backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by Insurgence.. on Dec 14 at 8:07 PM

Notorious spammer claims net neutrality applies to spam

Jason Flanary (R), chief operating officer at ccAdvertising -- a company specializing in political text message spam – turned heads during the last presidential election by sending unsolicited messages to smartphones with statements like, "Obama believes killing children is a right until the umbilical cord is cut."

While Mr. Flanary was disappointed to lose his own election bid for the Virginia state senate [source] amid the controversy that ensued, he's now pushing ahead on an even more ambitious effort.  He's asked the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to either whitelist political spam (or "political messages" as he views it) or to declare spam in general protected free speech.

Either way, he argues, it should be illegal for private businesses to block or discriminate against using filters traffic they consider "spam".

In the wake of the ccAdvertising text campaign many carriers began to block his company's messages, recognizing that their customers did not want the unsolicited and often times unwelcome texts.  But in doing so Mr. Flanary claims they broke the law.

Jason Flanary
Jason Flanary is among the Republicans breaking with part ranks to voice support for net neutrality, arguing it should be expanded to protect political spam.
[Image Source: FairFax Patch]

His stand is unusual as in the past most federal Republicans contended that net neutrality was an abusive expansion of federal power and intrusion on free market.  Now it appears that at least some Republicans may be changing their mind, looking to leverage the FCC policy to their advantage.

If you want to respond to Mr. Flanary's claim that political text message spam is protected free speech, the FCC welcomes public comments here.  Be aware, you must give your real name and address.

Sources: FCC [filing], [comments], DailyKos



Comments     Threshold


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

By arazok on 12/12/2012 1:11:03 PM , Rating: 5
Intelligent leaders debate the issues. Scum bags use propaganda.




By retrospooty on 12/12/2012 1:14:10 PM , Rating: 5
The 1/2 of the US citizens that are a bunch of Morons =)

Seriously. Alot of our citizens are just dead from the neck up.


By gamerk2 on 12/12/2012 1:21:35 PM , Rating: 3
Conservatives.


By retrospooty on 12/12/2012 1:24:29 PM , Rating: 4
Actually they are just not bright having nothing to do with party lines. There are stupid people on both sides of that fence.

Stupid liberals thinking that govt. can save them from their own stupidity.

Stupid conservatives thinking that somehow gays marrying each other and some imaginary ban on guns that never has and never will happen are the most important issues we face (other than the general fear of brown people).


By EnzoFX on 12/12/2012 8:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
Fales equivalency doesn't solve the idiotic problem on the right.


By jims23212 on 12/13/2012 10:50:50 AM , Rating: 5
- How did that whole nazi deal work out in germany? A charismatic speaker makes big promises and declares jews as the enemy. We know how that worked out...sounds a lot like the left's current assault on "successful Americans".

Nazism is a far right political system. Its the antithesis to socialism/communism

http://bulbajer.wordpress.com/political-spectrum/

- How's the soviet union doing? Oops, disbanded after driving the country into poverty. Communism...classless society. Fair for everybody. Everybody poor and broke! Stalin laugh at you!

While true communism never existed, the bastardized version of the USSR has more in common with the far right wings of the US GOP on social and political issues (make homosexuality a crime, discrimated against, discrimated against minorities. dienfranchised the population).

Who fought to abolish slavery in America? Republicans. Who opposed the movement to abolish slavery and went after Lincoln? The left.

The republican party of 1860 would probably look more like the democrats of 2012. They were inclusive and progressive about human and social issues. The republican party was the left back in 1860's.

- Unions...staging protests and crying that they are losing their ability to extort American workers and force US manufacturing to communist-run China.

Companies move jobs to China for profit and cost cutting. But as the cost of manufacturing has risen in China and elsewhere manufacturers are starting to move it back to the US or start here (Apple, Goodyear, etc.). Second no one is forced to join a union. When a non union employee works in a union shop, they enjoy the benefits of union negoitated contracts and benefits. Unions are responsible for the 40 hour work week, child labor laws and numerous other benefits you enjoy in the workplace.

Is the left-dominated California a beacon of righteousness and prosperity for America? No, it's the most bankrupt state in the country.

It did not help that California had Republican governor for almost 8 years that drove the state into its current fiscal crisis and then refused to fix it.

