backtop


Print 112 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on Sep 4 at 1:09 AM

Contradictory language in the Republican National Party's plank confounds

(This article deals with politics and the internet -- those who do not wish to read about these topics are forewarned)

The Republican National Party (RNP) published its platform -- entitled "We Believe in America" -- on Aug. 29, 2012, presenting the party's federal vision for America.  The platform claimed three primary authors -- Senator John Hoeven (R-N. Dakota), Governor Bob McDonnell (R-Virg.), and Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

I. Digging Into the RNP "We Believe..." Platform

Reading the document I think the public may find many appealing aspects in the platform, starting with the subtitle "Reforming Government to Serve People" -- surely a worthwhile goal given today's state of hyper-deficits and inconsistent taxation.

But the troubling aspect of the platform from the perspective of a technology and science observer is the high degree of inconsistency and obfuscation amongst the various platform planks (though to be fair I fear we shall find similar problems in the Democratic National Party's (DNP) platform).

Let's dig into what exactly the platform says -- after weeks of rumors and speculation -- but first let's be perfectly clear what the platform is.  

It is somewhat of a myth to say that America does not have or has never had viable third parties -- President Andrew Johnson, the man who succeeded President Abraham Lincoln -- was effectively a third-party president after publicly renouncing the Democratic Party while in office, while also refusing to join the Republican ranks.

But in all practicality, the nucleus of political power in America today is largely binary.  And today it takes millions of dollars to get elected to office.  2008 marked the first race in which the average "price" of a seat in the House of Representatives passed the $1M USD mark.  The candidate with more money won 9 out of 10 federal races.  Much of that funding comes from the national party, which in turn receives a mixture of money from small donors and hefty special interests.

RNP

Against that backdrop, consider that the RNP's and DNP's platforms are non-binding, yet they do carry substantial weight and pressure.  Candidates who buck the carefully laid out talking points in the platform risk losing funding, and by proxy losing a job opportunity.  Of course there may be some element of pandering to the platform -- so it's not impossible to fathom that either party might adopt a plank (passage) that they have no real intention of enforcing.

II. Internet Free Speech

With that said, one key technology issue in the platform was the internet and free speech. 

On free speech, the RNP comments (pg. 12):

We insist that there should be no regulation of political speech on the Internet. By the same token, we oppose governmental censorship of speech through the so-called Fairness Doctrine or by government enforcement of speech codes, free speech zones, or other forms of “political correctness” on campus.

This is a comment most reasonable people can agree with.  The Federal Communications Commission has drawn much ire for its censorship of profanity on the airwaves, a policy that goes largely unenforced in satellite or internet radio.

It's also a welcome shift as both parties have used the tactic of "free speech zones", which inherently violates citizens' First Amendment rights.

Free speech zones were first introduced during Michael Dukakis's 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta, Georgia.  While it is almost certain that was not the first attempt to suppress protest during a political rally, it entered the term "protest zone" into the popular vocabulary, a term which eventually evolved into the phrase "free speech zone".  Republican President George W. Bush would later go on to embrace the tactic for suppressing citizens' Constitutional rights, illustrating that both parties can tango on this topic.

Free speech zones
"Free speech zones", an inherently unconstitutional construct, have been embraced by both parties in today's "police state". [Image Source: Brandt Luke Zorn]

But there's also a fair degree of hypocrisy in the platform plank's supposed stand "against" free speech zones.  

In effect the RNP is enforcing "free speech zones" at its Tampa convention this week.  The Republicans do not let protesters into or directly outside of the arena (even on public streets) where the event is held.  Instead they have created "parade routes", which allow the protesters to march by at a respectively farther distance.

Of course locking out the rabble-rousers is no easy task, so the RNP and DNP each accepted $50M USD in taxpayer funds to enforce their free speech zones, which the RNP has chose to creatively rename, in order to assume the appearance that they disagree with it.

But to protesters like Jarid Hamil, organizer of March on the RNC, a Rafflesia (that's a jungle flower that smells like feces) by any other name still stinks as strong.  He tells NBC News, "The city is a police state, buildings are lined with fences and barricades, windows boarded up.  Helicopters constantly swarm the sky.  Meanwhile, the police parade their tank from time to time." 

This is not solely a Republican issue.  The DNP is expected to adopt almost identical efforts for its convention in Charlotte.  But the language of the RNP's platform plank versus the reality in the streets illustrates the creative efforts by both parties to obfuscate the ugly face of censorship.  Given that glaring revelation, one must wonder about the party's internet speech claims -- and indeed there is cause for concern and confusion (more on that later).

III. Internet/Freedoms, Regulation, and the Great Unknowns 

The internet (and internet freedom) is also fodder for a longer plank (pg. 23) which comments:

The Internet has unleashed innovation, enabled growth, and inspired freedom more rapidly and extensively than any other technological advance in human history. Its independence is its power. The Internet offers a communications system uniquely free from government intervention. We will remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new and disruptive technologies such as mobile delivery of voice video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem. We will resist any effort to shift control away from the successful
multi-stakeholder approach of Internet governance and toward governance by international or other intergovernmental organizations. We will ensure that personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach and that individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties; the only way to safeguard or improve these systems is through the private sector.

It goes on in a followup plank of their "Vision":

The most vibrant sector of the American economy, indeed, one-sixth of it, is regulated by the federal government on precedents from the nineteenth century. Today’s technology and telecommunications industries are overseen by the Federal Communications Commission, established in 1934 and given the jurisdiction over telecommunications formerly assigned to the Interstate Commerce Commission, which had been created in 1887 to regulate the railroads.  This is not a good fit. Indeed, the development of telecommunications advances so rapidly that even the Telecom Act of 1996 is woefully out of date. An industry that invested $66 billion in 2011 alone needs, and deserves, a more modern relationship with the federal government for the benefit of consumers here and worldwide.

The current Administration has been frozen in the past. It has conducted no auction of spectrum, has offered no incentives for investment, and, through the FCC’s net neutrality rule, is trying to micromanage telecom as if it were a railroad network. It inherited from the previous Republican Administration 95 percent coverage of the nation with broadband.  It will leave office with no progress toward the goal of universal coverage – after spending $7.2 billion more. That hurts rural America, where farmers, ranchers, and small business manufacturers need connectivity to expand their customer base and operate in real time with the world’s producers. We encourage public-private partnerships to provide predictable support for connecting rural areas so that every American can fully participate in the global economy.

We call for an inventory of federal agency spectrum to determine the surplus that could be auctioned for the taxpayers’ benefit. With special recognition of the role university technology centers are playing in attracting private investment to the field, we will replace the administration’s Luddite approach to technological progress with a regulatory partnership that will keep this country the world leader in technology and telecommunications.
 

It seems a bit unfair to imply that Obama has done nothing with respect to the spectrum auction, given that it was only just authorized by Congress in March via the payroll tax cut extension bill (officially "The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act").  The underlying issue is the slow pace of the FCC, and issue that has affected both parties' plans over the years. 
Spectrum Auction
Republicans want to step up efforts to auction spectrum. [Image Source: Andy Kessler]

The net-neutrality repeal push is a more interesting stand.  I don't necessarily think it’s wise to condemn the Republican's proposal to repeal net-neutrality (which prohibits, say your broadband carrier for charging you a special fee to access YouTube versus other data traffic) -- lack of competition in the telecommunications industry, which is arguably was caused by the government, created problem.

IV. Republicans Role in Creating (and Trying to Fix) Telecom Monopolies

Today's market is slightly more competitive than the telephone market of yesteryear, but there are only four major carriers, with two carriers (AT&T Inc. (T) and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)/Vodafone Group Plc. (LON:VOD) subsidiary Verizon Wireless) controlling approximately 2/3rds of contract wireless subscribers.  Likewise cable internet is ruled by a few stretching corporations -- AT&T, Comcast Corp. (CMCSA), and Time Warner Inc. (TWX), to name a few.

The real dilemma is that the government has artificially promoted a market devoid of competition, something telecommunications providers love.  To quote the 1913 comments [source] of Theodore Vail, the president of AT&T, "The public as a whole has never benefited [from competition]; all costs of aggressive, uncontrolled competition are eventually borne, directly or indirectly, by the public."

The roots can be traced to Bell's monopoly.  The monopoly began with a period of control via telecom patents.  Sound familiar?  Today Apple, Inc. (AAPL) is pushing for similar protections.

But patent monopolies, loathsome as they may be, have a tendency to implode under public outcry. By 1894, 80 smaller startups had gained a foothold -- 5 percent of the market. Bell fought back by pushing state lawmakers to pass state laws giving it leverage.

President Warren G. Harding (a Republican) in 1907 stated, "The telephone is and ought to remain a natural monopoly regulated by some competent authority".

Warren G. Harding
Republican President Warren G. Harding: "the telephone is and ought to remain a natural monopoly regulated by some competent authority."

The CATO Institute summarizes what happened next and how after a questionable allowance of Bell's acquisition of telegraph giant Western Union (non-intervention), the government intervened in the worst possible way to solidify the new communications monopoly:

A Senate Commerce Committee hearing in 1921 stated that "telephoning is a natural monopoly." And a House of Representative committee report noted, "There is nothing to be gained by local competition in the telephone business" (quoted in Loeb 1978: 14). A Michigan Public Utilities Commission report (1921: 315) from that same year also illustrates this prevailing sentiment, "Competition resulted in duplication of investment. . . . The policy of the state was to eliminate this by eliminating as far as possible, duplication." Many state regulatory agencies began refusing requests by telephone companies to construct new lines in areas already served by another carrier and continued to encourage monopoly swapping and consolidation in the name of "efficient service" (Lavey 1987: 184-85). Kellogg, Thorne, and Huber (1992: 17) sum up the prevailing sentiment: "To judge by actions, then, rather than words, government officials had no strong objection to monopoly telephone service. This was especially true for state regulators. For them, a local telephone monopoly was both welcome and convenient."

(Note: Both the House and Senate were Republican controlled, with Republicans outnumbering Democrats in the House nearly 3-to-1 [source].)

In other words, this mess in the telecommunciations industry was started approximately a century ago.  

But Republicans also deserve some credit for moving to fix the problem -- President Gerald Ford's U.S. Department of Justice was responsible for filing the suit which would eventually break up the American Telephone & Telegraph empire into so-called "Baby Bells".  

Problems though have continued, according to the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information's recent report [PDF] to Congress, through the 1990s at the state level as major telecom firms received grants, regulatory favors, and other government-given perks from both sides of aisle, in exchange for large deployment promises, which went unfulfilled.

