White House: No Kerry Supporters at IATC Meeting 1430
An anonymous reader writes "Time Magazine is reporting that the Bush Administration is removing U.S. delegates from the Inter-American Telephone Commission because they gave money to John Kerry in last year's election. A Bush spokesman admits it's true: 'We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that,' says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Employees of Qualcomm and Nokia are among those who have been removed from the commission."
Yes, scary (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (Score:5, Informative)
Neither Reagan nor Bush '41 would have, either.
Hell, I don't think Nixon would have done this.
ArsTechnica has a good post... (Score:5, Informative)
Read it. Its more informative that the short writeup above.
Re:It's the president's prerogative (Score:2, Informative)
history, as well as the article, suggests otherwise. Nice theory based on opinion with no facts to back it up though!
RTFA!!!
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:3, Informative)
I personally prefer this to the other option of, "Gee, Bush got 100 million last week.... wonder where that came from..."
Re:In other news . . . (Score:5, Informative)
We aren't talking about diplomatic work, we are talking about standards work.
Here, you don't even have to read the whole article, just read this paragraph:
Re:You're right, it's just whining (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shock and Bah (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, both the grandparent, parent and me have now lost the discussion.
FFS RTFA (Score:1, Informative)
2. No, restricting contributions to individuals wouldn't have solved this, as the issue is exactly with individuals who as private citizens contributed to the Kerry campaign.
P.S.: Thanks to the mods for once again modding someone up who isn't able to RTFA!
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm not up on US politics (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:3, Informative)
Well, can anyone really do anything about it?
From the looks of things, the majority of people are very easily satisfied, and accept whatever the government is doing as right or perfectly acceptable. The media certainly isn't helping people think for themselves.
Re:Biting the hand that feeds (Score:5, Informative)
It's sort of like with the Senate Republicans considering the "Nuclear Option" of barring filibusters; it doesn't seem to occur to any of them that this move will come back to bite them in the ass just as soon as there is a non-Republican majority...
Re:Is anyone surprised by this? Anyone? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Informative)
In addition to OpenSecrets (Suggested by the other poster in this thread), check out Fundrace.
Talk about anonymity-- Plug in an address, and see who made a $250+ contributution to a candidate, with house number & everything. There's even a button to map the location of the house, which is a little frightening.
http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php [fundrace.org]
The databases are not totally accurate-- my own contributions are not anywhere on the list, perhaps because I made a bunch of smaller contributions to multiple groups as I could afford them, instead of one big contribution.
Re:facist (Score:2, Informative)
If you can't read the lettering, it says "George W. Bush. Commander in Chief".
Not really facist, though. More torsoish.
Represent Administration or Country??? (Score:2, Informative)
... but not represent the people, or the country.
It's all too clear that this administration is totally self-serving, and cares not a whit for its real job.
Sorry. I'm ranting, but dammit they deserve every byte!
Re:Slashdot presents a good argument in favor (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:2, Informative)
For that matter, Jefferson apparently thought that a new constitution and government should be created every 40 years to clear out the inevitable corruption and special interests, but gave it up as unfeasible.
Re:My question... (Score:5, Informative)
Link please?
I think he was refering to Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green) being arrested at the presidential debate. [slashdot.org]
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, that is EXACTLY what they did. Having just fought an oppressive and tyrannical government themselves, they wanted to make it as easy as possible for the citizens to overthrow future tyrannical governments. Their letters on the subject make this absolutely clear.
They knew (as you apparently do not) that as every government grows and ages it gets corrupt and tyrannical and eventually must be overthrown if the people are to retain their rights.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Letter to William S. Smith 13 Nov 1787 (Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, 1939; Padover, editor)
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive" -- Thomas Jefferson
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go around repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence." - Charles A. Beard
"The greatest calamity which could befall us would be submission to a government of unlimited powers." --Thomas Jefferson, 1825
Re:Naive (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Every single person has missed the point. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Informative)
I won't address why your precepts are wrong here, as other posters in this thread have done an excellent job already. It's the last bit of that sentence I'd like to correct. "There aren't any [citizen militias]", you say? Well, if you are a male between the ages of 17 and 45 (I assume you are a U.S. citizen from the wording of your post), you are a member of the citizen militia of the United States. Don't believe me? Look here: USC Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311. [house.gov]
In any case, there are many smaller, slightly-more-organized groups of armed citizens. They have been for a long time and still are occasionally called upon by local law enforcement to assist in emergencies (natural disasters, for example). It's true that a lot of these so-called "militia" groups are crackpot vigilantes (and sometimes white supremacists as well), but they are fortunately a minority. If any of these groups on their own decided to try to overthrow the government, they would be quickly dealt with. That's the whole point; the founding fathers did not envision the citizen militia as a bunch of small groups of paranoid vigilantes. Rather, the citizen militia is simply the entire body of the armed citizenry, who can in dire need, as a last resort, when every other system put in place has failed to secure the rights and fair representation of the people, exercise their will upon the government by force.