How's that US deficit doing. Any better? Wait, almost $17 trillion now and key US industries continue to be socialized...nice.

Please identify the "key" US industries that were socialized?

The left primarily consists of morons who believe themselves to be enlightened, but rarely are able to articulate their "beliefs" beyond the headline of whatever issue they are proclaiming as being important.

Before you can understand the beliefs of the left, you need to be rational. As I have pointed out above, your logic and facts are flawed, so I would suspect is your rational.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/13/2012 11:44:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
While true communism never existed, the bastardized version of the USSR has more in common with the far right wings of the US GOP on social and political issues (make homosexuality a crime, discrimated against, discrimated against minorities. dienfranchised the population).

Not really. The flavor of communism in the USSR was far closer to a dictatorship than anything else. It had little in common with conservative or liberal viewpoints in the USA. To say that either US party favors discrimination against minorities is the height of propaganda. Neither party supports such a notion and both have passed laws to prevent it over the years.

quote:
It did not help that California had Republican governor for almost 8 years that drove the state into its current fiscal crisis and then refused to fix it.

You were making a fairly good point until this part right here. California has been a financial clusterfuck for far longer than 8 years. While Arnold didn't improve that situation, he was not the cause of it.

I have no problem with you making the counter-argument that the democrats aren't the demons the previous poster claimed they were, but I do have a problem with you doing the exact opposite to the republicans. If you are going to lay blame, lay it where it belongs, on the heads of BOTH parties. Blindly following either party and their candidates is the reason our country is in the situation it is in.


By Cluebat on 12/14/2012 12:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
"California, as bankrupt as it is today, is harbinger of what's to come for the USA if people in the US continue to elect socialists."

The people who elect these guys (I believe) are for the most part socialist poseurs. It's trendy, plus they have the added benefit of wearing their generosity on their sleeve.

The ones they elect are largely statists, who have no intention of sharing fairly. The largest piece of the pie will always go to themselves. The rabble that swallow their platitudes will always be fighting over the crumbs.


By dxf2891 on 12/14/2012 3:53:12 PM , Rating: 1
Hmmm, I'd have to argue against that hypothesis given what's transpiring in states around the country.

Dictatorship - noun
1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.
2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.
3. the office or position held by a dictator.

In Michigan, as well as states around the union, there is a concerted effort by Republican governors with Repulican lead state legislatures that are superceding the will of the people. This past November the citiizens of Michigan voted to repeal Public Act 4 as they felt it infringed on their liberty to elect their public officials. Well, the govenor convened a lame duck session and pushed through an almost identical law with appropriation monies attached, which under Michigan constitution prevents it from ever appearing on a ballot before the people. Of course, this endeavor will see this cash strapped state in federal court defending itself from it's citizens. Sounds like dictatorship to me.


By EricMartello on 12/14/2012 6:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In Michigan, as well as states around the union, there is a concerted effort by Republican governors with Repulican lead state legislatures that are superceding the will of the people.


That's what the left wing propaganda claims; the reality is that these efforts are aimed at releasing the stranglehold that unions have had on Michigan for far too long. You love to talk about the "will of the people" which roughly translates to "what I personally agree with"...however your disagreement with an action does in no way elevate it to dictatorial status.

quote:
This past November the citiizens of Michigan voted to repeal Public Act 4 as they felt it infringed on their liberty to elect their public officials.


False. The PA 4 issue is about the "emergency manager" role, an appointee who can take over the operations of a municipality within the state, and such a law has been on the books in Michigan since 1990.

Why is the new law catching flak after being around for 22 years?

Because the new version gives those appointed to be emergency managers the power to reject unions' collectively bargained agreements.

In other words, for cities like Detroit which have been turned into 3rd world cesspools by parasitic left-wing policies, an emergency manager would gain authority over spending and, with PA-4, the ability to say no to paying more to unions.

This is a GOOD thing for the people, but quite a blow against the unions that have been extorting workers and making it nearly impossible for businesses to operate competitively and profitably.

quote:
Well, the govenor convened a lame duck session and pushed through an almost identical law with appropriation monies attached, which under Michigan constitution prevents it from ever appearing on a ballot before the people.


