cram harder

[PixelPusher]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/51940.html

McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, speaking in Colorado Springs, Colo., said Fannie and Freddie had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, however, aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization.
Maybe McCain can lend her that Alan Greenspan book. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/mccain_its_abou.html)

[Bartleby]

She probably thinks Fannie and Freddie are people.

[balli]

Don't forget that dangerous anti-intellectualism is one of the things repugs respect most in a candidate. I'd guess the more she fucks up and the more clueless she is about the world, the more she'll appeal to the back-asswards white-trash that makes up the repug base. Because after all, what kind of bourgeoisie socialist actually wants someone who's intellectually elite (or even halfways smart) to be in charge?

[ggoose25]

Don't forget that dangerous anti-intellectualism is one of the things repugs respect most in a candidate.

She's just like me! She must be qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

[ggoose25]

This is a question for the economic/political gurus on the board:

If Freddie and Fannie are being taken over by the government, how is that not "socialist" governing, something the Republicans accuse the Democratic candidates of favoring?

[Anti.Hero]

Being taken over by the government lmfao.

They were taken over by the government a long fucking time ago.

Both parties are to blame. We are not even pawns, no point in getting mad or acting like anything will change.

[Anti.Hero]

Don't forget that dangerous anti-intellectualism is one of the things repugs respect most in a candidate. I'd guess the more she fucks up and the more clueless she is about the world, the more she'll appeal to the back-asswards white-trash that makes up the repug base. Because after all, what kind of bourgeoisie socialist actually wants someone who's intellectually elite (or even halfways smart) to be in charge?

lol.

[I Love Me Some Me]

It's not like she thought there were 57 states or anything.

[KenMcCoy]

This is a question for the economic/political gurus on the board:

If Freddie and Fannie are being taken over by the government, how is that not "socialist" governing, something the Republicans accuse the Democratic candidates of favoring?

It is something that HAS to be done...if not, home prices would fall through the floor. This move isn't made to help the 10-15% of the morons who took out 700K loans when they make 40K a year. It is made to save the people that aren't getting foreclosed on from seeing their home values be half of what they were two years ago.

[Anti.Hero]

The "affordable housing" the dems pushed for has really brought true greatness to this once great nation.

It's funny how they are ok with privatizing profits and socializing risk/loss for these housing companies, yet want to do the opposite for oil companies.

You can't even say "let the companies fall anymore, b/c the government lets them get in so deep they will bring every single bank with them LOL. Someone is getting PAID.

[balli]

It is something that HAS to be done...if not, home prices would fall through the floor. This move isn't made to help the 10-15% of the morons who took out 700K loans when they make 40K a year. It is made to save the people that aren't getting foreclosed on from seeing their home values be half of what they were two years ago.

What the fuck ever. Capitalism and the "free-hand" just failed. Unfortunately the government decided to prop it back up by re-distributing your tax dollars.

IMO, home prices should fall through the floor and nobody should be saved. Bring on the third world in America- I'm all for it. If we want to be unbridled, unencumbered, capitalists then we damn sure should have to live with it's terrible consequences when it goes down the tubes.

[ggoose25]

I understand that its something that has to be done. I want it to be done for the good of the economy. But what I dont understand is if conservatives believe in a free market, why don't they let the market fix it. This is an honest question.

Isn't a type of socialism when the government intervenes and assumes control of companies that were once private? I know those companies were already largely subsidized with fed. money, but how is this not considered anathema to staunch conservatives? Do they only favor government intervention when absolutely necessary?

And was it the free market and loose regulations that got us into the housing crunch the first place?

These aren't rhetorical questions. I really don't know, so thats why I'm asking.

[balli]

It's not like she thought there were 57 states or anything.

Clearly, Obama knows that there are not 57 states, and clearly, it was just a momentary slip of the tounge.

Clearly, Palin doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about, and clearly, her statement indicates as much.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Clearly, Palin doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about, and clearly, her statement indicates as much.

How is that clear?

[PixelPusher]

^ :lol at you still trying to peddle that weak shit "57 states" as a counterargument.

[balli]

How is that clear?