So the lesson learned is that it's not necessarily enough to say a specific party is helping or hurting communications freedom, as if parties are incapable of change.  Likewise, as the free speech zone issue illustrates, parties can not be taken at their word.  But the fundamental truths seem to be:
  • The government must adopt basic regulation to preserve at least 3-4 large providers in wired and wireless markets
  • State governments must cooperate with that effort
  • The government should end handouts to telecoms for development
  • The government should not outlaw small community efforts to offer a competitive alternative
  • The government should allow broach of net-neutrality, so long as the market's players are not acting collusively to overprice certain kinds of content
  • The government should adopt a flat tax on all forms of income, such that large players are not able to gain a taxation (economic) advantage over smaller players via lobbying
From that perspective, the RNP's planks on internet freedom and regulation aren't bad, but they also aren't particularly good, being too nebulous and too centered around attacking the current administration, rather than elaborating on solutions.

V. Ban Porn, Ban Internet Gambling

But there is one stark and startling provision is entitled "Making the Internet Family-Friendly" (pg. 32):

Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet and call for reversal of the Justice Department’s decision distorting the formerly accepted meaning of the Wire Act that could open the door to Internet betting.

The Internet must be made safe for children. We call on service providers to exercise due care to ensure that the Internet cannot become a safe haven for predators while respecting First Amendment rights. We congratulate the social networking sites that bar known sex offenders from participation. We urge active prosecution against child pornography, which is closely linked to the horrors of human trafficking. Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.

So, to be clear, you support the federal government spending taxpayer dollars to prohibition of gambling -- a restriction of the free market?  And you are backing enforcement obscenity laws, which as per my previous analysis have deemed by the Supreme Court to outlaw most forms of pornography (albeit going unenforced of late)?

Fifty Shades of GrayBackdoor
The porn ban would include outlawing depictions of bondage and anal sex.
[Image Source: Google Images]

Let us focus on two statements:

We insist that there should be no regulation of political speech on the Internet.

...and:

The Internet must be made safe for children... current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.

These are fundamentally incompatible statements.  In many ways, the new platform offers more questions than answers.  One thing is clear upon reading, though -- beware the wording.

(I'm going to be carefully analyzing the DNP's planks when they hit Charlotte.  I'm even trying to bring a published conservative book author onboard for the piece to scrutinize the platform.  You can look forward to that.)

Source: GOP



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not worth the paper it's printed on.
By Performance Fanboi on 8/31/2012 1:43:03 AM , Rating: 2
Every word of this is meaningless - these Republicans have turned lying with a straight face into a sport.




RE: Not worth the paper it's printed on.
By Jackthegreen on 8/31/2012 1:59:38 AM , Rating: 5
Didn't you know? Lying with a straight face is the very definition of politics.


RE: Not worth the paper it's printed on.
By TSS on 8/31/2012 9:10:53 AM , Rating: 2
Not true. It might be the way it is in america but here in europe atleast some (a few, but they still exist) politicians can still be taken at face value. Also the politicial commercials aren't even close to accusing opponents like in the states. They just mention a problem, and say they're the ones who are going to fix it. If we get political commercials at all, unless there's a debate on i hardly ever see any.

We're heading down the US road fast though. Here in holland in a recent debate the (former) prime minister denied what was in his own program. He just stone cold lied about the program he himself is running on. But instead of being blasted in the media, his opponent was blasted for "not being ready for anything", lying now beeing called "debate tactics". Even lost alot of seats in the polls.

Where in gods name is all this stupidity coming from? It seems like every passing day we're all collectively getting dumber and dumber. I would've never belived intelligence can just evaporate if i didn't see it with my own eyes. I belive what's happening now is exactly what happened at the end of the roman empire around 500 AD, where alot of technology was lost and people seemed to become collectively stupid as well.


RE: Not worth the paper it's printed on.
By Lord 666 on 8/31/12, Rating: -1
By Rukkian on 8/31/2012 11:27:50 AM , Rating: 3
What exactly does this have to do with anything?


RE: Not worth the paper it's printed on.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2012 9:37:21 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It might be the way it is in america but here in europe atleast some (a few, but they still exist) politicians can still be taken at face value.


AHHAHAAHAHA oh man, that's a good one.

I really should move to Europe, everyone should. Europeans on the Internet have told us that there the streets are paved with gold, the Government's are incorruptible and pure, there's no poverty or sickness, and violence and crimes have virtually been eliminated.

Europe is, quite plainly, a Utopia. I don't know why anyone would still want to live in America, based on all the wonderful things Europeans have told us over the years.


RE: Not worth the paper it's printed on.
By martin5000 on 8/31/2012 10:40:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I really should move to Europe...


I understand you meaning, but it works both ways. The outside perception of the USA is of a country that constantly goes on about how great it is, to be honest I think Europeans are relatively modest.


RE: Not worth the paper it's printed on.
By KCjoker on 8/31/2012 7:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
Modest? WTH? Europeans love to shout how great their countries are compared to the USA. I actually have no problem with it because every country should feel that way. However don't give me this BS that Europeans are modest because they are absolutely not.


RE: Not worth the paper it's printed on.
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2012 10:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
Uhm no, I spent a month in England and its an extremely polite society. You won't find many people in your face, as it were.


By knutjb on 9/3/2012 2:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
I lived in the UK for over four years and generally found them no more in my face than living in Idaho or South Dakota. However, when going to some areas I did experience some very much in my face just for being there, I hadn't spoke a word, had a UK car, and UK clothes. It goes very much with entitlement society. If you watch a protest do beware or go to a football match they tend to be extremely vocal about the US.

In Germany they were cold but that is their public nature as compared to the Brits who are usually more inviting.

If you had spent time watching CNN International you would have watched a strong anti-US bias.

So broad statements don't apply, got to be specific. Except with the plumbing, it mostly sucks in the UK.


By danobrega on 9/3/2012 3:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'm form one of those European contries you speak of.

My country sucks. :-)

Well, not true. The weather is great.


RE: Not worth the paper it's printed on.
By mcnabney on 8/31/12, Rating: 0
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2012 4:51:36 PM , Rating: 3
"Poverty" in America are people who own vehicles and are provided housing and are able to purchase food and services. There's very little TRUE poverty in America compared to most of the world. Real poverty, where families starve to death and people have no clothes or necessities, doesn't even EXIST here.

American's prickish and selfish? An entire third of the population is now on Government assistance. Which is payed for through the taxes of those who produce. Furthermore NO country gives more in private donations and charities than America, even by per-capita. NOT because they're forced to by the Government, but because they choose to. That's SELFLESS, not selfish.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/12/20/144...

(NPR, nobody can accuse me of using a "right-wing" source)

Selfish?? I take great offense to that honestly.


RE: Not worth the paper it's printed on.
By kmmatney on 9/1/12, Rating: 0
By Reclaimer77 on 9/2/2012 1:01:29 AM , Rating: 2
Shootings in America get a lot of press because we're that 'crazy' country that has a right to bear arms. However I would be very surprised if the Europeans you've "met" weren't aware that the largest mass shootings generally occur IN and around Europe. I believe the most recent being 70, yes 70 children gunned down in a summer camp in Norway. Oh my mistake, I guess the Nordic Wal-Marts had a special that week on Bushmasters...

And how exactly was this topic any kind of rebuttal of my post? It's just a slam attempt from complete left field. Go USA? More like Woohooo! Go TROLLING!


By knutjb on 9/3/2012 3:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
I remember when the UK banned guns and a BBC reporter thought it would be hard to get a gun. He had a quality gun and ammo by noon for 250 quid. It was about the same time a well loved BBC announcer was shot and killed near her front door. Norway. But look at Switzerland...


RE: Not worth the paper it's printed on.
By Da W on 8/31/2012 11:26:29 AM , Rating: 2
Promess to create 12 millions jobs but banning porn on the web might just destroy 12 millions 'jobs'


By Rukkian on 8/31/2012 11:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
Nah, all those jobs would just be outsourced to India, and China. The demand does not go away, it just gets more expensive since it is now illegal.


By Performance Fanboi on 9/1/2012 7:38:27 PM , Rating: 3
I think it was Stephen Fry that said if you remove all the porn sites from the web all that would remain is one website called 'Bring back the Porn'.


R vs. D
By sprockkets on 8/31/2012 1:55:30 AM , Rating: 3
While I'm not going to waste time on this since it is pretty much a moot issue...

...but back then *IIRC* in the late 1800s, there was no "Democratic" party; there was a party called "Republican-Democratic", and it was going against parties like Federalist and Whig. The party today that is closest to it is the "Democratic" party.

Some ideals though of each party are worthwhile, but you can't have the good without the bad, and the way things are going, each party will deadlock the other, unless both profit from it in someway.




RE: R vs. D
By Rike on 8/31/2012 5:34:53 AM , Rating: 5
Just to clarify the history of the parties a little . . .

Washington didn't have a party. In fact, he actually warned the country that they were a bad idea.

Early disagreements about policy (mostly economic) split Hamilton/Adams from Jefferson/Madison and they created the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans respectively.

After Adams lost to Jefferson in a rematch, the Federalist party crumbles under the unpopularity of it's policies, leaving the Democratic-Republicans as the last party standing. This single party era is commonly called the Era of Good Feelings. However, this catch-all party was only a single party on the surface and splits started to show fairly quickly.

By the time Jackson was elected, the Democratic-Republicans had started going by just "Democrats" and thus Jackson is generally considered the first president to be a Democrat. But Jackson is such a polarizing political figure, a new party was formed: the Whigs.

While the Whigs were a strong, even dominant party for a short time, they didn't last long because the only thing that really unified them was that they hated Jackson and his polices. Add to that the Whigs inability to figure out how to resolve the issue of slavery and the Whigs quickly found themselves on the ropes, fighting for political relevance . (To be fair, no one found a peacefully solution to the slavery problem, thus the Civil War.)

Skipping the complex politics of the 1850's which saw the country and it's politics split along regional lines, we come to Lincoln as the first Republican president in 1861. (The good folks of South Carolina cheered because they finally felt fully justified is seceding from the Union and quickly did so well prior to Lincoln's inauguration.)

So, from the election of 1860 forward, U.S. presidential politics has been mostly a bipolar affair (take that as you will). While each parties' platform has changed dramatically over that time, both the Democratic and Republican party organizations have operated uninterrupted and in competition with each other from that time to this.

