Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Congressman Wants YouTube Video Covered Up

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the played-by-ben-afleck-I-hope dept.

Censorship 884

Hugh Pickens writes "Wisconsin Republicans claim that no one else can republish a video of United States Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI) complaining about how he is 'struggling' to get by on his $174,000 salary without their permission, even though they originally released the video on YouTube for the whole world to see. Now the GOP is trying to take legal action to stop anyone else from republishing the video. The tape caused a stir for Duffy, a first-term conservative best known for his past as a reality TV show star on MTV's The Real World after Democrats flagged the comments about his taxpayer-funded salary, which is nearly three times the median income in Wisconsin, and criticisms began to flow Duffy's way. Here's a one-minute clip, excerpted from roughly 45 minutes of video of the public Duffy townhall, that the Polk County GOP doesn't want anyone to see."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ah, the Republican Party ... (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679820)

... champion of traditional American values like free speech and personal responsibility!

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679866)

Even though I personally think the Republican party is worse there is little integrity from any political party right now. They are for openness until it runs against their own interests then they are against it. They want cuts until it hurts their re-election in their district. They will take any side they are paid to take. Our system has totally broken down and is beginning to resemble the systems that people in the middle east are currently protesting about. It's very sad... the whole thing is going to hell.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679956)

They will take any side they are paid to take

any side ? you mean corporations and high income people ?

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (1, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680024)

Don't forget Unions and people getting social services. Social services are one step away from paying cash for votes.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (3, Interesting)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680168)

Exactly

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse doe to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. ~ Alexander Tyler, 1787

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (1)

kmoorman (873896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680220)

Corporate spending on elections IS paying cash for votes. The corporations pay the cash and the elected officials vote accordingly.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680288)

Not necessarily. All three of my Mom's siblings in Appalachia are on Social Security Disability. All of them are lifetime Republicans. And one of them used to be a trucker in the Teamster's union. I predict they will keep voting Republican even if Republicans cut their one-and-only income. They are stubborn and stupid. They, and thousands like them, go against your paying for votes claim.

Paying for votes does work pretty reliably in the other direction. Marsha Blackburn of Net Neutrality fame rakes in gobs of money from AT&T. Ever see her vote against against At&T's interests? No and you never will.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35679962)

It has always been like this, but thanks to a very large series of tubes we know a lot more about just how broken it is.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680020)

The Democrats have done plenty of nasty stuff, to be sure, but I honestly can't think of anything they've done lately, all on their own, that's so blatantly anti-American as this. It's not Duffy's statement itself that gets me, as dumb as it is, as the attempt to use legal means to remove information that's already been deliberately released to the public, which is the exact definition of censorship. The Wikileaks frenzy is similar, but that's a bipartisan madness. This one is all on the Republicans.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (-1, Troll)

tacokill (531275) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680154)

The Democrats have done plenty of nasty stuff, to be sure, but I honestly can't think of anything they've done lately, all on their own, that's so blatantly anti-American as this.

I'll take a shot: Have you heard of Obamacare?

When you are so sure "your side" is right, that usually means it's time to look in the mirror. It reveals more about yourself than it does anything else....

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (1)

Kagato (116051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680178)

Name a way the so-called "Obamacare" has personally affected you or someone you know.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680228)

My understanding from reading republican blogs and forwarded emails is that it got shoved down their throat, causing serious esophagus damage.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680256)

Know anyone who is unemployed?

Q.E.D.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (4, Informative)

rthille (8526) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680276)

Well, it allowed me to keep my daughter on my (from work) health insurance even though she's graduated high school... So, I'm in favor.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (1)

biek (1946790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680210)

I'll take a shot: Have you heard of Obamacare?

They didn't do that one all on their own, they needed the GOP to hold their hand every step of the way so they could say it was a bipartisan effort to 'reach across the aisle' and compromise.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680234)

I'll take a shot: Have you heard of Obamacare?

