said by en102 :

All industries have their lobbiests, and will pump lots of money into political favors in their best interests... its capitalism at its finest.

said by tiger72 :

Stop voting (D)
Stop voting (R)

said by Titus Pullo :

our media is pravda at this point.
--

said by jimbo2150 :

Who would you recommend then? If you don't vote D and don't vote R, you are not left with much. You suggest no one be president? Open office? ;P

said by tiger72 :

Really? You really can't believe they did this?

Partisanship has only hidden the reality of politics. Each side points and cries "THEY are horrible!". When it comes down to it, both parties do the same crap, just under different banners.

Stop voting (D)
Stop voting (R)

Vote on the issues, and this will stop. Until then, it'll continue to be business as usual.

said by tiger72 :

There are many 3rd parties who would love your support, and chances are there are 3rd parties which line up with precisely what you want - whether they're Reform, Green, Libertarians, or Constitutionalists...

But as long as we're stuck in the (D)-(R) chasm, we're going to just continue to fall.

said by jmn1207 :

I just want to see a national debate with a 3rd party participating.

said by cornelius785 :

who AT&T is gonna back? McCain with whoever or obama with biden?

said by jmn1207 :

I just want to see a national debate with a 3rd party participating.

I keep hearing how I am wasting my vote by casting mine for anything other than R or D each election, but I know in my heart that I am really doing the right thing, and we have to start somewhere.

said by TK Junk Mail :

It is much safer to buy both candidates then it is to back the wrong one.

said by MoeDumb :

Klein was and is an American hero.

said by jimbo2150 :

Who would you recommend then? If you don't vote D and don't vote R, you are not left with much. You suggest no one be president? Open office? ;P

said by jmn1207 :

I keep hearing how I am wasting my vote by casting mine for anything other than R or D each election, but I know in my heart that I am really doing the right thing, and we have to start somewhere.

said by Austinloop :

I looked at the video attached and I can see why people would not provide answers to the "reporters", who in their right mind is going to discuss anything with an unknown reporter and film crew?

said by CarterStClai :

Nader!

said by wispalord :

is do they need a warrent from now on, and have to do shit by the book, and just being protected from the past, or is this like evect them for ever, and let them give info out to who ever they feel like?

said by fatness :

Campaign contributions, from the article:

quote:

---

Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:

$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)

---

said by ultracooldave :

"The so-called immunity deal didn't do anything except re-state one of those laws,"
The fact remains that it was illegal WHEN the crime was committed! Prosecutions are in order.

said by NormanS :

"They" being whom? I don't think that anybody, except a government agency (i.e., the NSA), can "violate" an amendment. The U.S. Constitution, including its amendments, applies to the U.S. Government; and, with one of the "Reconstruction" amendments, typically considered to apply to state governments, as well.

said by ultracooldave :

Lets at least have an investigation! They can discuss legal technicalities later, there are quite a few questions needing answering, if it was so legal there should be no problems getting statements.

said by wispalord :

say jack downloaded a bunch of child porn, if they can prove jack did it they should not be responcible for HIS crime, but they should still have to see a warrent to release Jacks data for them to prove correct?

said by joker5656 :

Said the other night that democrats would stand against wiretapping, but yet they compromised on a bill that let them get off scott free.

said by tschmidt :

With our winner take all system it is hard for third party candidates to gain enough traction to be elected.

said by amigo_boy :

In 1866 the 14th amendment was passed to extend the Bill of Rights against state infringement...

said by NormanS :

Re: my remark about "Reconstruction amendments". Look that term up some time. There were three, of which 14 was one.

said by en102 :

its capitalism at its finest.

said by nasadude :

It is correct to say this isn't really a D or an R issue - both sides (especially the Dem leadership) are equally craven and corrupt.

said by KrK :

Ross Perot came the closest in recent years.

I think TK is right about this... They need to start at the local and state level so they can build a base to propel them to the Federal Level.

said by KrK :

Question, a man who hires mercenaries to rescue employees held hostage overseas.... is that really a sign he's a loon?

said by N3OGH :

One look at the way they cover Obama shows you that just ain't the case....

said by cornelius785 :

who AT&T is gonna back? McCain with whoever or obama with biden?

said by CarterStClai :

I guess if you are against people who fight for consumer protections, that is the appropriate response.

said by DMMJ :

This took all of 30 seconds for me to find. Do some research and open that little republican mind!