Since the election of 1860, there have been very few strong showings by a third party candidate. And thus far, it is reasonable to argue that a strong third party candidates only succeed in defeating which ever main party they would otherwise mostly closely align with. That will likely continue indefinitely unless there are significant changes to our current winner-take-all and single choice voting system. (A little editorial at the end there ;)


RE: R vs. D
By mcnabney on 8/31/2012 11:13:32 AM , Rating: 4
Or instant run-off style voting.

If that was rolled out across the country - wow - imagine what it would be like to vote for the party you REALLY agree with knowing that it wouldn't be wasted since your subsequent choices would still count.

...but "the powers that be" would never allow that. And only they could put it into place.


RE: R vs. D
By RufusM on 8/31/2012 1:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
There are many problems with IRV since it makes the process more complex, voters have a hard time understanding it, it depends heavily on the order of elimination, some claim it violates the "one person, one vote" rule, etc. The minority party still needs to have enough support to win, so it really doesn't fix anything.

What we need is to change the mindset that voting for someone other then R or D is wasting their vote. A vote is a vote. Each person needs to vote for the best candidate, according to their ideology and not just blindly follow the party line.


RE: R vs. D
By nshoe on 8/31/2012 1:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
You cannot change the mindset that voting for someone else is wasting their vote without changing the voting system. The reason people have gotten the mindset that voting for someone other than a major party candidate is wasting their vote is because according to game theory it is true.

If I think that candidate R is a complete waste of air, candidate D is ok, but I have some major disagreements with them, and candidate I is the best thing since sliced bread. Then take a look at the polls, R has 40%, D has 35%, and I has 10%. From those polls, my preferred choice has no chance whatsoever of winning - and if I vote for him then it is more likely that the candidate that I dislike the most will actually win, which means I am actually better off voting for the "lesser of two evils" than I am voting for my actual preference. At least with IRV I can make my actual preference known without making it more likely that the person I dislike the most will win.

If you want people to vote their actual preference, then you need to have a voting system that at the very least does not penalize them for doing so.


RE: R vs. D
By RufusM on 8/31/2012 2:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
IRV still doesn't change the fact that I still needs a majority of votes to win, in your example. If people change their mindset the poll won't be R=40%,, D=35% and I=10% to begin with. It would be more balanced, assuming people actually agree with the I platform.

The two parties count on people voting for the lesser of two evils. They assume they will take their base vote, even though a huge percentage of their base thinks the party itself is part of the problem.

Like I said, sometimes the opposition needs to win a few times to encourage change within the party. If the party splits, then so be it. It will eventually be rebuilt into a better party or go by the wayside. I'd rather vote for someone I believe who best fits with my ideology than vote for the lesser of two evils.


RE: R vs. D
By shin0bi272 on 9/3/2012 3:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
actually there was never a party called the Democratic republicans thats a term that someone came up with to describe those without a party.

The democrat party was founded in 1824 by Martin Van Buren for the sole purpose of gaining power in all levels of government so that they could squelch all talk of slavery. They brought us the spoils system (from the saying "to the victor go the spoils") where every time the president leaves office almost everyone he appointed to various positions is removed by the next president. They also brought us the graft... because in Van Buren's eyes if you didnt talk about slavery it would go away on its own. So if you were found to be talking about slavery they would either buy you off or give you a job. That graft also lead to widespread corruption in all levels of government.

1824 is also the first election where the success of a newspaper and even that of individual reporters was tied to the success of the democrat party. Thats due to Van Buren's friends who worked for different news papers around the country and his message that money corrupts (even though he would have been a billionaire in today's dollars).

His strategy was to find a man from the north with southern principles... that way the north would vote for him and the south would vote for him. It worked for about 40 years or so and the other party of the time (the whigs) became little more than "me too" democrats.

Thus in the mid 1850's the whig party was torn apart with the more moderate members joining the democrats and the more hard line people becoming the republican party. By more hard line I mean they said that slavery shouldnt expand but it was fine where it was already being practiced... oooh controversial huh? But that argument lead to the bloodiest war America has ever seen.

And I didnt read Jason's article, since we all know its a standard leftist hit piece on republicans, but I did notice the spot on Harding. What you have to understand is that in the years following the civil war large waves of german philosophers and teachers started showing up here in the USA. About 20 or 30 years later you have people like Woodrow Wilson who said that the civil war ended the era of the founding and that the final question had been answered and it was now time to move on and progress with the times. Thus the beginning of the 20th century till the end of the 20's or so is known as the progressive era (I argue that we are still in the progressive era since government just keeps getting bigger no matter what letter is behind the president's name).

The progressives are the ones that espoused big government centrally run economies like those of europe. The problem was the American people wouldnt accept a revolution to a big government statist economy so woodrow wilson came up with an EVOLUTIONARY strategy to move us to a big government socialist economy. In fact he even said that that was the only difference in his progressivism and socialism was that socialism would thrust big government on the people before they were ready for it and he believed that if you allow the government to slowly over time provide things for people that they could and should be doing for themselves you would end up in the same place and the people would still believe themselves to be free when in fact they are anything but.

Progressivism infected both parties (arguably the first progressive president was teddy roosevelt who was only a republican because William McKinley wanted him as his VP after the spanish american war and then like 2 months later I think it was McKinley was shot on a train platform by a socialist... thus making roosevelt president with ZERO experience... and he ran the country like a dictator... butsting up companies he thought were too big... because thats the decision of the president, how much of the market a company can hold... yeah) and harding and coolidge were no different.

When Taft (I think it was), a republican, gave us the 16th amendment in 1913 and "the progressive income tax" wilson came in a couple of weeks later and took a top rate of 7% up to 75% by the end of his second term. Harding and coolidge came in and did they get rid of the big government and high taxes? not exactly. They did cut the top rate from 75% to 25% and that did lead to the roaring 20s where more people got electricity in their homes, cars, and home appliances than any other decade including the post war 50's boom... but they didnt oppose big government just taxes being too high. Then Hoover comes in and he (another republican) starts re-regulating and busting up even more companies (57 or so think it was... vs roosevelt's 8 or 12) and couple that with a wilson era construct "The Federal Reserve" which wouldnt print more money with the economy expanding during the 20's and you have a recipe for disaster. In comes the dust bowl and that causes food prices to skyrocket and without enough money in the system and the president breaking up companies whos prices were too high (monopolistic pricing), too low (predatory pricing), or exactly the same as everyone else (collusion), you have inside of a year the perfect storm of big government mistakes and it takes down the economy.

That brings us the imperial president... FDR... or as I like to call him the man who didnt know when to quit. When FDR took office in 33 unemployment was at 24.9%. 8 years later and about 38 programs to create government jobs the unemployment rate was.... 19.7%. Now does that sound like hes a federalist? Or does that sound like hes a progressive just calling himself a liberal democrat?

So you see the progressive idea that the government should grow and change with the times is still alive and well. Hell how many people (those of you who managed to get through all that) reading this were taught that the constitution is a living breathing document? That's a progressive ideal! That the government should reflect the will of the people so the constitution doesnt really matter anymore.


RE: R vs. D
By knutjb on 9/3/2012 4:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Harding and coolidge came in and did they get rid of the big government and high taxes? not exactly. They did cut the top rate from 75% to 25% and that did lead to the roaring 20s where more people got electricity in their homes, cars, and home appliances than any other decade including the post war 50's boom... but they didnt oppose big government just taxes being too high.
No, they did cut big government by 50% from the mess Woodrow Wilson created. That and the tax cuts created the Roaring 20's. The taxes were high for a little while to pay off Wilson's horrendous debt. By 1926 the tax rates had fallen to single digits and only the very wealthy were paying federal income taxes. You also forgot to mention the Depression of 1921 caused by Wilson's Big Government and huge taxes. Or when Wilson decided to not honor veteran's pensions and charged and the Army through Major(?) Douglas MacArthur to route the very peaceful protesters out of town by any means necessary.

Progressives, can't trust them.


By amosbatto on 8/31/2012 10:26:22 AM , Rating: 3
Once again the Republican party shows that it is a party controlled by wealthy interests when it talks about removing net neutrality. This offers no benefit to average citizens, but it certainly helps the Republican party get corporate donations from the telecoms. Basically it is profits over the commonweal.

The telecoms need to be a regulated monopoly, since unregulated competition will lead to a natural monopoly, but the Republicans seem to be incapable of regulating anything. The sad thing is that now the Democrats have become just as captured by corporate interests, but at least they have a few courageous people on the FEC who seem to truly believe in regulating in the public interest. Basically we are left with the choice between one party which is totally controlled by corporate interests and another party which the corporate interests generally control but can still be swayed if enough people protest. We really need to move to a proportional representation system like Germany has so we can avoid this bipolar hell.

On election day, it is pretty clear which party is better if we care about our internet access, but it is still depressing to have to choose between bad and less bad.




By GotThumbs on 8/31/2012 11:13:34 AM , Rating: 2
"which party is better if we care about our internet access"

Dude, You'd better step back and look at the bigger picture. Internet access is NOT this countries biggest problem currently. It's a speck of dust compared to the nations current economic situation.

If this is your ONLY focus...You need to get out your parents basement more.


By KoS on 8/31/2012 12:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
News flash. Both parties have tons of money behind them and are influenced by wealthy interests.

You would be surprised how many millionaries are democrats.

Heck they big money generally throws money at both parties to hedge their bets.


By knutjb on 9/3/2012 3:49:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Once again the Republican party shows that it is a party controlled by wealthy interests when it talks about removing net neutrality.
Common assertion, prove it. You will find there are far more truly wealthy people in the Democrat party than Republican.
quote:
The telecoms need to be a regulated monopoly, since unregulated competition will lead to a natural monopoly, but the Republicans seem to be incapable of regulating anything. The sad thing is that now the Democrats have become just as captured by corporate interests, but at least they have a few courageous people on the FEC who seem to truly believe in regulating in the public interest.
"The sad thing now is that the Democrats have been captured by corporate interests..." Go back and do some reading, businesses have been playing BOTH sides for a very long time, they were doing what is in their best interest.

As for regulation, too much is worse than not enough. That does not imply zero regulation. All regulation requires risk management when creating it. It is impossible to prevent stupid, some people have an amazing talent and regulation WILL NEVER "fix" it, e.g. at least 1/3 the price of a simple ladder is from stupid things people have done on their own and blamed the manufacturer, or Biltz gas can manufacturer going out of business because there isn't enough room on a gas can to put all the warning labels deemed mandatory.