If it's not clear to you why, clearly, you don't know anything about Fannie and Freddie either.

[Anti.Hero]

I understand that its something that has to be done. I want it to be done for the good of the economy. But what I dont understand is if conservatives believe in a free market, why don't they let the market fix it. This is an honest question.

Isn't a type of socialism when the government intervenes and assumes control of companies that were once private? I know those companies were already largely subsidized with fed. money, but how is this not considered anathema to staunch conservatives? Do they only favor government intervention when absolutely necessary?

And was it the free market and loose regulations that got us into the housing crunch the first place?

These aren't rhetorical questions. I really don't know, so thats why I'm asking.

You assume conservatives are cool with the idiots we have in office? It's simple, you have shitty worthless republicans in office and not fiscal conservatives.

Dems pushing for affordable housing for their worthless voters and these housing companies saying OK! knowing the government would just bail them out once shit hit the fan.

The truth is, you will never have true conservatives back in office because there is too much money to be made in that filth.

[balli]

You assume conservatives are cool with the idiots we have in office? It's simple, you have shitty worthless republicans in office and not fiscal conservatives.

But since you and your ilk voted them in, why should we now trust you about McCain? Your past judgment has proven to be flawed by your own admission in the above statement.

[ggoose25]

You assume conservatives are cool with the idiots we have in office? It's simple, you have shitty worthless republicans in office and not fiscal conservatives.

Ok gotcha. Now how is McCain any different?

[Anti.Hero]

He's not any different, but he's better than Obama and those who want to turn us into full fledged socialists. Or communists if you're like ballijuana.

It's not a hard concept.

If you're smart enough, you can still make a good living off the big evil businesses.

[ggoose25]

From what I've read, Obama doesn't advocate a communist economy. What about his economic proposals lead you to believe that?

[balli]

Dems pushing for affordable housing for their worthless voters and these housing companies saying OK! knowing the government would just bail them out once shit hit the fan.
This has nothing to do with Democrats wanting people to be able to afford houses. It has everything to do with huge mortgage companies and their prediatory lending practices. Don't even try to put the selfishness of non-fixed rate loans on Democrats.

[I Love Me Some Me]

If it's not clear to you why, clearly, you don't know anything about Fannie and Freddie either.

What I don't see as clear is how one statement can clearly indicate that she "doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about."

[Anti.Hero]

They can only prey on the stupid.

But because America is all about group-think, everyone gets to take a hit.

[balli]

He's not any different, but he's better than Obama and those who want to turn us into full fledged socialists. Or communists if you're like ballijuana.

It's not a hard concept.

If you're smart enough, you can still make a good living off the big evil businesses.

Ah, the old communists card- the last refuge of a moron when all his arguments have been shot down; nevermind reality, just scream communist.

Do yourself a favor and go get a political ideology book.

And you planning on answering the question about your judgment when it comes to the last "idiot republican" administration you voted for?

[Anti.Hero]

Ah, the old communists card- the last refuge of a moron when all his arguments have been shot down; nevermind reality, just scream communist.

Do yourself a favor and go get a political ideology book.

And you planning on answering the question about your judgment when it comes to the last "idiot republican" administration you voted for?


IMO, home prices should fall through the floor and nobody should be saved. Bring on the third world in America- I'm all for it. If we want to be unbridled, unencumbered, capitalists then we damn sure should have to live with it's terrible consequences when it goes down the tubes.

I was going off the above post homie.



"I voted for" lmao, look at the fucking choices ffs. I'll vote these idiots in all damn day if the only other choice is stupid ass liberals. The last 8 years have been awesome. Aside from 03' and the hiccups this last year, life has been great.

I only wish I were 10-15 years older so I could profit from these foreclosures.

[ggoose25]

I'll vote these idiots in all damn day if the only other choice is stupid ass liberals.

Nevermind. What's the point of debate, if your mind is already so entrenched.

[Anti.Hero]

Maybe if Obama didn't demonize business, support over-powered unions, push for bigger government, increased capital-gains tax, buy into the global warming b.s. (cap-and-trade, etc), and nationalized health-care I would vote for him. I don't give a shit about the social conservative talking points.

