FCC Complaints For the 2016 Primary Debates (muckrock.com) 178
v3rgEz writes: Wish that you could have tuned into all the primary debates without a cable subscription? You're not alone. According to MuckRock analysis of primary-related FCC complaints, that was one of the most common complaints, as well as allegations of corporate bias, candidate preferences by the networks, and general gripes about how corporate supposedly open debates have become. I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about the U.S. primary system, too.
Corporate bias? (Score:3)
In America?
I'm shocked.
Hint: the candidates themselves are bought and sold on the marketplace. They're rich fucks trying to get elected to better serve their corporate masters, who bankrolled their campaigns. What does it matter if their lies and their antics are broadcast on Fox or PBS?
Re: (Score:3)
I'd argue the Trump and Sanders are the least "bought and paid for" serious candidates we've seen in ages.
Doesn't mean you have to like them, but I think the two of them propbably are pretty free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree completely. (I may be wrong though.)
From what I see, everyone on the right absolutely despises Hillary. I do *not* see Cruz voters, for instance, voting for Hillary over Trump. They might be saying now how much they dislike Trump, but when it comes down to Trump versus Mrs. Benghazi, I just don't see them voting for her. Similarly, there's a lot of Bernie voters who despise Hillary and have vowed to vote for Trump over her.
While I agree that this race will come down to Hillary vs. Trump (unle
Re: (Score:2)
A Clinton/Trump vote is good for Republicans though
No, a Clinton/Trump election is not good, regardless of which party you claim. In January, Gallup reported that Trump had the highest unfavorability rating recorded [conservativereview.com], and yesterday Clinton's unfavorability hit a new high [freebeacon.com]. 60% of people actively dislike Trump, and 55% of people actively dislike Hillary. Those are 2 people who are both disliked by a majority of the country. That's not good. They are the only candidates over 50%. Jeb! peaked at around 45%, the evangelist Ted Cruz is at 37% unfavorable and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's your solution? I know it's not revolt since most people that complain about corporate bias generally support an unarmed civilian population.
It's just a statement of fact. I have no solution, I'm not offering one, and quite frankly, I don't believe there is one.
Besides, the American republic has always been that way. It's never been founded as a true democracy. So I'm not sure there's anything to fix in the first place. I just find it ironic that the only thing people seem to complain about is fairnes
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's an idea. Have a government that provides the basics: protects you from invaders and insures the following of agreed upon rules; and be very careful in adding extra resp
Re:Corporate bias? (Score:5, Informative)
That claim keeps popping up. It's wrong.
We are "constitutional" because we have a Constitution. But that a bit of a tautology.
"Republic" means that we are not a monarchy.
We have a "representative democracy" where laws are voted upon by "representatives" who are voted for by our citizens.
Re:Corporate bias? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you aware that you are wrong and that by making this shit up you are proving yourself a fool or someone who is deliberately lying to others?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The US has (thankfully) never been a democracy. It is a constitutional republic
You're wrong there, and that's because you're trying too hard to play with semantics by treating "Constitutional republic" and "Democracy" as though they are mutually exclusive terms, when that's far from true. "Democracy" is the more general term which encompases several types of republics and a whole lot more. A constitutional republic as found in the US, for example, falls under the more specific subset of democracy known as a liberal democracy [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
We certainly do not really have democracy here in the US. The people do not even elect their representatives, see the electoral college. Within the major parties see the delegates and super delegates as well as the currently d
Re: (Score:2)
The people do not even elect their representatives, see the electoral college.
The electoral college applies only to one office, one branch, of the government. That office was not intended to represent the people who elected him, it was to be a check and balance on the people who do represent the citizens, and those who represent the states that make up the union.
The representative part of the government is, indeed, elected by the people, even those who were supposed to represent not the people's but the state's interests. Somewhere along the line the concept of "representation" go
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution did indeed separate out military power, only allowing the federal government to c
Re: (Score:2)
Key points - the phrase "general welfare" does not mean "welfare" in a 20th C sense, as a handout from government. Government's role is to protect your enumerated rights (see Bill of Rights). There were some who opposed including the Bill of Rights as they argued that the Federal Government -- congress -- only had the power to pass laws as listed in Article I Section VIII (if I remember correctly).