So, your premise and assumptions are horribly flawed. Strict rules and regulations designed to prevent anything simply don't work because they ignore our irrational behavior and the loopholes they always create.
quote:
We really need to move to a proportional representation system like Germany has so we can avoid this bipolar hell.
Again, read up on the Constitution and all related documents, i.e. the Federalist papers and such. Their intent is brilliant by recognizing how dangerous consolidated power is.

When there is conflict between both sides it prevents one side from ramming through foolish legislation, e.g. Obamacare, (I am talking only in the context of the bill process not content) in which the Democrats gave only token input to Republicans and hid the whole bill from public view until after it was passed, like Nancy said "you have to pass it to see what's in it." What you propose is more likely to encourage the afore mentioned problem. In Congress conflict is good.
quote:
On election day, it is pretty clear which party is better if we care about our internet access, but it is still depressing to have to choose between bad and less bad.
Again, an empty assertion, BOTH sides have been proposing draconian internet regulations at a number of levels from the UN to the music business. As I recall the last time it was primarily the Republicans who responded to public pressure and killed it.

To prove my point, Romney said he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned but knows that is extremely unlikely to happen, so why waste time mulling it over because it is a non-issue. Most platform ideals are unlikely to happen.


DailyTech or DailyPolitics?
By Wererat on 8/31/2012 12:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently the DT staff feels obliged to turn the site into a political forum instead of a technology news site.

The whole left column is filled with "GOP" this and "Obama" that. Granted, this is an election year, but there are plenty of political sites where one can obtain (markedly better-informed) political news.

There are also other places where readers can get technology news without getting a political spin.




RE: DailyTech or DailyPolitics?
By Ammohunt on 8/31/2012 12:30:10 PM , Rating: 1
I could not disagree more! technology doesn't exist in a vacuum it has social,cultural and political implications mixed in. This is one of the main reasons i lurk here most tech sites are to intellectually lazy to take it on. Its very risky and challenging to tackle political topics and hard to do well but at least its attempted here. I also personally use Dailytech to get a feel for just how far gone our education system is based on the posts of its users.


RE: DailyTech or DailyPolitics?
By Wererat on 8/31/2012 1:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point.

I think there's a huge difference between an article about what IS happening (the CAFE standards article might qualify there) and trying to stir up ---- by uninformedly reading a party platform as if it were pending law or regulation.

Should DT do a similar article reading "Online and on TV, we will give parents tools to block content they find
objectionable" (2008 Democrat platform) to mean "White House wants porn block in every PC"?

Sure, if you turn yourself into a pretzel first; or maybe not such a stretch, since it was the Dems who pushed for V-chips in TVs; but still, not good journalism. I find it doubly irresponsible during an election year to post uninformed articles; that's not daring or challenging, just foolish.


RE: DailyTech or DailyPolitics?
By Ammohunt on 8/31/2012 3:13:43 PM , Rating: 1
as long as its labelled an opinion piece and not advertised as "News" the sky is the limit as far as i am concerned...Its ok; this same point that people miss when consuming Fox News they confuse obvious opinion pieces with hard News something that is clearly separated.


By GotThumbs on 8/31/2012 11:05:11 AM , Rating: 1
Rather than bitch and complain about the RNC wanting to make the internet safer for all ages....why not look for OR suggest a solution?

Why is it the loudest barrels are always empty ones?

How about this idea? With the recent idea of .XXX for all internet porn sites....wouldn't this allow the creation of parental controls restricting any internet device from allowing the user to journey into areas any decent parent would want to prevent their child from visiting? This should help protect children and still allow the porn viewers their "Freedom".

There is a solution that both sides can agree on, but both sides have to get their thumbs out their A$$e$ and work together. Obama does not know how to bring two groups together....He's had almost four years and still has no clue. He's a Nice guy, but sucks as a leader.

Freedom of speech is not an excuse to blast and offend people at YOUR whim. There will always be a need to have a balance between freedom of speech and personal space as some individuals will always push/exceed the boundaries of respect for others. I would have zero hesitation of pushing someone who invades in my personal space. Don't lie and say you'd be different.

I can tell you I would not put up with someone yelling in my ear while I'm trying to work or at a social function. Setting up reasonable controls for public safety should continue to be allowed. If not....violence will ensue.

It really disgusts me when human nature/logic is overlooked to try and make a case of hypocrisy.

Ignorance is easily recognized by those who have a mind of their own.

Best wishes,




By Rukkian on 8/31/2012 12:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
While on paper .xxx sounds like a good idea, you still have to have somebody actively deciding what is pornogragraphic and what is not. Who will police to make sure that there are not websites not on .xxx? This does not really help anything and still infringes on free speech rights imho.


By GatoRat on 8/31/2012 12:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
There a plenty of products on the market that will filter the internet. The problem has largely been solved.


'Natural Monopolies'
By croc on 8/31/2012 3:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
Looking at this turn of phrase logically, what I take from it is the fact that the cost of the infrastructure is so high that duplicating it is just unthinkable. So that makes the infrastructure a natural area where a monopoly is cost-beneficial. The types of infrastructure where this happens could / should be copper / fibre, pipelines, transportation systems, those sorts of high cost infrastructure. Personally, I think that these sorts of infrastructures could / should be built by government, and possibly run by government. If fobbed off to the private sector, it should be done with some very strict oversight.

Imagine the US of A today if, for instance, AT&T had been broken up into one more chunk: The wires. Properly regulated, same access costs for the providers, proper maintenance done as governed... If that model had been taken up instead of just granting a lot of little, regional monopolies (and the cross-billing issues that then occurred). I'd imagine a nation of FTTH, one fibre per house for all comms needs, no arguing over who pays for the rural infrastructure, as the US of A would own the infrastructure. As it stands today, every house could have as many as three forms of comms connectivity, all redundant, and all hugely costly to build out.

As it stands, AT&T is now bigger than ever. And THEY own the infrastructure. And THEY decide what you will pay, who will get service, and how much service you will get. Government is not always a bad thing, and the 'market' is not always a good thing.




RE: 'Natural Monopolies'
By MadMan007 on 8/31/2012 7:16:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, best solution is to break up content provider and infrastructure owner. It is true that duplicate infrastucture is wasteful, and it's not necessary for 'competition' at all - it's just one part of providing a service. A reasonably regulated 'dumb pipe' infrastructure owner or two (ie: many areas now have cable and phone line connections) who sells to any content/service provider would serve everyone's best interest (expect the current infrastructure/content provider - although even they could arguably be more efficient by focusing on one aspect or another).


The games people play
By Beenthere on 8/31/2012 1:28:22 PM , Rating: 3
Trying to sway public opinion and election results with planted stories and slanted perspectives is very effective because most of the sheep have their heads up their arse.

Anyone with a clue knows that most politicians are just unscrupulous con artists looking to steal the tax payers blind. If you think one party is better than another, you've already been duped. They are all criminals...some who have been convicted and the rest waiting to be convicted.




Ban Masturbation?
By web2dot0 on 8/31/2012 5:25:32 AM , Rating: 2
That's right boys and girls. Would love to see how they will enforce that.

In the meantime, all these republicans go into hiding and shows up to work with very tired hands and sore eyes.

We've been doing this stuff ever since man was created. Like somehow we can stop it from happening .... funny though ....




Jokes
By dflynchimp on 8/31/2012 7:11:33 AM , Rating: 2
I've come to the conclusion that many of GOP "platforms" are really just PR stunts meant to draw in their desired demographics, in this case the moral bible thumpers and whichever dumb@sses that think net neutrality is a good thing.

They don't really honestly expect this to pass when most of the proponents probably enjoy the same privileges that they are trying to ban and would be like "muthafukers srsly?" if that s*** actually passed.




Republicans = Democrats
By tayb on 8/31/2012 12:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
Republicans are no different than Democrats. They love big government, love regulation, and love to restrict your personal freedoms. They just don't enjoy doing it in the same manner that Democrats do. Democrats are arguably better in terms of personal freedoms than Republicans are but they have the same thirst for regulation and and big government that Republicans do.

I don't know why people continue to trumpet Republicans as the party for civil liberties and small government when it so obviously isn't true. It hasn't been true for decades, literally decades. Just look at Paul Ryan. He is the epitome of "listen to what I say right NOW not as I have repeatedly done."

Hell when Democrats voted against unconstitutional spying provisions in the Patriot Act on the grounds that it encroached on American's civil liberties Republicans went on public tirades telling people that Democrats were voting for terrorist rights. This isn't the party of free markets, deregulation, and personal freedoms. That's a hilarious lie.




By kamiller422 on 8/31/2012 12:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
Even if everything in this article were true, and I don't think they are, the Republicans are still a much better option than what we have today.




Party planks are irrelevant
By GatoRat on 8/31/2012 12:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
Every four years political parties in the US gather and a fanatical group of insiders write wish lists that are ignored by anyone actually running for election and the vast majority of voters.




Haha
By chrnochime on 8/31/2012 5:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'd just say it's choosing between lesser of two evils. Why bother arguing about which party is better when neither is particularly good anyway?




I WAS RIGHT!
By Belard on 8/31/2012 6:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
The NeoNazi Cons wants to ban abortion and masturbation, but rape is okay, as long as its illegitimate.

So exactly HOW is banning PORN supposed to help with Jobs, economy, building new bridges before more old ones fall into rivers?

The Republicans need to get their HANDS out of our pants and panties!




Pretty Good Article*
By EricMartello on 9/1/2012 8:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
*The problem with this article, while being comprehensive, it does not provide a side-by-side analysis with the democratic platform on the same issues. By posting articles like this it definitely makes you come across as pushing a political agenda rather than someone who is interested in objective reporting. While I do acknowledge that you have posted articles in the past that denounce some of the things the Obama administration has done, the timing on these "anti republican" articles AND the lack of parity does bring them down into the realm of lefty rhetoric.

quote:
In effect the RNP is enforcing "free speech zones" at its Tampa convention this week. The Republicans do not let protesters into or directly outside of the arena (even on public streets) where the event is held. Instead they have created "parade routes", which allow the protesters to march by at a respectively farther distance.


You have to take these things in context. The first amendment means you have the right to assemble and protest but it does not give you some universal pass that says you can set your protest up anywhere, any time with no regard for anyone other than your own interests.