The left, misleading the people through fear mongering and utter misrepresentation of the facts, may have claimed it was "for the people" but in fact their main concern is for the unions.

The governor is acting in what he believes to be the best interest of his state. This is in no way an example of dictatorial behavior as he is working within the bounds of laws and authorities that he was granted when he was elected.

quote:
Of course, this endeavor will see this cash strapped state in federal court defending itself from it's citizens. Sounds like dictatorship to me.


If that sounds like a dictatorship to you then you're a moron. A dictator places himself above the law and does not allow himself to be accountable to anyone. You mentioned that Michigan would be in federal court - well if it was a dictatorship it would most certainly refuse to appear in any such court.

By the way, why don't you tell us why Michigan is cash-strapped in the first place?


By FaaR on 12/13/2012 1:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Are you sure?

Here you have a douchebag who wants spamblocks to be outlawed so he can send unsolicited lies about his political opponents (he probably views them as adversaries though) to anyone with a cellphone, regardless of wether they want them or not - probably not though!

Can you imagine your phone buzzing incessantly with droves of useless texts pouring in from every douche who has snake oil to sell? Would you enjoy that? I think not.

Anyway, what this douche fails to realize - or outright disregards in his holy crusade to further his own ambitions - is just WHAT exactly is the most common type of spam? ...Namely penis enlargement, viagra, "escort services".

If there's ONE thing repugnicans blow their top collectively over, it's anything remotely connected to sex, especially if it's directed at children. Imagine the outrage if Little Timmy (or Tina, for that matter) start receiving droves of sex spam texts to their phones just because this douche wanted spam declared free speech? LOL, it wouldn't be a pretty sight.

Who do you think these repugnicans would blame, the one responsible - one of their own - or the person they always blame for everything that they feel is wrong...? (Yeah, I'm talking about president Obama.)

So ask yourself, who is REALLY the dumber? This guy's supposedly a republican politician, and he can't see further than his own nose when it comes to the consequences of his actions. Think about that for a second...


By NellyFromMA on 12/12/2012 2:53:15 PM , Rating: 3
1/2 is generous.


By retrospooty on 12/12/2012 3:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... Agreed. I was trying to not be too negative.


By ClownPuncher on 12/12/2012 3:49:52 PM , Rating: 3
I thought it was 99.02?


By anactoraaron on 12/12/2012 4:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Election 2012 is any indication, slightly more than half are dead from the neck up.


I assume this is a reference to Michelle Bachman being re-elected...


By KCjoker on 12/12/2012 6:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
She isn't great that's for sure...bad thing is Obama is even worse yet we're stuck with him. And yes Bush sucked and while Romney wouldn't have been great he was without a doubt a better option.


By seamonkey79 on 12/12/2012 6:12:23 PM , Rating: 4
Who's doubt? The Republican that gave the country a glimpse of all of the things the Democrats want to institute is worse than the Democrat that wants to institute it how?


By EnzoFX on 12/12/2012 8:42:56 PM , Rating: 1
You lose all credibility with that amount of ignorance.


By Argon18 on 12/13/2012 11:43:38 AM , Rating: 3
To clarify, you looked at big O's abysmal track record of the past four years, record debt, record deficit, record unemployment, record numbers on welfare, record numbers on food stamps, failure to pass a budget for 3 years straight, worst and clumsiest foreign policy since jimmy carter, and the first thought in your mind was "I want more of this"??

-facepalm-


By retrospooty on 12/13/2012 2:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... I am not impressed with Obama, but the falsehoods in your post are just scary. I am not defending his record, but damn are you off.

"record debt, record deficit"
OK, but this is primarily because of less taxes coming in due to the massive recession that started prior to his election. Secondly to too much spending.

"record unemployment"
In the 30's unemployment was at 25%, we just hit 10% for a bit before it went back down.

"record numbers on welfare, record numbers on food stamps"

Yes, alot of people lost jobs - see answer #1 on the recession that started before he was elected.

"worst and clumsiest foreign policy since jimmy carter"

Not a big fan of Obama financially , but his FP was a highlight.


By Rukkian on 12/13/2012 5:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe there are people that would have loved to see him go had the republicans put up somebody that had they thought might actually care what people that make less than 500k care about, or was actually sincere in anything he said.

