gdp's Comments

Big Government : Errant Email to Congressional 'Allies' on Keystone Pipeline Exposes Media Matters' 'Non-Partisan, Ta

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:51:09 +0000

Forgive me for being a little skeptical when something like this is put up by the Breitbart folks. Some of their stuff is good and some of their stuff is edited to fit their agenda. They could very easily excerpt the letter reformated while linking to a scan of the original email. And it does matter where this email came from and who redacted it as the first line of the post says, "Media Matters for America (MMfA) sent an email yesterday..." Did Mr. Pollak see it or is he relying on his source? The post also states "the email was explicitly addressed to congressional 'allies.'" Where? This could very likely be an email blast that goes out to anyone who signs up for MMFA updates. This post is full of inuendo and assumptions. MMFA may be guilty of what the OP alleges, but this isn't proof. If they have what they think is smoking gun evidence of MMFA violating IRS restrictions, report them. 501(c)3s that are violating the rules should be punished. Otherwise this does nothing more than confirm what we already know, MMFA leans left, just like the Sierra Club does and just like the NRA and MRC lean right.

Big Government : Errant Email to Congressional 'Allies' on Keystone Pipeline Exposes Media Matters' 'Non-Partisan, Ta

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:38:40 +0000

Did you redact this email or did the staff who passed it on to you redact it? The letter redacts who it was sent to and who it was from. Without seeing who it is at least from, how do you (if a senate staffer redacted it) or we (if you redacted it) know who sent this? For all we know, this could be from someone who was given an early heads up on the story. Even if it is from MMFA, I don't think it is enough to take away their 501(c)3 status. They could very well argue that they wanted to make a splash in coverage of their study, not of the underlying issue of the pipeline. Yeah, MMFA runs left, but this is not the smoking gun it is made out to be.

Big Government : Obama Advisor Corzine: 'I Simply Don't Know Where the Money Is'

Thu, 8 Dec 2011 16:12:31 +0000

You are really calling the former Chair of Goldman a socialist? Maybe he made some bad decisions and came out as a loser, as did his investors, by gambling on European debt, but the market always has winners and losers. I bet every firm on wall street bet one way or the other on it, they just did a better job of hedging their bets with other investments. Yeah, question him on whether the firm lied to investors or whether it broke its fiduciary duty to investors, or whether he does actually know where the money is, but this is a situation of the pain of capitalism, not socialism.

Big Government : Obama Advisor Corzine: 'I Simply Don't Know Where the Money Is'

Thu, 8 Dec 2011 15:29:42 +0000

So wait...where in this article does anyone refer Corzine as an Obama Advisor? Wouldn't "Former Democractic Senator Corzine..." be bad enough and accurate?

Big Government : Union Fails Pension Math: Part Time-Teacher Set to Earn More in Retirement than She Did While Employ

