| Linux.com :: Anti-Open Source lobbyists need love, too
//
// Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 25, 2002 11:29 PM Roblimo, you ought to be careful about characterizing their sponsors as "ultra rightist" esp. when your info is from a web site that could easily be construed as "ultra leftist."These guys are just out to make a buck and get on TV. If shilling for MS is what it takes, then they'll do it. I work in the policy sphere in Washington and let me tell you that so many "studies" we are always hearing about are utter garbage.But back to the original point, the support and condemnation of open source comes from across the political spectrum so be careful not to needlessly insult your allies.(I have no affiliation w/ADTI.) # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 12:14 AM Really? I have yet to hear a condemnation of Open Source Software coming from the left...can you name one? (And, no, I don't consider the Democrats to be to the left of the political spectrum; at best, they're dead center). # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 12:29 AM >"And, no, I don't consider the Democrats to be to the left of the political spectrum; at best, they're dead center"And that's the source of your dilemma. Your definition of what is left-of-center is too narrow. # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 01:33 AM No that is the source of the dilemma you create when you try to redefine the center to be more to the right.Notice you didn't answer his/her question. What leftist has banned open source/free software? # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 01:40 AM Notice you didn't answer his/her question. What leftist has banned open source/free software?No leftist has. Nor has any rightist. Up to this point, no one has banned open source/free software. # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 03:10 AM Ok, I will rephrase to match the original question (which was my meaning, even if I messed up the wording):"I have yet to hear a condemnation of Open Source Software coming from the left...can you name one?" # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 01:51 AM No, it's just that I'm basing the Left-Right axis on more than just american politics (being from Canada). I consider the Liberal Party here to be JUST left-of-center, like the Labour party in England. The NDP would be to the left, just like the Greens in Europe (pick your country). # Re(1):Be careful about generalizations Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 76.178.140.66] on November 06, 2007 05:41 AM Since the Reagan Revolution, both parties have swung way to the right, because that's where their anti-regulation corporate backers are.. Bill Clinton was a hawk in sheeps clothing who committed economic genocide against the people of Iraq with economic sanctions. He punished innocent citizens because of the maniac who ran their country. Plus he supported free trade and got NAFTA through Congress especially because big business wanted him to. # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: xtremex on October 26, 2002 03:26 AM Well, most Politician who are democrats can be considered Ultra-Leftists....the ex-hippies who are now communist under a different name. OpenSource is neither left-wing or right-wing. It just is. # You missed the point Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 27, 2002 01:45 PM If you want to use this discussion as a stick to beat up Right Wingers and particularly ULTRA right wingers, go ahead. But you missed the point.Do you care about Open Source software MORE than your Left/Right politics?If you do, then you don't want to NEEDLESSLY piss off Right Wingers. You might even look for co-belligerants among ULTRA Right Wingers. You want to win, right? You want more people in favor of Open Source, right? You want to build a consensus in favor of Open Source, right? This means a big tent.Here's a clue: the guys who listen to Rush Limbaugh are more likely small business people than Microsoft executives. Small business people can benefit from Open Source, they don't like government interference, they don't like paying a Microsoft tax. These guys see attitudes like yours and believe the FUD that says: Open Source software is Marxist!I have a friend who's an ideological ideologue member of the Religious Right. He was able to work with the Radical Feminists in Lansing on nudie-picture issues while they vehemently opposed each other on abortion.Remember, Al Gore was Bill Gates' golfing partner. Microsoft buys politicians from both Left and Right. He only wants to bet on the winning side and he doesn't care if he buys a Republican or a Democrat or a Green.We should be so smart. Tell you what. I don't care if you're a Lesbo, Feminazi, Pinko who votes for Mao Tse Tung. I'm an arch-Conservative, Fundamentalist, Christian, Heterosexual and I'll gladly work with you to advance open source software. # Re:You missed the point Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 28, 2002 01:32 PM Right wing linux dittos here! # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: emk on October 26, 2002 12:20 AM "the support and condemnation of open source comes from across the political spectrum so be careful not to needlessly insult your allies."He's not insulting them by saying their sponsors are ultra rightist. Its a fact. However, it may not be a very relevant fact. Especially given the good Senator Hollings (D-Disney). # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 12:39 AM what i am complaining about is that roblimo has fallen into the natural tendency in politics to mischaracterize the views of one's opponents as "extreme." the people that run mediatransparency are just as "extreme" as ADTI's sponsors.also, let me point out that the mainland chinese government is not exactly bullish on open source. it likes linux because it is not made by an americn company and it can't get in trouble about piracy but you can bet that it does not support the political ideology from which open source flows. open source requires freedom to do other things and i will bet that if linux becomes more popular there, the government will start to place restrictions on it. for instance, this web page would certainly be banned.those who believe that open source is not condemned by anyone on the left are grossly naive to the attitude among many (i deal with such people frequetly) government employees, politicians, and academics who tend to believe that if it doesn't come from the government, it is somehow risky. open source in many ways is ant-government since it is foremost about free speech and freedom from control. # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: roblimo on October 26, 2002 01:28 AM If AdTI was primarily sponsored by left wing "do gooder" foundations, I would have said so -- and you would not have complained. I suggest that you go look at the foundations that have been AdTI's primary source of funds and look at the causes they support. I think you will find that