AKA, Romneycare? When you're doing nothing but parroting talking points, it means it's too late to look in the mirror.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680254)

The Democrats have done plenty of nasty stuff, to be sure, but I honestly can't think of anything they've done lately, all on their own, that's so blatantly anti-American as this.

I'll take a shot: Have you heard of Obamacare?

When you are so sure "your side" is right, that usually means it's time to look in the mirror. It reveals more about yourself than it does anything else....

You know as a European looking in ObamaCare is the best thing your government has done in years.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (0)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680292)

Good point! Taking care of the less fortunate is totally anti-American.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (0)

MichaelKristopeit408 (2018816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680238)

the attempt to use legal means to remove information that's already been deliberately released to the public, which is the exact definition of censorship.

uh.... actually, it's the exact definition of copyright.

you're an idiot.

Working as planned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680078)

The system isn't broken at all. On the contrary, it's working exactly as designed -- not by "the people", but by the executives who run the business of government.

Did anyone really expect any differently? The people who run the business of government work precisely for themselves, just like anybody else. Without strict limits on the scope of government, measured both in revenue and power over the people, government is absolutely guaranteed to get bigger and bigger until corruption is the norm rather than the exception.

Homosexual-Liberal agenda (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35679884)

The not so hidden Democrat platform.

Re:Homosexual-Liberal agenda (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680004)

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Seriously, liberal and homosexual are good things.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35679886)

Are we thinking of the same Stupid Party? I think the Dead Elephant Cult only funds campaigns where the candidates meet minimum requirements for flip-flopping, back-tracking and hypocrisy.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (2)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680040)

^^ Which is why it's so funny how they and their lapdogs kept up this "flip-flopper" bullshit during John Kerry's campaign.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680280)

The fun thing about American politics that republicans have discovered is this: It doesn't matter is a smear is true, it definetly doesn't matter if it's hypocritical, as long as you repeat an ambiguous one or two key accusations, they'll stick.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (1, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679972)

Don't forget that the Democrats have the same championship, really.

Neither side gets an out on this one. And I'd be pissed about someone being so damned wasteful that they're "struggling" on more money than I'm making. If you can't friggin' make do with $174k/yr (and maybe even, God forbid, SAVE money....) then perhaps you should re-evaluate your lifestyle within that budget.

And, I've heard the same damn whining and trying to cover up for that lapse of good judgement by the party in question with the Democrats. In truth, they're naught but flip sides of the same problematic coin. A bad penny that keeps turning up on you.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (1)

DeadTOm (671865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680050)

Ya, I hate the republican party but the Dems are no better. They refuse to hold their ground on anything, completely spineless. The system IS completely broken and like it or not, the USA is a corporate state now. The will of the people is totally irrelevant, the only will that matters is that of large corporations.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680236)

Ya, I hate the republican party but the Dems are no better. They refuse to hold their ground on anything, completely spineless. The system IS completely broken and like it or not, the USA is a corporate state now. The will of the people is totally irrelevant, the only will that matters is that of large corporations.

In my opinion, the Dems* are in a nasty Catch-22 there, one which I'm fully convinced the Pubs* intentionally invoked. One of the major reasons we hate the Republican party is their stubbornness, arrogance, and complete refusal to admit wrongdoing or to allow outside opinions to affect them. They will it to be so, and they expect reality to conform. No apologies, no compromises, no debates outside of "how WRONG is your opinion compared to ours, on a scale of 'Wrong' to 'Socialist'?".

Thus, the Democrats want to avoid that entire appearance. So they promote debate, they promote listening to dissenting opinions, they have people in their ranks who disagree with the party base and AREN'T made to be political outcasts by their fellow party members. All nice and good, except that the Republicans' aforementioned arrogance, combined with the "them vs. us" black-and-white binary mentality their spin doctors have spread to stupid people, causes them to refuse to follow the Democrats anywhere that might make their own party look weak (read: wrong), just to maintain their air of complete overconfidence. But the Democrats can't fight back that way, else their own voter base would turn on them, as many of them turned Democrat to AVOID that bullshit in the first place. So THEY appear weak to stupid people, of which there are far, far more than people willing to engage in actual, rational discussion.