Re:Biting the hand that feeds (Score:3, Informative)
UMC on:
Environment [slashdot.org]
Abortion [umc.org]
End of life care [umc.org]
Gay rights [umc.org]
Healthcare and contraception [umc.org]
Unions [umc.org]
Separation of Church and State [umc.org]
Freedom of Information [umc.org]
The Death Penalty [umc.org]
Bush can call himself a Methodist all he wants, but he sure doesn't act like one to me. His beliefs on the subjects above are much closer to that of Southern Baptists.
In fact, most "mainline" Protestant denominations tend to hold social beliefs that would be considered moderately liberal. American Catholic beliefs follow similar lines. Which makes me wonder why the Administration speaks as if all Christians are on their side.
Re:Biting the hand that feeds (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Another History Major! (Score:5, Informative)
"Given the nature of man, factions are inevitable. As long as men hold different opinions, have different amounts of wealth, and own different amount of property, they will continue to fraternize with people who are most similar to them. Both serious and trivial reasons account for the formation of factions but the most important source of faction is the unequal distribution of property. Men of greater ability and talent tend to possess more property than those of lesser ability, and since the first object of government is to protect and encourage ability, it follows that the rights of property owners must be protected. Property is divided unequally, and, in addition, there are many different kinds of property; men have different interests depending upon the kind of property they own. For example, the interests of landowners differ from those who own businesses. Government must not only protect the conflicting interests of property owners, it must, at the same time, successfully regulate the conflicts that result from those who own, and those who do not own, property."
Federalist papers 10
In other Papers he argues that factions are a dangerous thing when used to oppress the minority. So while it wasn't George to begin with it was Hamilton (one of the creators of the US Constitution).
Next!
B.
Re:I'm not up on US politics (Score:4, Informative)
It was normal under the spoils system which was started by Andrew Jackson in 1829 and ended by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. [wikipedia.org] That is the wikipedia article with the most information on the subject. You can still do this sort of thing with some jobs, but it is frowned upon because it was such a disaster the first time it was done.
Re:Debt is okay if you have the means to pay it of (Score:4, Informative)
You are exaggerating a little here. The latest numbers I can find have the the real US GDP at about $10.5 trillion with the national debt at about $7 trillion. That is nowhere near "many, many times our debt". And the economy looks like it is growing at an average annual rate of 4%; decent, but not spectacular. And recent news I have been getting from my broker suggests that the economy may be slowing down. I don't think your optimism is warranted from everything that I have been reading.
As for the rest of your post, I could nitpick some of your other points, but I'll just say that I agree that debt is not a bad thing if you can pay it back. The problem is that GWB seems to be trying to increase our debt as fast as he possibly can. Every time I turn on the television it seems like he is pushing through some new bill that saddles the federal government with more expenditures, many of them not related to the war or military spending. There is no way that your little supply side utopia will ever work if government spending continues to grow faster than tax revenues.
actually... (Score:3, Informative)
The fix now is the fix that's been done at every "crisis", a few minor tweaks (change the taxable base, change benefit amounts) and forget about it for another decade, everybody will be paid.
If NOTHING is done, the Social Security Trust Fund would have to start reducing benefits below it's projected level (far higher than today)in 2042.
The attempted move by the Bushmen to "fix" SS is an attempt to make it possible for Wall Street campaign contributors to Bush to cash in on pension fund management payments, and to dump liquidity into the stock market. Anyone who remembers the dot.bomb (is there anyone who doesn't?) should be able to figure out that one's core pension funds should NOT be in the stock market.
Margie Thatcher tried this in the UK during the Reagan era... now, even the Conservatives want to dump piratization for a US style SS plan.
Debt is only a good thing when. . . (Score:5, Informative)
Look at the drop of the dollar against all other currencies to see what the world market thinks about whether the USA's debt is a good thing.
Look at the sudden move all over the world to diversify out of all T-bill holdings.
Look at the level of savings by individuals in the USA.
It's a known fact that the US consumes far more than it produces with the difference underwritten by private and public debt. Much of this money is going into financing personal consumption.
Any American who thinks this is a good thing... needs professional therapy.
"Brooks Brothers Riot" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Biting the hand that feeds (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:4, Informative)
This kinds of thing happens all the time in every administration. This has been happening from the very beginning of our country. It goes like this:
* Someone forms a Commission. Do you know what a Comission is? Look it up. Wikipedia. Dictionary.com, etc. There is no reason why a Commission has to be bi-partisan. Bi-Partisan Committies, Commissions, etc are nothing more than an agreement by the ruling party to say "look we're being cooperative", or fair. This is nothing requiring the ruling party to do so.
* When a party decides to make or modify a commission, commitee, etc., (yes, even if one has been historically bi-partisan) you have the pleasure to put whoever suits your primary purpose on that committee.
Obviously this administration is pursuing the very thing they want, which is a partisan view represented by their administration. The Republican Party line has been for over TWO decades now "if it's not influenced by liberals, it's fair".
