I don't want to see Microsoft broken up
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Skapare Mar 26, 2006 1:21 PM EDT |
It would be like moon dust getting in everything and clogging up the works. |
| tadelste Mar 26, 2006 1:50 PM EDT |
I want to see Microsoft broken up. It should have already happened but your friend George Bush got lobbied so hard by Ralph Reed that when Bush took office they back off. Break them up. |
| grouch Mar 26, 2006 2:22 PM EDT |
tadelste: I have never been able to figure out the justification the appeals court used for tossing out the judgment against Microsoft. A judge talks to reporters so the court allows the basis of years of criminal activity to continue? After that we have the (alleged) Depart of Justice _winning_ a case and suddenly wanting to strike a deal with the defeated criminal. The deal lets the criminal take part in overseeing the criminal activity, and decide, unilaterally, whether any particular part of the "punishment" may be ignored. It's no wonder that OEMs have been tripping over each other since 2002 to be the first to offer other operating systems pre-installed. |
| jimf Mar 26, 2006 2:30 PM EDT |
Quoting:I have never been able to figure out the justification the appeals court used for tossing out the judgment against Microsoft. Lol... No kidding. |
| tadelste Mar 26, 2006 2:56 PM EDT |
M-O-N-E-Y to get GWB elected and to help him win S. Carolina where my brothers (in spirit) believed they were voting for a man of faith. They want to put his Library three blocks from my house. There goes the neighborhood. OK, I've written a lot of articles on the Ralph Reed-Jack Abramoff-Preston Gates-BSA-GOP connections. Why else would the verdict go away? Can you think of a plausible reason? M-O-N-E-Y! |
| Skapare Mar 26, 2006 9:20 PM EDT |
Maybe it can be investigated when Clinton is back in the White House. |
| grouch Mar 26, 2006 10:52 PM EDT |
Checks and balances only work when there is a difference in thinking among the various parts of the U.S. federal government. When each branch acts as a rubber-stamp for each other branch, it leads to a government of itself and for itself. We have 2 parties: incumbents and non-incumbents. We need to keep shuffling the members of those two parties so that they understand they are temp workers and so that they do not have time to sell their services to the bidders that we can't match. |
| jdixon Mar 27, 2006 5:21 AM EDT |
> We need to keep shuffling the members of those two parties so that they understand they are temp workers and so that they do not have time to sell their services to the bidders that we can't match. I'd suggest something more radical than that. Make congress an assigned position, chosen by random lottery. Every qualified citizen's name gets put in the hat, and the unlucky winner has to go to Washington for 2 or 6 years to serve his fellow citizens. Sort of like the draft with no option of serving multiple terms. |
| number6x Mar 27, 2006 5:57 AM EDT |
jdixon, Your suggestion would solve the problem of giving too much power to the political parties that term limits cause, but it would essentially turn the country into a nation run by the bureaucracy. Think about it, every two years Washington gets flooded with eager young congress critters, fresh off their service lottery ‘wins’ to serve their term. They show up in D.C. scratching their heads, wondering what to do. Well don’t worry the Congressional staff is there to guide them and show them. All of their problems and conflicts will be resolved if the just follow the plan. We would pretty much be giving up any representational government and giving control to the bureaucrats that live and work in government full time. This is why political parties are so keen on automatic term limits. If we limited all politicians to one or two terms, the non-elected parties would hold the real power. Politicians would not be able to build up the war chests of campaign funds for themselves, and would instead have to go to the party for financial backing and campaign foot soldiers. The candidates would become cogs in a machine, disposed of and replaced like party officials in the old Soviet states. If a particular Congress member proved highly popular, they might make the cut and get run for the Senate position for their party, but only if they were a good party member and not a trouble maker. Oh, there might still be a few billionaires who finance their own campaigns. Like the former Senator from Illinois, Peter Fitzgerald. He was a Republican and kept promoting fiscal responsibility, ethics reform, and a lot of real law and order stuff. His strong stance on these issues made him very unpopular with the current administration, he was considered a trouble maker and often demonized by the talk show media. Although Peter Fitzgerald is not related to the federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, He is the Senator who nominated Patrick Fitzgerald for the position. He nominated him based on his record, not on his work for the party. Patrick Fitzgerald is the prosecutor in the Abrahamoff trial. Compare that to the head of FEMA who was nominated to his position because he was a good party fund raiser. No, the solution is really simpler than you think. People actually have to start voting. And they have to vote based on the strengths and weaknesses of individual candidates. They have to vote the bad ones out of office and keep the good ones in as long as they stay effective. Automation of the process with term limits or mandatory random service is not the solution. Participation is the solution. |
| jdixon Mar 27, 2006 6:23 AM EDT |
