-
A Lebanese Charm Offensive
January 12, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Softness at the NSC
November 26, 2012 | 20 comments
-
Anti-Business as Usual
June 20, 2011 | 62 comments
-
National Public Internet
June 14, 2011 | 31 comments
-
This Property Is Condemned
June 13, 2011 | 25 comments
Washington Prowler
Net Neutrality Further Neutralized
Hardened advocate of left-wing Internet controls quits FCC.
News that Colin Crowell was resigning his post as a senior adviser to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski sent shock waves through Washington late yesterday.
Crowell, who prior to going over to the FCC was one of the most influential Democrat legislative and policy advisers on Capitol Hill when it came to telecommunications and Internet policy, was believed by many to be one of the most vocal advocates inside the FCC for regulating the Internet and imposing “Net Neutrality,” which is to the Internet what Socialism is to private property.
Why Crowell is leaving just before the FCC is to begin the heavy lifting on a “national broadband plan” that could cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, as well as major policy efforts around Internet regulation, raises questions about his motivations. On Monday, the Washington Post reported that Genachowski was considering not regulating broadband networks, a decision, if true, that would have left Crowell’s many friends on the extreme left very angry. There was speculation inside the FCC and among the telecommunications industry that Crowell or his allies may have been the sources for the Post piece. Other sources say that if Genachowski was leaning toward such a policy decision, Crowell would have been left in an untenable position and unable to defend it, and thus forced to resign.
Crowell is the second vocal supporter of Internet regulation to leave the senior ranks of the Obama Administration. Last fall, senior White House Internet policy adviser Susan Crawford was reportedly forced out (second item) a year earlier than planned after draft regulatory language for a “net neutrality” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was circulated. The draft NPRM included large swaths of language that appeared to be cut and pasted from documents prepared by leftist groups, including Free Press, an entity underwritten in part by the Ford Foundation, as well as other supporters with ties to Google. White House and FCC sources say Crawford was viewed as an influential advocate for these policies inside the White House, but the NPRM language was so extreme that once it became public even the White House could not support it. The draft was later withdrawn.
Crowell was expected to be a key player on Capitol Hill, where he was a longtime staffer for Rep. Ed Markey, an advocate for regulating the Internet. It appears that Congress may have to take up major broadband policy legislation to clear up which federal agency has standing to oversee the Internet, since a federal court ruled that the FCC had limited jurisdiction over the networks. Officially, the FCC was saying late Tuesday that Crowell’s exit was voluntary, but FCC staff contacted for comment said that Crowell’s exit was so ill-timed that unless it was related to a serious health or family issue that it had to be a result of differences over policy with the chairman.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (175) | Leave a comment
More Articles by The Prowler
More Articles From Washington Prowler
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/05/net-neutrality-further-neutral
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 5.5.10 @ 6:14AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Net Neutrality Further Neutralized [ links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ret. Marine| 5.5.10 @ 6:28AM
Yup the left is starting to eat their own=wonderful morning
Markham Erickson| 5.5.10 @ 10:05AM
Colin Crowell is one of the most well respected telecommunications policy experts on both sides of the political spectrum. I don't know why he is leaving, but this piece is pure conjecture. The Washington parlor game of trying to gauge who's in and who's out and why is silly.
Son Of Sam| 5.5.10 @ 10:19AM
HANDS OFF THE INTERNET, you ObamaNazi pigs! Don't you drones have enough to do dumbing down the public schools and swallowing up banks, healthcare and car makers?
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
stand strong
Purpleguy| 5.5.10 @ 9:14PM
Your Conservative Stupid slip is showing ... Do you not know that imposing net neutrality is actually mandating the freedom of the Internet? Are the words impose, mandate, regulate buzzwords that y'all fall for and are incensed about, regardless of the context of how they are being used. Once again, we see right-wing propagandists manipulating the low-intelligence, low-information voter. This would protect the freedom of the Internet ... look up "net neutrality" and find out for yourself that you are being lied to.
A.M. Mallett| 5.5.10 @ 12:47PM
The circle of leftists and sympathizers of whom he is well respected is a rather small subset of observers.
GO GLENN!| 5.5.10 @ 10:42PM
PurpleSEIUguy is an ObamaNazi pig.
NerObama fiddled for two weeks while the Gulf of Mexico strangled in oil; BP, the company who gave most of their political donations to...wait for it--Obama!
No wonder Obama's administration let BP skip environmental tests; can you spell CORRUPTION and SCANDAL?
Just one more example of Obama's Crime, Inc. administration.
Jwoo| 5.6.10 @ 2:57PM
And why would you want the government to help with the BP spill? According to your exact views on any other day, government over-reach is a bad thing.
Let me just sort this out. We have above-9/11 level deaths every day due to shoddy health care availability in this country, and the government should do nothing. People are losing their jobs and livelihoods daily due to the financial meltdown of the last administration, and the government shouldn't do anything about it (but when it gets worse it's STILL their fault).
But when an oil rig blows up and kills 11 people, some animals you probably don't even care about, and displaces a few hundred or thousand coastal fisherman, and you are literally UP AT ARMS to show everyone how much of a hypocrite you are.
This isn't even on topic tough. Net Neutrality is the issue. You guys can have fun pushing back this non-issue of government control. Your big failure here is that you assume tyranny can ONLY come from the government. What you don't seem to know is that ISPs have been experimenting for years on plans that would turn the internet into a series of purchasable Cable-like packages. You can get some websites, like CNN and Fox News and Amazon at full speed, but when you try to go to a nonsponsored page, you either can't access it or you are reduced to crippling dial-up speeds.
What net neutrality does is mandates that ISPs cannot bias the content you receive. In other words, they have to give you the capability to view the entire internet at the same bandwidth.
It's literally the exact opposite of censorship. You people should realize that you don't have to agree with Republicans on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE just because they tell you to. I personally am very conservative when it comes to 2nd amendment rights. Why is that? Because to me the conservative stance on firearms makes more sense!
Do your own research, learn the facts, and realize that if ISPs don't have to maintain net neutrality, the internet in the next few decades is going to be quite different from what it is now! And not in a good way.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.6.10 @ 3:35PM
Interesting view into the net neutrality issue. I would support the "net neutrality" only under the absolute non-discrimination definition. Any attempt through government or business to impose tiered service discrimination seems quite wrong to me.
On the BP argument, we already have government agencies like NOAA that are supposed to help deal with these types of things. If our federal government couldn't muster the resources to respond to the spill based on a 1994 plan, then it is not doing the job it said it would do. This is inherently the problem with bigger government, because it generally cannot meet its obligations based on the promises it has made.