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

said by KrK :

They both flip-flop. Sometimes it's because they were wrong in their position. Sometimes it's wrong to flip-flop, because they are changing their position to suit the target audience. That's usually the case.

said by amigo_boy :

What that really means is that the anti-surveillance, EFF group couldn't even muster $5k for 300 representatives as a counter-offer.

That's what I've always said. Self-styled freedom fighters are such a small minority that they can't affect change through the expected avenues of politics (lobbying, voting people out of office, getting the law changed, impeachment, etc.). They needed smarmy personal injury lawsuits to have a soap box for their cause.

Mark

said by amigo_boy :

What we need is a tiered-ranking ballot where you could indicate your first, second, third, etc. choice. You could vote the Green candidate as your first choice. Then the Dem as your second. The tallying software would accumulate everyone's first choices, and if it isn't > 50%, discard them and proceed to the 2nd choice.

I think a lot of people would vote for third parties if they didn't feel "the worst of two evils" might get into office as a result.

said by amigo_boy :

But, modern Americans are pretty stupid. If they can't punch a pre-cut hole in a card (Florida), their heads would probably explode if they had to cope with 1 through n choices.

said by Jonbo298 :

There are other parties besides those 2 (I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not). Independents are the next largest, green party, etc..

said by amigo_boy :

What we need is a tiered-ranking ballot where you could indicate your first, second, third, etc. choice. You could vote the Green candidate as your first choice. Then the Dem as your second. The tallying software would accumulate everyone's first choices, and if it isn't > 50%, discard them and proceed to the 2nd choice.

said by ultracooldave :

We desperately need "none of the above" !!!!!! Time is running out for the middle class.

said by amigo_boy :

I don't understand what "none of the above" would do. If it's just meant to make a statement, that same statement is already being made when 75% of the adult population doesn't vote.

If it's meant to really vacate offices by electing no one, that would be unconstitutional. The way offices are filled is prescribed by the constitution. And there is a prescribed way to amend the constitution. Using the ballot to elect nobody would be circumventing the amendment processes which is made difficult and time consuming for a reason.

Mark

said by CarterStClai :

I could care less whether McBush or Obama get elected - the outcome will be the same 4 years from now. Corporate agendas will be furthered by the administration at the cost of the citizens.

said by HiDesert :

The democrats are no better then the Bush admin.

said by ultracooldave :

Do you realize that the minimum wage is $12.43 hour in Australia, nearly every other civilized country is much higher than us and they almost all get 6 weeks paid vacation per year, in Australia tax free, why don't you look at the inflation rates in other countries- you are talking complete nonsense with your "skyrocketing inflation"

said by ChrisXP :

Everytime the pay scale goes up, the cost for goods also goes up. So what is bought at $8/hr now for $5, will jump to $10 @ $16/hr.

said by fatness :

Campaign contributions, from the article:

quote:

---

Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:

$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)

---

See, they should all be really investing that money back into CUSTOMER SERVICE!

said by amigo_boy :

That's false. It assumes labor is the only cost of a product.

It is true that rising wages contribute to inflation. In europe, the way unions negotiate contracts that tie wage increases to inflation, it contributes to prolonged inflation. But, it's not like the costs of goods rise by the same percentage as the union wages did. Because the cost of goods includes the cost of materials, transportation, office space, etc.

said by ChrisXP :

It assumes that businesses will pass on any wage increases to the consumer.

said by amigo_boy :

I agree. But, that's not what you originally said. You gave an example of wages rising 100%, resulting in product price rising 100%. That's an exaggeration. If labor is 25% of the cost of a product, and the price of labor rose 100%, the product price would only rise 25%.

said by ChrisXP :

It doesn't work out that way. ... Some things will go up by 2%, others 200%,

said by ChrisXP :

No free rides.

said by EPS :

your answer is what i'd expect from a well known insane communist, but please enlighten us: do you object to law enforcement in general, the government trying to protect us from terrorists, or both?

said by [bquote= EPS :

your answer is what i'd expect from a well known insane communist, but please enlighten us: do you object to law enforcement in general, the government trying to protect us from terrorists, or both?

said by ultracooldaveOur real inflation is caused by massive govt spending[/bquote :

Which is but a small factor in how and why local prices are raised when pay scales in the region are raised.

Remember this is local prices, not national (and China is national!).

And no, socialism is bad news for everyone, as someone still has to pick up the tab for subsidises.