I really wanted to vote for somebody other than Obama but Romney was just not the answer, as evidenced by the outcome.


But technically, isn't he right?
By DukeN on 12/12/12, Rating: 0
RE: But technically, isn't he right?
By Shadowself on 12/12/2012 2:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
ALL SMS spam should be illegal. The same should go for spam multi media variants.

Many people still do not have unlimited SMS service. They pay for the messages by the message. Why should these people be forced to pay their carrier to receive spam?

In this regard this is no different than spam faxes which are illegal and carry fines for them. If you are going to cost the receiver money for each and every spam message you send to them, then that should not be allowed.


RE: But technically, isn't he right?
By Nutzo on 12/13/2012 12:05:50 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed.

Until a few month ago I didn't have a text plan, and would get charged for this unwanted spam. My only recourse was to block ALL messages, which ment I couldn't get the few messages I actually wanted.

This is no different that Faxes, where it costs the receiver money to receive a fax (paper/ink).

Unsolicited SMS messages should be illegal, with $$ penalties applied to people who send them.


By Insurgence on 12/14/2012 8:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
It's not only effecting cost by SMS texts, but also by impact on network bandwidth/usage and time. As a result many companies have to spend money on additional equipment to compensate for that bandwidth loss, and to filter out the spam to reduce the impact.

All while the only thing the spammer pays is his internet bill.


By alvester on 12/13/2012 12:11:20 AM , Rating: 2
AGREED and exactly! Excellent points Shadowself. It's not just extremely annoying but a matter of costs too. I travel overseas a fair amount for business and getting spam texts can get costly.


By SigmundEXactos on 12/12/2012 3:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
He has a right to speak -- which he's continuing to exercise. However, he does not have a right to force people to listen, which is what being spammed via text message is. People are allowed to filter, and they are allowed to filter at the upstream level. It's like having a "no solicitors" sign up at the edge of of your community. In this case, he's using a private network (phone), which doesn't have a free speech guarantee.


RE: But technically, isn't he right?
By Solandri on 12/12/2012 3:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
Net neutrality just means the carriers don't get in the way of network transmissions. If the end recipient, the user doesn't wish to receive what you're sending (or if a website doesn't wish to allow a user access), then it's not a violation of net neutrality.

So if the carriers are automatically blocking everything from him to all users, then yes it's a violation of net neutrality. If the users however say they authorize the carrier to automatically block his (and other) spam to their phone, then it's not a violation.


RE: But technically, isn't he right?
By JediJeb on 12/12/2012 3:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
I have AT&T and do not have a messaging plan but I have not seen any option to have AT&T block only certain senders from sending me a message, so wouldn't they need to do a blanket block of this person's messages to keep me from having to pay to receive a message from him?

I would rather see it that those who want to receive these spam messages have to sign up for them, than to have those who don't want them to have to sign up for them to be blocked. Would be fewer wanting to receive than wanting to block I would think.


By Solandri on 12/12/2012 3:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I would be fine with it either way, and would prefer blocking enabled unless I turn it off. Especially since many people still get charged per text, and if they don't know they have the option to block, the carriers effectively get to collect free money from the ignorant.

But while it would be the easiest and most logical way of dealing with the problem, lots of activists and lawyers would get upset if you do it that way. And they're nastier to deal with than spam. So whichever way works.

As for AT&T in particular and blocking a single person's messages, here's the second link Google spit out:
http://forums.att.com/t5/Data-Messaging-Features-I...

(relevant post and link is near the bottom)


RE: But technically, isn't he right?
By JediJeb on 12/13/2012 3:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
TSo if the carriers are automatically blocking everything from him to all users, then yes it's a violation of net neutrality.


I just was looking at something that may go in favor of the carriers blocking this. It is a statement within the CAN-SPAM Act which also requires the FTC to promulgate rules to shield consumers from unwanted mobile phone spam. Though I am not sure the FTC has done as it was supposed to do, since it has done little so far to enforce compliance of the email side of the act.


By BZDTemp on 12/13/2012 3:07:37 AM , Rating: 3
If free speech arguments can be used to make mail filters illegal then surely it should be fine to drown his home in shit :-(




By BifurcatedBoat on 12/12/2012 9:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
annoying the piss out of them is *not* how to do it.