[KenMcCoy]

This has nothing to do with Democrats wanting people to be able to afford houses. It has everything to do with huge mortgage companies and their prediatory lending practices. Don't even try to put the selfishness of non-fixed rate loans on Democrats.

It was the democrats that repealed the banking act of 1933 which allowed all of the sub prime mortgages to happen.

[balli]

Maybe if Obama didn't demonize business, support over-powered unions, push for bigger government, increased capital-gains tax, buy into the global warming b.s. (cap-and-trade, etc), and nationalized health-care I would vote for him. I don't give a shit about the social conservative talking points.

You are aware that the last president you voted for has increased the size of the federal government, adjusted for inflation, by 33%. That's 3 times more than any president in modern history. And furthermore, he's done it all with borrowed money. Clinton, the last "stupid ass liberal" only increased it by 4% and I seem to remember a budget surplus when he left office as opposed to, y'know, the half trillion dollar defecit your guy has rung up over the past 8 years.

I don't care what Obama's spoken plans are because if he does increase spending he's going to do it by bringing in more revenue and he'll probably implement pay-as-you-go thereby doing it responsibly. Anyways, if recent history is any indication I trust the democrats with my money far more than I do the supposedly "fiscal conservative" republicans. I don't know, maybe you're okay with the idea of China owning the United States, but I'm not.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I don't know, maybe you're okay with the idea of China owning the United States, but I'm not.

if you received a tax stimulus check, did you send it back?

[balli]

if you received a tax stimulus check, did you send it back?


I cashed it, bought some weed and threw the majority in the trash. Seriously-I've alluded to it here before.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

and threw the majority in the trash.
riiiiiiight................

[balli]

riiiiiiight................

Man, I don't spend or value money. I'm pretty much a paranoid social recluse. I don't eat in restaurants. I don't go to NBA games, movies, amusement parks or swimming pools. Besides when I'm in the mood for my bi-annual one night stand I don't go out to bars or clubs. I don't wear Lacoste or Polo. I don't drive. I don't smoke cigarettes or drink $5.00 lattes. I don't buy music or DVD's. I don't fuck around with any of that civilian shit.

The only things I really ever spend money on are food basics, basketball shoes, video games, bike parts, lift tickets (skiing) and climbing gear, but considering I have about 8 pairs of shoes and all the climbing gear I need I don't even really spend money on that anymore. I have more than enough money sitting in my safe and honestly, I didn't need or spend much of that government check at all before I tossed it in the name of fucking over George Bush's plan. And though I know it made no difference, I have my scruples.

Edit: and marijuana- I do spend a lot on marijuana

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Man, I don't spend money. I'm pretty much a paranoid social recluse. I don't eat in restaurants. I don't go to NBA games, movies, amusement parks or swimming pools. Besides when I'm in the mood for my bi-annual one night stand I don't go out to bars or clubs. I don't wear Lacoste or Polo. I don't drive. I don't smoke cigarettes or drink $5.00 lattes. I don't buy music or DVD's. I don't fuck around with any of that civilian shit.

The only things I really ever spend money on are food basics, basketball shoes, video games, bike parts, lift tickets (skiing) and climbing gear, but considering I have about 8 pairs of shoes and all the climbing gear I need I don't even really spend money on that anymore. I have more than enough money sitting in my safe and honestly, I didn't need or spend much of that government check at all before I tossed it in the name of fucking over George Bush's plan. And though I know it made no difference, I have my scruples.

smart of you in editing your "i don't live like an American" statement.

[balli]

smart of you in editing your "i don't live like an American" statement.

Why? Nothing could make me prouder. I just like the new prose better, but the sentiment's the same.

[whottt]

Don't forget that dangerous anti-intellectualism is one of the things repugs respect most in a candidate.



Intellectualism? You're fucking pathetic.

Every hardcore lib I know, including on this forum, is so ignorant and naive that calling them moronic would be an insult to morons. THat's why you guys will believe any and all propaganda you read.


The vocal Democrats aren't intellectuals...they're idiots that think they are.


And their lack of intellectual capacity is revealed every time they post ridiculous propaganda.