my generalization is correct unless you consider Bill O'Reilly a near-socialist. Reality = Open Source advocates come from all over the political spectrum, as do detractors. But in this case, we're talking about an "institution" that has a history of producing reports favorable to a series of interests that can easily be characterized as "right wing." Note that this is common among those who talk of business interests as being the only thing worth defending, without thinking about the interests of those businesses' customers or employees.BTW, I agree with you about the probable future attitude of Chines party cadre toward Linux and Open Source, and I also agree with you that many U.S. government employees are leery of the concept because of the "loss of control" factor. I do not love unnecessary controls imposed on individuals, period, whether they are imposed by governments, businesses, Republicans, Communists, Libertarians, Democrats or beings from the planet Foodlehauser.Free as in Freedom etc. etc. (Not that Mr. Stallman doesn't also want us all to think in a certain way...)- Robin # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 02:29 AM I wouldn't characterize the Mainland Chinese Government as being on the "left", in the sense that they are very much conservative, in their own way. But here we hit against the shortcomings of the left/right axis, and we need to add another, perpendicular one: authoritarian/libertarian. The Chinese govt. is definitely against individual freedom, while many on the (libertarian) left are definitely FOR individual freedoms.For more on the Left/Right/Authoritarian/Libertarian dual axes, check out:http://www.politicalcompass.org/ # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 02:34 AM The people running Mediatransparency can hardly be called "extreme" if what they do is publish the people who finance private, conservative "think tank" groups. I, for one, think that all transparency is a good thing - if another group wants to do the same for liberal groups, then they wouldn't be "extreme" either...unless they fabricate their evidence!There is nothing "anti-government" about freedom of speech and freedom from control. The marketplace is controlled by oligarchies, Big Media is controlled by advertisers, etc.Private businesses are modeled after strict hierarchies, and are not democratic. The State may be imperfect, but at least it represents US, in theory... # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 28, 2002 01:47 AM you must not have read much of their site. it's full of rants, etc. against imaginary conspiracies, etc. # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 12:44 AM btw, most left-wing (that is left-of-center) think tanks and projects are funded primarily funded by corporate contributions. Jesse Jackson, and others are very much into corporate America. # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 01:08 AM Which just goes to show how skewed the whole situation. These people aren't extreme leftists while they work within a free-market/capitalist paradigm. Extreme leftists are aiming for socialism or anarchy.. # Re:Be careful about generalizations Posted by: defurnej on October 26, 2002 02:22 AM And people who aim for communism are extreme extreme-leftists ? # left right, left right, left right left Posted by: WarPengi on October 26, 2002 01:21 AM ther will always be conflict between those who want the best for everyone and those who want the best for themselves. I don't think anyone at this site has a problem labeling what the AdT has said about open-source as extreme and total FUD. They are willing to believe whatever the highest bidder wants them to believe. Even if you believe that the right is all that's good and true, unfortunately, there is a dark side of capitalism. Truth is what those with the most money say it is. # Re:left right, left right, left right left Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 04:08 AM Luckily, sometimes Truth is irrelevant because of a relevant fact. The economic significance of open source is RMS' (...at least, I assume that it was his...) observation that source code is an unlimited resource. Once you do something, it can be improved. Once you do something right, it can be re-used. Once you do something perfect, you can move on to other problems. Politics is about image, where image is the concept of treating appearance as substance. As ephemeral as computer data is, data **does** have substance. Don't Panic (in big friendly letters), and be vigilant, and the **real** world of computers and electronic freedoms can outlast these attacks by Shades and Illusionists. # Re:left right, left right, left right left Posted by: WarPengi on October 26, 2002 05:19 AM Thank-you. I will now break out my Hitchhikers guide to open-source. # Taxes Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 01:46 AM Hey, wait a minute. I don't go to the appliance store and pay a percentage of my income to buy a dishwasher, do I? Then why should I pay a percentage of my income for government? The answer, of course, is that I shouldn't. # Re:Taxes Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 01:57 AM You must live in a state without a sales tax.When I go to an appliance store, I do pay a percentage of my income to buy a dishwasher.Roughly 8.1%.You are running into the same quandary that de Tocqueville grappled with: How to finance the Great American Experiment without taxes.When you've figured it out, please call the Libertarian Party. They will be happy to talk to you. # Re:Taxes Posted by: Bradley Ridnour on October 26, 2002 02:15 AM Uh No. You pay 8.1% of the cost of the dishwasher in taxes. A poor janitor or a rich banker will pay the same amount of taxes as you will if they buy the same dishwasher.Now, the banker will probably get a more expensive dishwasher than the janitor will, and thus end up paying more in taxes. However, that's his choice.Which (IMHO) is why sales taxes are my prefered method of funding the (small amount of) government we need. # Re:Taxes Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 03:14 AM I won't argue with you on the purely regressive nature of income taxes. They are a sledge hammer solution to a finish nailer problem. But sales taxes alone will not eradicate a tax burden disparity that would result in the poorest of individuals paying as much as the wealthiest to defend our country.Unless, of course, you realy believe freeing Kuwait was a blow for democracy in the region. # Re:Taxes Posted by: Bradley Ridnour on October 26, 2002 03:52 AM Personally, my only problem with the first Gulf War is that we didn't fix things so that we wouldn't need to talk about fighting a second. Anyway, you're right that sales taxes are not a complete solution. That said, a properly devised system of usage taxes (sales taxes, luxuary taxes, etc.) would still be more fair than the system now in place. # Re:Taxes Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 06:56 PM >Unless, of course, you realy believe freeing Kuwait