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 05:40:54 +0000

I was addressing your argument that teachers are paid 35% more than the average full-time salary. If your first post had been apples to apples on salaries, I probably would have kept reading. I was not looking to debate whether teachers are over paid or get better benefits. I have no doubt that government benefits are better than most private sector benefits. I was looking for relevant information to allow people to meaningfully develop their own opinions. The internet is fraught with misleading and downright false information that members of the "left" and "right" eat up and spit out. You can't even get into a debate as to whether teachers are over paid until you have something close to accurate information (Truly accurate numbers on something like this is pretty difficult due to these numbers being based on samples and the wide range of benefits for both public and private sector employees). With regards to this article; his mother probably should not be getting a pension. Fix that. Require a greater number of years before a worker vests in a plan. If they leave before then, require them to roll out contributions made by them (or on their behalf) within a certain amount of time or they lose that money or get sent a check minus the taxes on those contributions. The situation in Wisconsin is not about the short term fiscal problems of the state. If that were the Governor's real concern he would have either accepted either the Union's agreement to the benefits cuts or the Republican proposal to cut benefits and freeze collective bargaining rights for 2 years. By refusing to even consider either proposal, the Governor has shown that the benefits cuts are the icing and the busting the Union is the cake. That may be a debate to have, but don't put that in an emergency if it is going to prevent passage. Pull that provision and move on with the emergency and deal with the issue of collective bargaining later with some actual debate. This seems a lot like 2008 when the Dems came into power in Washington: 1. The majority ignores the minority. 2. The majority tries to jam through legislation quickly without much time to review it. 3. The minority puts up as many procedural hurdles as possible (using a procedural Filibuster to block a vote isn't much different than leaving the state to block a vote. The vote still doesn't happen). 4. Opponents of the bill take the streets, the airwaves, and the inter-tubes to protest, some with inappropriate signs and commentary to degrade the people in the majority and make look like terrible people (There is no reason ever to compare any American leader to Hitler, no matter what party they are. It is not only inappropriate, it is offensive). 5. Supporters of the bill take to the streets, the airwaves, and the inter-tubes in support, some with inappropriate comments meant degrade the protesters and make them look like terrible people. The Tea Party protesters weren't terrible people and the Union members out there protesting aren't terrible people. They are both exercised their rights to express their views. They weren't jailed or shot, or prevented from getting their views out. Their leaders weren't jailed without cause nor did they disappeared one night. We get so caught up in out own views and our preconceptions that we can't see anyway to work with those who disagree with us and turn to insults. But despite a few bumps, we've been doing it for 235 years.

Big Government : Union Fails Pension Math: Part Time-Teacher Set to Earn More in Retirement than She Did While Employ

Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:54:46 +0000

Considering you have to have a college education to be a teacher, a more reasonable comparison might to be the salary of college educated workers which, according to BLS, was $53,300 in 2009. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm The average wage for Wisconsin teachers is actually less than the national average for college educated workers.

Big Government : Union Fails Pension Math: Part Time-Teacher Set to Earn More in Retirement than She Did While Employ

Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:19:42 +0000

I would be interested in the sources of those numbers and whether they take into account education level. Is that $39,000 looking at all full-time workers or just full-time college educated workers?

Big Government : Video from Wisconsin Protest Reveals the Violence and Hatred of the Left

Thu, 17 Feb 2011 22:24:29 +0000

Can someone point me to the violence? Reading the headline I was expecting to see videos of rocks and riot police. Seriously, any stories with actual violence? Signs are really meaningless for pointing to left or right being violent and hateful because outliers on both sides do it.

Big Government : The ACLU Is Wrong: Net Neutrality Is About Government Control of Internet Content

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:27:29 +0000

Along those lines, had Fox continued to block internet access to Fox content, there is an argument to be made that it was tortious interferance with a contractual relationship. Specifically, Cablevision's contract with its internet customers. Really what this all boils down to is limited competition in the market place for cable, internet, and phone services (in some cases no competition) and the bundling of three services which are relatively distinct in their type and scope.

Big Government : The ACLU Is Wrong: Net Neutrality Is About Government Control of Internet Content

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:35:05 +0000

The author is correct, Fox paid a lot of money to produce its content. If they wanted to, they could put all fox internet content behind a paywall. If it wanted to, Fox could enter contracts with ISPs (cable companies) to give all the ISP's subscribers access to the paywalled content (maybe, not sure if there are regs blocking this). Fox is completely within its contractual rights to block Cablevision subscribers access to Fox television content. However, internet and phone service are completely different and separate from cable service. ISPs and phone service providers (PSPs) provide nothing more than a portal through which customers access the internet and phone network while cable service providers actually pay for the content their customers view. Fox stepped beyond the service in dispute and apparently quickly realized it and restored access.

Big Government : The ACLU Is Wrong: Net Neutrality Is About Government Control of Internet Content

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:34:48 +0000

Does Cablevision pay Fox for access to its internet content? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it does not. So my question is what does access to Fox's internet content have to do with a dispute over television access? Cablevision also has phone service. Would it be alright for Fox to block Cablevision subscribers from calling in to vote for American Idol or calling Fox to complain about the dispute? Does Cablevision pay Fox for the ability to call Fox numbers? Once again, correct me if I am wrong, but the answer it no. Cable companies pay media companies for the privilage to broadcast television channels. They do not pay for the right to access the media companies websites or call the media companies phone numbers. I seriously doubt that access to online content was included in Fox's contract with Cablevision for television broadcast rights.