> Well don’t worry the Congressional staff is there to guide them and show them. This assumes you have a continuous duty Congressional staff. There's no reason we should have one now, and no reason to have one in the future. However, I agree that the entreched bureaucracy is and will continue to be a problem. > People actually have to start voting. And they have to vote based on the strengths and weaknesses of individual candidates. I've seen no evidence that anyone who can make it through the party system is actually worth voting for, nor any evidence that this can change (for example, I don't see the Republicans ever again allowing a Reagan to make it through the system). And given how the parties stack the deck against third party candidates, I don't see them as a viable alternative either (I'll continue to vote third party, but I don't expect them to win). So, if you expect voting to actually change anything, you're probably going to be disappointed. Personally, I see the existing process continuing and resulting in the eventual economic collapse of the US, probably ushering in a totalitarian state. Hopefully I'm wrong. |
| jimf Mar 27, 2006 7:26 AM EDT |
grouch said:
Quoting:We need to keep shuffling the members of those two parties so that they understand they are temp workers and so that they do not have time to sell their services to the bidders that we can't match. Makes no difference... The two party system stopped working long ago. This is just the same snake with a different head. ------- number6x, sorry to burst your bubble, but the country already 'is' a bureaucracy. Look around you ;-). ------- jdixon, That's pretty much my assessment too. Far to late for the voters to do much of anything. All those years of defaulting the vote have finally caught up and lately, it is like "we have seen the enemy, and they is us." |
| sharkscott Mar 27, 2006 7:43 AM EDT |
There is only one party in this country, republican and yet to be elected republican. There will never be another democratic President, why? Because all a republican has to do to get elected is say "Gay Marriage, if you don't vote for me there will be men kissing in church." Every conservative in this country will vote for that person, regardless of political affiliation. One party, one branch, one people. Simple isn't it? Just the way they like it. |
| number6x Mar 27, 2006 8:01 AM EDT |
Jimf, I live in Chicago, the city that works. We have no problem with our government. Benevolent dictatorships aren't really too bad, once you get the retraining and therapy treatments ! :) |
| theboomboomcars Mar 27, 2006 8:03 AM EDT |
Sounds like its time to revolt. |
| jimf Mar 27, 2006 8:15 AM EDT |
number6x, I lived in Chicago for 30 years, and I know just how well it 'works', and how 'Benevolent' it is. Kenosha may not work much better, but at least in WI they don't tax the food :-). |
| number6x Mar 27, 2006 8:24 AM EDT |
Yeah tell me about it. I took me 13 months to get a permit to add a dormer to my house. I actually obeyed the law and did it all the correct way. At every level, at least one person let me know there were easier ways, all it would take is cash. I remeber sitting in our alderman's office with my pregnant wife. The alderman asked us why we needed more room? She could see that my wife was pregnant. Her office helpers were the ones who would offer to "expedite" the permit process for us. My wife and I enjoyed working against that alderman in her bid for re-election. Her defeat was especially rewarding. What goes around comes around. We were not the only people fed up with her! It works if we participate and stick to our principles. |
| jimf Mar 27, 2006 8:30 AM EDT |
Well, that is true on most 'local' government levels. But, I've got to say that it's much less intense living up here. I've never regreted making the move. |
| number6x Mar 27, 2006 8:38 AM EDT |
My dad lives just west of Kenosha county, on Powers lake. He's just about a stone's throw from the county line. Nice country, I hope all the development does't ruin it. |
| NoDough Mar 27, 2006 9:20 AM EDT |
My belief is that the party system is the source of the problem. Why should we, as constituents, be limited to only two viable candidates? Why should the Democratic and Republican parties be written into our laws? How much power have they gained by limiting our choices? An excerpt from President George Washington's farewell address http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=15&page=tr... ... Quoting:I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. |
| tadelste Mar 27, 2006 10:43 AM EDT |
Quoting:Maybe it can be investigated when Clinton is back in the White House. Clinton? Nope. But John McCain? Now, you have something. Do you think he will forget Ralph Reed and Microsoft in South Carolina from the 2000 campaign? Revenge is best served cold. |
| Sysop Mar 27, 2006 12:56 PM EDT |
Hello. I'm currently monitoring this site and will henceforth. While we do not want to have the appearance of policing the site or restraining creative thought, we will work within certain guidelines as do most news organizations. Based on our terms of service, most of these posts are prohibited from the site. I will act in accordance with our terms of service and moderate these posts in the future. If you did not read our terms of service when you signed up, then let's look at an excerpt.: Do not place any material on our service that could be considered offensive, indecent, abusive, hateful, harassing, libelous, profane, vulgar or unlawful. Our audience tends to be professional in nature, and we have the right, but not the obligation, to remove, edit, or relocate any content that we feel violates the standards of our site. Because of the real-time nature of our forums, it is not always possible for us to remove offensive material immediately. Also: Discussion and debate of a political or religious nature is not allowed on the site. Discussions exist on the web site in the comments section. Any political or religious debate occurring here will face moderation in the future. No one has immunity from the terms of service including editors, authors and moderators. If you have a political statement which you wish to make, use the article submission form. Otherwise, you can expect deletion of comments. You can reach me through internal email if you have any comments. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!