was a blow for democracy in the region.if you lived in the region you would have known that this is very true, of course we never had much democracy to start with but the gulf war was a blow.this has nothing to do with freeing Kuwait that part was good and should have been done but it gave the US an opertunity to spread it military and economical influence in ways no different from the early colonials.I'm sorry but the US is the biggest threat to democracy in most middle east countries if not all third world countries. # Re:Taxes Posted by: WarPengi on October 26, 2002 02:02 AM Awright son, fess up. Whose money did you use to buy that dishwasher? # Re:Taxes Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 04:54 AM I guess the only sensible solution is to pay taxes to the government based on how much you **use** the government. As a non-smoker, the tax on cigarettes bothers me not a whit. Legislation to keep competing drugs out of the market-place should cost alcohol and tobacco concerns plenty. They use government in that fashion, they pay for it.To hell with marijuana, legalize crack. # Re:Taxes Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 06:37 AM You see this is a bad thing and a case of looking at an issue from a shallow perspective. If the majority of taxes start coming from things like cigarettes where do you think the government will start to concentrate their efforts in terms of services? They will go where the money is. Graded income taxes work because it is in the governments best intrest to make you and I more prosperous. The more money I make, the more money is paid to the government. This in turn gives government projects a chance to help, along with the lower taxes, give a leg up to less fortunate citizens in the hopes that they may also become more prosperous so the cycle can continue. Granted the system is not perfect and in its current form is a bit too complicated it is one of the reasons that the US has enjoyed such steller growth. # Re:Taxes Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 12:25 PM Tax calculation is definitely very complicated. It's the accountants and the laywers that are messing everything up.Why not use a flat % for everyone? Easy to calculate, harder to cheat, wouldn't have to spend as much to have an accountant and a laywer to lie for you."stellar grouwth"? The stock market is lower thanit was 2 years ago. # Re:Taxes Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 27, 2002 08:17 AM Tax calculation is definitely very complicated. It's the accountants and the laywers that are messing everything up. have you ever tried to do it? the tax calculations aren't the problem (unless you are arithmetically challenged and your reading comprehension is nonexistent): if you try to code it it's about 3 lines of code and a table with as many entries as there are tax ratesWhy not use a flat % for everyone? Easy to calculate, harder to cheat, wouldn't have to spend as much to have an accountant and a laywer to lie for you. that won't make preparing your return any simpler: what makes it complicated are the many rules for deductions and tax credits # I didn't see your reply to AdTI's fusillade Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 01:50 AM What did you say to them when they attempted to paint open source efforts as a "Red Tide" that threatened to swamp capitalistic software production?Did you counter with any arguements of your own?I've found it extremely helpful to point out that the GPL *is* a copyright, that my ability to give software away for free is my right to free expression, and that not every human venture needs to be an outlet for personal enrichment.I have also squashed this type of propaganda by pointing out that limiting the freedom to write using ANY code you choose is an infringement of my academic freedom. Equally persuasive is the argument that limiting my ability to use the operating system of my choice is equivalent to a restraint of trade because if forces me to purchase only one of several competing technologies.The latter arguements work wonderfully to change the minds of laissez-faire advocates. # Re:I didn't see your reply to AdTI's fusillade Posted by: roblimo on October 26, 2002 02:12 AM No, I didn't counter. I just listened. Ken Brown has been on the opensource.org license-discuss list recently. I answered him once there, but it's pointless. He and his coworkers are paid to sway others, not to be swayed.You are now free to point out that, as the *paid* editor of Linux.com, I am just as much of a professional advocate as Brown. You'd be right. Of course, I was hired for this job after plenty of unpaid Linux advocacy (and professional journalism). I am a True Believer, but it's entirely possible that Brown et al Truly Believe what's good for proprietary software billionaires is good for the rest of the world, that second-hand cigarette smoke* won't harm you, and so on. - Robin*Personally, I prefer my cigarette smoke first-hand.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) # Re:I didn't see your reply to AdTI's fusillade Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 03:09 AM I did neglect to point out that your article was a 'good read'.Kudos. # Free Software and the Free Market Posted by: Nathan on October 26, 2002 02:07 AM I use GPL software because I'm a selfish individualist, staunch free market advocate and I like to protect my freedom as well as save my money to spend on something else. I also like to be able to use GPL software in products for my clients so I can make more money for my time instead of reinventing the wheel. The GPL is good for capitalism (even if unintentional). If you don't like GPL software, then write your own code and waste money reinventing the wheel that has already been posted on freshmeat.net a hundred different times. # Re:Free Software and the Free Market Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 10:38 PM The GPL is good for capitalism (even if unintentional).While I don't mean to read too much into this phrase, it sounds like you believe the GPL is anti-capitalism (in intent).Stallman has an undeserved reputation as a communist. (In the false dichotomy of "capitalism versus communism", RMS must be a communist "because he's not a capitalist".) Early in the history of the GPL, Stallman argued that programmers would be able to make a good living writing GPL-ed code, if admittedly less than they could writing proprietary code. The GPL is not intended to squash (or even to counter) capitalism, nor is Stallman unconcerned with programmers' ability to make a living writing code. He is merely more concerned with the ethical obligation to write GPL code (which protects the freedoms of all users, and many freedoms of programmers) than he is with the obligation (if there is one) to allow individuals or corporations to accumulate an arbitrary amount of money at the cost of users' freedom. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions (or even with your opinions:), just emphasizing that the GPL is not by intent anti-capitalism.TCP/IP Freely # I agree with you Posted by: Nathan on October 27, 2002 06:49 AM I put that there mostly as an answer to potential arguments that the GPL was purposely designed as some sort of a communist tool. I'm sure the argument could be made both ways (both pro and anti-capitalism), but my point was that it didn't matter, because it remains beneficial to capitalists. # where would i be Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 02:10 AM i am a linux advocate, user, etc. i am VERY pro-life, pro-gun, believe in flat taxes, little (if any) welfare, and feel that the bombs should be raining on baghd(e)ad, like last month. yet, i am a huge open source guy. the most egregious abuses of free speech are on campuses, not the home to too many conservatives. by the way, ultra anything (except SPARC)is not right or left, only terrible. the means might be different, but the end is the same. absolute control. # Re:where would i be Posted by: WarPengi on October 26, 2002 02:28 AM For future reference you would be to the 'right' of the political spectrum. I doubt you really have any confusion about that.Linux and open source are not political parties although open source as a communal approach to a solution might look leftist, it really isn't.Also, countries that are trying to brteak away from the control of the corporate west may look to open source as a tool for more autonomy and self-determination but that doesn't necessarily imply communism or socialism.It is a sad state of affairs that self-determination is seen as wrong simply because it doesn't perpetuate the corporate hegemony of the west. # Re:where would i be Posted by: fitzix on October 26, 2002 06:00 AM Very well said...And, speaking as a proclaimed leftist, I also agree that Free Software and Open Source Software - both philosophically and practically - don't represent neither the right nor the left, nor any political leaning in any sense.That's one of the great things about it: anyone is welcome, unless you're a greedy parasitic fool who intends on making everyone else solely dependant on you just so that you can solve your bedwetting problem. Those people are not welcome. # Re:where would i be Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 12:07 PM unless you're a greedy parasitic foolwhat if you're a greedy, parasitic genius? # Re:where would i be Posted by: fitzix on October 27, 2002 07:01 AM A genius can still be a fool.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) # Re:where would i be Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 04:19 AM Well said! # sad sad world Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 28, 2002 05:48 PM It's a sad world we live in.You, a white man (presumably), openly advocating the right to carry guns and the desire to kill innocent arabic civilians while refusing to women the choice to do as they see fit with their bodies. Oh but it's ok, right? You're not a complete neo-fascist scumbag, you're 'a huge open source guy.' Well good for you. But in the future, keep your retrograde views to yourself.PS:I don't think I will be able to convince you of anything. People like you tend to be pretty thick. You want to know what ULTRA is? absolute control? Isn't that what you are calling for?pro-life = no-choice = absolute male controlkilling innocent people abroad = absolute US controlpro-gun = so was the DC sniper. aka 'God' = absolute control # Re:sad sad world Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 28, 2002 11:34 PM Following your logic, everyone who drives a car is just as guilty as those who kill people in drivebys or through drunk driving.I guess we should ban cars.Or even better, did you know that doctors kill more people per year by accident than guns do? I guess if we outlawed doctors we'd all be a lot safer, wouldn't we? After all, if we could only save one life! # Re:sad sad world Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 28, 2002 11:37 PM You, a white man, writing something criticizing someone else for being a white man.Clue check: abortion is anti-choice, for the child # Piggies Posted by: Glanz on October 26, 2002 02:24 AM Red-Neck think tanks are composed of PIGS. Their members are always against freedom, because freedom does not feed their piggy wifes and their little piglet children, educated in the finer points of back-stabbing capatalism. To qualify for membership in one of these stys, I mean tanks, you must:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...be a red-neck, at least intellectually...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...equate true liberty with commie threats and more recently, terroism...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...fear anyone who does not think like Beaver's father in "Leave it to Beaver"...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...fear African Americans...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...defend the rich, in the hope of sweeping in a few crumbs from their tables...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...part your well-grommed hair on the left side...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...be besuited and betied in the universal uniform of capatalist pigs such as bankers and CEO's..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...have no idea what truth and/or moral values are...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....and last but not least, love Microsoft... # Learn to spell, idiot. Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 03:34 AM The word you're looking for is capitalism, and one need not be an empty suit to be a capitalist. I happen to be one myself; I've got Knuth sandwiched between Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. I also happen to have my hair down to my waist. # Re:Learn to spell, idiot. Posted by: fitzix on October 26, 2002 06:16 AM Ayn Rand was an apologist for a broken system. # Re:Learn to spell, idiot. Posted by: Glanz on October 28, 2002 02:32 AM Red-necks and Republican ass-holes who admire a president elected by fraud are breakers of a system called democracy. # Re:Learn to spell, idiot. Posted by: Glanz on October 26, 2002 08:55 PM Yo mama! # The Enemy Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 03:49 AM The Republican party and all on the right are a threat, not only to Open Source, but to all human kind. It is an evil that must be stop by any means. # Re:The Enemy Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 04:07 AM :)Gee thanks! I love being characterized as evil.It really makes my day! # Re:The Enemy Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 04:10 AM Change "Republican party and all on the right" to "New York Yankees" and I'd have to agree with you. # Re:The Enemy Posted by: Joseph Cooper on October 26, 2002 04:16 AM I'm conservative.. And I'm pro open source.You are an idealogical nitwit.For a liberal, you really like to discriminate! # Re:The Enemy Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 04:24 AM "...by any means..."Put them in a gas chamber?Enslave their children?I usually classify "by any means" as one of the defining characteristics of evil itself.Or, to quote a non-human savant, "Strange game; the only way to win is not to play." # someone's been reading Barbra Streisand again Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 05:12 AM How about your very own Slick Willy, who ordered Paula Jones' tax audit when it looked like her own case might actually go somewhere? The same guy who ordered the bombing of the Bosnian pharmaceutical factory to keep Monica Lewinsky off the front page? And the ultra-left Democratic socialists, in the party and in the Administration, circled their wagons while people's lives were lost or ruined.Take your Prozac and get back in your cage. # Re:someone's been reading Barbra Streisand again Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 06:04 AM Your an avid Rush Limbaugh listener, aren't you?I can tell because you use the same low-intellect, downright stupid, flagrantly moronic allusions as he does.Fucking clone. # you claim to know so much Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 06:54 AM HahahahahahahahahahahaI haven't listened to Rush in 5 years.Furthermore, if you can't distinguish fact from allusion, that would go far towards explaining your own inability to distinguish honest, hard-working people from the dastardly Republicans you claim are going to be the ruin of the world. It is NOT just coincidence; the stupidly ignorant foreign policies of Clinton are what gave us North Korea as a nuclear power, Iraq as it now stands, and let the Taliban build up their organization. The CIA kept eyes on Osama bin Laden from the moment he was expelled from Saudi Arabia, but Bill Clinton (yes, he himself) ordered the CIA to do nothing about him. Net result: both bombings of the WTC, attacks on embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole.People DIED in those attacks. And we have Bill Clinton and his cabinet officials to thank for it. As a result of those policies, two of my friends are now gearing up to go to war. When (not "if") they leave, I'll be praying every waking minute that they return safely. If they don't, you'd better be praying that your kids don't have to learn Arabic in school.In the meantime, they'll be fighting for YOUR right to spew such idiocy in public. And my right to point out, in public, what an idiot you are. # Re:you claim to know so much Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 12:22 PM Hmmm... Do us all a favor and toke a bit harder on that crack pipe you seem to be smoking...Let's see... Facts:I seem to remember a guy named Reagan that used to pump all kinds of weapons and money to a certain guy named Osama bin Laden to fight those evil Commies in Afghanistan long before Clinton was in office. Good ol' Ronnie... He certainly had a knack at selling arms and making back room deals with terrorists (remember the Iran Hostage affair and the faithful Ollie and Bushie Sr. taking care of that small legal matter of violating federal law in Iran/Contra?...). I also seem to remember Clinton launching something like 37 cruise missles at bin Laden's camp in Afghanistan one day. Didn't get him, but I'm sure conservatives like yourself were all over him for trying to distract attention from his abominable real crime of having sex with another consenting adult.I just don't know what we would do without you closeminded conservatives keeping the rest of us free thinkers in line... And, btw, since you used to listen to Rush, I assume that means you were a Dittohead along with the rest of those idiots back then. I remember people being so proud to be a Dittohead. Bumper stickers, coffee cups, t-shirts. The whole marketing thing. I bet you still have a t-shirt or two somewhere. Oh, come on... Admit it... It's ok...Well, to me, it just went to show how closeminded people who listened to Rush were back then; they never figured out that being a Dittohead meant forfeiting your right to think for yourself. As I said before, thanks for keeping this world in a constant state of fear, promoting the "arrogant and greedy" perceptions of Americans throughout the world and starting wars with countries because Cheney's buds can't drill for oil in our National Parks. I just wouldn't have any issues to fight against if it wasn't for people like you... # Re:you claim to know so much Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 01:19 PM bigot (n.): A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. --Webster's Revised UnabrigedNow that you know what the definition is, take a look at your first posting. Then go look in the mirror and say "I am not a bigot" without laughing. Your religion is rage against anything that says "Republican". You haven't stated any facts on the matter at hand (namely AdTI and Microsoft). When someone exposes your prejudices, all you can do is call him a "fucking clone".Oh, and the fact is this: Clinton was impeached for perjury, not consensual sex; surely a lawyer as astute as Clinton claimed to be should know that perjury is a felony. But you couldn't admit that, because it would probably tear your whole belief system apart. And I dare you to come and find any Ditto-head gear in my house. I haven't listened to Rush because I'm at work while he's on the radio. Yes, I have a job, and I didn't go crawling to the government for it like so many Democrats want me to.Again, you are exposing your own bigotry. Get off your high horse and take a serious look at yourself. # Re:you claim to know so much Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 27, 2002 07:21 AM And it was the Reagan administration that created Osama Bin Laden's base of power by training his troops in Afghanistan during our proxy war with the soviets. It was the Reagan administration that propped up the Hussein regime during the Iran/Iraq war and, through selling arms to both sides, kept the war going long enough for Hussein to justify, fund, and utilize the use of chemical and biological weapons.Yep, most of those weapons that we were destroying were basically funded for creation by our own Republican government.It was Bush the first who did not finish the job on Iraq the first time.Yeah, OK - Clinton didn't clean up these Right-wing created problems. But, those of us who are properly-thinking realize that because he couldn't stop it, it doesn't mean he caused it. The person standing on the side of the road who saw the person running the red light may not have been waving his hands, but that doesn't mean he's responsible for the accident.Those are facts - look them up. Your view of the political spectrum is strangely warped. You are a racist and it's because of people who think like you that our people are dying, whether they be on the West's side or on the Middle East's side.You are only propagating the East -vs- West dichotomy that is causing this to happen.Yeah, people died. People died during our destruction of democratic regimes in South America. People died during our various invasions and coups