On the financial sector, I have realized that there needs to be some regulation in the financial market, Especially since the Fed. has a monopoly on money production and credit distribution via the Federal Reserve Bank. Our monetary system is broken, and people will take advantage of it if our federal government doesn't fix the leaky holes it has created through lax enforcement of the regulations that it had on the books.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.6.10 @ 3:59PM
Also, I don't disagree with requiring ISP's to not discriminate based on the access of content; I.E. competitor's web-pages and such. However, certain types of data transfer must be prioritized when a user(s) accesses these types of data. Take, for instance, steaming multimedia or online games. If these types of traffic are not prioritized, there will be "lag" and delays.
Now, for tiers... if ISP's aren't allowed to discriminate between "tiers" of services and required to give all users the highest "tier," then it follows that all users will share a fair premium of the costs it requires to maintain a network at that level of service. Depending on the medium, a network can only support so much bandwidth. A user shouldn't be required to pay for more bandwidth than he/she requires.
Missy| 5.6.10 @ 6:09PM
Jwoo puts the lie to the idea that Liberals care about the environment. Marxists like Jwoo only care about power and control; all you have to do is look at the rioting of Leftist unions in Greece to see what Jwoo and his ilk have in store for our country. Violence, societal breakdown and economic collapse are the goals of Marxists like Obama and his braindead acolytes such as Jwoo.
Disastrous environmental destruction on our shores due to an incompetent and uncaring Obama? Distract and divert attention by whining about 'healthcare'.
NerObama fiddled for two weeks while the Gulf strangled in BP's ( a huge Obama political donor) oil.
Janice| 5.7.10 @ 1:38AM
Eric, the only quibble I have with your excellent posts is you failed to point out that government agencies, Fannie/Freddie are at the nexus of our financial meltdown.
Liberal morons CONVENIENTLY omit this little nugget of truth.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.7.10 @ 10:20AM
I thank you for your compliment... On many other occasions, I have done just so. I was just pointing out jwoo's fallacy in the fact that lax government regulations had a BIG part in the meltdown, regardless of whether or not jwoo thinks so. He/she probably agrees, just another reason to stick it to the financial industry.
What's really insane is the fact that FDR separating the banks and the financial gambling institutions may have been a good thing. What's even more insane is the fact that it's really hard to know... There were so many government incentives to create a bubble in the housing market and the following recession(that this admin. and the last one turned into a depression) that it's inconceivable to me that it would have happened any other way. The individuals heading Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had red ink all over their hands, and they were in the game for the money, just like some of the lending institutions on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs gets to play the scapegoat game in a little show trial, and some people won't even bat an eye that Sachs has given millions in contributions to Dem candidates over the years.
Controversial? I doubt it. I think it's worth taking notice.
Smitty| 5.5.10 @ 2:57PM
Get these damned COMMUNISTS out!
Stinking Leftists.
SC Mike| 5.5.10 @ 6:37AM
This is happy news!
Now just a couple thousand radicals to go!
Pingback| 5.5.10 @ 3:36PM
Where can I find a free file hosting site that supports FTP? | Web Hosting and Web De links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.5.10 @ 6:05PM
American Spectator’s Latest Conspiracy Theory « Marvin Ammori links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.5.10 @ 6:56PM
FCC to re-regulate internet in order to enforce net neutrality | NextGadgets.net | Co links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.6.10 @ 8:49PM
Microsoft ASP.NET 4 Step by Step | Feed News | ASP WebDev Insider links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jake B| 5.7.10 @ 6:47AM
Markham Erickson is a paid shill for Google - net neutrality's biggest supporter. He's the ED for the Open Internet Coalition and his boutique law firm Holch & Erickson has been doing Google's bidding for years (he won't disclose that -- so much for "openness and transparency") .
Shamus| 5.5.10 @ 6:54AM
When food is short, rats eat their own babies.
saleboter| 5.5.10 @ 7:55AM
"Net Neutrality," which is to the Internet what Socialism is to private property.
nice analogy
Jeff Perren | 5.5.10 @ 12:08PM
I'd make the identification even stronger. The Internet IS private property. It's made of millions of pieces of private property, used by the owners in a cooperative fashion.
My computer communicates with Wildblue's satellite, which connects to....
There is NO role for the Feds to play here, apart from the tiny, quiet, and occasional one of ensuring there's no trespassing.
The FCC should be dissolved.
A.M. Mallett| 5.5.10 @ 12:48PM
Amen to that. It serves no valid purpose that cannot be absorbed by Commerce.
Purpleguy| 5.5.10 @ 9:18PM
And yet another genius that doesn't know that the Government IS the backbone of the Internet. Ever hear of DARPA or ARPANET? Look it up dittoheads, so at least you can push back on your indoctrination.
Dissolve the FCC? Who would regulate the "wardrobe malfunction" that I'm sure the right-wing was up in arms about?
REMEMBER NOVEMBER!| 5.5.10 @ 10:26PM
More bilge from another Obama slut.
You lie, we laugh.
Purpleguy| 5.5.10 @ 11:38PM
Learn something will you, dittohead. It's hard to battle with the unarmed ... The Pentagon created the beginnings of the Internet with YOUR tax dollars. Those pesky facts keep getting in the way of your warped world view. But I'm sure you're as comfortable as a pig in shit with your ignorance. The pig is happy, 'cause he doesn't know he's just in a pile of shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
Some excerpts:
" The USSR's launch of Sputnik spurred the United States to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA or DARPA) in February 1958 to regain a technological lead.[2][3] ARPA created the Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO) to further the research of the Semi Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) program, which had networked country-wide radar systems together for the first time."
"In an early sign of future growth, there were already fifteen sites connected to the young ARPANET by the end of 1971."
"The opening of the network to commercial interests began in 1988. The US Federal Networking Council approved the interconnection of the NSFNET to the commercial MCI Mail system in that year and the link was made in the summer of 1989. "
"The US government continues to have the primary role in approving changes to the DNS root zone that lies at the heart of the domain name system. "
Johnno| 5.6.10 @ 12:58AM
If the government owns so much of the internet, why do they need to own more? You big government hacks are selfish and greedy.
Looks like you're the Marxist pigs in a pile of shit, a-hole.
ITFossil| 5.6.10 @ 4:00PM
Purp: You're wasting your time. Right-wing conservatives are simply too old to understand the 'net. It would be interesting to see how many readers here are using SOCIALIST (Open Source) software. Hint:All
Janice| 5.6.10 @ 5:53PM
More to the point, Marxist Fossil; we understand and reject Obama's Marxist power grab, unlike you braindead liberals.
ITFossil| 5.7.10 @ 12:14AM
Janice: Marxist? Now that's funny! It's also beside the point, not more to it. But OK anyway, I'll bite.
Obama isn't a Marxist and he isn't going to turn the USA into a socialist country but I know who will...
Our kids.