As Congress was not granted the power to pass a law regarding speech or religion then the f
Re: (Score:2)
The portion of the Constitution empowering congress to pass laws for the general welfare was written before there was a bill of rights and there is an amendment for the explicit purpose of making clear that the bill of rights are explicitly enumerated rights but that all rights not granted were reserved to the people. Just because it isn't in the bill of rights doesn't mean it isn't a right. For example, the right to privacy which
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well put.
I don't remember that distinction but I will take a look.
This clearly shows the ambiguity of language.
Let me rephrase, if you will: "neither the US Constitution nor the Federalist Papers limit or prohibit a state from providing health care to it's residents."
Re: (Score:2)
What's your solution? I know it's not revolt since most people that complain about corporate bias generally support an unarmed civilian population.
It's just a statement of fact. I have no solution, I'm not offering one, and quite frankly, I don't believe there is one.
I've thought about this problem a number of times. One thing that always comes to mind (because nobody yet has refuted it) is to cap "campaign contributions" to something a middle-class person could potentially afford, say $1000. Then you further enforce that corporations cannot hire shills to further donate and give themselves a louder voice. Granted, corps like Comcast can afford to spend $1k on hundreds (or thousands) of separate campaigns, but at least their voice will be the same volume as the general
Re: (Score:3)
GO one step further. A corporation is NOT a person and should not donate ANY money to the political process. I'd also suggest that as part of the FCC's license agreement, each network be required to donate EQUAL time to each candidate that qualifies for the primary. I'd also like to see an actual debate, in which each candidate responds to the same question with the same time limits instead of the media circus we are getting now.
PAC's and SUPERPAC's are utter rubbish.
Re: (Score:2)
We actually did pass that law. First, there was the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 [wikipedia.org], and then the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 [wikipedia.org], better known as McCain-Feingold.
Unfortunately, the restrictions on corporate "soft money" were tossed by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission [wikipedia.org] Supreme Court decision. Thus, the unlimited money that Super PACs and corporations can dump into elections now.
Re: (Score:2)
I just read this and thought: Google the phrases "you liberals" and "you conservatives" and see if there is an asymmetry in the search results.
"you liberals": 196,000 reslults
"you conservatives": 60,400 results
I don't know what to make of that, but it's some measure of how pervasive partisan politics (us vs them) is among the major parties.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no solution, I'm not offering one, and quite frankly, I don't believe there is one.
MAYBE....it is currently fixing itself. The candidate who spent the most money and had the most political connections dropped out early in the race. The one with all the hype (albiet a billionaire) is leading mostly because he's playing to america's inner racist (the only policies I know of that trump has actually talked about are religious and ethnic discrimination). If trump is their candidate it will pretty much blow up the whole corporate oligarchy the republicans have created. On the other side, the b
Re: Corporate bias? (Score:2)
Does the phrase "shit sandwich or turd croissant" ring any bells?
Does "bought and paid for congress" seem familiar?
Does/do any or all of terrorism, save the children, for your own good, in god we trust, infringe, interstate, amend, warrant, war on drugs, surveillance, censorship, corporate ownership of broadcasting... seem familiar?
I'm thinking "fixing itself" doesn't mean the same thing to you and I.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people get their information and knowledge of the system via reporting and each other (who again, mostly got it from reporting) therefore what and how things are reported is perceived as what and how things are and most of your peers see it the same way.
People have also been found to respond better when given a choice and some kind
Re: (Score:2)
I know. They've rigged the system pretty well eh?
Re: Corporate bias? (Score:2)
There are three boxes to use in support of liberty:
o The idiot box
o The Amazon box
o Any box from the liquor store
You just can't fool Americans. We know how to keep the status quo stable.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no solution, other than to put up with it as long as you can, try to vote to improve it, and jump off when the ship starts sinking too much, if you can find a better ship to take you.
