by almost all of them. This tradition is embodied in the commitment of the broadcasters to show the conventions and the debates.
Part of this tradition is that broadcasters do not show propaganda for any candidate, no matter how much a station owner may personally favor one or dislike the other. Broadcasters understand that they have a special and conditional role in public discourse. They received their licenses from the public -- licenses to use airwaves that, for instance, cellular companies bought in auctions -- for free, and one condition is the obligation to help us hold a fair and free election. The Supreme Court has routinely upheld this "public interest" obligation. Virtually all broadcasters understand and honor it.
Sinclair has a different idea, and a wrong one in my view. If Sinclair wants to disseminate propaganda, it should buy a printing press, or create a web site. These other media have no conditions on their publication of points of view. This is the law, and it should be honored. In fact, if the FCC had any sense of its responsibility as a steward of fair elections its chairman now would express exactly what I am writing to you here.
You're correct. Maybe "Goldern Era" is a more fitting term. That period of the mid-20th century, post WW2, when the future was so bright you had to wear shades. This was mostly, but not exclusively, and American pheneomenon.
Slashdot Mirror
Is everyone sure that the war was a bad idea? It seems to me trying to stabilize the region is a good idea. Previous attempts haven't worked very well and have just created an environment that creates terrorists.
Yes, Iraq was a horrible idea. At the very least we should have finished up in Afghanistan first, made sure than nation was stable and not producing 75% of the world's opium crop, leading to massive corruption and undermining the authority of the Kabul government.
Bush took a risk. I like that fact that he didn't contiue with the same old policy of containment. Real change is what was needed. Let the people have some sense of self determination.
Fine. One thing at a time. But whereas Afghanistan was an immediate threat to the security interests of the US, Iraq never was, and starting a war for purposes other than immediate threat is both immoral and sinful. We cannot go off on global adventures merely at the whim of a fundmantalist president who thinks there may be some danger far off in the future.
I'm pissed when I get modded down for any of my pro-Bush comments, but this is just blatant bias in the text of an article. A little more objectivity wouldn't hurt here.
And what about when objectivity comes down on the side of "Bush is an evil fuck", hmm? Going by how the Republicans whine, objectivity is about making sure the GOP comes out smelling like roses, even when the facts are against them.
Screw that. George Bush is objectively evil. This war was a horrible idea, poorly executed, and has increased the danger to America while draining it of treasure and international goodwill. THAT is the objective truth, and partsian whining about "bias" can go screw itself.
You're comparing George Bush to Saddam Hussein? Wow man, thanks for being upfront with your fascist tendencies. I mean, I think they're both evil, but I'm not really sure that saying "George Bush: not as evil as Saddam" is all that much of a platform.
Is it obvious much that michael is a Kerry supporter? Is it any surprise that anyone critical of this blatant astroturfing is modded down? I didn't realise Slashdot was a forum in which to impose your political views on others, I thought it was a bookmark collator for IT news. How stupid of me.
Wahh wahh wahh whine whine whine. Look I'm a Republican! Media bias! It's not FAIR! MOMMY! MOMMY! Wah wah wah!
How many stories has the token Republican editor Pudge posted here? Would it be not a million miles from ZERO?
Here, have a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up, pussy. You want Republican propaganda go turn on the radio or point your browser at Free Republic, k? Bush is a complete and utter fuckup and the whole world realizes it, at least those who don't suck Sean Hannity's (et al) cock on a daily basis.
I blame the line item veto (the real reason the budget declined during the Clinton years), which was removed following the impeachment trial.
The line item veto was never actually implemented. As soon as the bill was signed by Clinton it was challenged on constitutional grounds and kept from going into effect. The SCOTUS eventually ruled it unconstitutional, and the OMB afterwards announced that the 40 items that were line item vetoed would have their funds released.
The budget deficit looked good because Clinton was a fiscally responsible president.
I don't believe that the station owners are in the business of losing money. If there was not a market out in this country for political talk shows then those shows would go out of business.
What's good for their bottom line is not necessarily good for the republic, and in fact in this case I would argue that it is specifically damaging to the republic.
Is this a division between the more intellectual America reading and writing newspapers, and the popular opinion?
More of a reflection that newspaper editorials only have a limited impact. There is far more of an impact from the previously mentioned propaganda network: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, etc., etc. In my hometown (Dallas) there are currently *two* radio stations, with pretty significant market share, whose only purpose is to spread GOP propaganda, 24 hours a day. The Democrats have no such partisan network.
Iraq, etc., is not about democracy. I'm not 100% sure *what* it's about, exactly, but democracy it is not. The modern GOP is primarily concerned with maintaining power, not democracy, or liberty, or justice in any meaningful sense.