The entire baby boom (1940-1954) is now the crotchety old bastard boom (yes that includes me) and approximately 70+ million of us are a roiling tsunami aimed right at permanent unemployment insurance (Social Security) and Medicare, on schedule to finish arriving within the next ten years. And just like we paid for Grandma, Grandpa, Mom and Dad, we expect that we'll be cared for in our retirement. Except there won't be nearly enough people earning enough to pay for it. And since the retired person doesn't produce much more than mounting medical bills, I'm pretty sure our kids will have to solve this one themselves. Will the country tilt socialist awhile? Probably. My guess, about 25 years, but then it'll tilt back the other way. We will almost certainly tilt Conservative when Hispanic Catholics become the American majority, around 2040-2050.
Janice| 5.7.10 @ 1:15AM
Bet you were a long-haired, soap challenged and ever-stoned hippy in your youth; well, congratulations, old fart--your stupid, hippy dippy social policies are now bearing fruit.
Thanks a lot, druggie; you're obviously irrevocably braindead if you don't think Obama's a Marxist; his friends, mentors and administration are.
2040-2050? You're kidding, right? We'll be lucky if we survive our present Traitor in Chief!
And that's most certainly NOT FUNNY.
ITFossil| 5.8.10 @ 6:44PM
Janice: Hairstyles? Now THAT'S funny! Seriously, thanks for the trip down memory lane. Only one of your accusations is true (drugs - I really loved alcohol and cigarettes, especially beer) so you don't have to sweat bearing false witness. Regardless, there's not much other than name calling in posts here so I have to conclude that The American Spectator is not the place to be to argue/debate conservative ideas. On a brighter note, you can fill yourself with pride for having driven another heathen away. :)
Purpleguy| 5.5.10 @ 9:16PM
Another Conservative genius who doesn't know what the terms really mean ... but they told you it's bad, so there you are like a good little NAZI toting the party line.
GO GLENN!| 5.5.10 @ 10:36PM
Nice projection, little Nazi boy.
GavInTucson| 5.5.10 @ 11:11PM
Perhaps you should look up the term, National Socialist, genius.
Purpleguy| 5.5.10 @ 11:26PM
Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and anti-Semitism. Therefore, fascism is y represented today bright-wing nut jobs like y'all who believe in the Government, as long as it does what you want, and only what you want. But I suspect the Socialism part of National Socialism is what's got you buggered. Too bad you're too stupid to know the difference.
John II| 5.6.10 @ 12:31AM
Your language gives you away, Purp. When the Nazis were busy jailing Communists and Christian Democrats during the later 1930's, they were content to keep the Commies behind bars. It was the Christian Democrats they tormented. The Nazi-Soviet Pact was a wake-up call to trendy western communists with IQs higher than 90, but it all came unglued when Hitler turned the Wehrmacht against Russia in June 1940, an event that proved two things: (1) Hitler's insanity, and (2) the Western Left's corruption.
Historically speaking, there is something weirdly similar in Hitler's deranged opening of an eastern front and the Western Left's degenerate support of Stalin.
If you can't see the similarity, Purp, you're not a serious human being. Superficially clever, perhaps, but not serious.
Smitty| 5.6.10 @ 1:04AM
Clever? Maybe. Traitorous Marxist, for sure.
Liberal/Progressives like Purpleturd crave power and control and use minorities as a means to achieve both. Why else would Liberals create and maintain cruel, dead and dying inner cities?
Liberals are ugly racists, they don't care about people at all.
Purpleguy| 5.6.10 @ 4:05AM
The Founders of the United States were liberal progressives who believed in the Enlightenment, not like the Conservative Tory Loyalists who remained loyal to the British King. THAT is your heritage - domination by the King, or in today's case, the Queen, Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin. Losers all, in any case. From the Founders to Thomas Jefferson as President to Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR to Obama, everything good in this country came from the Liberal/Progressive movements. Name 5 things that Conservatives achieved in 200 years for this country (Tea Bagging doesn't count - it's debatable how good that is for the country - even if you do enjoy it ) , if you can. No? How about 2 achievements?
Smitty| 5.6.10 @ 2:14PM
How can you tell if a Liberal is lying?
His lips are moving.
Only an idiot like you would claim the Founders were Progressives--dumbass. The Founders were
Christians who left England for Religious freedom. They believed our rights were God-given and government should remain small.
They believed in the individual not the collective, moron.
Collectivists Woodrow Wilson and NerObama (he fiddled for two weeks while the Gulf strangled in BP oil--a major political contributor of NerObama!) are/were Marxist-Progressives; the exact opposite of our Founders.
Purpleguy| 5.6.10 @ 8:56PM
Ooopsy - you're STUPID is showing .... Pretty sad when the country you say you support you know nothing about. Although, many of America's colonial statesmen practiced Christianity, our most influential Founding Fathers broke away from traditional religious thinking. The ideas of the Great Enlightenment that began in Europe had begun to sever the chains of monarchical theocracy. These heretical European ideas spread throughout early America. Instead of relying on faith, people began to use reason and science as their guide. The humanistic philosophical writers of the Enlightenment, such as Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, had greatly influenced our Founding Fathers. Unlike the violent atheist' French Revolution, Christianity and its traditions were a counter to Enlightenment extremism.
REMEMBER NOVEMBER!| 5.6.10 @ 10:19PM
Another lie by just another lying liberal. The Founders were Christians, why do you think there were so many references to God throughout the Founding documents? They were men of faith and virtue who came here for religious freedom. Faith and virtue are two qualities you know nothing about, scumsucker.
Sorry, George Washington was NOT a Commie stooge like you and NerObama.
Now, why don't you take a break, PurpleSEIUguy: Go out and riot, throw bricks and rocks at riot-police and destroy private property like your vicious Union Commie compatriots in Greece! Anarchists!!
Purpleguy| 5.7.10 @ 7:59AM
Most of them were Deists, stupid. THEY didn't come over in the boat from England you twit. Go learn something about your Founding Fathers, don't be so damn lazy and call everyone you don't agree with liars. These are facts, but you are showing us all why the Conservative Right is never going to be more than 20% of the population. You can google Deist, Founding Fathers, etc. If you're too lazy for that, then you really don't give damn about your country, you just want YOUR way to be true, like the little fascist Nazi you are.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.6.10 @ 4:50PM
It would be more accurate to call many of today's conservatives "Whigs," or classical liberals. I myself agree with the likes of Hayek and Tocqueville as to the definition of my worldview concerning government. Those individuals and those like them are the heritage to which I subscribe.
I'm learning more about individuals like Calvin Coolidge. He was a staunch conservative and did much for our country, from the local level straight to the Presidency. I cite specific cases in his actions during the Boston Police Strike of 1919, lowering federal income taxes, creating the gift tax to back the income tax(otherwise the income tax be abused), and vetoing the McNary-Haugen bill which would essentially provide subsidies for farmers from the federal government.