Voting is the best thing you can do, but here you can only do as much as the system, and the other voters, allow. If the other voters are so dumb they're all going to vote for the corporate-owned candidate, and your non-establishment candidate can only muster up a third of the vote or so, well, you just have to live w
How about "I wish they were debates" (Score:5, Insightful)
A joint press conference is not a debate. Trading insults in an unstructured (except for time) way is not a debate. BSing and not being able to get called on it is not a debate.
Re:How about "I wish they were debates" (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus, debating is a skill that, in my opinion, is less indicative leadership than the ability to assemble a smart team.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy if there was some in-auditorium fact checker, so when someone spouts off with some nonsense that has been long disproven, they hit a big red button that sounds a loud game-show style buzzer, and it also cuts the mic of the candidate who is speaking, and they forfeit the remainder of their time for that question.
I think a simple change like that would greatly increase the tone and substance of these debates.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with this but add to the game show buzzer with a mild electric shock. Not enough to permanently injure the candidates, but enough to stop them from speaking and make them experience some pain. (Of course, some politicians might develop an immunity to electric shocks, but we can cross that bridge later.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have someone be able to throw a challenge flag, the one who's wrong forfeits participation in the following two debates. Professional sports make this sort of thing work, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't under the impression they are winging it are you? They do have earpieces.
Re: (Score:2)
-1 Stupid. The people on the far right are typically highly religious, and religion is the diametric opposite of rationality.
You do have a point about far-leftists whining about their feelings being hurt though. The other responders are right: the people in the middle will all be watching this wondering, "WTF is wrong with these crazies?"
Re: (Score:3)
honest question... why is "nationalistic" a bad thing?
I want the politicians i'm elected to work int he best interests of MY country and OUR citizens.
They can have a secondary goal to "help all mankind", but their job is to help their own country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: How about "I wish they were debates" (Score:2)
There isn't a lot of actual nationalism on display in the US. Mostly what is smeared all over everything is jingoism. Nothing wrong with nationalism in a world comprised of discrete nations. The trick is finding any.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm not sure how much more on-point the questions need to be. Examples of what's being left out?
Re: (Score:2)
You think it's impossible because you cannot find a fairly neutral party? A smart person who wants to moderate them?
I would think that there's a ton of potential solution, if we give up on "the power to shut them down" And I don't know why that would be important. If you have five minutes, and 4:20 of them are spent on lies, then you looked dumb for 4:20
What are you complaining about ? (Score:2)
What with the usual bragging about a free market, neoliberalism and capitalism. Corporate bias for a candidate ? Neo-liberal version of capitalism. Live with it, or emigrate to Costa Rica, Europe, New Zealand.
Primary? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about the U.S. primary system, too.
The problem with the primary system is that it matters so much. It wouldn't if there were more than 2 parties (and thus 2 candidates) that counted.
To fix this we need to fix the US election system. Here's why that matters. [cgpgrey.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Here is a direct link to the first video (6.5 minutes long):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
To fix this we need to fix the US election system.
One solution is to use non-partisan open primaries, and then make the general election a run-off between the top two. This also eliminates the Spoiler Effect [wikipedia.org]. Unfortunately, open primaries are unconstitutional [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
To fix this we need to fix the US election system.
One solution is to use non-partisan open primaries, and then make the general election a run-off between the top two. This also eliminates the Spoiler Effect [wikipedia.org]. Unfortunately, open primaries are unconstitutional [wikipedia.org].
Open primaries are not a panacea. You need to have more than 2 real choices, or those two who are chosen will just end up being the targets for the real bribes (arhhrm - lobbying - sorry, forgot my US lingo).
You need single transferrable vote, or some other voting system change that eliminates the basic FPTP approval voting (Condorcet method is what's used by smart groups, though Instant Runoff is good as well).
Re: (Score:3)
One solution is to use non-partisan open primaries, and then make the general election a run-off between the top two.
Thereby eliminating any chance for anyone on a non-mainstream party from ever holding office again. If you can't make the top-two, you don't stand a chance.