Free Speech
By erple2 on 12/13/2012 12:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
So what this guy is claiming is that the first amendment applies to companies as well add the federal government? That makes no sense.




Apply Net Neutrality to cellphones???
By Fritzr on 12/13/2012 9:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
This issue has nothing to do with the internet,

It is prohibited by law & FCC regulation. Each spam text received is worth a minimum of $1 in small claims court. With the amount he sent, this is a good way for a lawyer to get rich by filing a Class Action lawsuit against this spammer who fails to know the difference between internet IM & regulated telecommunications.

IM does allow blocking of individual spammers unlike many SMS services, so I suspect that he will be pushing to disable IM blocking as a violation of neutrality :P

A starting point on the legal restrictions is this Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_spam




First Amendment Rights
By Cluebat on 12/14/2012 9:20:53 AM , Rating: 2
It is not yet resolved as to whether these types of messages are illegal spam as they have been defended as protected political speech.

The Obama campaign used them very effectively. This guy only made the headlines because of the negative and nasty content.

See:
http://bouncebackmobile.com/mobile-text-message-20...

http://www.84444.com/political-text-messages

Way to drive a thread DT.




Public Service Announcement.
By Ammohunt on 12/12/2012 7:20:53 PM , Rating: 1
Just a friendly reminder for the ignorant among us Republican != conservative.




Impressed with Obama
By MartyLK on 12/12/12, Rating: -1
RE: Impressed with Obama
By Dr of crap on 12/12/12, Rating: 0
RE: Impressed with Obama
By bupkus on 12/12/12, Rating: 0
RE: Impressed with Obama
By Dr of crap on 12/12/2012 3:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
YEP


RE: Impressed with Obama
By HoosierEngineer5 on 12/12/2012 5:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you mean, "crap yep"


By Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer on 12/12/2012 5:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
You missed one... :p


RE: Impressed with Obama
By Argon18 on 12/12/12, Rating: -1
RE: Impressed with Obama
By JediJeb on 12/12/2012 3:18:51 PM , Rating: 1
It appears his idea is to have the other side "compromise" their beliefs instead of reaching a "compromise" where each side gives up a little to work out a deal.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By MartyLK on 12/12/12, Rating: 0
RE: Impressed with Obama
By Dr of crap on 12/12/2012 3:29:24 PM , Rating: 1
So you really don't CARE what he does, as long as your PARTY is in charge?

Great thinking!


RE: Impressed with Obama
By MartyLK on 12/12/2012 3:33:20 PM , Rating: 1
Actually I do see him doing all manner of good - humbling and putting in their place, the Repubs, is one seriously sweet thing.

But my main desires was for *him* to be in charge. Someone the stuffy-ass, racist and arrogant Repubs can't stand or cope with.

I'm gonna love a woman being in charge next.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By ClownPuncher on 12/12/2012 3:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
So, you don't actually have a relevant political opinion? Great. Way to represent the uneducated voter base.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By flubaluba on 12/13/2012 7:06:52 AM , Rating: 2
read , read and learn, he said he loves seeing the republicans so butthurt...lol as do many of us.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By ClownPuncher on 12/13/2012 5:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
As do I (not for the same reasons), but that doesn't make the previous poster any less of an idiot.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By V-Money on 12/12/2012 8:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually I do see him doing all manner of good - humbling and putting in their place, the Repubs, is one seriously sweet thing.


So what has he done. The least you can do is pretend to back up your claims. You talk about "repubs" being racist, but voting someone in office because of his race is just as racist as not voting for someone because of his race. That's the problem with out country is that people like you don't even look at the best candidates, you vote for the most pointless reasons ever...
quote:
I'm gonna love a woman being in charge next.
...basically saying that no matter who the other candidates are you will vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman. I personally don't care what race/sex the president is and I hate that people are setting us back years in the name of "progress" and "equality". I'm not racist or sexist, from your posts I can say that I would probably hate you no matter what race/sex/political party you are from because you sound like a self entitled elitist douche bag who thinks highly of himself and his moral while doing nothing to actually help anyone else.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By MartyLK on 12/12/2012 8:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what has he done. The least you can do is pretend to back up your claims.