Great men like Coolidge are the reason our country had gone as far as it had gone by 1920. His hands-off regulation policies have been criticized as leading up to the Great Depression, but American protectionism through strong tariff acts like Smoot-Hawley likely had a much larger role.
Purpleguy| 5.6.10 @ 9:00PM
Ohhh, and who could it be that passed the Smoot-Hawley bill? Wait for it, wait for it ... Herbert Hoover, the Republican twit who dithered while the Great Depression deepened and widened! Yes kiddies, once again a Republican presided over the slide into financial collapse! Aren't you sick of their ineptness at governing. Obama's accomplished more in 1 1/2 years than Bush did in 8 years.
REMEMBER NOVEMBER!| 5.6.10 @ 10:03PM
Unemployment was still at an astounding 15% in 1938; half-way through FDR's SECOND Presidential term. WWII got us out of the Great Depression--not the destructive Progressive policies of loony tunes Liberal, FDR.
15% unemployment and $10 a gallon gas will be our unfortunate reality with the present Marxist in Chief in office. Hope the next Islamic terrorist who attacks us screws up, too; luck is substituting for national security in Obama's administration. Guess Obama and Holder are going to walk back their brilliant idea of holding the trials for KSM and his fellow terrorists in NYC. Even LIBERAL New Yorkers can see the sheer stupidity of that "inspired" stunt.
Some accomplishments. Remember November!
Purpleguy| 5.7.10 @ 8:14AM
Name 5 Conservative major accomplishments of Conservative Presidents in 200 years. The more you harp on the economy, the more we remember who put us there in the first place since 2007, George W Bush! He's the FIRST President in history to leave office with less jobs in the economy than when he came in ... Yep that's the JOBS President alright. Or as he so brilliantly said as he was leaving office, "Well I came in with a recession, and now I leave with a recession" - what a putz, left us in the worst financial situation SINCE the Great Depression, and those are his parting words to the American people? No wonder he hid out for months. The Twit.
From George Washington to Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt to FDR/Truman to Eisenhower to Johnson to Obama, all the major accomplishments have been Progressive ... that's why 68% of the American people say "Progressive" is a good thing. Not so on your side Sunshine ....Tea Baggers are going down - literally. Have a nice day!
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.7.10 @ 11:10AM
What you tout as "progressive" accomplishment, I tout as liberal progressive statist failures in at least the last century or so. Conservatism, though harder to recognize because of its subtlety, is the only reason why our republic has held on so long. It's the reason why we made it to the 1900s with the concept of federalism playing a large part in how the U.S. and its constituent States were governed/governing.
You reject the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, because our founding principles have little to do with today's "Progressive" ideals. I may have it wrong, but I believe Coolidge and Reagan were the only conservative presidents in the 1900s - onward, and unfortunately Reagan's presidency was wrought with mistakes and pitfalls like the S&L disaster.
Unfortunately my grasp of history beyond 1900 is relatively weak, so I cannot provide the argument you are seeking. Let you then shower us with the five greatest "Progressive" accomplishments in the last two-hundred years, and see if I agree. :D
Of course, 'twould be better for you just to lambaste me for my ignorance and move to another topic, hrm?
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.7.10 @ 10:26AM
What in the hell are you blathering about? I never said Hoover was a great president. Yes, he's one of MANY Republicans who screwed up in the last century or so, and FDR didn't fix the problem that Hoover created.
Yes. Obama has presided over the nationalization by fiat of several companies during these last many months, a major increase in discretionary spending in his budget leading in part to the massive deficits of last year, the addition of a massive new entitlement without "reforming" existing ones... Yes, we're hemorrhaging red ink like never before!
We might go the way of Greece in the next decade or so, if we continue these types of spending policies. The good Lord knows the rest of Europe is following suit.
axbucxdu| 5.8.10 @ 6:55PM
"...From the Founders to Thomas Jefferson as President to Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR to Obama, everything good in this country came from the Liberal/Progressive movements."
And now that we can peer into the ledger books to see the long term fiscal consequences of "everything good" yielded from these movements I can only conclude that this statement is illogical. Since you seem to be educated, and should know better as a result than make to assertions like these, I would also add that the motivation to make it is at base malevolent.
All bets are off of course, if you know where the money exists to maintain the fed's 120T$ castle in the air? Well do you, punk?
Jim O'Brien| 5.5.10 @ 8:02AM
Good. "Net neutrality" is an invasion of private property, and therefore the Constitution. It would discourage innovation and investment by broadband developers. Unlike Fed Ex or the post office, they would not be free to charge more for faster service. Our socialist government would tell them how to run their business, just like the Kremlin ran the Soviet Union so "successfully".
Purpleguy| 5.5.10 @ 9:21PM
The Internet is not "private property" any more than the roads that take you to the mall is. Net neutrality ensures equal access to the internet for everyone. Another Conservative dittohead speaks...
REMEMBER NOVEMBER!| 5.5.10 @ 10:27PM
PurpleSEIUguy likes to keep his boot on your neck, folks. Another SEIU Nazi.
Purpleguy| 5.5.10 @ 11:20PM
Can't refute the facts? Don't know where the Internet came from or what is the backbone? ... Have another beer and belch.... that's more your speed.
REMEMBER NOVEMBER!| 5.6.10 @ 1:07AM
You don't have any facts; you speak out of your ass.
See you in November, troll. You stupid Nazis are gonna take a hit!
Purpleguy| 5.6.10 @ 3:56AM
Another dittidiot that doesn't know the difference between a capitalist, fascist, socialist and communist.
Smitty| 5.6.10 @ 2:17PM
You are three out of four, moron--and NOT a capitalist.
Got your new jackboots ready?
Purpleguy| 5.6.10 @ 8:45PM
Ahhh, but I am... I am enjoying watching you all engage in social darwinism and the eventual thinning of the herd. The social intercourse that you all engage in is also very interesting...
Smitty| 5.6.10 @ 10:06PM
You're the big pro-aborts, doofus; talk about 'thinning the herd', you're self-extinguishing. Loser.
Yosemeti Sam| 5.5.10 @ 9:19AM
Thanks to the "laser focus' of Glen Beck - especially!
Methodically resting the Kleig lights on Leftoid buzzards!
Them foul fowl can't take the heat therewith!
The - chumps!
Trying to engage in a fruitless tug of war with freedom loving Americans.
Smitty| 5.5.10 @ 2:58PM
Glenn Beck is a true American hero. He's absolutely courageous.