It's also pretty easy to create a pathological case where your system results in the worst people being elected, so no, it isn't a solution either.
There is nothing wrong with parties using primaries to choose their candidates and then the election being held to pick which of the several candidates that leaves. You may want to have a way in who the Repu
Re: (Score:2)
In the spirit of those CGP Grey videos and major election reform, CA has gone to a "Top 2 vote getters for ANY party in the primary compete in the general election" primary system.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm worried that half-measures like this do more harm than good, because they can create dissatisfaction with voting reform efforts. Get it right, and do the math. Start with replacing plurality / first-past-the-post with any other system. CA's system by itself will probably cause havoc because of the spoiler effect. I like reweighted range voting best for multi-seat elections, but would be happy with transferrable votes and probably others as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see much activity on this front, but I like the material at rangevoting.org [rangevoting.org]. I wonder what the status is of current efforts to get range voting implemented in the US?
They make an interesting argument that it's better to lobby for range voting than approval voting, because it's a little harder to repeal. The graph at the bottom of the home page, for me, is a shockingly strong argument. With the plurality system, we do not do much better than picking a winner at random. If we actually value democracy,
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, I like range voting a bit better too. I would also consider the ranked voting methods. Just about anything over plurality.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans and our Supreme Court may well have destroyed the US's two party system by removing the constraints on political funding.
The US doesn't have a two-party system. The US has two varyingly successful parties. The US system is the one described by the constitution (and to a certain extent the sub-systems described by the constitutions of the 50 states). That constitutional system is completely silent on the matter of people assembling into political parties and taking advantage of shared resources in order to get behind a potential candidate that they like. To the contrary: the constitution expressly forbids the government from
Re: (Score:2)
You have falsely convolved free speech and money. Are all bribe givers now merely free-speakers?
Until now, money in politics has long been regulated: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] . McCain-Feingold may have been an overreach, but the Supreme Court's resulting decision was extreme and not only struck down McCain-Feingold but also effectively killed other finance regulations going all the way back to 1907's Tillman Act. I stick by my assertion that we are in a new era of campaign finance and that we
Re: (Score:2)
You have falsely convolved free speech and money. Are all bribe givers now merely free-speakers?
No, you're falsely equating running an ad to say you're in favor of politicians that (for example) want to protect consumer encryption products from government mandated back doors with somehow bribing those same people.
Which mechanism for putting money into a politician's campaign fund do you find to be suddenly un-regulated? Or are you confusing your right to run an ad that says you approve of a given political point of view (or that you disapprove of one) with putting money directly into a politician'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Diseased agencies (Score:2, Interesting)
The FCC is just as politically tainted as the Department of Justice, EPA, IRS, BLM, DHS, HHS, HUD, SSA, VA and the rest of Obama's diseased agencies. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Their man Obama benefited from the same corrupt media treatment in the last 2 elections. He still does.
Re: (Score:2)
Their man Obama benefited from the same corrupt media treatment in the last 2 elections.
Let me guess... because he's a... millionaire?
Silly Americans (Score:2)
Content should be accessible both ways (Score:3)
I have internet access but no TV. I tried watching the debates live on YouTube, and have only sometimes been successful. I wonder why CNN or FNC or the other channels don't either stream LIVE (for NON-cable subscribers) or allow live streaming feeds on YouTube.
Content wise, they're being paid for it either way - whether I watch it on TV or on Internet, the channel is still getting paid. Even the carriers - Charter in my case - are being paid regardless of whether I watch it over TV or over the internet. I just don't see the arguments from the Carrier POV of forcing people to get a cable connection to view content that can also be available online.