Everything that costs the employer will be passed onto the customer, as businesses aren't in business to lose money.
--
Zionism is a crime

»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org
reply

---

anon @ 28th Aug 02:16AM:
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"

I am saying employer wage subsidies in a transition period of years entirely paid for with a reduction in welfare benefits for say 70% (in the able to work category)in this massive and growing welfare state we have created. At the moment we are getting nothing but higher taxes and no productivity at all from these people. And there will be jobs-the baby boomers are retiring and there will actually be labor shortages-lets get the welfare people working and pay them enough so they can take care of themselves including compulsory health insurance!
To give you an example, if say Walmart sells a product for $10 and all the various wages needed to get that product sold is $1 (it is much less) and you double the minimum wage-how much are you going to pay-$11, assuming no subsidies, but there will be subsidies because these people will no longer qualify for welfare benefits. So I would say that $10 product may cost $10.25 and the employee will earn double and SPEND that money! Some of it will be on compulsory health insurance-guess what, we are not paying for that anymore. Get the Govt out of peoples lives!
We would also see a massive reduction in State expenditures on these people so maybe sales taxes could be reduced. We would also have a number of Govt workers that would have to find a real job.
reply

---

ChrisXP @ 28th Aug 02:29AM:
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"

Problem there is it never stays for just a few years, just like welfare wasn't a crutch to keep a population down, either (single worst thing the government has done to Black people). It's too good for politicians to scrap.

Plus, price controls can't be managed as easy as folks think. And personally it should be individual businesses setting their prices, as they know their individual market better than some bean counters crunching numbers.

A free market has to be free to work. Add Socialism into it, it no longer is free, but just another State runned institution.
--
Zionism is a crime

»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org
reply

---

anon @ 28th Aug 02:53AM:
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"

I am definitely not talking price (or wage controls-only a high minimum), no socialism, only what we are already doing in the way of bribed politicians generated subsidies to big business BUT this would be largely paid for with a massive reduction in welfare/health govt payments to people not producing anything but higher taxes.
Look at the whole picture, an example is what West Germany did when it gained back East Germany (a basket case similar to our welfare state). They-overnight traded worthless east German marks for hard currency real marks, AND required that wages would only be paid in real marks with a high minimum (although not as high as West Germany).
Most people thought they were completely crazy (most wanted a "welfare" approach) but look at Germany now! They eliminated their welfare state. Yes, there were many jobs temporarily lost but the explosion of well paying jobs made up for this quickly and created many new ones.
Don't get me wrong- I am not talking about those that really need govt help.
reply

---

amigo_boy @ 28th Aug 09:46AM:
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"

All of our markets are socialized to some extent. And it's because "free markets" in the literal sense often don't work (just as socialized markets in an absolute sense don't).

- Food and drug quality laws, setting standards to a level a free market wouldn't.

- Laws governing medical products and services. Eliminating willing buyers and sellers of lessor-quality products and services.

- The SEC, moderating the stock market, to create more predictable outcomes and eliminate a large amount of caveat emptor that goes with true "free markets." (The same thing with banking regulations, making it virtually impossible for you to open a bank of lessor quality to serve those who may be willing to purchase those services, or earn more interest with greater risk).

- Building codes and zoning laws, restricting how you can dispose of your property (the basis of free markets).

- Social creation of corporate charters. A corporation is a legal yet fictional "person" created through public law in the State legislature. It serves as the fall guy if officers and investors make bad choices in the pursuit of profits.

It's been my experience that those who promote their position by reference to "free markets" are either naive, or deceptively misusing a term which would be more accurately phrased: "freer markets work better for those things I think should be freer." At that point, we're just talking about who's ox will be gored because you're suckling at the same societal nipple as others. (I.e., we're not talking about good versus evil, or some kind of absolute principle.).

Mark
reply

---

jmn1207 @ 28th Aug 10:41AM:
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"

Usually when people are promoting free markets, they are doing so from an idealistic vantage point. The same can be said for people that push for a more socialized agenda. The reality, as you have stated, often lies somewhere in between a true free market and a command economy.
reply

---

tschmidt @ 28th Aug 10:57AM:
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"

Exactly.

A totally unregulated market encourage corporate malfeasance and since end result of market pressure tends to be winner take all we end up with a monopoly or at best a duopoly.

Excessive government control discourages competition and investment.

Goal of government policy is to maximize benefit to society as a whole. Create incentives for investment and innovation while curbing free market excesses. This seems like common sense to me. I'm perplexed it is not obvious to everyone.