When it comes to public property restrictions on when and where protests occur should be relaxed but not non-existent. An extreme example of your logic is that we should be able to set up protests inside the oval office of the White House. It's taxpayer property, isn't it? So why aren't protests allowed on the premises?

The convention center where the RNC was held is a privately owned establishment and therefore can limit access as it sees fit because just like you have a right to say something, other people have a right not to listen.

quote:
It seems a bit unfair to imply that Obama has done nothing with respect to the spectrum auction


Then enlighten us. When Obama wasn't busy signing ACTA, wasn't secretly supporting a revised version of SOPA and generally siding with the "intellectual property" and big media lobbyists, when did he have time to open up the spectrum for some real competitive use?

You do realize that even if the FCC auctioned off unused broadcast spectrum, that the "winners" of the auctions are going to be the same corporations that fund the party of whichever candidate is in office. You're not going to see many, if any, startups in this sector with the way things are now.

quote:
I don't necessarily think it’s wise to condemn the Republican's proposal to repeal net-neutrality


Repealing net neutrality would seem like a good thing for anyone in the business of providing bandwidth but it would be quite bad for consumers. Without net neutrality your home internet service is going to be as prohibitive as most mobile data plans are - with throttling, bandwidth limitations and other restrictions buried in fine print.

The notion that net neutrality would offer any kind of innovation or competition is false. It would simply allow big providers to provide less service for the same price, and then make basic features that are included in the current price as "value added".

If the government wants to make telecomm more competitive they need to lower the financial burden for small startups to enter the market and compete with the established top-tier providers. I would take the approach of giving tax credits/incentives to companies that make competitive leases available on the actual lines - because infrastructure is what gives companies like Verizon and Comcast a huge competitive edge over a newcomer.

This is one point where the dems have the right idea and I agree with their position on the matter - a true rarity.

quote:
We urge active prosecution against child pornography, which is closely linked to the horrors of human trafficking. Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.


How does this translate to "ban porn"? I get what you're trying to do here but there is no law that is trying to ban porn even on the books. I would like you to stop talking about bans on porn without also mentioning the current "Communications Decency Act" (1996) which gives internet/telecomm service providers a legal right to restrict or block content that is "obscene or otherwise objectionable", noting that the "otherwise objectionable" element translates to "if we don't like it we can block it and you cannot do anything to stop us legally".

Parents need to monitor and limit their children's online activity and that's as easy as setting up a list of domains they are allowed to visit - a white-list - which would block any domain not on the list. Do this on your router and they cannot bypass it unless they guess the password (so make the password difficult to guess and put the router in a location they cannot gain physical access to so they cannot simply reset it to bypass the rules).

quote:
You support the federal government spending taxpayer dollars to prohibition of gambling -- a restriction of the free market?


By this token why does the government feel the need to shut down ponzi schemes? If I want to dump my life savings into some forex investment program that promises me 150% return on autopilot what right do the feds have to say no? Maybe I will make 150% return!!! LET ME TRY!!!

Gambling in general taps the same vein as ponzi schemes - they rely on people hoping to strike it big when in reality the chances for that happening are between zero and unlikely. If you're one of the first batch into a ponzi scheme you CAN make a lot of money - it's the suckers who come on-board too late, or the ones who don't know to quit when they're ahead that suffer. INCREDIBLY similar to gambling in terms of the % of people who walk away with more money than they started with.

Gotta draw the line somewhere, right? Penny auctions are still legal and they're basically the same thing - except you'll never win, but you will hope that you do as you keep bidding. :)




OMFG SRSLY?!?
By LedHed on 9/1/2012 11:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
So the Republicans have decided it is their right to ban internet gambling and internet porn and this is an example of why I can't be part of a single political party. Why don't we make video games illegal too? They are destroying familie
s, lives, educations, hell even death has directly resulted from playing video games for too long (this coming from a huge PC Gamer). I've never heard of anyone dying from gambling online or from watching porn online, most of the time computers don't kill people. The point is, this is bigger Government no matter how you look at it. If you have a child on the internet then learn to use Parental Tools provided in almost every Anti-Virus software package and lots of free software, it is not the governments job to protect your child online. If you have a gambling problem, get help; you don't see them outlawing scratch off tickets (just as big of a risk as online poker). If they actually want to do something beneficial to the internet then tax all US internet sales, this would put a large dent in the deficit and again this is coming from someone who buys ~75% of the stuff I own online.




Jason Mick is
By oakc73 on 8/31/2012 12:23:02 PM , Rating: 1
a filthy limp wristed liar.

Read this:
"We urge active prosecution against child pornography, which is closely linked to the horrors of human trafficking. Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced"

How does that in anyway state Rs are going to ban porn!?!?

They are explicitly referring to sexual predators and child porn. And, about enforcing CURRENT laws.

Jason, in all his limp wrist glory, is so quick to write lies because let's face it - he is afraid the tougher stance on child porn might result in his getting caught.




RE: Jason Mick is
By oakc73 on 8/31/12, Rating: 0
Fail to see the point
By Ammohunt on 8/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: Fail to see the point
By fhornmikey on 8/31/2012 9:12:19 AM , Rating: 3
Yes please, by all means keep spreading the broad vague generalizations that plague our political climate today. You sir are part of the problem, NOT part of the solution.

We need real discussion on real issues, not a bunch of posturing, labeling and name calling. The state of American Politics is downright depressing and it's crap like this that gives me little hope for future generations doing anything to make it better.


RE: Fail to see the point
By Ammohunt on 8/31/12, Rating: 0
RE: Fail to see the point
By fhornmikey on 8/31/2012 1:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, just keep plugging away at it, I'm sure you'll get downrated into oblivion on this one as well.


Scare tactics
By kyleb2112 on 8/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: Scare tactics
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/12, Rating: 0
RE: Scare tactics
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/31/2012 11:15:40 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Jason clearly has extreme bias against the Republican party for some reason. This is but one of several scare tactic articles he's written, which have been every increasing as we approach election time.

During the past 3 years you would think the Democrat party would have done something worthy of a negative Jason Mick piece, but nope, he's strictly focused on the Republican party
Oh really? Put down the pipe perhaps, and you would notice...

"Obama's FCC Looks to Tax the Internet"
http://www.dailytech.com/Obamas+FCC+Looks+to+Tax+t...

"Following Defeat, Obama to Reportedly Push Cybersecurity Bill With Executive Orders"
http://www.dailytech.com/Following+Defeat+Obama+to...
Subtitle: "Checks and balances? What checks and balances?"

"EPA's Corn Ethanol Quotas Could Spell Death for Cattle Farms "
http://www.dailytech.com/EPAs+Corn+Ethanol+Quotas+...
Excerpt:
quote:
In 2008 President Obama won three of the four largest corn producing state -- Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois. He also won other swing states with large corn growing regions, including Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Support of ethanol earned President Obama and other regional politicians key support -- both financial and in votes. Unsurprisingly politicians in these regions and the President are key supporters of corn ethanol.
(Those were all in the LAST MONTH, note.)

"Impeachable Offense? Obama Takes "Bribe", Institutes SOPA's Evil Twin ACTA"
http://www.dailytech.com/Impeachable+Offense+Obama...
Excerpt:
quote:
Under such a common sense principle, President Obama appears to have accepted a bribe to violate the U.S. Constitution and the highest political office, thus he should be impeached under this definition.
"Bribes and LTE: the Bizarre Case of LightSquared, Obama, and the USAF"
http://www.dailytech.com/Bribes+and+LTE+the+Bizarr...

"Supreme Court: Sorry Obama, Police Cannot Invade Property, Track Without Warrant"
http://www.dailytech.com/Supreme+Court+Sorry+Obama...

Let's review:
1. I have suggested that the president has effectively taken bribes on multiple occasions.
2. I have suggested Obama be IMPEACHED.
3. I have called out his violations of civil liberties.
4. I have criticized his pork barrel spending on certain tech industry issues like ethanol.

Honestly, Reclaimer I like you, but your insane. Or on drugs.

I can think of no other possible reason why you could think I've "strictly focused on the Republican party". That is a wholly psychotic thought given how much your read this site.

I'm sorry, but I really can help you unless you start paying attention. I criticize both parties heavily. The federal government is a huge mess right now, and the nation would be better off voting nearly every incumbent out of office (with a few exceptions), dissolving both parties, and starting fresh.

Also, you apparently did not RTA because you missed:
quote:
(I'm going to be carefully analyzing the DNP's planks when they hit Charlotte. I'm even trying to bring a published conservative book author onboard for the piece to scrutinize the platform. You can look forward to that.)
Reclaimer, I'm sorry man, but I refuse to pull any punches to protect your precious party of choice -- no matter WHICH it is. I will lay out the facts and offer honest analysis on the mountain of dirt on both sides of the aisle. To do anything less would be immoral, unethical, unprofessional and unpatriotic.


RE: Scare tactics
By Rukkian on 8/31/2012 11:59:28 AM , Rating: 5
That is because (according to reclaimer) everything bad you (or anybody) says about Obama is absolute truth and nothing more, while anything bad about any republican is just lies made up by the liberal media.


RE: Scare tactics
By webstorm1 on 8/31/2012 12:42:30 PM , Rating: 3
It seems there has to be a large amount of voters who actually do research and try to vote for candidates and not parties. But as far as I know the presidential election comes down to 12 districts in the US because there are so many hard liners everywhere else. It's exhausting to think about. But don't we the people have the power to change it, it seems were just lacking enough motivation. Whenever you criticize a leader you are automatically labeled as in the other party. It's extremely hard to be an independant voter outside of those 12 districts, which I am.


RE: Scare tactics
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2012 10:22:38 PM , Rating: 4
I say we do away with electoral college. Your vote should carry the same weight no matter where you live.


RE: Scare tactics
By KoS on 8/31/12, Rating: 0
RE: Scare tactics
By guffwd13 on 8/31/2012 1:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
I thought you were being sarcastic with the first statement until I read the second.

Here's what I have to say to that: you DON'T run the site, Jason does; he CAN stoop to that level cause its far more benign than many visitors go; and you frankly, don't seem to know anything about running a business outside of the box cause his decisions seem to be increasing his traffic while maintaining his visitors like reclaimer and myself for the past 7 years.


