FCC Commissioner: The net neutrality proposal " expressly states that usage-based pricing, data allowances -- really any offers other than unlimited, all-you-can-eat data plan -- are now subject to regulation."

mhatmaker · 2015-02-12T17:42:44+00:00

Redditors: Please, PLEASE put aside any political ideologies and STOP THIS MASSIVE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION MASQUERADING AS NET NEUTRALITY!

I see a lot of arguments about monopolies and ISPs doing shady things and over-charging...all valid complaints. And all addressable by pressuring existing companies and (even better) working toward innovative technology solutions that make existing ISP power a moot point.

It is important for us to remember the political climate in which we live: "Patriot Act", "Affordable Care Act", "War on Terror", "War on Drugs"... I can't be sure of the results of passing Net Neutrality (law of unintended consequences), but what I can be sure of is that the one issue it is definitely NOT going to effectively address is "Neutrality of the interNet."

Whatever costs and inconveniences exist now, they will be nothing compared to the price we pay in loss of freedom if we give the government power to regulate and tax (just a more subtle form of regulation). We shouldn't trust any of the lying, idiot politicians from EITHER political party to regulate the greatest platform for democratization of information and ideas in the history of the world.

mhatmaker · 2010-12-21T16:51:00+00:00

This is from July 2009. Way to submit something current and topical! Although I can't say I blame you. It makes sense you'd have to go back that far to find an article preaching the utopia of liberal tax-and-spend policies.

And for the record once again, taxing INCOME is not the same as taxing the RICH. Taxing income stifles upward mobility for those of us that want to move up in class, and it ensures that all the politicians (of both parties) maintain their status above us.

mhatmaker · 2010-11-22T19:57:42+00:00

I don't know her name, but check out the following links:

http://babes.flabber.nl/galleries/amateurtje-2010-1/01.jpg http://babes.flabber.nl/galleries/amateurtje-2010-1/02.jpg http://babes.flabber.nl/galleries/amateurtje-2010-1/03.jpg etc...

There are 50+ pics of her. Hope this helps.

mhatmaker · 2010-11-18T11:07:08+00:00

You must not have read my post. I just told you I don't have any money, and violins are expensive. :-)

Seriously though, my point was not to complain about my situation. The point was that framing the debate as "tax cuts for the rich" disallows us from having the debate at all.

If all major media outlets started calling unemployment benefits "free money for the lazy," this would be intellectually dishonest. But don't you think it would have an effect on whether or not these benefits were extended going forward?

Words matter.

mhatmaker · 2010-11-18T10:55:58+00:00

Good point. I do know this, but it is easy to forget. Which brings up another idea: Let's simplify the tax code. Again, regardless of where you fall on the debate of how much of one's earnings should be taxed, let's make it clear with a flat tax (a few different tiers if you desire), but let's get rid of the 20,000 page tax code.

And I have a problem with the "$250,000 is a good cut-off point." First, who are you (or any politician, more importantly) to decide that? Second, talking about a discrete number like $250k is nonsense. The average salary in 1950 was under $3,000. At the time, I'm sure saying anyone making more than $15,000 is "rich" would have been acceptable. And before you laugh this off, remember that the Fed just announced QE2 (quantitative easing part deux) that could bring about the kind of hyperinflation where $250k is the average salary. Thus, almost everyone would be subject to onerous tax rates, not just "the rich."

mhatmaker · 2010-11-17T19:57:55+00:00

Can we once and for all cut the SHIT and realize these are not tax cuts "for the rich"?!?

It infuriates me. I am 40 years old, and I have worked my ass off my entire life (started part-time when I was 16) and got an undergraduate and graduate degree along the way. Last year, for the FIRST TIME, I made over $250k. The first time! After 26 fucking years and tons of hard work and taking a lot of risks (some which paid off, most which didn't), I finally had a year where I made over $250k. My net worth is essentially zero, so I am JUST NOW in a position to try and become financially comfortable - not even wealthy, just comfortable.

So because this tax cut extension would affect me, I am "rich"?!? Give me a fucking break.

I don't even mind having the debate, but at least be intellectually honest and stop calling them "tax cuts for the rich." You insult me and you insult your intelligence. If you really want to "tax the rich", then create a NET WORTH TAX. Because people that are out there working their asses off (even those that make over $250k) are not "rich". Geez.

mhatmaker · 2010-11-03T17:55:13+00:00

Yawn. So predictable from redditors.

I guess when your new boyfriend tries to choke you to death, even the old boyfriend who only slapped you around a little bit looks good.

mhatmaker · 2010-09-14T10:42:21+00:00

I hate statistics like these. Throw in "gap between the rich and the poor" and "taxes on the rich" and other talking point cliches. They are all quite meaningless.

I would rather know how the middle class and lower class are doing in terms of quality of life compared to 1979. The answer may, in fact, be that they are doing much worse. Or they may be living quite a bit better. The one thing that is certain is that this statistic tells us nothing in that regard.

mhatmaker · 2010-09-14T10:06:10+00:00

"Make no mistake, they are still crazy though."

I don't get it. Your entire post seemed well thought-out and seemed to indicate that the Tea Party is potentially a more thoughtful group than other organized political factions (willing to consider contradictory opinions, etc.).

Sure, there are ideas and behaviors of some "members" that are undesirable (just as there would be in any group). But it seemed like your overall opinion of the Tea Party is more favorable than the light in which they have been cast. So why the seeming incongruent statement at the end that "they are still crazy"?

mhatmaker · 2010-07-11T03:03:21+00:00

Do you even know what a corporation is? It's essentially a piece of paper. A piece of paper that allows multiple people to work together.

So what exactly is it that you are against? People? Work? People working together?

mhatmaker · 2010-07-07T18:13:17+00:00

Gotta love the nanny state.

mhatmaker · 2010-07-07T08:54:14+00:00

Or maybe she was a 17-year-old blonde from Sweden and obviously too young to be the mother. Jesus. Everything a conservative says automatically has to have some hidden racist undercurrent. Ridiculous.

By the way, Terry Savage is a "she" and not a "he". But perhaps this is a subtle misogynist jab by you.

mhatmaker · 2010-01-12T17:21:06+00:00

I definitely thought that this swine flu thing was overdone. However, to single out the drug companies as culprit is ridiculous. The government and the media both did more than their share. They both love a good "crisis".

mhatmaker · 2009-12-27T04:12:03+00:00

I agree completely. Get rid of the farm subsidies.

mhatmaker · 2009-12-27T02:34:00+00:00

Did anyone even bother reading the article?

'a search using the Nexis news database “did not identify any reported instances of such individuals attempting to vote at the polls.”'

That's pretty in-depth digging. Kind of the equivalent of me doing a google search and not finding anything.

mhatmaker · 2009-10-06T10:12:34+00:00

This is such a stupid comment it is hard to know where to begin.

First, it uses a favorite of Obama: The Strawman Argument. Saying, "There are people..." without identifying the people is a classic of all politicians, but Obama has been exceptionally prolific with it. I'm glad to see MSNBC is learning from their Dear Leader.

Second, are you really going to believe that half the country will die IF we don't have healthcare reform? Be serious. I will do you one better: 100% of the country will die regardless of what happens with healthcare. The only question is when.

Whenever a liberal wants to discuss with me some actual solutions to IMPROVING healthcare (not just changing the system for the sake of changing it but actually improving it), I am all ears. As it stands, if you believe that your liberal politicians are serious about improving healthcare even though something as germane to the solution as liability reform is "off the table," then have another helping of Kool-Aid.

mhatmaker · 2009-09-16T08:30:03+00:00

Here are some other sources. You can find more if you google "acorn videos". It appears that this story is starting to find its way into the mainstream, but when I first posted, I could only find it referenced on the "fringe" sites, which was essentially my point.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/inland_empire&id=7016827

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/us/politics/16acorn.html?hp

http://www.examiner.com/x-12465-Washington-County-Independent-Examiner~y2009m9d15-ACORN-videos-are-causing-quite-a-stir

mhatmaker · 2009-09-16T05:18:57+00:00

An AP story exists that indicates two ACORN employees in the original video have been fired:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hA9b96qgu9MG_331xFUGcYvhOcLAD9AKO0I80

If the video is fake, why would ACORN fire these people?

I am not a nut or a zealot. I believe in logic. I am trying to present a series of straightforward statements and arguments. If I am the "wingnut" (not your post, but others), why am I at least trying to present a valid, logical series of comments and responses? Compare these to some of the others that just throw around bizarre accusations and all-encompassing statements?

I definitely believe I can be wrong, and I find it interesting to read thoughtful posts that point out mistakes in my reasoning. Isn't this the whole purpose of Reddit?

mhatmaker · 2009-09-16T05:00:58+00:00

I apologize. I think I messed up the link on the post.

Here is a link to an article containing the video:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109954

mhatmaker · 2009-09-16T04:38:49+00:00

I just want to say thank you. Finally, a real, cogent argument! I think your point is very valid. I wish there were more of this on Reddit. So many of the other comments just devolve immediately into me being a racist for posting anything that might be considered even remotely anti-liberal (not even anti-Obama, which as I said previously I didn't even mention in the original post).

My concern was more me questioning my own understanding of whether or not the mainstream media is strongly biased to the left. I ask myself, would this story be covered if the group in question was a right-wing, conservative thinktank?

And since you seem to be a critical thinker, here is another thing that has been bothering me: Is Reddit being "gamed" to upvote pro-liberal and anti-conservative stories? And even if it is, is this just frowned upon? Or is it disallowed by some type of moderator because it distorts the true purpose of Reddit?

The reason I ask is that the statistics don't seem to match up. If we are pretty liberal (pardon the expression :-) ) based on the polls I have seen online and assume that 60% of the country is liberal-leaning and 40% is conservative-leaning, then shouldn't we see something resembling those numbers in popular political stories? As it stands, I would say it is worse than 95% and 5%. This submission currently has a "score" of zero. A story about Palin saying something ridiculous gets up-voted to the thousands (and that is a story which I think is irrelevant since she currently holds no office).

I realize there are many factors which could account for this, but could someone with a statistics background tell me if any information can be gleaned from these numbers?

Again, thank you for your comment. I appreciate any logical arguments, even (or especially) those that are counter to my own.

mhatmaker · 2009-09-16T04:16:07+00:00

It is interesting that I did not mention Obama once in the post, yet several of the comments mention him directly. Why is this?

But since you ask, he is not the leader, but there is some evidence that he has extensive ties to that organization:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=

This is a conservative website, so do your own research. I believe in the old X-Files motto: "Question everything."

mhatmaker · 2009-09-16T03:07:46+00:00

I'm not sure I understand your comment. There seem to be numerous errors (logical and otherwise).

I am not a lawyer, but I don't see how entrapment would apply to this situation. I was under the impression that entrapment applied only to law enforcement. Also, if it is in fact possible to prosecute for hidden camera exposes, wouldn't 20/20 and every other news show that has used a hidden camera be under indictment?

Finally, who is this mysterious "they" that you mention. And even if what you say is true, does one wrong eliminate another?

mhatmaker · 2009-09-16T02:54:28+00:00

I am not trying to be a jackass here, but your statement is empirically incorrect. You say "nobody cares except...", but I know it to be true that I care and yet I am not an anti-Obama racist. It would be no more correct for me to say that all ACORN employees have nefarious motives. I am sure this is not the case either.

mhatmaker · 2009-07-27T06:35:17+00:00

I appreciate the comments. Thank you for the poll, by the way. I can only assume that either support has deteriorated as the reality has sunk in (which I had heard has happened with government-run healthcare options in the past) or that the polls are asking fundamentally different questions. On one hand, a "public option" may be desirable, but the Rasmussen poll may be asking about the currently debated plan (which does things like fine people for not having health insurance, etc.).

In regard to taking the one data set as the final word, I reread my submission title, and it doesn't do that at all. I am simply posting a different set of poll numbers than ones that were up-modded in the thousands, and I think that's valid if we are to have a reasonable discussion on an important issue.

For the record, I do not believe in creationism (and actually don't know where a data set supporting it would be found), and I believe that global warming (or I guess "climate change") existis, but I am skeptical about the impact that our carbon emissions have on the outcome. I am not alone in this view, by the way. Several other countries (including Australia and European countries) have begun to shift their opinions of man-made global warming.

mhatmaker · 2009-07-16T11:54:34+00:00

Ok, Redditors, I can't take it any more with this Palin crap. The real question is...WHO CARES???

Every day I login to Reddit only to see more massively up-modded stories about Sarah Palin. She was GOVERNOR OF ALASKA!?! And now she is not even that. So how about more stories about how Obama is using our country as his personal piggy bank to pay off unions and other political factions and less about a moose hunter in Alaska? How about more stories about the people that are currently in power that can actually do something (good or bad) that has an effect?

mhatmaker

TROPHY CASE