[balli]

Just for you Whott- (especially the indicated bolding)
http://www.amazon.com/Assault-Reason-Al-Gore/dp/1594201226


In an account that balances theoretical discussion of the foundations of democracy with a lacerating critique of the Bush administration, Gore argues that the marketplace of reasoned debate our country was founded on is being endangered by a variety of allied forces: the use of fear and the misuse of faith, the distractions of our entertainment culture, and the concentrations of power in the national media and the executive branch. In his essay and answers to our questions below, he introduces the crisis he sees, as well as the opportunity for its solution he envisions in the open forums of the Internet.

Not long before our nation launched the invasion of Iraq, our longest-serving Senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor and said: "This chamber is, for the most part, silent—ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate."

Why was the Senate silent?

In describing the empty chamber the way he did, Byrd invited a specific version of the same general question millions of us have been asking: "Why do reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?" The persistent and sustained reliance on falsehoods as the basis of policy, even in the face of massive and well-understood evidence to the contrary, seems to many Americans to have reached levels that were previously unimaginable.

A large and growing number of Americans are asking out loud: "What has happened to our country?" People are trying to figure out what has gone wrong in our democracy, and how we can fix it.

To take another example, for the first time in American history, the Executive Branch of our government has not only condoned but actively promoted the treatment of captives in wartime that clearly involves torture, thus overturning a prohibition established by General George Washington during the Revolutionary War.

It is too easy—and too partisan—to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us? Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned? Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.

American democracy is now in danger—not from any one set of ideas, but from unprecedented changes in the environment within which ideas either live and spread, or wither and die. I do not mean the physical environment; I mean what is called the public sphere, or the marketplace of ideas.

It is simply no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know I am not alone in feeling that something has gone fundamentally wrong. In 2001, I had hoped it was an aberration when polls showed that three-quarters of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on Sept. 11. More than five years later, however, nearly half of the American public still believes Saddam was connected to the attack.

At first I thought the exhaustive, nonstop coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial was just an unfortunate excess—an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media. Now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time: the Michael Jackson trial and the Robert Blake trial, the Laci Peterson tragedy and the Chandra Levy tragedy, Britney and KFed, Lindsay and Paris and Nicole.

While American television watchers were collectively devoting 100 million hours of their lives each week to these and other similar stories, our nation was in the process of more quietly making what future historians will certainly describe as a series of catastrophically mistaken decisions on issues of war and peace, the global climate and human survival, freedom and barbarity, justice and fairness. For example, hardly anyone now disagrees that the choice to invade Iraq was a grievous mistake. Yet, incredibly, all of the evidence and arguments necessary to have made the right decision were available at the time and in hindsight are glaringly obvious.

Those of us who have served in the U.S. Senate and watched it change over time could volunteer a response to Senator Byrd's incisive description of the Senate prior to the invasion: The chamber was empty because the Senators were somewhere else. Many of them were at fund-raising events they now feel compelled to attend almost constantly in order to collect money—much of it from special interests—to buy 30-second TV commercials for their next re-election campaign. The Senate was silent because Senators don't feel that what they say on the floor of the Senate really matters that much anymore—not to the other Senators, who are almost never present when their colleagues speak, and certainly not to the voters, because the news media seldom report on Senate speeches anymore.
Our Founders' faith in the viability of representative democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry, their ingenious design for checks and balances, and their belief that the rule of reason is the natural sovereign of a free people. The Founders took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas so that knowledge could flow freely. Thus they not only protected freedom of assembly, they made a special point—in the First Amendment—of protecting the freedom of the printing press. And yet today, almost 45 years have passed since the majority of Americans received their news and information from the printed word. Newspapers are hemorrhaging readers. Reading itself is in decline. The Republic of Letters has been invaded and occupied by the empire of television.
Radio, the Internet, movies, cell phones, iPods, computers, instant messaging, video games and personal digital assistants all now vie for our attention—but it is television that still dominates the flow of information. According to an authoritative global study, Americans now watch television an average of 4 hours and 35 minutes every day—90 minutes more than the world average. When you assume eight hours of work a day, six to eight hours of sleep and a couple of hours to bathe, dress, eat and commute, that is almost three-quarters of all the discretionary time the average American has.