RE: Scare tactics
By KoS on 8/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: Scare tactics
By guffwd13 on 8/31/2012 2:54:50 PM , Rating: 4
first off, Jason has been by far the most prolific contributor to this site far as long as i can remember. and Kristopher Kubicki has been editor-in-chief-at-large for quite some time now. Maybe there's a new editor above Jason but most editors pipe in every now and then so I've assume (perhaps wrongly?) that Jason is the acting editor-in-chief. Thus his only boss would be Kristopher, who's not involved in daily operation and I'm sure doesn't care what Jason does so long as traffic doesn't go down, and the original private investors who probably share the same view.

secondly, its the internet. you don't like it when people name call or fail to use ridiculous PC terms for anything? go elsewhere. there's plenty of other tech sites from which to get your news.

thirdly you just said you are entitled to your own opinion. true, i'll grant you that. but you just called Jason out for presenting his opinion on the matter (and on someone who frequently incites others with his comments on this cite) in reaction to someone's off color comment that was response to an EDITORIAL. if you're entitled to your opinion, so is he - especially when "opnion" was apart of the name of the article. this is daily tech. not the new york times.

a bit hypocritical, no?


RE: Scare tactics
By Dorkyman on 8/31/2012 4:43:16 PM , Rating: 1
As a frequent reader and an occasional contributor, I'd say I like Jason's output very much. I don't care about his personal politics very much, as long as he is fair in his coverage.

As for me, I am disgusted by the Incompetent currently in the White House. I am equally disgusted by the MSM sheeple who think the man walks on water, or are willing to color their news stories in order to keep the man in power.

Romney is a pragmatic businessman with a proven track record of success. That alone makes him an excellent fit for the current mess we find ourselves in.

His best line last night: "President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise . . . is to help you and your family."

Exactly.


RE: Scare tactics
By guffwd13 on 8/31/2012 5:36:55 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure why you attached this message to my statement cause all I was doing was defending Jason. But Since you brought it up...

It's funny you use the word sheeple, because that was exactly the word I used this morning at work in reference to those sitting in the audience at the GOP convention last night. Clint Eastwood mentioned that Obama failed to do many things he promised. This is true. He then said, for example, he failed to close Guantanamo. The audience erupted into applause. That audience, and the Republican party, are supporters of maintaining that prison as at the very least a symbol of America's ongoing ambition to eradicate terrorism, if not it's success. They applaud that Obama failed to shut it down. They meant to be applauding at Eastwood pointing out his failures. But to those who truly believe in what they claim to stand by, the fact that he failed she make them happy and is an example where failure to do something is success for another. Hardly something to cheer about when you're trying to get another man elected. (I wonder if Eastwood actually meant anything he said because he seemed to be doing a good job of mocking the GOP and its positions but I digress)....

By that's human nature. The necessity to feel part of a greater whole that is against some greater cause. That's why people will root for their own high school and against the one 3 miles away. It's why people in Texas think Texas is the greatest state ever. It's why Democrats think Republicans are rich, religious fanatics and/or redneck douchebags. It's why Americans all cheer for America at the Olympics. It's why the entire planet would be unified as one should we be invaded by some intelligent Alien being. It's natural to desire and indeed require an enemy. Politicians know this and is what they use as ammunition against those who don't take the time of day to find out if what they're saying is true.

The liberal reader will take what you just said and hear this: Romney is a business man and is pragmatic about running, streamlining, dissecting, and eliminating parts of a business in the name of making more money because money is not just something you need (to balance) but something we all desire more than anything in life there is nothing more important. Perhaps the MSN sheeple believe Obama can walk on water but there are plenty of liberally minded people who think Obama didn't do a very good job (but at the same time had to deal with a Congress that was not aligned with him and clean up the mess that he was given the day he walked into office), but more importantly fear more the more conservative decisions and implementations that go along with trying to maintain the large swath voting base of the GOP.

The thing I detest most about the current status quo of politics and rhetoric today is the vast divide created through the use of straw man arguments and fear mongering by those trying to get elected. Both sides are guilty of this. Are such strategies any different than before? No. But they're worse in that they have more shock value than every time before it. Why? Because that's the only way people will pay attention. No one wants to hear the same story twice. They want a deliciously new and juicy story to latch on to. That's what sells in politics. And who's a better salesman than the ridiculously successful businessman or the eloquent and impassioned preacher?

That's why those two people are where they are in politics today. Not because they believe "Yes we can" or "Believe in America" to the core.

Back to the original point. Jason is trying to be the "Greater Fool" (wikipedia it and/or watch the season finale of Newsroom) and putting his ability to maintain an audience day in day out in hope of providing some education to those who don't take that time of day. Then people rip on him for it. Just because their views don't align. I'm glad you recognize that, but many others here don't. Just chill out everyone. Take a step back and think about it all more. And enjoy the show, cause that's all it really is in the end.


RE: Scare tactics
By Dorkyman on 9/1/2012 1:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
A thoughtful response.

I saw the Eastwood speech and attribute the seeming inconsistencies as mostly due to his "off-the-cuff" method. I suspect his POV would have been clearer had he use a text or teleprompter.

Besides Guantanamo, for example, he spoke near the end about how "we own America," which I'm sure the lefties will use to confirm their notion that the Repubs believe they are the rightful "owners" of America, financially and otherwise. But then a few seconds later Eastwood expanded his comment to imply that the PEOPLE own America in the sense that the politicians are our employees, not the other way around, an entirely different meaning.


RE: Scare tactics
By Reclaimer77 on 9/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Scare tactics
By Ryrod on 9/1/2012 2:51:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Anyway guffwd calling the GOP steeple because of some convention party atmosphere is simply biased. The GOP is a far more diverse group of free thinkers than any sampling of the Democrat party. We range from far right Conservatives like the Tea Party, to moderates, fiscal conservatives, fiscal moderates, and everywhere in between.

Just as diverse as the Democrats, who have the Blue Dog Coalition-fiscal moderates, the far left, the social moderates and everywhere between.
quote:
No such diversity will be found in the Democrat party. Especially at the Congressional level. Democrats like to THINK of themselves as being diverse, they view themselves as some type of Joe Lieberman. And yet look what they did to him, ran him right out of the Democrat party. These are very intolerant people. SHEEPLE. The only philosophy they tolerate within their own ranks is radical Liberalism/Progressiveness.

This comment just shows how partisan you are. After listening to you, people would think you saw the Republicans as the second coming of Jesus Christ. Democrats are a very tolerant group of people. They want to give rights to gays while Republicans want them shoved into a closet and out of sight, figuratively speaking.
Furthermore, Lieberman left the party so he could run as an independent after he lost the Democratic primary in CT, but he still caucuses with the Democrats even now. And if you want to play that game, we can talk about Charlie Crist who left the Republican party after losing the primary in Florida and is now supporting Obama. Or even better we can talk about Arlen Specter who left the Republican to join the Democrats.
You really need to stop with the blind partisanship and get your facts straight. You paint Democrats, as a whole, as all liberal progressive Marxists while completely ignoring the fact that they are just as diverse as Republicans and their party. Every statement you make is dripping with conservative/far left bias and most of the time you don't even care about the facts, including when they get in the way of your own narrative.


RE: Scare tactics
By Reclaimer77 on 9/2/2012 1:17:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Democrats are a very tolerant group of people. They want to give rights to gays while Republicans want them shoved into a closet and out of sight, figuratively speaking.


Right which explains why all the "Blue States" have gay marriage. Oh wait...

And let's not forget that thing called the "Defense of Marriage Act". A "Republican" by the name of Bill Clinton signed that into law. OOOPS!!! I wonder how many Liberals even know their hero, Bill Clinton, did more to throw gays in the closet than any Republican ever? Nice imagery there, by the way, totally non-partisan. /sarcasm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_A...

You were saying? And I really find it ironic that you claim to be a Constitutional lawyer, and spent a day telling us what our rights are and aren't, yet choose this topic above all as your example. In fact it's downright hypocritical.

Anyway you know what I find interesting? It's only the Republicans/Conservatives on Daily Tech who are accused of being biased. We're told to turn off the "Faux news", that we get our opinions from Rush etc etc. But yes, you're a very tolerant bunch indeed.

So one side gets to share their views without being questioned, they're beyond reproach. Those who disagree are just being "partisan" and blind.

Do you really think this game will work on me? I might come off angry, raving at times. I might be dismissive or hostile. But I'm not stupid.


RE: Scare tactics
By Ryrod on 9/2/2012 2:41:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And let's not forget that thing called the "Defense of Marriage Act". A "Republican" by the name of Bill Clinton signed that into law. OOOPS!!! I wonder how many Liberals even know their hero, Bill Clinton, did more to throw gays in the closet than any Republican ever?

DOMA was an attempt to ensure that he was re-elected in 1996. If the Republicans, specifically Bob Barr, had never introduced and passed the bill then it never would have been passed. Bill Clinton signed the bill to ensure that he didn't get hammered by the Republicans for being a "gay lover" in the 1996 election. You also forgot to mention DADT (and the first thing that came to my mind), which was also implemented by Bill Clinton as a means to avoid a total ban on gays in the military that was introduced by Sam Nunn, who was also a Democrat.

History does have it's place, but as you can see now, many Democrats have realized their mistake and have taken steps to improve the situation for homosexual individuals in the military and in the general public. If you look at the most recent situations with DADT and DOMA, you'd see that Republicans are leading the charge to uphold DOMA in court (and not out of legislative principle) and led the charge to maintain DADT (evidence: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml). So when you say that "Democrats are very intolerant people," you need to come up with more evidence than your broad assertions because I think I've done enough to prove that your accusation is false, at least on this front.
quote:
And I really find it ironic that you claim to be a Constitutional lawyer, and spent a day telling us what our rights are and aren't, yet choose this topic above all as your example. In fact it's downright hypocritical.

How is it hypocritical? Gays don't have class protections under the 14th Amendment and I never said they did. Nor did I say So I don't see how you can justify calling me a hypocrite.

If you are referring to the fact that states haven't given equal rights to gays, well New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire have all adopted laws allowing same sex marriage. Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Illinois and California all have laws granting rights similar to marriage. Barack Obama has even endorsed same-sex marriage. So I also don't see how that could be called hypocritical either.
quote:
Anyway you know what I find interesting? It's only the Republicans/Conservatives on Daily Tech who are accused of being biased. We're told to turn off the "Faux news", that we get our opinions from Rush etc etc. But yes, you're a very tolerant bunch indeed.
So one side gets to share their views without being questioned, they're beyond reproach. Those who disagree are just being "partisan" and blind.

