Truth About Bills - Latest Comments

Re: It’s Easier to Cry Racism Than be Responsible

Andrew Edwards — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:52:52 -0000

Wow; so many political cliches. Do you only speak, and think, in terms of the major political narratives offered by mainstream politics? You seem to gloss over many complex historical issues in a brief, dismissive sentence. While I don't buy into the research that conservatives are less intelligent, or educated, you have lent some support to the theory that conservatives are more likely to think in black-and-white. Racism is still around, though not in the terms you have laid out above. I would suggest reading up on institutional/structural racism and the colorblind narrative which is pervasive on both sides of the political spectrum. Case in point: I do think you are very perceptive in pointing out the pandering for votes carried out by the democrats.

Re: Arlen and Rick Santorum

Marc T Grove — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:02:49 -0000

Im not sure why its Ok to call Mitt Romney a RINO but when he points out contradictions is Santorums record it somehow is dirty ? Mitt did what he had to Santorum says he did what he needed to do so lets get back to who is best suited to beat Obama, which should have been the only issue from the start

Re: Ron Paul ad attacks Rick Santorum

ddmeyers — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:25:10 -0000

Explaining Santorum's voting record does not qualify as an "attack" ad. Paul is accurately & honestly describing the disconnect between Santorum's actions & his rhetoric. Revealing the truth about Santoum's voting record exposes that he is not a fiscal conservative.

Re: NJ Gov. Chris Christie Vetoes Bill Allowing Same-Sex Marriage

Danielle Russell — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:24:05 -0000

From a political perspective (and no, this doesn't make it right), this move bolsters Christie's appeal from the right. He can now claim he's pro-"traditional" values and win plaudits from old folk who still struggle to pronounce the word gay in public, all the while sending the bill back to a referendum and claiming he was pro-libertarian by giving people the power to decide what's good for them rather than the government.

Re: Rubio delivers key Pro-Life Address

Getting A Patent — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:27:39 -0000

The Susan B. Anthony List, or simply SBA List, is a 501(c)(4) non-profit,[3] non-partisan[4] organization that seeks to eliminate abortion in the U.S.[5] by supporting pro-life politicians, primarily women,[6] through its SBA List Candidate Fund political action committee.[7][8] It has over 330,000 members.[9]

Re: Tim Geithner claims Policy Uncertainty means Nothing.

Andrew Staroska — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:02:20 -0000

This guy doesn't have a clue.

Re: H.R.822 – National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

David Darnell — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:33:21 -0000

Hey Andrew,
Do you know of any downside to this bill, anything stuffed in that would be considered detrimental to gun rights? Know of any other credible analysis? Seeing a lot of crap circulating, trying to sort it out for the enlightenment of my local activists
Thanks,
DlorenDarnell

Re: Does Your Congressman Support SOPA or PIPA?

Eric Lortie — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:22:13 -0000

I would LOVE to see a visitor log of what lobbyists went to see these political folks and on what dates... when compared to when they joined on the SOPA bandwagon.

Sure, it wouldn't surprising. But it's the type of info you never get to see because of how awful the implications are.

Re: Marines Are Always Faithful So Why Aren’t We

Rod Mollise — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:14:13 -0000

Why?

1. They dishonored the Corps by acting as a disordered rabble instead of American fighting men.

Re: SOPA May Have Woken A Sleeping Giant

Michael Simpkins — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:08:49 -0000

Now if we could only get a company like Facebook to do something like this

Re: Cinderella Story in Iowa

JQCitizen — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:02:35 -0000

Santorum's improvement in Iowa resulted largely because of Romney's attack ads on Gingrich. Romney knew that Gingrich's substantial gains in the polls both nationally and in Iowa had to be stopped or his campaign was in deep trouble.

In my opinion Gingrich had won every debate, because he displayed the intelligence, knowledge of issues, and proven ability to get a go-along-get-along Congress to act on solutions. He did not have the resources to either organize an extensively ground game nor to buy millions of dollars in ads to counter the Romney PAC claims. My hope is that that situation will change. Of all the GOP candidates, Gingrich has the skills and dedication to accomplish the work that needs to be done.