In the world of television, the massive flows of information are largely in only one direction, which makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation. Individuals receive, but they cannot send. They hear, but they do not speak. The "well-informed citizenry" is in danger of becoming the "well-amused audience." Moreover, the high capital investment required for the ownership and operation of a television station and the centralized nature of broadcast, cable and satellite networks have led to the increasing concentration of ownership by an ever smaller number of larger corporations that now effectively control the majority of television programming in America.

In practice, what television's dominance has come to mean is that the inherent value of political propositions put forward by candidates is now largely irrelevant compared with the image-based ad campaigns they use to shape the perceptions of voters. The high cost of these commercials has radically increased the role of money in politics—and the influence of those who contribute it. That is why campaign finance reform, however well drafted, often misses the main point: so long as the dominant means of engaging in political dialogue is through purchasing expensive television advertising, money will continue in one way or another to dominate American politics. And as a result, ideas will continue to play a diminished role. That is also why the House and Senate campaign committees in both parties now search for candidates who are multimillionaires and can buy the ads with their own personal resources.

When I first ran for Congress in 1976, I never took a poll during the entire campaign. Eight years later, however, when I ran statewide for the U.S. Senate, I did take polls and like most statewide candidates relied more heavily on electronic advertising to deliver my message. I vividly remember a turning point in that Senate campaign when my opponent, a fine public servant named Victor Ashe who has since become a close friend, was narrowing the lead I had in the polls. After a detailed review of all the polling information and careful testing of potential TV commercials, the anticipated response from my opponent's campaign and the planned response to the response, my advisers made a recommendation and prediction that surprised me with its specificity: "If you run this ad at this many 'points' [a measure of the size of the advertising buy], and if Ashe responds as we anticipate, and then we purchase this many points to air our response to his response, the net result after three weeks will be an increase of 8.5% in your lead in the polls."

I authorized the plan and was astonished when three weeks later my lead had increased by exactly 8.5%. Though pleased, of course, for my own campaign, I had a sense of foreboding for what this revealed about our democracy. Clearly, at least to some degree, the "consent of the governed" was becoming a commodity to be purchased by the highest bidder. To the extent that money and the clever use of electronic mass media could be used to manipulate the outcome of elections, the role of reason began to diminish.

As a college student, I wrote my senior thesis on the impact of television on the balance of power among the three branches of government. In the study, I pointed out the growing importance of visual rhetoric and body language over logic and reason. There are countless examples of this, but perhaps understandably, the first one that comes to mind is from the 2000 campaign, long before the Supreme Court decision and the hanging chads, when the controversy over my sighs in the first debate with George W. Bush created an impression on television that for many viewers outweighed whatever positive benefits I might have otherwise gained in the verbal combat of ideas and substance. A lot of good that senior thesis did me.

The potential for manipulating mass opinions and feelings initially discovered by commercial advertisers is now being even more aggressively exploited by a new generation of media Machiavellis. The combination of ever more sophisticated public opinion sampling techniques and the increasing use of powerful computers to parse and subdivide the American people according to "psychographic" categories that identify their susceptibility to individually tailored appeals has further magnified the power of propagandistic electronic messaging that has created a harsh new reality for the functioning of our democracy.

As a result, our democracy is in danger of being hollowed out. In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum. We must create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future. We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the rule of reason.

And what if an individual citizen or group of citizens wants to enter the public debate by expressing their views on television? Since they cannot simply join the conversation, some of them have resorted to raising money in order to buy 30 seconds in which to express their opinion. But too often they are not allowed to do even that. MoveOn.org tried to buy an ad for the 2004 Super Bowl broadcast to express opposition to Bush's economic policy, which was then being debated by Congress. CBS told MoveOn that "issue advocacy" was not permissible. Then, CBS, having refused the MoveOn ad, began running advertisements by the White House in favor of the president's controversial proposal. So MoveOn complained, and the White House ad was temporarily removed. By temporarily, I mean it was removed until the White House complained, and CBS immediately put the ad back on, yet still refused to present the MoveOn ad.