Purpleguy| 5.5.10 @ 9:26PM
Glenn Beck is insane for pay. He sees communists on every corner, as if anyone in 2010 would ever support communism in the United States. He's laughing at you all falling for his insane innuendos and theories, while he banks another million playing off your worst fears, prejudices and dislike for your government.
GO GLENN!| 5.5.10 @ 10:29PM
Our dislike for big government whores like you.
Purpleguy| 5.5.10 @ 11:16PM
Another brain dead Conservative that can only engage in name-calling since they have no logical arguments to refute any points of fact.
John II| 5.6.10 @ 12:34AM
Your pronoun "they" is off, Purp. Bad grammar betrays bad thinking.
REMEMBER NOVEMBER!| 5.6.10 @ 1:11AM
Name-calling like calling us tea-baggers, moron?
Project much, hypocrite?
John's right about your poor grammar--you must have attended public schools. It shows, numbskull.
Purpleguy| 5.6.10 @ 3:55AM
Attacking me doesn't change your lot in life ... or your failing Conservative philosophy - tea baggers all. The grammar displayed in your first sentence shows that grammar is not YOUR forte. Stick to the name-calling, it suits you better. Your real station in life.
Mrs TSgt| 5.6.10 @ 1:07PM
Your use of the derogatory term only shows your ignorance and inability to hold a coherent conversation without resorting to namecalling. Just because someone does not agree with you does not make you right, or them wrong. In your warped brain maybe but the adults in the room know you can have an adult debate stating fact (not conjecture) without resorting to namecalling. You elitists think you are so much smarter than the rest of the world. You might be smart, we don't know but we do know you have NO common sense. Just like our President.
Smitty| 5.6.10 @ 2:19PM
OUCH! John shot and scored! Purpleguy shows he's thin-skinned once again. haha
REMEMBER NOVEMBER!| 5.6.10 @ 10:22PM
Tsk, tsk, looks like you lost the argument, Purpleturd. Again!
Concerned Montanan| 5.8.10 @ 4:42PM
"Conservatives engage in name-calling; have no logical arguments..."?? Aren't you a pot calling the kettle black. Shame on you, Purpleguy. You need to go back and study your history and the Constitution, pay more attention to what is going on around you.
And shame on the rest of you out there for letting this guy draw you into a name-calling match. Spend your time better with educational and informative material. If this guy is too arrogant to consider documented facts, that will be his problem.
Anthony| 5.5.10 @ 9:25AM
Obama's untouchable and unaccountable leftist tzars hard at work destroying America from the inside out.
We will remember, count on it.
Slowtrot| 5.5.10 @ 10:12AM
Why aren't people advocating the dissolution of principles laid down in the Constitution, Jailed?
Alex| 5.5.10 @ 10:23AM
I wonder if this had anything to do with Colin Crowell's resignation.
Under financial overhaul, FTC could gain enforcement power over Internet
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....04335.html
Dave | 5.5.10 @ 11:36AM
A few days ago, Obama "bu-t boy" Bobby Gibbs blithered that the administration planned to keep their boot on the throats of the banking industry and others in the field.
Unless the turnip truck just lost its load, or a few more Americans found to have recieved their high school diploma from yet another " unionized government run school system" - I suspect they'd still like to apply that same boot to your Internet and access.
Then again, these socicalist weasels still haven't come clean about that comitted rag head at Fort Hood who killed all those soldiers and base employees -- while still going public (today) describing the new New York City "bomber" as ... probably just an isolated nut job.
Right!
Believe at your own risk, Beaver. Me? I'm gonna' pass on that next turnip truck.
Wanna' join me for lunch at Denny's? I got coupons. At least until Barry voids 'em.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.5.10 @ 12:27PM
Remember:
1st and 3rd Saturday mornings of the month...county courthouse lawns, if the internet goes down.
Your local peace officers are your friends and neighbors...many are already "oath Keepers".
(check out the ten orders they will refuse to obey on their site..)
Dwayne | 5.5.10 @ 12:30PM
The sooner these commie pigs get out of our lives the betterer. They really expect us to believe they have our interests at heart? Give the corporations a try - what have we to lose?
Purpleguy| 5.5.10 @ 9:34PM
We've seen what happens when the deregulated industries and corporations are in charge - homes foreclosed, jobs lost, financial system failing - the almighty buck is King and Wall Street runs amok. The American people rejected the Republican party because of their support of the corporations, and they won't soon trust them again. Occasional Republicans may be more popular than their opponent, but in general, the American public will stick with the Democrats that have saved us from a Great Depression, have put us on a path to ending 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have given us Healthcare Reform, Financial Reform with an end to the TOO BIG banks, Immigration Reform and Energy Reform to come, and a dozen other achievements.
REMEMBER NOVEMBER!| 5.5.10 @ 10:32PM
Another lie from the Obama butt-boy.
Fannie and Freddie caused the economic meltdown of 2008 by implementing the Progressive/Marxist social engineering of Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd.
Democrats are Crime, Inc.--all of them are corrupt. You're going down in November, loser.
John II| 5.6.10 @ 12:46AM
More to the point, we're seeing what happens, right now, when brain-dead ideologues like Purp are running the country. You're in charge, Purp. Why the insecure ranting? Aren't you supposed to be loftily ignoring troglodytes like Beck and Hannity and Levin and Bolton and the Pope and, well, editors and writers for the Spectator and National Review and the Weekly Standard and Commentary and City Journal and National Affairs and, and, and, well, you know, all those countless morons to whom you are so superior?
I mean, aren't you too busy remaking America to spend so much time insulting your opponents? Or does one have lots of time on one's hands amid such lofty projects as remaking America?
Johnno| 5.6.10 @ 1:13AM
Soros pays the loser. He should demand a refund.
Bill| 5.6.10 @ 12:50PM
Did you notice the dense fog in your mind?
No wonder your lips move, but the puppetmaster speaks for you.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.7.10 @ 12:01PM
Progressive for the sake of being progressive. You astound me, Purpleguy.
How exactly did FDR end the Great Depression with his massive taxes and government engineering of the economy?
The true "cost" of HCR has yet to be seen, since it won't be implemented fully until 2014. Until then, insurance premiums and other goodies will continue to rise in price. Our "Progressives" haven't addressed the hemorrhaging of red ink from SS and Medicare, and we get another shiny new entitlement? Come on, man!
You know what? I'm in agreement with you about the markets needing some financial reform, but perhaps not about the scope of it. If our regulators hadn't failed us in the first place, the recession might not have been so tough. Another 1,000+ page bill to address the ills of the financial industry? It smells like more government economical engineering to me, but I haven't seen or heard about much of the proposed bill's provisions yet.