Killing Osama Bin Laden and effectively fighting the war on terror. The previous president couldn't find him in 8 years. President Obama is forever credited with killing that piece of shit in 2 years.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By Nfarce on 12/12/12, Rating: 0
RE: Impressed with Obama
By flubaluba on 12/13/2012 7:11:16 AM , Rating: 2
Wow so many lies in that comment it is hard to decide which one to point out first, actually i think you know, nobody can be that dumb can they?


RE: Impressed with Obama
By MartyLK on 12/12/2012 8:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...basically saying that no matter who the other candidates are you will vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman.


Ordinarily if it didn't matter, I would still vote for her. I damn sure won't vote Republican. So if the Devil, himself, were running as the Democratic candidate and the mother Teresa were running as the Republican candidate, I would vote for the Devil without blinking twice. The lesser of 2 evils.

But Hilary Clinton will bring a boatload of qualifications and intelligence. Her past experience and current experience will be overwhelming values for her candidacy.

I'd wager that even people who might ordinarily have a difficult time voting for a woman would find it rather easy to vote for Hilary Clinton.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By flubaluba on 12/13/2012 7:13:51 AM , Rating: 2
I think the country is holding there breath waiting to see if she decided to run, if she does there will be partying in the streets, and the republicans have already said they might as well not put a candidate up if she runs as they will have absolutely no chance of winning against her.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By MartyLK on 12/13/2012 10:46:30 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, she will be a difficult candidate to match. Her qualifications are over the top. I'd basically say that the very moment she signs for candidacy is the very moment she becomes the next president.

On a different note, I remember how the Repubs claimed about 2 years into Obama's first term that would not be re-electable. And they were boasting about it like it was a fact. That POS R. Lim'burger-cheese-wizard led the charge in playing down President Obama's electability and insulted him every way he could. He'd hoped that President Obama failed.

Hahahaha! I love that he's now licking his own butt-cheese encrusted asshole. And I hope he feels the sting real good.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By JediJeb on 12/13/2012 4:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But Hilary Clinton will bring a boatload of qualifications and intelligence.


Being a Senator for a few years after being elected in a state she was not from? I can admit she has gained a little experience in foreign relations in her term as Secretary of State but even during that she has made some rather strange decisions, the whole "reset button" thing with the Russians and others.

Why didn't she return to Arkansas and run for Senator instead of moving to New York? Is it possible she could have never won the election there?


RE: Impressed with Obama
By flubaluba on 12/13/2012 7:09:30 AM , Rating: 2
The fact that he is black is just a bonus and makes no difference to anyone other than the republicans that is why so many love the fact that he is black, not that they voted for him because of that , most people voted for him because he is the best person for the job, and is becoming one of the best presidents the country has ever known.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By MartyLK on 12/13/2012 10:30:27 AM , Rating: 2
President Obama is actually one of the most intelligent presidents this nation ever had. Jimmy Carter being another.

Something I never knew about Carter - I was too young to care about politics or qualifications or anything else - is that he is a nuclear (that's New-Clee-er for the Repubs, not Nuke-you-ler) physicist and has been active in much of the nuclear infrastructure in the US.

But my motto - one of them - is: If the Repubs don't like it, it must be good for America. If the Repubs do like it, it's only good for them.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By flubaluba on 12/13/2012 7:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
LOl I feel the same, I am glad Obama won just so I can see the sulking looks on the republicans faces, especially when he decides to play there own game against them, it is sooo funny, and also the fact that he is converting the republic union into a democratic socialist state, whatever the republicans mean by that, anything they do not like seems to be something I can support, well not everything but just for the republicans I will even support his wire-tapping and detention laws that I think are terrible.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By MartyLK on 12/13/2012 12:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
LOl I feel the same, I am glad Obama won just so I can see the sulking looks on the republicans faces, especially when he decides to play there own game against them


Yeah, that's a big plus for me, too. He's a good force for our nation and likely will be the best president this nation ever had. But I personally know a few bible-thumping, pompous Repubs that can't stand a non-white, non-Repub even being considered for candidacy. They willy-nilly took my livlihood away from me through a frame-up and didn't think the first thing about doing it. It was like it was nothing at all to do it. The main one was a wanna-be Republican politician and prided himself on being clever and witty. He told me one time that the party didn't matter and that he would vote for whoever was the best. That turned out to be pure hogwash and subterfuge.