While I like positions expressed by other GOP candidates and most of them personally, their primary accomplishments are to complain and/or express dissatisfaction with the way thing were going and if in Congress propose admendments or laws which were never enacted. Gingrich, however can show a record of accomplishment.

Re: SOPA: Who’s In and Who’s Out?

Andrew Staroska — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 14:47:05 -0000

You say start somewhere. I agree, but why start with as far right as you can go. Start with a smart place not ending things without the chance to argue it.

You say it can't/won't happen but it could. Why do you think Facebook and Twitter are both against it.

Re: Cinderella Story in Iowa

Andrew Staroska — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:27:12 -0000

The term main stream social conservatives is a bit broad to say they don't like him. Most of NH indentify as social conservative among conservative polls. He does appeal to many social conservatives. Santorum is just the new Not Romney. Being not Romney isn't enough to convince me to vote for you. He needs a solid economic plan and to focus on it. Most people care more about Economic Policy in the General than they do if you approve of gay marriage.

Re: Cinderella Story in Iowa

Mark Mayberry — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:38:22 -0000

But how long has Romney been campaigning there. He has campaigned in Iowa since 2008 and he still isn't gaining anymore ground than when he started. The fact is main stream social conservatives don't like Romney

Re: Cinderella Story in Iowa

Andrew Staroska — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:50:18 -0000

By the 3 out of 4 line then 3 of 4 people didn't pick Santorum. 3 of 4 didn't pick Paul. 90% didn't pick Bachmann in her home state. Really weak argument to say Romney isn't popular because it can be shifted to fit anyone.

Re: SOPA: Who’s In and Who’s Out?

MizzBia — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:12:44 -0000

I respect your opinion. I agree that the bill could be improved (as could everything) but we need to start somewhere. Too many people are moronically speaking out against it without having a stake in this or even reading the damn bill!

And while I appreciate your elaborated response, I honestly don't believe ANY of that will happen. Facebook will never be shut down. Twitter will not go away . There will be no ISP Monopoly and the world will not start blocking U.S. sites. I think you're reaching really far with this and depending upon a lot of UN-American, economy-busting "what if's" and assuming that congress (for reasons I can't understand) would actually want/allow this to happen.

Re: SOPA: Who’s In and Who’s Out?

Michael Simpkins — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:38:12 -0000

The problem is that there really isn't much to read and the legislation is so broad it is open to interpretation. We have no problem with shutting down these sites that are illegally selling/distributing intellectual property.

The problem with the bill currently is that even though it targets websites outside of the US, people who promote links to those sites could be shut down. Example - If someone promotes a link to a site that illegally sells or distributes property on say Twitter or Facebook, technically under the bill Twitter and Facebook could be held liable. Am I saying Twitter and Facebook would get shut down because of one person.....no.....however the problem is that it is possible.

The second problem is that it could create a monopoly. This bill gives immunity to any ISP provider that "combats these illegal activities". For example what if there is a website like NBC that provides tv content from the UK, Comcast(ISP), which is owned by NBC by the way, could say that they are just stealing ideas and copying them and block their site. By the way they may not be copying it but under the bill it doesn't matter Comcast doesn't have to prove anything. So effectively it kills competition. Now you may say who cares about companies outside the US, well there is a good chance that other countries will respond to that and effectively block NBC and other content from reaching their shores which ends up hurting companies here.

I think one of the concerns with the second idea is that these supposed "illegal" sites don't have a chance to respond back. Currently right now we already have the Digital Millenium Copyright Act which in short states that if someone has copyright material on their site, the owner of that material has to go to them and tell them to take it down. If they don't then the owner of the material gets a court order to shut down the site, at which point the accused site has a specified amount of time to respond to the court order.

Please understand that we believe that this bill has a great goal of trying to stop online piracy, however, currently the legislation needs to be more specific as it is too broad currently.

Re: SOPA: Who’s In and Who’s Out?