You are trying to play the martyr and it comes off as ridiculous and disingenuous. I called you out because you made a broad based claim that Republicans are a diverse and tolerant group, but the Democrats fall into line and are only tolerant of liberals and progressives. That was a broad based claim with absolutely no basis in fact except for your Lieberman statement which was false in it's premise. As such, your comment appeared to be driven solely by partisanship and that is why I called it blind partisanship.
Furthermore, the reason why you get those "Faux News" and Limbaugh comments is because you often parrot the same ridiculous statements regarding Obama and Democrats that have no basis in fact, but are repeated as gospel. If you choose the same ridiculous narrative as an individual or organization, then most people assume that you got it from that source. Now, if someone got on here and made a comment that "Republicans or Romney and Ryan love rapists", then I would admonish them for his or her blatant falsehood just like I am doing to you now.


RE: Scare tactics
By Reclaimer77 on 9/2/12, Rating: -1
RE: Scare tactics
By Ryrod on 9/2/2012 4:51:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Honestly are you being serious? Clinton was basically just forced into signing it, man, that's certainly NOT a "partisan" excuse.

Yeah, I'm being serious. DOMA was signed less than two months prior to the election. It was intended to be used as a divisive issue for the Dole campaign and was in response to a case regarding gay marriage in Hawaii. If Clinton hadn't signed DOMA Dole would have eaten Clinton alive during the election. For independents, gay marriage was an issue that Dole could have used to swing enough votes for the presidency. Clinton wasn't stupid, he was and is a political creature. Do you honestly believe that Clinton would be stupid enough to to veto DOMA out of principal, just to have it passed over his veto and for him to lose a large number of independent voters? Clinton didn't sign DOMA because he hated gay people. He had a number of advisers and campaign staff that were openly gay. He did it because he feared losing the election because of a stupid bill that never should have become law.
quote:
When you can't even admit that your statement about gay rights was bullshit, and a Democrat Administration DIRECTLY hampered those rights, we're done here.

I never said the Clinton Administration didn't directly hamper those rights. However, you are so focused on the past and Clinton as a way of utilizing a "well you guys did too" defense that you completely ignored the fact that I was talking about now. Unless ofcourse, you were saying that Democrats in the 90s were intolerant but not the Democrats now. However, you didn't qualify your statement like that which led me to my response. And yeah, I guess we aredone given the fact that you can't accept that you were wrong in your broad based, unsubstantiated statements.
quote:
At this point not only do I doubt you're a lawyer, I don't even think you're an adult. Only a child would use that excuse.

Oh and I am an adult who is bar certified, but thanks for trying to use another logical fallacy to justify your incorrect statement, as opposed to just admitting that you made incorrect statements.


RE: Scare tactics
By Reclaimer77 on 9/2/2012 5:25:21 AM , Rating: 2
Oh I didn't realize you had a crystal ball.

So you're saying getting reelected was more important than the rights of an entire demographic of people. And this is supposed to make it better? And it proves Democrats are more "tolerant" then Republicans how again? And let's just skip right over the fact that the Democrats in the Senate helped put that bill on Clinton's desk too.

If that issue alone would have assured a Clinton loss, than clearly the majority of the nation was against it. Not just Republicans. In fact that's the dirty little secret about gay marriage. It's not just Republicans who have issues about it.

That's my whole point here. In an effort to lecture me about "bias", you yourself used a clearly biased argument. News flash, maybe EVERYONE is biased in some way? We're not robots after all.

quote:
However, you are so focused on the past and Clinton as a way of utilizing a "well you guys did too" defense that you completely ignored the fact that I was talking about now.


And besides TALKING about it, what are Democrats doing about it NOW? Obama could have easily amended the Constitution or passed legislation regarding gay marriage in his first two years, when his party held a supermajority in Congress.

Oh and North Carolina's ban on gay marriage? Last time I checked Government Bev Perdue was a DEMOCRAT. But let's not let facts trump talking points. Let me guess, she was pulling a Clinton and trying to win an election too right?

Proposition 8 in California? Yeeeah that was all Republicans too apparently.

quote:
And yeah, I guess we aredone given the fact that you can't accept that you were wrong in your broad based, unsubstantiated statements.


Well if this is how you go about proving I'm "wrong", you've failed utterly. Your entire tactic blew up in your face. Take your "bar certified" scumbag lawyer ass to bed. You're all talk.


RE: Scare tactics
By Ryrod on 9/2/2012 1:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you're saying getting reelected was more important than the rights of an entire demographic of people. And this is supposed to make it better? And it proves Democrats are more "tolerant" then Republicans how again? And let's just skip right over the fact that the Democrats in the Senate helped put that bill on Clinton's desk too.

Yes, to him it was. You can't tell me that a Republican incumbent would never choose reelection over taking rights from an individual. Republicans wouldn't choose principle over reelection either. Oh and I never claimed that the Democrats were more tolerant than Republicans in general. I'm merely pointing out that your intolerant comment shouldn't be used against Dems as a whole unless you are willing to apply it to Republicans as well.
quote:
If that issue alone would have assured a Clinton loss, than clearly the majority of the nation was against it. Not just Republicans. In fact that's the dirty little secret about gay marriage. It's not just Republicans who have issues about it.

Yeah the nation as a majority probably was against it. I never said that some Democrats didn't have an issue with it. Look at the repeal of DADT, 15 Dems opposed repealing it. It is because Democrats are a diverse group of people just like the Republicans and Dems can also be socially conservative but in recent years, Democratic politicians have been trending toward supporting gay rights and in their platform, they support gay marriage now.
quote:
And besides TALKING about it, what are Democrats doing about it NOW? Obama could have easily amended the Constitution or passed legislation regarding gay marriage in his first two years, when his party held a supermajority in Congress.

Obama couldn't get enough support to pass the PPACA without resorting to bargaining and implementing Republican suggestions into the bill and he still had a hell of a time getting it passed. There's no way he could have obtained 66 votes in the Senate for an Amendment when he couldn't get 60 for PPACA. And for the record, he didn't have a supermajority in both houses of Congress.
quote:
Oh and North Carolina's ban on gay marriage? Last time I checked Government Bev Perdue was a DEMOCRAT. But let's not let facts trump talking points. Let me guess, she was pulling a Clinton and trying to win an election too right?Proposition 8 in California? Yeeeah that was all Republicans too apparently.

I'm glad you are finally agreeing with me that the Democrats are a diverse group as are the Republicans. That was the whole point of my comment. Everyone is biased in some way but the degree of bias is my issue, and when you make broad generalizations that have no basis in fact, then that is a clear case of overwhelming bias.


RE: Scare tactics
By Reclaimer77 on 9/2/2012 1:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yes Democrats are a very diverse group. They seem to range from extreme Progressive Liberalism, to outright Communism, and everything in between. Very "diverse" indeed :)

There was once something known as the "Reagan Democrat", these "Blue Dogs" you speak of. News flash, that dog has been on the extinct species list for quite some time.

The past three years we've seen a major upheaval in the Republican party, as the "tea party" Conservatives have made their voices loud and clear. If there was ever a time these "diverse" Democrats you speak of had cause for a similar shake up of the radical Socialist agenda their party has been steered toward, the past 4 years or so would have been a pretty good one.

What's truly alarming about the Democrat base, is their chief criticism's of Obama and this Administration have been that they haven't spent ENOUGH, or gone far enough! That tells you all you need to know right there about what kind of individuals make up the Democrat party. Far left extreme radicals.


RE: Scare tactics
By Reclaimer77 on 9/2/2012 2:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
I mean just compare the two fringe groups, that's all you need to know. Occupy Wall Street wants to basically destroy Capitalism and free enterprise. While the Tea Party want's to bring fiscal responsibility and Conservatism back to the Republican party.

Of course the Liberal media has done their best to make Occupy seem like a legitimate movement, but they're basically made up of incoherent wackjobs with no clear goals or agendas other than some failed Marxist ideology of tearing down the rich and restoring "fairness" to the working class or some such nonsense.


RE: Scare tactics
By Dorkyman on 9/2/2012 1:21:20 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, come on now.

Sure, Dems are "a very tolerant group of people"--just as long as you agree with them. But if you step out of line, they will try to crush you.

A bit like Islam calling itself the "religion of peace."


RE: Scare tactics
By YashBudini on 9/4/2012 1:09:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This comment just shows how partisan you are.


http://i1171.photobucket.com/albums/r551/YashBudin...


RE: Scare tactics
By geddarkstorm on 8/31/2012 2:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, this is the internet. Deal with it.


RE: Scare tactics
By KoS on 8/31/12, Rating: 0
RE: Scare tactics
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/12, Rating: 0
RE: Scare tactics
By Belard on 8/31/2012 6:51:21 PM , Rating: 4
Your fascists party needs to get their hands out of our pants and panties. It does nothing for job growth.


RE: Scare tactics
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/31/2012 7:08:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Your fascists party needs to get their hands out of our pants and panties. It does nothing for job growth.
To be fair to Reclaimer and other Republicans, how many Democrats are unwilling/unable to acknowledge their own party's role in censorship, including on a religious basis?? My guess is quite a few.

For example see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_SiOnt_Oxo

(Jello Biafra v. Tipper Gore on censorship)

Both parties are supporting a slow erosion of our freedoms. Neither party has a solid plan to balance the budget (both Obama and Romney's plans "ONLY" can balance the budget if the GDP shows wild growth, according to expert analysis I've seen). Time to go -- both of them.

America needs someone other than our two favorite shill parties in power.


RE: Scare tactics
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/12, Rating: 0
RE: Scare tactics
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2012 7:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sure as soon as Obama takes his hand off my goddamn wallet!!!


RE: Scare tactics
By guffwd13 on 8/31/2012 7:34:45 PM , Rating: 3
Sure, as soon as you're willing to cut military spending in half, make police forces smaller, make most interstates toll roads, begin to tax non-profit educational and healthcare institutions, remove states' rights for healthcare oversight (only way to make health care cheaper while not paid for by government is to make the pool bigger), reductions to NSA, CIA, xxA etc. etc. etc.... Yeah I didn't think so.

You forget, Obama extended Bush's tax cuts. You, me and everyone who writes for and reads this site would be paying more under Reagan/Bush Sr/Clinton and everyone before them- especially if you make money like Romney (investment or earned income or otherwise).

But - and perhaps I agree with you here - please, can we please eliminate SS tax? I resent the fact that the generation who ran businesses into the ground and overspent on pension and incentives for employees knowing (they know this 55 years ago) that Social Security was unsustainable even if the population continued to grow gets to live off a nice chunk of my income. They were selfish, ignorant, and lazy and they get rewarded for it off my dime in their golden years? American dream my ass, they lived and continue to live in pleasantville because no one said or will say no to them. \rant.