Does any American truly believe it when they accuse someone of siding with the terrorists? For your answer, look at the best seller list on Amazon.com today. Unfortunately, many Americans do believe exactly that, or have been led to believe it by unscrupulous partisans.
A split government is better for all America. I support Kerry and the Democratic party in general, but I am *extremely* skeptical about having a one-party government.
Because for the president of the United States, the supposed defender of our constitution and the rights of all Americans, to have people arrested who are guilty of nothing more than being energetic about our liberties, is both tragic and criminal, and shows how little the president actually cares for those liberties whenever it comes time to put words into action. Given a choice between accepting a difference of view, or even encouraging those who wish to broaden our liberties, the president has them arrested. That, in my book, is the very definition of anti-American.
And how applicable are they to modern libertarian thought? Very little, I would argue. The primary motivator of libertarians and the libertarian party today is Ayn Rand, and her philosophy is indeed based upon the primary importance of selfish greed.
I believe that there are larger and ultimately more beneficial (personally and socially) virtues than some dogmatic worship of greed and belief that the market, left to its own devices, is perfect and holy, not to be touched by the Satanic hands of government bureaucrats. We *are* sacrificing the ability of future generations to succeed, to live on a planet that is substanaible for human life, and are moving towards a nation where our elders live our their final years in poverty.
So no, both sides are not equally complicit. The GOP is far and away more criminal.
I've read about a single case involving less than 100 Democrats' registrations being ripped up. Can you cite references to the thousands? Honest question, I just haven't read about that many.
Would it matter if I did? If you had a strong suspicion that the GOP were actively encouraging vote fraud, I expect that you would avert your gaze or seek to justify it. If there is one thing I have learned about modern conservatives it is that they have wholly abdicated any and all responsiblity and morality.
Nonetheless.
GOP fraud in Oregon, GOP fraud in Arizona, Nevada (another), and so forth and so on. Look for yourself, not that I expect you to actually meaningfully CRITICIZE the GOP.
Of course not. But there are greater and lesser crimes, and this is a much, MUCH lesser crime than the active disenfranchisement of voters as sponsored by the RNC over the past two weeks. This action by the Democrats is tawdry at worst. The destruction of voter registration cards is CRIMINAL, and worthy of no lesser punishment than death.
Let me ask you the same question I have posed elsewhere in this thread. Let's say this is true. Is this worse of a crime, the same, or less of a crime than the wholescale destruction of thousands of voter registraiton cards as carried out by GOP operatives in multiple states over the past few weeks?
So let's say this is true. Is this worse of a crime, the same, or less of a crime than the wholscale destruction of voter registraiton cards as carried out by GOP operatives in multiple states over the past few weeks?
Moral of the story: no, offshoring doesn't always bring all the beneifts that it is supposed to.
How can this even remotely be called "voter intimidation"? Who is being encouraged or pressured not to vote? This looks like nothing more than the DNC calling on all citizens to raise a hue and cry whenever they experience vote fraud.
And I hate to be the one to break the story, but Drudge isn't he most reliable of sources...
A submission from Indomitus, a left-leaning reader (nothing wrong with that) comes in citing the dailyKOS as a source of news, and the editor doesn't even explain that that site is so unbelievably slanted as to be unreadable.
If you have a problem with the facts, say so. Otherwise please stop with the incessant whining about "bias." The facts as they stand are that the RNC is encouraging if not sponsoring massive vote fraud, the DNC is NOT, and all the movement conservatives seem to be able to offer up in defense is "liberal bias!" and unsubstantiated claims of "they all do it!", neither one of which are justifications nor rebuttals.
My advice to everyone on this particular issue: 1. Send those involved to jail. The GOP should oust the people who decided to fund this fraudulent organization. Yesterday.
No, that would be the ethical thing to do. Instead they just fired them, and then moved them to Ohio to do the same damn thing.
I'm a republican, btw.
I was too, until I realized how deeply criminal the party has become. From Tom Delay to Cheney to Rowland to the treason committed against Valerie Plame to the almost innumerable criminal investigations into Republican activities, it just sickens me. I *was* an Eisenhower Republican, but today that makes me a bleeding-heart liberal.
I'm highly skeptical Powell will give the Democrats a fair hearing since his job and the job of his dad are riding on the outcome of the election Sinclair is trying to swing.
I am as well. The thing is that Hundt actually seemed to take the whole fairness thing seriously. I don't know if you recall, but when Ross Perot was running the major networks refused to air his commercials until the FCC under Hundt stepped in. He was a Clinton appointee, but he acted in the interest of fairness and democracy there, and I respect him for that.
You're correct. Maybe "Goldern Era" is a more fitting term. That period of the mid-20th century, post WW2, when the future was so bright you had to wear shades. This was mostly, but not exclusively, and American pheneomenon.