Big Government : New Low? Congress Worried No Cap-n-Trade Means No 'Climate Aid' Billions

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:26:18 +0000

Mr. Horner, Have you ever posted an article on this website that wasn't shamelessly meant to promote your book? BG, If you know your readers treat you like news, act like a news site, not a over glorified blog or a self promoting ad campaign (WND). It adds nothing to the intellectual debate about where this country is going.

Big Government : Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism–2010

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:37:32 +0000

The problem is, we don't know the ending or the beginning of the story. The video starts in the middle of her speech and ends before she finishes her story. I believe another commentor researched that the incident in question happened 24 years ago (I haven't been able to find anything on dates, nor the entire video). We have to question things like this that are posted on the internet, especially when it would be just as easy to include a link to the whole speech in additional to the selected clips. All media, main stream or alternative, edits its content to support a certain point of view. This article is guilty of the exact same offense that it is criticizing the MSM for.

Big Government : Congress Tenaciously Determined to Bail Out Teachers Unions

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:13:35 +0000

link to the chart: http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html link to the source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/msp...

Big Government : Congress Tenaciously Determined to Bail Out Teachers Unions

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:08:40 +0000

Really? Reagan increase the national debt by over $3 trillion, an average of $375 billion per year. Bush I? $365 billion per year. Clinton? $201.13 billion per year. Bush II? $543.87 Billion per year. If you go back to Carter, it was $69 billion per year. From 1976 to 2008 the national debt increased by over $10 trillion. Almost a third of that was under Reagan. Almost half was under Bush II. 83% of the debt was under Republican Administrations when they were in the White House for only 62.5% of that 32 year period. I don't understand these fond memories of "fiscally conservative" republican presidents who presided over the biggest increases in our national debt in the history of this country. The true fiscal conservatives never make it out of the republican primary. Reagenomics was was completely based on increasing spending for force cuts in social programs. Guess what did not work?

Big Government : Washington's Worst Nightmare: A Principled Man

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:03:55 +0000

It is always nice to see politicians who don't just tow the party line. Good luck to him.

Big Government : Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism–2010

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:52:35 +0000

Capitalism is evil?

Big Government : Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism–2010

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:51:55 +0000

I don't trust any video posted by Breitbart that isn't either complete or has a link to the complete video. Give people the whole speech and let them make their own opinion about what was said. That video seemed to be going towards, "and this made me realize the error of my ways" just when it was cut off. In this day an age of basically unlimited data storage, there is no excuse for selectively editing with out providing all the source material. It goes towards credibility. The arguments will never reverberate with anyone outside the echo chamber if you don't have credibility.

Big Government : UK Facing Blackouts from Obama Energy, Environment Policies

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:35:29 +0000

When did Breitbart sites become World Net Daily? What does Obama's Energy Plan have to do with a pending energy crisis in the UK? This is a misleadingly titled article merely meant to promote the Author's book. When you have advertisements mixed in with your news or columns like this, it does nothing but discredit the website and makes it easier for it to be marginalized.

Big Government : Hypocrisy Grows in Sunlight

Thu, 8 Jul 2010 18:25:40 +0000

I really don't understand how the issue of "Net Neutrality" as I understand it (preventing private companies/government from slowing/blocking or speeding access to certain websites based on content or a fee) is a partisan issue. Do you really want the future Comcast/NBC/Universal behemouth slowing down access to Fox new's website. Do you want them slowing down your connection to Netflix or Hulu so that you will use OnDemand instead? Net neutrality is not allowing the government to take control of the internet. That is a completely different issue from net neutrality. Net neutrality in its purest sense says no one except the consumer determines what the consumer sees on the internet. Oppose a government takeover of the internet, but don't cast that issue as net neutrality. The intent of net neutrality is to keep both the Government's and corporations' hands off my internet. No net neutrality would actually hurt alternative internet media, not help it. The rules just have to be crafted as to permit no interference from the government. That is something I can support.