To understand the final reason why the news marketplace of ideas dominated by television is so different from the one that emerged in the world dominated by the printing press, it is important to distinguish the quality of vividness experienced by television viewers from the "vividness" experienced by readers. Marshall McLuhan's description of television as a "cool" medium—as opposed to the "hot" medium of print—was hard for me to understand when I read it 40 years ago, because the source of "heat" in his metaphor is the mental work required in the alchemy of reading. But McLuhan was almost alone in recognizing that the passivity associated with watching television is at the expense of activity in parts of the brain associated with abstract thought, logic, and the reasoning process. Any new dominant communications medium leads to a new information ecology in society that inevitably changes the way ideas, feelings, wealth, power and influence are distributed and the way collective decisions are made.
As a young lawyer giving his first significant public speech at the age of 28, Abraham Lincoln warned that a persistent period of dysfunction and unresponsiveness by government could alienate the American people and that "the strongest bulwark of any government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectively be broken down and destroyed—I mean the attachment of the people." Many Americans now feel that our government is unresponsive and that no one in power listens to or cares what they think. They feel disconnected from democracy. They feel that one vote makes no difference, and that they, as individuals, have no practical means of participating in America's self-government. Unfortunately, they are not entirely wrong. Voters are often viewed mainly as targets for easy manipulation by those seeking their "consent" to exercise power. By using focus groups and elaborate polling techniques, those who design these messages are able to derive the only information they're interested in receiving from citizens—feedback useful in fine-tuning their efforts at manipulation. Over time, the lack of authenticity becomes obvious and takes its toll in the form of cynicism and alienation. And the more Americans disconnect from the democratic process, the less legitimate it becomes.

Many young Americans now seem to feel that the jury is out on whether American democracy actually works or not. We have created a wealthy society with tens of millions of talented, resourceful individuals who play virtually no role whatsoever as citizens. Bringing these people in—with their networks of influence, their knowledge, and their resources—is the key to creating the capacity for shared intelligence that we need to solve our problems.

Unfortunately, the legacy of the 20th century's ideologically driven bloodbaths has included a new cynicism about reason itself—because reason was so easily used by propagandists to disguise their impulse to power by cloaking it in clever and seductive intellectual formulations. When people don't have an opportunity to interact on equal terms and test the validity of what they're being "taught" in the light of their own experience and robust, shared dialogue, they naturally begin to resist the assumption that the experts know best.

So the remedy for what ails our democracy is not simply better education (as important as that is) or civic education (as important as that can be), but the re-establishment of a genuine democratic discourse in which individuals can participate in a meaningful way—a conversation of democracy in which meritorious ideas and opinions from individuals do, in fact, evoke a meaningful response.

Fortunately, the Internet has the potential to revitalize the role played by the people in our constitutional framework. It has extremely low entry barriers for individuals. It is the most interactive medium in history and the one with the greatest potential for connecting individuals to one another and to a universe of knowledge. It's a platform for pursuing the truth, and the decentralized creation and distribution of ideas, in the same way that markets are a decentralized mechanism for the creation and distribution of goods and services. It's a platform, in other words, for reason. But the Internet must be developed and protected, in the same way we develop and protect markets—through the establishment of fair rules of engagement and the exercise of the rule of law. The same ferocity that our Founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the Internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic. We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Web. We cannot take this future for granted. We must be prepared to fight for it, because of the threat of corporate consolidation and control over the Internet marketplace of ideas.

The danger arises because there is, in most markets, a very small number of broadband network operators. These operators have the structural capacity to determine the way in which information is transmitted over the Internet and the speed with which it is delivered. And the present Internet network operators—principally large telephone and cable companies—have an economic incentive to extend their control over the physical infrastructure of the network to leverage control of Internet content. If they went about it in the wrong way, these companies could institute changes that have the effect of limiting the free flow of information over the Internet in a number of troubling ways.

The democratization of knowledge by the print medium brought the Enlightenment. Now, broadband interconnection is supporting decentralized processes that reinvigorate democracy. We can see it happening before our eyes: As a society, we are getting smarter. Networked democracy is taking hold. You can feel it. We the people—as Lincoln put it, "even we here"—are collectively still the key to the survival of America's democracy.

[whottt]

:lmao That's just great...I agree, Robert Byrd is a perfect example of a Democrat intellectual.

Fucking thank you "balla"...you made your point.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Don't forget that dangerous anti-intellectualism is one of the things repugs respect most in a candidate.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/214/458788589_8c1c0ac6e4.jpg?v=0/



oh and by the way...............2 "heartbeats" away from the presidency.

[whottt]

Takes more than believing every ignorant conspiracy theory you read about the Bush Admin to be an intellectual.

[whottt]

Anyway...I guess I'll let you intellectuals get back to immediately branding every member of Martin Luther King's political party as a bible thumpin' racist. Because you're so intellectual.

[PixelPusher]

Takes more than believing every ignorant conspiracy theory you read about the Bush Admin to be an intellectual.

or pulling stats out of your ass.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104342

[xrayzebra]

And want the really scary part. Shaky Byrd from W. Va. is three heart beats away.

[KenMcCoy]

I authorized the plan and was astonished when three weeks later my lead had increased by exactly 8.5%. Though pleased, of course, for my own campaign, I had a sense of foreboding for what this revealed about our democracy. Clearly, at least to some degree, the "consent of the governed" was becoming a commodity to be purchased by the highest bidder. To the extent that money and the clever use of electronic mass media could be used to manipulate the outcome of elections, the role of reason began to diminish.

I forget...which candidate has spent more than twice as much as the other one???

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php

[baseline bum]

Don't forget that dangerous anti-intellectualism is one of the things repugs respect most in a candidate. I'd guess the more she fucks up and the more clueless she is about the world, the more she'll appeal to the back-asswards white-trash that makes up the repug base. Because after all, what kind of bourgeoisie socialist actually wants someone who's intellectually elite (or even halfways smart) to be in charge?

I wish that was a joke or an exaggeration, but I know plenty of people who thought Bush was more trustworthy because he was a dumbass and not a Rhodes Scholar like Clinton.

[whottt]

or pulling stats out of your ass.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104342


Further proof of both you and Chump's lack of intellectual capacity...I didn't claim my stats were a hard fact.

All you've proved is I am way off on the ethnic breakdown of Iran...point conceded...although I am sure I stated that the way I did for a reason.

I'll have to look into it.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Well, we as taxpayers are on the hook as of yesterday. There is nothing inaccurate about what she said. Unless you're a Democrat trying to find something to cut her down about.

And you'd be wrong.

[PixelPusher]

Well, we as taxpayers are on the hook as of yesterday. There is nothing inaccurate about what she said. Unless you're a Democrat trying to find something to cut her down about.

And you'd be wrong.

You didn't even need to click on the link, you only need to exert the minimal effort required to read what I quoted.


McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, speaking in Colorado Springs, Colo., said Fannie and Freddie had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, however, aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization.
can you distinguish past tense from present tense?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You didn't even need to click on the link, you only need to exert the minimal effort required to read what I quoted.


can you distinguish past tense from present tense?

Again, I'm sorry you're new to the game. There been an implied taxpayer responsibility for Fannie and Freddie for as long as I've been paying attention (a couple of years now). Everyone knew what was going to happen if one or both failed - the taxpayers would pick up the tab.

It's why they operated as they did and took on the risks they did in the market - the leaders of those two organizations knew that Congress would bail their asses out. And it sucks.

The only thing new about this is the Fed actually acted yesterday. Everyone knew as soon as the mortgage meltdown started that these two banks would not be allowed to fail by the federal government, which meant you me and every other taxpayer in this country would be on the hook.

So, again, nothing inaccurate about what she said.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

The articles coming out are embarrassing themselves. Palin has been found to be correct on the "taxpayers" remarks.

There are some CSPAN interviews of her, and she comes off really sharp on the issues she has to know. You may not agree with her on the issue, or her political stance on drilling, say if you were a green environmentalist, but no one could claim she's an airhead when speaking her case.
She had a really good answer on the issue of tax cuts v. tax raises, when defining "middle class" wages on one of the questions.
She's far from a dullard a la Bush.