What is your idea of Immigration Reform? I don't believe I've seen you speak on that topic. Do you support an immediate or eventual amnesty-type solution for the illegal immigrants living in our country? Do you support heavier border control with actual physical barriers, more border patrols, heavy punishments on businesses that hire illegal aliens, and other successful measures to remove their presence through deportation and self-deportation from the U.S.?
About energy reform... Do you support Cap and Trade and other politically engineered chicanery that would actually hurt our economy with much higher tax and regulatory burdens? What about the government putting the figurative "boot" on the neck of oil companies like BP? What about our nation's need and drive for sources of cheap and plentiful energy, when our government continues to disallow oil drilling in much of the U.S.'s more plentiful areas as well as the extremely heavy burden on any enterprise attempting to construct a nuclear power plant?
As for the wars in the Middle East... Perhaps it is time to end them, but know this: In these religious fanatics, we have a near-eternal enemy. They rule their countries in a much self-depreciating manner, but they also foment much hate for the U.S., Europe, and our allies.
The Palestinians, for example, teach their children to hate Israel and the U.S. for the creation of the State of Israel, and for all of the following bloodshed; Even if much of it has been perpetrated by groups like Hamas and their ilk. They reject the Holocaust and the existence of a nation-state known as Israel, many centuries ago.
nfbailey| 5.5.10 @ 2:28PM
Remember all of this in November!
www.1802010.com A blog aimed at overturning the legislature as far as we can in November.
Dave| 5.6.10 @ 12:36AM
Liberals like their fascist forefathers have a desire to form a powerful state which coordinates a society where everybody belongs and everyone is taken care of; where there is faith in the perfectibility of people and the authority of experts; and where everything is political, including health and well-being. The Nazis were strong promoters of organic foods (Michelle) and animal rights (PETA and other moonbats), kept the boot on commerce and made sure they towed the line...Krups in Nazi Germany and GM in Obama's version of the US. Yes, I would say that today's Liberals are quite similar to Fascists. They demonize Wall Street while being the largest recipients of Wall St. money, give Fanny and Freddy a free pass when they and Barney Frank (along with a democrat controlled congress that refused to enact oversights on Fanny and Freddy), were the Numero Uno reason for the sub-prime mortgage crisis On another note, have you ever noticed how ballistic Moonbats become when Der Fuehrer Obama is criticized? Their hypocrisy is incredible. As Hitler pointed fingers and demonized the "ubermensch", Obama and his state-run media (Goebbels would be so proud), have targeted Palin and the Tea-Party movement in a markedly irrational way...why? Because they disagreed with Nobama's policies...Oh my God!!!, not in this America you don't!!!
Joe Harkins| 5.6.10 @ 9:33AM
Man, there's a lot of heat up there and not a lot of light. (Not to mention a lot of spam)
Let's make sure we all know the meaning and effect of "net neutrality." It's not at all complicated. This idea of is that if you have the privilege of connecting your private system (as a cable or fiber or satellite service) to the public system called the Internet, you must treat all other users equally when it comes to the traffic you allow to pass through your system. Some carriers and their customers may be heavy users; other not so much. "Net neutrality" says you can't favor your own traffic over that of your competitors. You can't keep your service running at one speed while throttling service that comes from or through that of your competitors.
It's part of the deal you get when you want the privilege of using public property.
What is the practical issue here? You have one of the major players (Comcast) turning down the through-put on certain customers and alternative providers because they are using more downloading than other customers. And then yoiu have Comcast lying about doing that until there was undeniable proof.
So, first of all, the issue is not simply about what is fair, but honesty when using the the public system.
Secondly it is not about being anti-capitalist. There is very serious support for net neutrality from Comcast's current and emerging competitors, such as Google and others who take the position that allowing interference in an open Internet, such as the kind advocated by Comcast, will allow a private party to control the public Internet.
You only need to see how that kind of control works in Australia. Your Internet use, the amount of data you download, is metered. The rates that are high to start with quickly become outrageous (hundreds of dollars per month) if you simply download a movie a week. And, because the provider is a non-competitive monopoly, the data rate speeds are slow. Further, they just introduced laws that allow the government to censor the content of what Australians may see, say or share on the Internet.
Need another example? Just ask any savvy Internet user in China or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Cuba what happens when there is no net neutrality.
Bottom line, this argument is between, on one hand, people like Comcast who want to control Internet while taxing their competitors and their competitor's customers against, on the other hand, those who are saying to the governemt, keep the Internet open and neutral. Don't allow one company, of whom you are not even a customer, to control you.
This is about freedom of access and open competition.
Bill| 5.6.10 @ 12:55PM
"This is about freedom of access and open competition."
No it's not about this. It's about large corporations trying to gain an advantage over the competition via "big government" intervention.
Don't know if that is good or bad yet, but you should take off your rose colored glasses in the interim
Smitty| 5.6.10 @ 2:29PM
Liar. There's no freedom in this bill, that's why Obama is trying to push it through the backdoor.
This is about leftist power and control.
The Obama Communists are trying to grab control of telecommunication in our country, just like their hero, Hugo Chavez, has done in Venezuela.
Obama=Chavez=Castro--there's no difference among the three.
psutopgun| 5.6.10 @ 2:24PM
Purpleguy: Freedom isn't mandated by the government, it's guaranteed in the Constitution. The government does not give us RIGHTS.
Purpleguy| 5.6.10 @ 8:42PM
They do, Einstein, the government is YOU and ME and ALL OF US. Why are y'all so stupid? do you think your rights come from Rush? Another low information voter that needs a civics course. The Constitution IS the government, you idiot. Ya know, that little ol' dusty document that GIVES YOU YOUR RIGHTS! Without that paper, and the government it sanctions would not guarantee (GIVE) you your rights. Anybody got a dunce cap for this poor soul?
REMEMBER NOVEMBER!| 5.6.10 @ 10:34PM
Our government works for us, moron! You're so in love with the thought of big Statist Government you should get a room together, slut.
Tenn Slim| 5.7.10 @ 9:04AM
Purpleguy.
bt
I support your attempts to "provide facts" and the R and D effort your posts show.
Having said that, I really doubt your research techniques are proper.
1. You come to obviously incorrect conclusions.
IE. The CONSTITUTION enumerate our rights.
2. The Bill of Rights STATES what they are.
IE. Freedom to say what you will, with attendant responsibilities and accountabilities.
bt
The PAPER is not the source of these rights, the Inalienable Rights come from the basic fact, that ANYONE has these rights the minute they are born, some would say concieved. The RIGHTS come from simply BEING, not bestowed by any Guvmnt agency, President or Congressman/woman.
Bt
You need to back off a bit, partner. Your emotions are controlling your Research. If folks dont agree, so what. Seldom do any of my comments even get a rise...
bt
Remember, we, the Left and the Right, are all AMERICANS. Some of us have defended these rights in times of turmoil and others have created the turmoil. Regardless, the RIGHTS come from BEING and INDIVIDUAL, born into a country that recognizes the fact of Inalienable Rights, Period.