/tom
reply

---

anon @ 28th Aug 12:20PM:
Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisers

The question of whether AT&T did something illegal isn't the point. The fact that Congress and the President granted them immunity and prevented the courts doing their job in determining whether or not they did something illegal is the problem.

And in the greatest irony, it was the 14th amendment, through the Supreme Court and cases brought to it (over 80% of which were about corporations, not freed slaves) was the one that ultimately allowed Corporations to be defined as people and gave them the right to own property and have free speech leading to this problem with lobbyists and corporate domination in the first place.

Now they're able to use their pull to avoid responsibility.
reply

---

amigo_boy @ 28th Aug 02:17PM:
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"

I agree. The problem I see is that it seems like we Americans have been indoctrinated to *reflexively* recoil at the mere mention of the word "communism" or "socialism." People can have a perfectly reasonable discussion about whether we, as a society, are willing to let people work for (and live on) pennies per hour -- just as we have established that we're not willing to let people buy/sell poor-quality (and less-expensive) medical services or food and drugs.

But, someone opposed to minimum wage will invoke the "socialism" word, and 9 out of 10 Americans will line up with the "free market" rhetoric because "I don't want to be a socialist, that's evil and opposed to everything about being a 'Merican."

Completely oblivious to how virtually all our markets are socialized -- and those *same* people *like* it that way.

I'm not saying things can't go too far. Just always amazed at the false use of rhetoric that implies absolute principles. It's such a cheap and dishonest way to stop any discussion. And it's amazing how effective it is, which means we 'Mericans really are brainwashed.

Mark
reply

---

amigo_boy @ 28th Aug 02:23PM:
Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisers

You're wrong. Congress and the President did nothing more than restate 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) [1]. That law already defines when telcos are (or are not) liable to criminal or civil prosecution.

So, the so-called immunity deal [2] didn't convey immunity. It says its only applicable *if* 2511 applies. All it did was provide an avenue for the judiciary to make that determination.

We know this was the basis of the Administration's defense of the telcos because AG Gonzalez documented his argument that 2511 applies.[3]

[1] »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html

[2] »www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/F···_xml.pdf (see page 88)

[3] »www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonns···ties.pdf (see page 23).
reply

---

jmn1207 @ 28th Aug 02:27PM:
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"

I admit that I am a victim of the brainwashing myself, to a degree. I try to remain as objective as I can, and having spent some time living overseas gives me a another perspective, but it's much harder to see how things really are when you are an actual part of what is being viewed. (if that makes any sense at all :))
reply

---

amigo_boy @ 29th Aug 12:05AM:
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"

I agree. An example is how we're the beneficiaries of socialization of food and drug quality. Those laws negatively impact people some people who would benefit from more affordable (and lower quality, or riskier) food and drugs. But, the majority (me and you) benefit by having a "market" with more predictable outcome than a truly "free" market would provide. Less personal responsibility for caveat emptor. We can just assume food will have an expiration date, and be made to minimum standards. No need to exercise the massive due diligence that a true, free market would require.

We benefit, so it's easy to just believe "free markets" work. It's easy to forget how some people were harmed as the "needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few." But, when the price of pickles at Walmart might rise by 1% because of a proposed minimum-wage increase (or, forcing Walmart to pay for health care or parental leave) it's easy to say *that* is an unnecessary interference of the market.

I think it's just human nature to ignore other oxes being gored for our benefit. It's easy to ignore how those are socializations of a market, impacting willing buyers and sellers. But, if something will impact us, then we engage in principled, libertarian rhetoric about "government not being the answer," or "free markets work."

That's the problem I have with libertarianism. It's not a real political theory. It's just a way to enjoy the teat of society, while claiming everyone *else* is looking for a handout (using the most absolute, black-and-white rhetoric to reinforce the self deception).

Mark
reply

---

agill81 @ 29th Aug 10:45AM:
Re: Patricia Madrid

please you fucking trailer park trash from the "Confederate States of America". What has GOOD old fucking Bush done to this country? We are in debit up our as, the economy is bad and you talk about how Democrats signed this bill? PLEASE you fucking DUMB ASS. Get a fucking clue.
reply

---

amigo_boy @ 29th Aug 04:28PM:
Re: Patricia Madrid

Reeding and righting has suffered to, I herd.

Mark
reply

---

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2008 silver matrix LLC