Parties are private groups, not government (Score:4, Insightful)
Can we have a Young Turks/Slashdot/Reddit debate? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd really like to see debates run not by the 6 largest media companies.. They have a vested interest in keeping money *in* politics (because they get a lot of it!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no line to draw here (Score:2)
Having read the article (don't be afraid to read, the article's quite short), the analysis shows that the complaints are coming from left, and right, and center. It even includes a bit of "conspiracy theory" about someone whose cable went out during two debates and suspects foul play. For all the ills of corporate-run media, the alternative is government-run media which itself has negative connotations derived from examples in history. Even the putatively benevolent PBS is considered biased by large swaths
Re: (Score:2)
That high school education paying off for you. Wow just wow. It's called commercials - look them up sometime. That's what pays for content on TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow just wow. It's called commercials - look them up sometime. That's what pays for content on TV.
You can't watch OTA TV without a TV. You have to support some manufacturer by buying a TV, but you don't have to watch the ads.
A more important reason why the "OTA" argument fails is that by forcing the debates to OTA you keep anyone who cannot receive the major networks from seeing the debates. I'm one of them. I get two PBS, two Fox, a CW and something even less mainstream OTA.
Any argument you make for where the debates must be carried leaves some people out.
YouTube (Score:2)
I don't know whether its legal, but I find all the debates I hear about in the news on youtube. In fact, I even can't subscribe to a cable plan, as I don't live in the USA.
Should have been ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, have him take on Ronda Rousey or Holly Holm. Ooh, tag-team!
Re: (Score:2)
he sad thing is that many liberal will read this and it will play straight into their bias on how they think conservatives really think.
Heh. Is that reaaally the fault of the biased liberal?
Re: (Score:3)
Is it my fault if I believe the rest of the world is populated by bare-breasted women because I've only ever watched the national geographic channel?
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Is it my fault if I believe the rest of the world is populated by savages because I've only ever watched the national geographic channel?
I would just like to point out the hilarity of you bringing this up without asserting that NatGeo misrepresented the 'savages'. Thank you for supporting my point. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you feeding the troll?
As a good rule of thumb, ignore Anonymous Cowards.
3 billy goats gruff (Score:3)
What is sadder is that you wasted your time responding to an obvious troll, that put very little effort into his or her post. Don't feed the trolls and they will crawl back under bridge from which they spawned.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't feed the trolls and they will crawl back under bridge from which they spawned.
Unfortunately, no they won't. May as well have some fun with them.
Re: 3 billy goats gruff (Score:2)
We've been dealing with trolls... well, pretty much forever. Lots of fun to be had. No actual need to get pushy. A light hand is customary here (well, except for moderation, but of course that's completely broken, so it gets ignored a lot. Moderation without accountability and that permanently submerges perfectly good comments on a very regular basis can never be worth a tinker's damn.)
Re: (Score:2)
Get off my lawn !!! It is kind of funny we used to call them Llamas because they were so very lame, but times change and people get older but not wiser. As for moderation I agree totally. I've been hanging here for many years, through several owners, things have been better, gotten worse and then just plain weird but all along I've enjoyed the side-show. I just hate to feed such an unskilled and obvious troll. Make them at least exert some effort. Cheers fyngyrz
Re: (Score:2)
If there is one thing that seems pretty clear it's that Sanders and Trump are both hated by the elite of their party and the sleeping giant of "None of the above" voters are starting to notice and believe they might be viable ways to strike back at them. Both those who normally vote lesser of two evils within the parties and those who don't think it matters because they all d
Re: (Score:3)
If there is one thing that seems pretty clear it's that Sanders and Trump are both hated by the elite of their party and the sleeping giant of "None of the above" voters are starting to notice and believe they might be viable ways to strike back at them.
Only half true. The sleeping giant of "white people without a college degree" (and a bunch who do) are indeed waking up and voting for Trump in the primaries. It looks very much like Trump will win the GOP nomination.
However, on the Democratic side, it app
Re:Inconvenient truths the liberals won't address (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem that the Democrat and Republican parties are facing is that they each have an outsider candidate, who is not part of their party but just "running as" a member, who is either blowing everyone else out (Trump) or putting up a much more substantial fight than expected (Sanders). If the election actually came down to Sanders versus Trump there would be a lot of democrats and republicans looking around feeling like they don't have a candidate in the election, and rightly so. That's the conclusion to the Democrat policy of "more Obama" and the Republican policy of "stop Obama". It's not all about Obama, and plenty of people want to move in a completely different direction than where either party wants to go. You can still see it with the Republican-majority Congress vowing to just stonewall any attempt by the president to do his job and nominate a new SC justice. Congress is there to do a job that they are just outright refusing to do because the other guy is Obama, and it seems stupid to a lot of people. Or the dozens of times that republicans have tried to repeal or cripple Obamacare, knowing full well that Obama will veto any attempt. They know that they are wasting their time, and they do it anyway instead of actually getting anything done. The people watching that happen are the kinds of people who are voting for Trump or Sanders.
At this point it's not unthinkable that Trump fails to secure the majority he needs to be the nominee, it goes to the brokered convention, the convention votes to nominate a different person, Trump breaks off as an independent and takes 40% or whatever of Republican voters with him, the Democrats anoint Hillary, Sanders says F this and signs on as an independent, and then Bloomberg jumps in for good measure to stir the pot a little more. A general election with 5 major candidates, in addition to people like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, might be what we need at this point. The two-party bickering has reached a level that is no longer sustainable, and that's why Sanders and Trump are where they are.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but the Democrats don't want to nominate Bernie because then there wouldn't be a Democrat in the election, similar to the Republican side.
I like that people want actual change, I've been pushing for it for the last 5 years or so. In this election I would vote for Sanders or Johnson (or maybe Stein), but none of the others appeal to me. I'd like to see both Bernie and Trump run even if they don't get the party nomination, because I want to see a change in the election and debate system. People dese
Re: (Score:2)
Um, I'm not a lawyer like you, but I thought the problem with a wide-open 4-person (or more) race like what you're describing is that no one would win enough electoral votes, and then the House of Representatives would choose the President.
Otherwise, I think your analysis is spot-on.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's a reason to remove choice from the popular vote. It might be a reason to get rid of the electoral college, but it's not a reason to restrict choice. If I were the dictator then the general election would have Sanders, Trump, Clinton, Bloomberg, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and whoever the Republicans decide to send. If the House wants to make someone president who got 5% of the popular vote instead of someone who got 30%, then I'd like to see what happens after that. I think several of
Re: (Score:3)
The primaries are far from over.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not confusing the primaries with the actual election. That's great that some polls show Bernie as being favorable to a wide swath of American voters, but the problem is that our shitty Presidential election system isn't designed to capture the desires of mainstream voters, it's rigged to perpetuate a corrupt, two-party system and keep people like Bernie out. Bernie has to win the Democratic primaries in order to go to the general election, so people registered as Democrats need to vote for him to make
Re: (Score:2)
The sad thing is that many liberal will read this and it will play straight into their bias on how they think conservatives really think.
The real sad thing about this is that there is a, unfortunately not small, portion of the population that actually believes this. Well, maybe not the flat earth part, but the rest is gospel truth and gospel truth wins out over actual truth to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Seattle has been owned by the Democrats since forever. What do Republicans have to do with it?
Six corporations own 90% of the U.S. media markets. Corporations tend to be conservative rather than liberal.
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 [businessinsider.com]
Even MSNBC is moving away from being a source of liberal news.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/msnbc-and-the-move-away-from-left-wing-tv/385798/ [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. At least if you are implying the political parties typically called "conservative" and "liberal."
The copyright, patent, and communication corporate cartels are openly and directly supported by D type spin. In practice if not spin their candidates also support the massive corporations in the defense (defense spending hasn't dropped under Obama), insurance, and healthcare industries (FDA gr
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. At least if you are implying the political parties typically called "conservative" and "liberal."
It's nonsense because we don't have a liberal party in this country, we have a conservative party and a really conservative party.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! This guy [occupy.com] needs broadband more than you do. So just wait your turn.
- Seattle City Council
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta log onto that Silk Road 3.0.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because spending untold millions of dollars in this primary has had a correlation of who's doing the best. Ask Jeb! how that worked out for him.