Semper Fi
end
Smitty| 5.6.10 @ 2:31PM
Government is Purpleguy's god and Marxism is his religion; in his mind all rights come from the government.
Purpleguy| 5.6.10 @ 8:39PM
They do, Einstein, the government is YOU and ME and ALL OF US. Why are y'all so stupid? do you think your rights come from Rush? Another low information voter that needs a civics course.
REMEMBER NOVEMBER!| 5.6.10 @ 10:29PM
Our Christian Founders believed our rights come from God, moron--and I don't mean your big government god or your stupid employer, George Soros.
It's not about civics, it's about faith; something you know nothing about, stupid troll.
Demonrat=Liberal=Progressive=Commie
Purpleguy| 5.7.10 @ 8:23AM
Yep, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" ... that's it, those are the "Certain Inalienable rights" "Endowed by our Creator" (notice it doesn't say God) .... there is no "right to bear arms" from God, no "right to free speech", no "freedom of the press", no "right to a speedy trial", no "right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment" and on and on, the rights specifically enumerated and given to you by your GOVERNMENT - you twit. Stop talking out of your Tea bagging ass and go look something up. All you do is engage in name-calling like the high school bully I'm sure you were. But you didn't win then, and your stupid tactics are seen by all for what they are - an attempt to cover your ignorance and lack of knowledge with your bullying behavior. Didn't work, doesn't work and won't work. Ignoramus' Unite! The Darwin Award is awaiting you ...... (go look it up) twit.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.7.10 @ 12:18PM
The document enumerates rights that may not be taken from us by government. These are the inalienable rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. You obviously don't understand what the Bill of Rights is about.
The government does not give us "rights," but our founding document established that those rights will not be taken from us by our government. It's a distinction to be made, and not a small one.
To state that our government gives us rights is to also state that our government gives us the right to live or die, to eat or starve, to have a house or remove us from that house, to obtain wealth by taking it from others.
We have a right to private property and the fruits of our labor, but I suppose you consider private property a right that can be confiscated by government at will for the "greater good." This is in direct contravention of our founding principles and the concept of a limited central federal government under the premise of Federalism. The concept is such that the central government was to be kept limited, so that there would be diversity among the States as they so chose.
Major changes to our Constitution, and subsequently the U.S. government, were supposed to come by Amendments to the same and not through imposed fiat.
In the name of the "General Welfare," we bankrupt our country through top-down social engineering that seeks to make the States equal under the Totalitarian authority of a central government. There is no diversity in Statism, because diversity is the end of control. Control is the end of Statism, because the State cannot perfect its ends without a means of control.
I see that you do not accept the ordered liberty of the civil society under the Constitution, for you continue to argue for increasing social engineering and governmental control of the civil society; No matter the cost.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.7.10 @ 12:23PM
A mis-statement: "There is no diversity in Statism, because diversity is the antithesis of control. Control is the end of Statism, because the State cannot perfect its ends without a means of control."
Purpleguy| 5.8.10 @ 10:16AM
Replace "Government" with "the People". We the people gave ourselves the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights so that those we chose to govern us will not breach those rights. However you try to slice it, the Government is US. It is not some big, bad bogeyman out to get you. But, since your folk aren't governing, it's understandable your frustrated and angry, but it doesn't change the fact that the People are the Government and the Government is the People. It's called Representative Democracy, if you didn't know. A Republic yes, but first and foremost a Representative Democracy at both the State and Federal levels.
Unfortunately, too often what the Conservative means by Liberty and Freedom is "don't touch my money, it's mine". Underlying all the flag-waving, sunshine patriotism is the aspect of greed. "I have mine, to hell with the rest of you." That may be a great view of Individualism, but it sure doesn't jive with Christian values. As a nation founded in Christianity, why do Republicans reject Christian values while saying they support them? Is that not Hypocritical? Certainly, Conservatives are anti-gay and anti-abortion, but Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and he was very close to a prostitute.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.10.10 @ 3:40PM
Your assertions are vile and repulsive. Your claim that conservatism is against Christianity and the fact that you claim Jesus to be a prostitute with the next breath undermines your message.
Unfortunately, you are understudied in the Founding of this country. You reject it, or otherwise you would know that we are no longer the representative Republic we were meant to be. Much authority is hoarded within the halls of D.C., and is no longer available to the States and their people.
Your B.S. line about "don't touch my money, its mine" only further cripples you. We only wish to reserve the right to distribute our wealth as we Individuallydeem best to do so, inside our own communities and not some "National Community." Instead of wealth being redistributed by Government for the "Greater Good," it should be our responsibility and our right to determine what is the "Greater Good."
You and your Third Way Communitarian-ism is just another way to one-world governance. You tell us that no individual in 2010 would support communism or any of its sister philosophies, but you continue to laud the federal government as a benign entity whilst it illegitimately takes the wealth of the people and uses it for nefarious means to undermine our individual civil liberties and destroy our opportunities for a better future. Federal control over any industry through taxes and regulation disregards the rights of the States in this matter. You decry Federalism because it is the end of "State" control.
Tell us how our government is going to reign in its $100+ Trillion in debt obligations, purpleguy. This debt is the result of social and economical engineering/experimentation, as well as politically expedient social policies like SS and Medicare orchestrated from the federal level.
I reject you, and cast you off like the heathen you are. The idea that marriage is between a man and a woman is found in Genesis. I suggest you pick up your Bible and study heartily, specifically Genesis 2:21-25. You cannot "marry" two indifferent things, more than you can two nuts or two screws. You can marry a screw and a nut, because they are different and come together naturally. This is an obvious concept. Get you away, Fool, and learn of the word of God.
ITFossil| 5.7.10 @ 10:07PM
Purp: Small but vital correction (emphasis mine)
... endowed by THEIR creator...
The Declaration of Independence would read "our Creator" if we all believed in the same God i.e., a national religion. A small nit admittedly, but a very important one IMO.
Purpleguy| 5.8.10 @ 10:49AM
Point taken, but my point was that "God" is not used in the Founding Documents.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.10.10 @ 3:43PM
You display your ignorance. It was not "God" that was referenced, but the Creator. The concept is the same.
ITFossil| 5.8.10 @ 6:17PM
The United States of America allows your God and everybody else's God to play here. We Americans go a step further by having taxpayers pay for all Gods. That makes the United States of America greater than any God.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.10.10 @ 3:47PM
Blasphemous, the whole thing! You are a heathen before the Word of the Lord. God established the authorities of this world, and they have their blessings from him. It is no wonder that America is headed towards collapse, when we have individuals like you saying such things and believing in the "dogma" of radical environmentalism.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.10.10 @ 6:25PM
To state that the United States government is above God is to completely reject our founding documents(specifically the Declaration) and the first principles that governed America. You are free to remain God-less as you choose, but remember that this country was founded on faith and freedom from the persecution thereof.