RE: Scare tactics
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2012 7:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure, as soon as you're willing to cut military spending in half, make police forces smaller, make most interstates toll roads, begin to tax non-profit educational and healthcare institutions, remove states' rights for healthcare oversight (only way to make health care cheaper while not paid for by government is to make the pool bigger), reductions to NSA, CIA, xxA etc. etc. etc.... Yeah I didn't think so.


I agree to all of that EXCEPT removing "states rights", and toll roads. That's just now how we are supposed to roll in America. The Constitution is not something we should just compromise on.

But yes, I would do all of that to save this country. Whatever it took. Deal?

quote:
You forget, Obama extended Bush's tax cuts. You, me and everyone who writes for and reads this site would be paying more under Reagan/Bush Sr/Clinton and everyone before them- especially if you make money like Romney (investment or earned income or otherwise).


Yes he extended them but publicly blames them for everything wrong with the country, including his insane deficits. That's not being ironic, that's just a liar.


RE: Scare tactics
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2012 7:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, if we did ALL of that, we would still have about a trillion dollar deficit.

Not sure if most people realize how far down the rabbit hole we've gone. But it's going to take more than a few hundred billion worth of cuts to get us out.

The entitlement spending is murdering us, and your side simply refuses to admit that. You won't even acknowledge that. And your "free" health care? Yeah, it's a $500 billion dollar tax increase on the middle class and small businesses, that WILL add 2 trillion to the deficit EVERY YEAR it's in effect.

You're method is like worrying about mice when there's an elephant in the room.


RE: Scare tactics
By guffwd13 on 9/2/2012 3:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
well first lets not generalize me to my side. i'm independent cause i refuse to permanently assign myself to a certain group of people.

i happen to agree with you on the deficit issue. that needs to be our number one priority. not going after al qaeda or universal health care. we need to whatever we can including things we both wouldn't want to see happen - even if only temporarily - to get back on firm ground.

that being said i think universal health care could work in this country as it does in some others but only if health laws weren't mandated by state. i understand the implications - particularly constitutionally - but economically it doesn't make sense to have the states individually control the rules and costs associated with keeping us healthy and alive.

but either way like i said it makes no sense to worry about it until that deficit is taken care of. and yes that means we need to stop spending in a lot of places for the time being.


RE: Scare tactics
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/31/2012 7:04:41 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'm really just stunned.
To be clear, the forums are obviously a emotional, and heated place of debate. My comments in the forums are my comments as an individual, as per my right to free speech. Hence I'm entitled to express stronger opinions, as you might hear from Pat O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis.

That said, AGAIN, I like you, I agree with a lot of your feelings about the current administration and what direction the country needs to head in. BUT I also feel I have the right to defend my coverage against fallacious accusations that you oft make.

Look Reclaimer, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but the strong language was meant to jolt you into the reality that I criticize both parties.

Note that I started by commenting that I like you, and think you generally offer good commentary.

I just wish that when I publish neg. articles about Democrats on a nearly 2-to-1 basis, you wouldn't take to every article I write that's negative about Republicans and blast me.

I don't take it personally, but it does bother me as a professional, as I consider myself a person who (tries) to stick to the facts. I actually was mailed the suggestion of analyzing the RNP platform from a reader who was upset at my "biased" attacks on the Democratic party. But to you, again I'm only attacking Republicans.

I guess I hate just having this conversation with you again and again, because I thought we both realized by now that I'm equal opportunity offering criticism of both parties.
quote:
It appears DailyTech lost much more than a writer in the absence of Michael Asher.
I'm with you here. Michael was a big influence on my writing, inspiring me to dig deeper. This article and others would not have been possible without Michael. In fact, I'm proud to have continued his tradition of offering scrutiny of "global warming" funding, lawmaking, and research. (See my numerous pieces on climategate, for example.)

But I will say that in my last personal correspondences to Michael, who left the site due to threats against his family by apparent readers (crazy, I know) he discussed with me how he was as concerned about the religious right as he was the nanny state left/federal waste.

My writing is largely a reflection of these dual dangers.

Michael Asher understood that both parties are screwing our country over. In time perhaps you, too, shall come to the same conclusion he and I have.


RE: Scare tactics
By Pudro on 8/31/2012 6:26:37 PM , Rating: 1
Site visitors are not customers. Customers are the people buying ads. Site visitors are the product.


RE: Scare tactics
By RufusM on 8/31/2012 1:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, you hit right on with your overall concept: People must put their ideology ahead of the party.

The party is just a means to an end. When the party steps out of line, its supporters must be intellectually honest with themselves and chastise the party with their votes, even if it means the opposition picks up a few wins along the way. It's the only way the party itself is changed.


RE: Scare tactics
By Ryrod on 8/31/2012 3:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, I understand your desire to bring these issues to light. However, you seem to place qualifying statements strategically so that they will be overlooked. I'm not sure if this was done intentionally or without thought about it, but the statements are significant and should be more prominent, specifically the non-binding nature of this document. I understand the pressure that a lack of funding places on a candidate and the tendency of the Republicans to follow the party line, but making the assumption that Republicans will overwhelmingly vote in-line with these positions is a bit of a stretch.

Furthermore, you attribute the writings of three Republicans as the policy of the whole party. I admonished you for doing something similar in the warrantless tracking article. Just because it was adopted as the party manifesto doesn't mean that every Republican will vote that way if elected. An individual candidate's message is a better indicator of their positions and their anticipated votes on issues as opposed to a party manifesto.

I understand that you don't like either parties, but at times you let your bias seep into your articles often through insinuation. I'm not asking you to stop writing your political articles; just to be a little more cognizant of that bias and try to avoid it in the future. It just does rational conversation a disservice when one side has to argue with an ideologically inflamed opposing side. If anything it hinders the conversation and can be extrapolated to the national conversation which leaves us in our current condition.


RE: Scare tactics
By EnzoFX on 8/31/2012 6:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
Don't bother with the garbage that is this neocon. They're all a lost cause.


RE: Scare tactics
By Rukkian on 8/31/2012 11:56:52 AM , Rating: 1
All of this coming from one of the most biased right-wing nutjobs out there.

I don't personally think either party is good at this point, and can see past the finger pointing at the other side of the isle. Neither party at this point does anything other than forward their own interests and line their own pockets. They have the country fighting over which side is right (or left), meanwhile they do nothing but screw us all over daily.


RE: Scare tactics
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/12, Rating: 0
RE: Scare tactics
By KoS on 8/31/2012 12:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
WHAT???? Banks weren't regulated? Ya right. During that time the banks weren't left wholly on their own.

I'm sure you never heard the stories of the pressure brought to bear on banks to lend money to those who couldn't afford those loans?

It' a lie that banks weren't regulated of any sort.


RE: Scare tactics
By mocyd on 8/31/2012 1:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
Banks are regulated somewhat, but...

quote:
I'm sure you never heard the stories of the pressure brought to bear on banks to lend money to those who couldn't afford those loans?


This never happened. The CRA was weakened since it's inception since the 70's, and many banks aren't subject to it.

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blo...

quote:
50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations


quote:
Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley


CRA originated loans were more stable overall and less likely to fall into default.


RE: Scare tactics
By geddarkstorm on 8/31/2012 2:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act from 1982.

And of course, ultimately, the repeal of Glass-Steagal was a very bad idea.


RE: Scare tactics
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2012 10:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
Glass Steagal was the biggie.


RE: Scare tactics
By KoS on 8/31/2012 2:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
I should have stated, loans in general. I wasn't talking about just mortgages, nor the Community Reinvestment Act either.

I'll have to find the articles, over the years, of pressure brought to bear. Hopefully I dont forget over the weekend.

Interesting article, has there been any followups? The article is 4 years old. By the way, did you read the comments to the article?

There seems to be a contradiction to what you said. If the CRA was weakened, how did loans under CRA have a higher degree of over sight?

The first quote not sure what to make of it, since it's says mortgage service companies and affiliates. I don't consider them to be banks. Those entities deal with mortgages sololy. Where as banks have a wide range of services and interests, not just mortgages. I would imagine since they aren't truely banks they probably fall under some different type of heading.

For example, I don't consider Fannie and Freddy to be banks, yet they deal with mortgages.


RE: Scare tactics
By KoS on 8/31/2012 2:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Here is one counter point. From about the same time period.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailo...


RE: Scare tactics
By Stiggalicious on 8/31/2012 1:57:03 PM , Rating: 4
"As far as Net-Neutrality, we should ALL be against it. So the Republicans are on the right side here. The Internet is pretty much the last bastion of free speech and freely shared information on Earth, and people think it's a good idea to place it directly under FCC/Big Government control? No, I don't think so. The track record of that working out to our betterment isn't so good."

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the government trying to control the Internet - it's giving the FCC the power to prevent providers from regulating the Internet.

I don't want to have to pay an extra $10 per month to access Youtube and Vimeo, I don't want to have to bundle with other "packages" to get a decent rate, and I certainly don't want to have to purchase rights to use certain protocols.

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with free speech, it has everything to do with keeping companies from preventing us from doing what we want on the Internet. Net Neutrality INCREASES our freedom on the Internet, not decreases.


RE: Scare tactics
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2012 10:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, companies want to get rid of net neutrality so they can use monopolistic practices to force you into using only their services. Why does it always seem like the Repubs are anti consumer, pro corporations screwing over said consumer?


RE: Scare tactics
By wordsworm on 8/31/2012 9:07:09 PM , Rating: 1
You clearly have a bias against liberals, the environment, and everything else that educated people are concerned with. If it was up to the Republican party, evolution and creation would both be taught in school rooms. Gays would never have the same rights as everyone else, and only unprotected sex for the purpose of procreation would be allowed for heterosexual couples.

Now, if suddenly Romney started promoting polygamy, he might actually gain some support!


RE: Scare tactics
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2012 10:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, I don't think the far right is a whole lot different then the Taliban in wanting to control what they see ass going against their religion. Dangerous road


RE: Scare tactics
By wordsworm on 9/2/2012 1:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
I thought about one of the differences between a liberal and a conservative today: a liberal thinks that gays should be allowed to marry and carry on in the bedroom however they wish while the conservative is adamantly against it. On the other hand, a liberal is against fornication between family relations, while a conservative goes to family reunions to pick up girls.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki