quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
Ooops, just lost another Linux customer. Damn, I always stick my foot in my mouth! 
Don't be silly. A good idea is a good idea, regardless of which brand of loony it comes from
quote:
Universities "created" the internet long before Gore added any of his little pieces to it. If Gore had taken the day off instead of sending that Request in, we would still be communicating on this forum as we are now. The internet would be nearly identical to what we have today so in my opinion cracking on Gore for that statement is totally justified.
No, I don't agree that the "cracking on Gore" was justified - at least, not in the way it was done.
It's true that universities (along with DARPA) "created" the internet, but the legislation he promoted went a long way towards providing the framework that made it available to the general public. Would somebody else have done it, if he hadn't? Probably... the point is, he DID promote that research legislation (and the discussion in question WAS about his service in Congress). Did Ol' Al sometimes exaggerate his influence on policies and such? Yeah - as every politician does when he or she is campaigning.
But in terms of that campaign rhetoric justifying the slams on Gore from the press, I don't think so. The point of the article I cited was that the press did not accurately report his statements... instead, they "rephrased" it into something that arguably WASN'T true (but was NOT what he said), THEN slammed him for being a liar. Same thing with the Love Canal statement and the Love Story statement and a host of others. The question in my mind is not "did Gore do as all politicians do on the campaign trail" - or even "did the opposition use his statements against him" (well duh! that's what opponents do). The question is, did those statments get fair treatment in the
press - which is charged with unbiased reporting so that citizens can make informed decisions. I don't think they did, and therefore I feel the press was derelict in its duty. (And, of course, I feel we are all paying the price for it now.)
quote:
Those sites are as biased toward Democrats as Rush Limbaugh is toward Republicans (BTW, Rush is always right!).
If he's right, I take what's left! <G> But, yeah, the sites I listed are the "left side" of the arguement. The fact is, IMHO, it's hard to find any *unbiased* press anymore. And, it's my belief (though I know you disagree) that there's precious little coverage of "liberal" views (or, more importantly for this forum, anti-corporatocracy views) in the mainstream press. The range on PBS, ABC and CBS runs the whole gamut from the far-right all the way to the center. And the range on FOX, NBC, and MSNBC (and CNN, at least since the "war on terra" started) runs the whole gamut from right to far-far-far right.
quote:
But I digress, this is a M$ haters club not a political forum... Peace?
Always. My dad is probably just as conservative as you are, and I *love* him - so, I certainly ought to be able to at least tolerate you. <G> And I know this is a M$ hater's forum, and normally wouldn't have brought politics into it... but, in my mind, Gates' activities are just pieces of of the larger puzzle (or should I say, maze) that is the "corporate cronyism" of Capitol Hill and the White House. As I've said before, I think it's great that the person that builds a better mouse-trap has the opportunity to succeed in our country. I think it's despicable that corporations (like M$) can use their wealth and power to rig the system so that the better-moustrap builder is shut out of that opportunity - which, as we've seen in the case of M$, leads to a situation where it doesn't MATTER how good M$'s products are, because there isn't any alternative to them. (Yes, I know there really are alternatives, but to the average consumer, the system is rigged so that there certainly *appears* to be no alternative - and that's all M$ needs to extend its "monopoly" of the market.)
My underlying philosophy about capitalism (and the thing that makes most people call me a liberal) is that, if corporations have the same rights as "persons" under our laws, they should be treated like persons when it comes to responsibilities and restrictions too. Our laws don't allow a *person* to blackmail us, or beat us up and take our "stuff", or poison our well, or prevent us from exercising our constitutional rights, why should our laws allow corporations to do it?
quote:
P.S. I didn't mean for my comments to upset you but I should have known better.
Oh, I'm not all that upset. I'm just mystified at how you can see the wrongs of M$ so clearly, and not see that Bush's policies will foster MORE wrongs just like it.
quote:
P.S.S. Are there any other Democrats that you will allow me to take shots at since Billy - the draft dodger - Clinton is old news? Lieberman is probably off limits since he lost (and I can't help but think of the guy who played the father on that old TV show "ALF" when I see him speak). How about Dick Gephardt, he's my favorite democrat (not)? I'm sorry, once I find the tickle spot I like to keep tickling.
Hmm, lessee... Well, first of all, feel free to take pot-shots at "Holier-than-thou" Lieberman (and lately, "Hawkier-than-thou"). And Gephardt? Well, he's turned into a wimp. I didn't agree with everything he espoused (I'm not as liberal as you think I am) - but he *used* to passionately defend his liberal principles. That was something I could respect. Now he's falling all over himself not to criticize the pResident. I firmly believe that our democracy works best when passionate advocates of different philosophies ALL have a chance to influence our policy. That doesn't happen when one side unilaterally disarms. As that great Republican President Eisenhower said:
quote:
Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels--men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, May 31, 1954
Oh, yeah, and feel free to have at Gary Condit too. I think the man's a sleazeball. Torch isn't my favorite Democrat, and Trafficant...? PULEEZE!
quote:
P.S.S.S Don't take polotics "too" seriously.
I know that "polotics" was just a typo - but when I read it, my minds eye read "plot-itics" - which seems to me to be as accurate as any other description of what goes on these days.
Karen
[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Karen ]
[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Karen ]