Here's a great example: In the 1980's, when Reagan was in office, his administration didn't want demographics coming out of the census bureau to represent the "democratic point of view". Those that were clear supporters of the party were kept and promoted to position within the organization to make sure facts and figures promoted the Republican agenda. One might say at this point these are no longer facts, but statistics, demographics, etc can be modified to suit the agenda.
Take unemployment figures. Unemployment figures are frequently modified by administrations to include and exclude different people with different qualifications. In the 80's when unemployment rates soared, the Reagan administration removed from the unemployment roles anyone with a part time job to reduce the amounts of people listed as unemployed -- The roles at one time listed everyone collecting a portion of unemployment but carrying a part-time job as on the rolls.
Well, are you unemployed? No, but it doesn't mean you aren't drawing from the unemployment pot. The percentages were modified to combat the soaring unemployment figures. Add to that anyone with a part time job was suddenly seen as "Gainfully Employed (yes, ignore the fact that you can't make a real living for a family of four working part time at Macdonalds even in teh 80's)
There were numerous articles in the 80's media that wrote about this situation and I'm sure if you look in the 1980-1982 Washington Post and New York Times, you'll see evidence of this.
As a liberal, I am unhappy that the Bush administration took this action, but you know what? They're allowed to. If you want your views represented, that means you have to get involved in politics. If you don't do that, you will NEVER win the day when it comes to true political equality, because the other party, liberal or conservative will consider weighting a panel, commission, or otherwise in their favor. That's called politics and it's perfectly legal. If you don't like it, you should have done your part to make sure that you and your neighbors did their part and voted democrat in the last presidential election.
That is factually wrong (Score:3, Informative)
From TFA
The message is clear to industry: If you donate to the Democrats, you will be frozen out of any participation in the formation of public policy. If any of your representatives do, they (and your company) will as well.
This is designed to foster an environment where companies and employees are frightened, even forbidden, from making political contributions to anyone other than the ruling party. In a system where funding drives politics more than anything else, it is the final death knell of democracy and effective dissent. The only well funded party will become the Republican party, which is the whole point. The result will be a one party system that doesn't call itself a one party system, with enough token Democrats to befuddle the American people into believing they still live in a representative republic (aka democracy).
This is unprecedented, terribly dangerous, and unsurprising that it would be the Bush administration presiding over this change in affairs.
Re:Apologists need to look in the *&$%ing mirr (Score:2, Informative)
They aren't.
I think you are being presumptuous. They block your IP address or block you if you are registered and get moded down too much (not hard to get moded down). Some even joke about being moded down in their signatures. In political tests I score right smack in the middle but I know I'm careful about what I post here.
Before you criticize Bush's administration too hard, you may want to look at the last administration (or previous ones, it doesn't matter). Take health care reform for example. Bill had his wife - the first "Lady" run it, someone that wasn't even a government official, perhaps not even a government employee (Do they pay first ladies?). Someone that disagreed with her need not come into the city, nevermind be on her comission. The comission later collapsed under its own weight and obvious corruption. That was probably one of the biggest black eye's Bill got in his first term. There is also the case where Bill (or Hilary depending on who you believe) cleaned out the travel office. People that had been working there in that office since Kennedy was in office and even charged one of the men with felonies. He was later cleared of all charges. That scandel was known as travelgate. Lots of other examples but I hope you see where this is going. Same under Reagan, Carter, Johnson, even Truman and especially true under Roosevelt (aka King Roosevelt, talk about an iron grip!). This continues on back through history if you read old papers. Abe Lincoln was criticized I think worse than Bush is. They even went after his wife Mary. A Republican president that is universally recognized as one of the best we ever had.
That is, nothing new or different in what they are doing. No apology, this is business as usual in Washington. What is amazing is that America still gets stuff done and there is progress in spite of all of this through the years.
What I can point out is that Bush did keep on Mr. Norman Mineta who served under Bill Clinton as Commerce Secretary, he is now Bush's Transportation Secretary. He has allowed a number of Democrats/liberals/"progressives" (sometimes progressives are called socialists or communists) to serve that I though were not in his best interest. This is especially true in the State Department. When Clinton came to town he cleaned that place out and put his people in, Bush should have done the same thing.
Re:Could someone please tell the Bush Administrati (Score:0, Informative)
No, the "paper receipts" that I've heard argued for are ones that the voter would take with them. You know, put in your wallet and leave the polling place. Then later, that "paper receipt" could be used to confirm that your vote was really counted officially, or I've even heard some say that there could be a website that people could use to see that their vote was actually counted they way they voted.
See the issue there?
-BrentRe:Actually no (Score:1, Informative)
And they're still cheaper than the local stores.
Universial health care? Go back to Canada hippie.. . Here in American we like our poor to suffer!
The "poor", including illegal immigrants, have free access to any ER in the country. Hospitals are prohibited by law from turning people away, even if those people have non-life-threatening conditions. That's why health insurance costs so much.
You sure are stupid.