in Cuba. People have died after our continuing embargos that have only assisted other countries in blackening our name as their people die.Yeah, a lot of people are dying - everywhere.What's going on with Chechnya now makes the WTC attacks look pale and limp. You need new perspective. Yours is dangerously close to killing all of us. # Re:you claim to know so much Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 27, 2002 01:02 PM You need to take a look at Human Rights Watch's website. Cuba? C'mon, Castro has been murdering dissidents from the get-go. (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/) Even Violeta Chamorro's democratically elected government was rife with murderers wearing badges. Embargos? The tool of a weak government. Saddam Hussein sits and laughs at us, trading with his buddies right under the U.N.'s nose, while we simply talk about how wrong he is. As for Bill Clinton's role, the cunning leaders who got their positions by imprisoning their opposition (or even killing them) looked at him and knew they had a free ride for eight years. And you call me a racist for pointing this out? # Re:The Enemy Posted by: Glanz on October 28, 2002 02:37 AM I agree with you after reading the commentaries of the red-neck, dime-store paper flag waving idiots who responded to your original intervention. Under BushFace, the Texas illiterate, Americans now have fewer freedoms than they had BEFORE the American Revolution. Freedom of the press in the USA now ranks 17th in the world. You are living under a fascist government, pure and simple. I am glad to be Canadian at a time like this. # Come on! Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 04:11 AM The Adti can be booked by everyone for any message. It is no scientific institution but bad corporate advertising. The main goal is to get an article in the news. This organization only harmed itself. Like in Germany where Ms was involved in a scandal with its PR Agenca Hunzinger. I think this kind of bad propaganda harms the one who pays for it. At least if there is some public that raises its voice. I really wonder why you even discuss with an dependant institution.Perhaps you would like to get to knwo ADTI by yourself:"Thank you for your interest in joining the staff of researchers and associates of the Alexis de Tocqueville Insitution. Please download the following form, complete it, and email it to work@adti.net. We will contact you after reviewing your answers."Pause the Microsoft Case and Examine U.S. Anti-trust PolicyGregory FossedalPress ReleaseJanuary 14, 2000Punishing Winners Hurts the MarketplaceAndrew SellgrenJournal of CommerceNovember 15, 1999Suit Threatens U.S. Computer Dominanceby Michael EbertThe Journal of CommerceSeptember 16, 1999Taking a Byte Out of Microsoft Melanie ScarboroughThe Washington TimesSeptember 7, 1999F-22: Indispensable for Future Air Dominance Richard Aboulafia and Loren Thompson AdTI Defense Issue Brief April 25, 1997 U.S. Forces Will Benefit from Knowing Where Enemy IsLoren Thompson Air Force Times January 12, 1998Quarterback of the Digital Battlefield: The Comanche HelicopterLoren B. Thompson Armed Forces Journal International April 1998 # Flat taxes? Bah. Posted by: Joseph Cooper on October 26, 2002 04:32 AM ---Butk eep taxes low and flat while you do it. High taxes are bad, you know. And everyone should be taxed the same, no matter how much they earn. (AdTI has graphs that prove this improves the economy.)---Income tax in general isn't as good as a salestax. You may think jacking up income tax incertain ranges is more fair, but that is jsutdemocrat propaganda. Although I do agree withflat tax in spirit, you still have to considerthat the really wealthy aren't actuallygetting money through what is normally definedas "income."Example: Bill Gates is hardly effected byincome tax since most of his money isn'tincome. 100% tax on BG wouldn't make him payhis "fair share." Only a sales tax would dothat. You think bill gates would giev a shitif they went for flat tax? He makes about 450kper year USD. But he has billions! His paycheckis only a small part of the money he gets.Income tax will never tax him fairly.Screw income tax, it could be replaced entirelywith a sales tax... Saving money means savingon taxes. Buying a 100 million dollar homewoule mean you get taxed on that. Not on alittle 450k\year income. (That is was gateshas. Most of his money is assets.)Poor households who spend little would payless tax.. And people who have lots of moneypay based on spending, no matter how they gotthe money. You can get money many ways, butspending is spending no matter how you dressit up. # And as for the artical itself Posted by: Joseph Cooper on October 26, 2002 04:36 AM Never trust "think tanks."Ever.Here's how it works. Someone gives them moneyto say "prove XYZ." They will find all theevidence they can to prove XYZ. You can do itto. You can write a 10000 word essay on whyGod is false. You can also write a 10000 wordessay on why God is true. A think tank doesthis, they just get paid. They may or may notbelieve what they are writing... # Re:Flat taxes? Bah. Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 04:55 AM Example: Bill Gates is hardly effected byincome tax since most of his money isn'tincome. 100% tax on BG wouldn't make him payhis "fair share." Only a sales tax would dothat. You think bill gates would giev a shitif they went for flat tax? He makes about 450kper year USD. But he has billions! His paycheckis only a small part of the money he gets.Income tax will never tax him fairly.You have it exactly backwards. Gates is taxed on stock he receives from the Microsoft board, and on the capital gains on that stock if it rises in price. If he buys MS stock on the open market he pays taxes on the capital gains. If he had options (which I heard he doesn't) he would be taxed on the spread when he exercised them. OTOH he spends relatively little of his income.. a nice house, a few fast cars, probably lots of cutting edge technology for his home, and not much else. His charitable donations, of course, are tax deductible. He would make out very well if the income tax were replaced by a sales tax. # Re:Flat taxes? Bah. Posted by: Joseph Cooper on October 26, 2002 05:00 AM Oh, I wasn't aware that the stocks were taxed.NEvermind, then. # Re:Flat taxes? Bah. Posted by: fitzix on October 26, 2002 06:13 AM A sales tax will ultimately end up being very similar to a flat tax because you'll still end up paying the same percentage as you would with a flat tax.It would still promote the upper class and harm the lower class.No, you really do need a scaled tax system to allow people to be able to survive on less-than-minimal wages.And if you're going to be a true republican and say that "people in the lower class don't work" guess again. I work with a lot of people who make decent money, but still far lower than what is needed to live comfortably without having to jack up our credit all of the time.A flat tax would kill us - and we almost fit into the middle class.The rich, who have more than they need, have a moral, ethical, and civic duty to give a greater percentage. No rhetoric about capitalism giving the spoils to the winner will ever change the fact that we all still live in a larger society and that the existance of that society provides the wealthy with the resources that make them wealthy in the first place.To the rich: We are the ones who make you what you are. STFU and pay your goddamn dues. # Re:Flat taxes? Bah. Posted by: Aaron Traas on October 26, 2002 03:51 PM The rich, who have more than they need, have a moral, ethical, and civic duty to give a greater percentage.Bull... this is crap. I'm graduating in June with a CS degree. I had to work damn hard to get where I was... my parents couldn't afford to pay for college, so I worked my ass off year round to pay for my own schooling and living expenses -- no help from the government. So I guess this warrants society punishing me for success. I'll make probably in the neighborhood of $60K a year starting, and I get taxed more than someone who didn't work as hard as I did to get where I am? How is that fair? If people are poor, they should get off their sorry asses and work at minimum wage for 80-90 hours a week to save up for their first year of school, like I did. Why should I pay one dime to the welfare state? Why should the results of my hard work go to people that are less successful? It shouldn't. I don't mind paying a small amount in taxes for roads, law enforcement, national defence, etc., but I do have a problem paying in to welfare, social security, or the social program of the week. It pains me to pay 1/3 of my income (which will soon be close to 1/2 of my income after graduation) to wasteful government programs that allow people to not work and still survive as a leech. # Re:Flat taxes? Bah. Posted by: fitzix on October 27, 2002 07:35 AM By making 60k a year, you barely qualify for being part of the middle class.You aren't rich by any estimate of the term. I'm not asking you to beg for anything.I'm stating that the rich have an obligation to pay more than others. That's not being punished, that's called being expected to do your part in this society.You would benefit from what I'm talking about - your taxes would lower because the rich would actually be expected to pay taxes.The fact that you think I was talking about someone in your bracket means you haven't learned enough to graduate college. Go take a half-way decent sociology class and they'll teach you about how class systems are structured.Oh yeah, and the IT industry (Which I currently work in) is in the dumps in most places because these businesses are cutting jobs to cover their dropping stock prices so that the CEOs can get their normal bonus.If you can get a job and keep it, you'll be lucky.One day, you may be one of those people crawling on the low-level because there are no jobs. Yes, this does happen. I have a cousin who's been working in the IT industry for almost 25 years. He was a VP until the insurance company he worked for liquidated 25,000 IT employees. He hasn't had a job in a year - and it's not for lack of looking.Man - get some perspective. Chances are, one day it will be you. Don't think that it can't happen - that's a utopian view. # Re:Flat taxes? Bah. Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 29, 2002 01:52 PM Unless you're going to graduate from McDonalds University, odds are the government helps support the school you attend.If you take out your wallet and have a look at the money inside it, you'll notice it was issued by the government. In fact the paper itself has very little value. The money has value because it's backed by the economic and political power of the government.If someone comes along, grabs the money out of your hand, and gets away, who will help you recover it (hopefully)? The police, a branch of the government.If someone robs the bank where you deposit your paycheck, guess who insures your money... the government. Guess who chases down the perpetrators to keep them from doing it again? Etc.If you have a dispute with your employer (suppose they refuse to pay you for your last few weeks of work), how can you make them pay? Through the justice system of the government.When you drive to work, guess who built the road? Guess where your water comes from? Guess who built the sewer you shit into?Guess who funded the research that led to much of the knowledge you hopefully are learning in school?Free market capitalism only works well in conjunction with a monetary system, a justice system, physical infrastructure, and a social context. People have been working their asses off throughout history, and only a very few have had the opportunity to graduate with degrees in Computer Science and earn 60K/year. Government didn't create that opportunity by itself (give the credit mostly to the people working their asses off) -- but government is an essential part of it. # Re:Flat taxes? Bah. Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 11:56 PM Why did you comment on something which you obviously know nothing about?A sales tax will ultimately end up being very similar to a flat tax because you'll still end up paying the same percentage as you would with a flat tax.It would still promote the upper class and harm the lower class.No, you really do need a scaled tax system to allow people to be able to survive on less-than-minimal wages.Every flax tax plan I've seen over the last 15 years or so sets a minimum starting point at around $30,000 income, and the various plans adjust this up or down. So if you make less than $30,000, you pay NO tax. You don't even have to file a return. That's it. NO TAX. If the flat tax rate is 17%, or 12% or 10% or whatever, let's say 10%, and you make $29,000, you pay NO TAX. If you make $31,000 (assuming a $30,000 starting point) you pay 10% of $1,000, or $100 in tax. What's your definition of poor? $20,000? NO TAX $30,000? NO TAX $40,000? $1,000 in tax. $50,000? $2,000 in tax. $75,000? $4,500 in tax. For someone making $75,000, $4,500 is not bad. For someone making $40,000, is that poor? well $1,000 is less than what nearly every $40,000 tax payer is paying now. For someone making $30,000, no tax is better than what the vast majority are paying now. It boils down to your definition of poor and rich. Considering the fights in Congress over the last 22 years on taxes, the dems consider a school teacher and police officer household rich. A two hamburger flipper household would pay no tax under all of the flat tax plans I've seen floated.When taxes need to be lower or raised, under a flat tax plan, they either raise or lower the rate, or raise or lower the cutoff. That's it. All calculations put together by various groups, going back to the early 80's, (and I haven't seen anything to dispute this, if it existed we would have heard about it), put's the cutoff above $30,000 in early to mid 1980 dollars. The cutoff would be higher now in today's dollars, and since there has a been a raised standard of living across the board, it would be much higher.A flat tax would kill us - and we almost fit into the middle class.The definition of middle class in all the rhetoric, and anything above the federal poverty line if you use that as the guage, would pay no tax up to the levels stated above. So "almost fit" into the middle class, a flat tax would mean you pay NOTHING. And a school teacher/police officer household would pay far less than they are being slammed with now.The rich, who have more than they need, have a moral, ethical, and civic duty to give a greater percentage. No rhetoric about capitalism giving the spoils to the winner will ever change the fact that we all still live in a larger society and that the existance of that society provides the wealthy with the resources that make them wealthy in the first place.The "rich" pay a greater amount, not percentage under a flat tax plan, but the cutoff actually does increase the percentage if you take that into account. And under the current rules, the top half of income earners pay over 90% of all taxes. Under a flat tax, Those under the cutoff would pay NO TAX. The flat tax plans being revenue neutral, that would mean that the higher income earners would pay slightly more. As for the existence of society providing the resources needed...maybe you should interview some "rich" people, and find out how they really made their money. In most every case it wasn't handed to them. They had to work really hard at making it.To the rich: We are the ones who make you what you are. STFU and pay your goddamn dues.Face reality. Whether the money was inherited, or earned by the current living individual, whomever is holding the money is holding it because of their (or their heirs) hard work, they gambled on a business venture, they came up with a great idea, or they are simply smarter than others. That's it. It's that simple. The strong and smart survive, the weak and stupid die. Not true in humans, but true of nature. As humans, we support the weak and stupid, but we don't make them rich. The opportunities available for all those willing, able, and smart enough, or talented enough, to get rich are made by themselves, not you and I. The only exceptions are lottery winners (the stupid of which are soon parted from their winnings), tort law abusers (of which the leech lawyers are smart enough to make themselves rich through legislation), etc.btw, my income is less than $10,000 for the last few years, and no, I haven't tried to collect ANY kind of government welfare/benefits, although I am sure I qualify for a lot of it. # Re:Flat taxes? Bah. Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 29, 2002 12:35 AM btw, my income is less than $10,000 for the last few years, and no, I haven't tried to collect ANY kind of government welfare/benefits, although I am sure I qualify for a lot of it.Dude. You either only work part time, or you get paid less than $4.81/hr. That comes out to $769.23/month. Most likely you live at home with your parents, because there's no way you're affording rent/food/electricity/water/other misc. necessities on that. # Re:Flat taxes? Bah. Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 27, 2002 04:02 AM You are what is known as a moron. This is all Republican bull shit. If they didn't care about income tax then they wouldn't have off shore residents for shelters. They wouldn't be going to jail in droves every year for tax evasion. I known that it must be difficult for someone of you limited mental ability to understand, but taxable income is more than just the income from a paycheck. # Re:Flat taxes? Bah. Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 27, 2002 11:33 PM > Poor households who spend little would pay> less tax..They pay less tax in absolute terms, but the tax is more punitive to them, in relative terms.Say your sales tax is 10% (I'm not American so I don't know what you earn). But imagine a poor person earns 1000 foobucks, and a rich person earns 10,000 foobucks. Both spend everything. Poor person pays 100 foobucks, and rich person pays 1000 foobucks in sales tax. Yes, poor person pays less tax.Problem is that the poor person, battling to survive, is spending a bigger percentage of _their_ income on _surviving_, and every foobuck in tax means less money to _survive_ as opposed to less money to spend on luxuries.You may ask why that's a rich person's problem. Point is that flat-rate taxes push more people below $BREADLINE, and people, poor & rich, take survival rather seriously. History has taught what happens when starving, hard-working people (as opposed to just lazy people, who presumably choose their circumstances) start running out of options in the survival game. # The old security though obscurity ploy again aye ? Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 04:42 AM I have just had a brief look at the "studies" linked to in the article and I have to say I have never read so much junk.Why does have source code disclosed may it more insecure?Have we not heard of at least 3-4 individual sucessful attacks on Microsoft's own servers using "propriatry" software.Don't more and more viruses keep getting created for Windows & other Microsoft products even though the source has not been disclosed.On Microsoft's on site they advise clients not to simply use "Security though Obscurity" methods for securing servers, yet this IMHO is exactly what closed-source software does.I believe that by having the source available makes programmers more aware that they need to code properly and even when bugs are fixed because everyone can see them they get fixed very pronto. # Less than nothing Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 06:42 AM The open source tide is flowing is so fast and inexorably that the rhetoric of that group is meaningless noise.Entire countries in the third world are now openly switching over to open source.The economic and political forces behind the wide spread adoption of open source CANNOT be stopped.These guys might as well be being paid for advocating the re-adoption of feudalism. # Good point Posted by: Mandrake Magician on October 26, 2002 08:36 AM Bad mechanism.Open source can win if it steers clear of partisan alliances. We ARE "good enough". Proprietary code and the laws enacted to defend it, hurt all pretty much evenly. Let's focus on that. And kick everybody's tail<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not just the "scapegoat of the week". # Re:Good point Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 26, 2002 09:53 AM I'm afraid Linux won't be able to steer clear of the Capitalist/Republican ire. Linux has no money and Microsoft has lots. Guess side will pay for campaigns that put pro-propriety software congress members into office? I'm sorry, but please name one office holder that considers people above corporations. Fiengold from WI is maybe the only one and Wellstone was the other. # PSA Posted by: MikeX on October 26, 2002 11:41 AM You can sign up for an account <A HREF=""http://newsforge.com/users.pl?op=newuserform">here.
// |
|