Long story short, I knew intimately how his expression would be with Obama winning election. He'd want God to deliver everyone into his avenging hands. I pictured the low-life fat-ass, self-righteous, self-important maggot imploding from frustration. And it felt like a high-potency pain killer to me. It felt so good. I reveled for weeks and weeks.

Having Obama voted in a second time must be absolute murder for them. But it's nirvana for me. :D


RE: Impressed with Obama
By yomamafor1 on 12/12/2012 4:57:05 PM , Rating: 4
You DO know that it is not the President's job to pass the federal budget, but Congress'? As a result, if the federal budget doesn't pass, it is not President's fault, but the Congress' fault for not passing the budget?


RE: Impressed with Obama
By Solandri on 12/12/2012 3:19:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Repubs want to make a game out of serious matters and do favoritism and shenanigans with the system.

What worries me more about our political future is the belief by members of both parties that only the other party engages in favoritism and shenanigans with the system.

The founding fathers knew that everyone would try to game the system regardless of political affiliation (there were no parties initially). So they designed the system as best they could to be resistant to it. That's why we have extensive checks and balances built in. Unfortunately when one party controls all the checks and balances (Democrats in 1979-1980 and 1993-1994, Republicans in 2003-2004, Democrats in 2009-2010), they get the run of the house. The electorate has pretty swiftly removed that control from them the very next election.

That's why you don't want to see the filibuster removed from the Senate. It's as annoying as hell, but it's one of the last checks remaining in place after one party controls the Presidency and has the majority in both branches of Congress.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By JediJeb on 12/12/2012 7:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
In addition there were no political parties until after George Washington left office because he was very much against their formation and most respected him enough to not form them while he was in office. Honestly I think they should be made illegal through the constitution though that will never happen.

The very idea of the US government is that the President, Congress or the Supreme Court do not rule the country, they are there to represent the people of the country in governing themselves, that is what makes our government unique. Elected officials are not there to represent any political party they are there to represent the people from their district. Elected officials who are doing their job properly will represent their constituents even if the will of those constituents is not in line with their own personal beliefs. Just as if I work for a company and can/should be fired if I represent my own agenda to a client instead that of my company, so should elected officials when they do not properly represent their constituents' ideas.

These beliefs were drilled into us when I was in high school in Civics class, but today are barely even taught. The people of this country are allowing their power in governing themselves to be taken away and most don't even know they have the power in the first place.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By flubaluba on 12/13/2012 7:27:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think the fact that both sides are guilty of doign things for there own benefit and not there states is one of the problems that will take too much to resolve,we can hope and demand but there pockets are more important than there states, than the people who voted them in, we just have to hope that some day a president will have the power to change things for the better and get money out of politics, i think Obama could be the one to do it if he destroys the Republican party as much as it looks like he is going to do, but hey power corrupts and after all the hatred directed towards him i think he could use that power for some payback


RE: Impressed with Obama
By JediJeb on 12/13/2012 4:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
I agree we need someone strong who will put the needs of all the people above political whims, but I am afraid President Obama is not the one who will do that. He really is not so different from most others in that he is very interested in implementing his own personal ideals without seeing if they are good or bad for the country as a whole.

"Affordable" health care is good, making others pay for expensive health care for those who either can't afford it or don't work to afford it is not good.

"Clean" energy is good, killing our economy just to force clean energy upon the masses is not good.

Helping the poor to better their circumstances is good, robbing from the rich to give money to the poor without asking them to put effort into improving their circumstances is not good.

Having peace with other nations is good, but making ourselves no longer any type of threat by weakening our position in the world is not good.


RE: Impressed with Obama
By flubaluba on 12/13/2012 7:19:49 AM , Rating: 2
I think the filibusterer is a very important part of the political process, but it just needs some tweaking as it has been abused by the republicans, 300 odd filibusters in this congress, that is just taking the piss, so now the democrats will tweak it not to force bills through, just to get bills to the floor so that if someone wants to filibuster it we can all see who is doing it. Nothing wrong with seeing who is preventing bills from passing for the veterans or tax breaks etc.

The overall picture of politics is very sad though, too much power in peoples hands that are openly accepting bribes to vote one way or the other.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














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