MizzBia — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 09:58:46 -0000

Really? Care to elaborate? I hear a lot about how it will "shut down" this site and "take down" that site and that the internet is just about going to implode on itself but have yet to read one single statement that shows this to be true. This bill is going to target non-American companies who are illegally selling/distributing intellectual property and it will also hold corporations and web hosting companies responsible for the type of activity their sites engage in. Basically enforcing what is ALREADY THE LAW. If the site is dedicated to illegal activities (which Youtube, Twitter and the like are NOT) they will have much to worry about. As for everyone else, it will be business as usual.

And yes, there is a clear line regarding those opposing the bill and those for it and that it is in direct correlation with those that produce/create things and those that consume/steal.

Re: Cinderella Story in Iowa

Mark Mayberry — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:05:06 -0000

On the contrary Andrew. What Santorum proved was that you don't have to be mister money bags to win an election. He put 30,000 dollars into Iowa compared to God knows how much Romney put it. Lets not forget that 3 out of 4 people in Iowa didn't choose Romney, who I guess has become the heir apparent for the Republican party. Santorum could do much better than expected in NH. Santorum has won election in heavily blue states and is truly electable. I will be the first one to say it though, I won't vote for Romney if he gets the nomination. I will not vote for someone who is a supporter of abortion. I might as well vote for a democrat.

Re: SOPA: Who’s In and Who’s Out?

Andrew Staroska — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:19:16 -0000

The people that oppose it do so because it involves an overreach of power that could shut down parts of the internet with no cause at all. You really think it's about not producing things? IF you think that you really ignore some major reality.

Re: Cinderella Story in Iowa

Andrew Staroska — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:07:43 -0000

I still think Romney was a winner. Santorum moved his whole family there for 6 weeks before the voting started. Not to mention this isn't a huge Romney area. Paul took the I's and Romney still was able to win Social Cons.

Re: SOPA: Who’s In and Who’s Out?

MizzBia — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:05:34 -0000

Ok, so basically all the ones who DO support this are the ones who create/own/distribute intellectual property (and are collectively getting robbed blind). And of course the ones who do NOT support it are the ones who own nothing but aid in the thief/distribution of those peoples' intellectual property (and thus breaking every copyright law out there). Makes sense.

What also makes sense is the public's position: Probably 95% (or more) oppose it. Why? Because they have never created a single thing in their entire lives but rather enjoy stealing the artwork, software, games, writing, books, music, movies, photography, etc... of other people. And the 5% (or less) that do support it are simply the ones who are creating the art, applications, games, writing, books, music, movies, and pictures and therefore have a real stake in this. Personally, I think that if you've never created a damn thing in your entire life , you shouldn't have a vote in this!

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Re: SOPA: Who’s In and Who’s Out?

Michael Simpkins — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 11:35:34 -0000

We need to stop this bill.

Re: Cultural Imperialism: We WILL Make You Believe

ScrewObama — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 03:47:58 -0000

"Have you ever wondered why the Islamic world hates America Cultural Values?"

Well sir...

Have you ever wondered why Islam is currently at war in 23 different nations (e.g. India, Phillipines) - hardly any of which promote America's cultural values?

Have you ever read about Islam's unalterable goal to recreate the Caliphate? - world domination?

Are you aware of the million Westerners that Islam has kidnapped and placed into slavery over the course of 1400 years - at times, when the West wanted nothing to do with the Islamic world?

Are you aware that the D'ar Islam - the world of peace - excludes any region that is not within the control of Islam?

Are you aware that Islam means submission and Jihad has always meant violent struggle to make the world submit to Islam?

Are you aware how many of the Koran's verses explicitly devote themselves to violently killing the 'infidels'?

Apparently not.

and...
Unless the last commenter has substantial evidence for his speculation, that Islam will split into two camps, the comment has as much worth as Obama's 'hope'. IOW let's bet on it.

Re: Cultural Imperialism: We WILL Make You Believe

Andrew Staroska — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:09:11 -0000

The greater issue is that there hasn't been a reformation in Islam yet. There will be soon. You will see one side which is more concerned with peace and greater Jihad (personal jihad) and one side with lesser Jihad which is concerned with war and taking over the world. Tossing everyone under the same label doesn't do anything for us. If anything it makes us look stupid.