This is not a theocracy, but our government through its founding documents acknowledges that there are rights endowed upon us by our Creator that cannot be taken from us by government, save through tyranny.
Tread as heavily as you wish, but when you and others threaten to tread upon the civil rights of Christians and non-Christians alike, don't expect a warm greeting at the door.
To the Purple thing| 5.7.10 @ 5:17AM
Question for the Purple-Troll. What is the psychological makeup of someone who goes on an internet site that features articles and comments that he so vehemently disagrees with, and then proceeds to spend hours engaging in cyber name-calling? My little friend, I'd say you have some real emotional issues and not much of a real life. Come on, get up out of Mom's basement and go smell her flowers in the garden in that big wide open place some call "the world". You're not convincing anyone, you're not winning anyone over to your side and it's really quite sad that this is the highlight of your existence. Seriously, being a troll is one thing, but your anger and obsession makes you a very strong candidate for psychological treatment. Many of us are aware of who Saul Alinsky is and you're really not one of his better disciples, although you try...too hard.
Purpleguy| 5.7.10 @ 8:35AM
If any of you had the balls to go look up any of the facts I ever present here, perhaps you might start your brain thinking instead of recoiling in horror on those things that don't fit your neat little dittohead world view. Life is complicated, it's rarely black and white. Few are completely left or completely right in their thinking. The pragmatists and independents in the center usually rule the day, so the fact that you even are concerned about my responses tells me something is getting through. If any of this site even checks one fact, I'm happy. Emotions are on your side, facts are on my side - not always, but a lot of the time. Emotions always win your heart, but facts will win your mind. Try it, you'll understand the world better.
As far as name-calling, well, I give as well as I get. If you all weren't so emotional, and most of you jump to name-calling so quickly, and in most cases, that's all you say, I wouldn't either. But I WILL not let any of you simply bad-mouth me or the American people without a response. I'd say that one of me and dozens of you engaging in name-calling says more about you than it does me, don't you agree?
Moreover, what do you ever learn from people that agree with your point of view? Do you really think YOUR point of view is the only one that matters? It does to politicians to get your vote, sure, but they don't give a damn about you, any more than Rush Loudmouth does. But the politicians have the power to change your lives literally, Rush does not, unless you let him in to your head.
Anyway, hopefully, you can understand a little more why I engage in my own version of the 'Fairness Doctrine', so you can hear the other side. In any case, you can look up my facts, just like I can ... so unless you refute them, they are the facts and most Americans pay attention to that. Have a nice day!
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.7.10 @ 4:36PM
I think your logic is flawed in the last paragraph.
Under that premise, I can state that something is fact and have it stand not refuted to be fact. It does not matter whether or not what I stated in fact is factual, just so long as an individual doesn't provide empirical evidence to refute what I say...
The learning process continues.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.7.10 @ 4:53PM
Statement of fact: Obama is a Statist.
Purpleguy| 5.8.10 @ 10:02AM
Statement of Fact: Obama is a pragmatist
Statement of Fact: Bush was incompetent
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.10.10 @ 3:51PM
Pragmatism is just another buzzword for Communitarian-ism, which is Statism by another name. Governmental control over all aspects of life, top-down.
Bush was an incompetent fool, and so are you. I do not waste time defending men like Bush often, as he was/is a Neo-Statist. He only paved the way for Obama and others like him to take more State authority from the States and the people.
ITFossil| 5.7.10 @ 11:12PM
Question for the Purple-Troll. What is the psychological makeup of someone who goes on an internet site that features articles and comments that he so vehemently disagrees with, and then proceeds to spend hours engaging in cyber name-calling? My little friend, I'd say you have some real emotional issues and not much of a real life. Come on, get up out of Mom's basement and go smell her flowers in the garden in that big wide open place some call "the world".
Change "disagrees with" to "agrees with" and that pretty much covers everyone else here.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 5.10.10 @ 3:57PM
Why do you bother wading into a Conservative house of ideas and stating the obvious? We may not agree on every thing that we discuss, but we have a common foundation that is properly evident in our discussion. I find this forum an interesting way to vent my conservatism, and you likely find it a way to vent your dislike of such, eh?
Tenn Slim| 5.7.10 @ 8:55AM
'Emotions always win your heart, but facts will win your mind. "
Precisely why the Net Opines are so important. Only and I mean ONLY, can one get his opines, facts, emotions, rants, raves, and simple statements of support aired. IF we lose the Net, the battle for the Hearts and Minds of the USA Electorate is over. Advertisements, tv, radio, all play small roles compared to the information spread instantly across the net. This article's comment will appear almost instantly on other sites.
bt
The Netters, Bloggers, Commenters, Lurkers, R and D folks, use the net extensively. We don't spell good, but we try. The FCC bailout by this Lefty comes as a direct result of the Netters Efforts. His demise, as was the other one's, came after exposure of facts. Not Rhetoric, Facts.
The truth will always prevail
bt
Semper Fi
end
Tulsa Jack| 5.7.10 @ 11:57AM
Information control is thought control. Information and thought control are tyranny's only hope of keeping people divided enough not to lynch their dear leaders. Obama and his goons can't wait to regulate the Internet. Notice a pattern here?
ITFossil| 5.7.10 @ 11:24PM
Tulsa: First two sentences are reasonable, last two are highly speculative.
#1 The 'net doesn't belong to anyone
#2 The 'net can't be regulated (shhh)
Assume that for every reg anyone wants to implement, there are 100 high school kids who can walk around it in less than an hour. This ain't AOL.
Steel Stamping Necklaces | 5.8.10 @ 2:39AM
http://www.csteeljewelry.com/ Stainless steel jewelry
http://www.csteeljewelry.com/ stainless steel necklaces
Pingback| 5.8.10 @ 8:56AM
help with ww2 questions? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.9.10 @ 1:15PM
Steynian 410nd « Free Canuckistan! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
UGGS UK | 7.20.10 @ 4:10AM
Assume that for every reg anyone wants to implement, there are 100 high school kids who can walk around it in less than an hour. This ain't AOL.
arfdsg
Christopher Stephenson | 10.29.10 @ 1:04AM
I am looking for an application that I had on [ mytouch 3G slide android smartphone] call we the people. It was an app on the complete version of the constitution of the United States. I lost it when I had to master re-set my phone, and now I can't find it any where so I can re-download it to my apps menue. Can u help me to get it back?
wildblue | 9.17.12 @ 5:20PM
The Internet is not "private property"!!!!