I'm not saying the Republicans are always wrong, nor that the Democrats are always right. What I AM saying is that the Republicans have an attitude that sees things as "always wrong" and "always right" and want to trumpet that over the Democrats' diplomacy at any point they can.

*: I hate those abbreviations. They sound like we're turning them into baseball teams.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (0)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680094)

Some Democrats have been bought by special interests, but ALL Republicans have. Democrats are still by far the lesser of two evils. Republicans have recently taken off the mask and let us all see the elitist, middle-class-hating monsters they really are.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680122)

And, I've heard the same damn whining and trying to cover up for that lapse of good judgement by the party in question with the Democrats.

Can you cite a recent example where a Democrat elected to national office said something really dumb which (a) was deliberately propagated by the Democratic Party, and then (b) the party tried to use legal means to make "unhappen" once they realized how dumb it was? The first happens all the time -- they're politicians, after all -- but the second is what makes it really scary.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680274)

This is why my slant is currently slightly towards the Democrats.

They aren't using the "big lie" strategy... at least not right now. The Republicans are currently in a mode (and have been for 10 years) where they repeat falsehoods over and over and claim ignorance. However I am pretty sure the Democrats, as much as they would prefer to keep falsehoods out of the debate and keep it factual, are going to have to deploy the same strategy just to keep up.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35679974)

Meh, politics aside I'm pretty sure we all know that if you own a video, you own it and can decide others shouldn't repost. We see this with music videos and such all the time. And yes, even if you once had a copy on YouTube. So I'm not sure this deserves a censorship tag, or that it's news. Unless of course we're just straight-up posting political opinion now.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680036)

they guy put it on utube himself ... that makes it 'freeware', no ?

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680134)

Well, no.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (3, Insightful)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680068)

Ever here of fair use?

Fair use, a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use [wikipedia.org]

This could easily count as commentary, criticism, or maybe even news reporting.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680090)

Correction, I meant "Ever hear of fair use?"

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680116)

Public figure, fair use, you are simply wrong.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680290)

The funny thing is the video (or rather the clip provided) isn't nearly as bad as chasing everyone to take the video down. I'd guess he doesn't make more than most any congressman, and he was talking about having tried to reduce his own pay. I didn't get, "omg poor me" from the statements, "I'm not living high on the hog, I drive a used minivan, have 7 kids and pay my mortgage on my one income" [paraphrased].

As usual, the damning part is trying to hide it. That makes it sound infinitely more sinister than what was actually in the video.

Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... (5, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680010)

... champion of traditional American values like free speech and personal responsibility!

The difference between the Democrats and Republicans - In a nutshell:

When the Democrats do something stupid, it's because it's expected from the diverse, working class roots they largely come from.

When the Republicans do something stupid, they deny it happened at all and is a liberal conspiracy.

The hypocrisy of Walkeristan, exposed. (5, Insightful)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679834)

It's OK if you use FOIA to threaten academics, but it's not OK if the GOP gets caught with their pants down?

Clarification (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679880)

State open records act, and FOIA where relevant.

yah, good luck with that. (1, Interesting)

mozumder (178398) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679838)

GO back to your free-market corporation.

WE liberals will go ahead and continue to run government according to socialist principles.

The less freedom-loving libertarians, the better. (hint: it's because freedom is code-word for corporate control.)

Re:yah, good luck with that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35679900)

hint - No it's not. You do understand that Corporations BY DEFINITION are given legal recognition BY THE STATE???
The problem is not true libertarian ideals BECAUSE we don't have them (and have not had anything similar in a looong time)

The problem is IMO primarily corporate personhood, in conjuction with a corrupt two party system financed and controlled by those self same corporations.

Re:yah, good luck with that. (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680000)

As long as your idealistic movement isn't attached to a political party... R or D really only determines the industry they are tied to these days.

Re:yah, good luck with that. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680088)

Republicans are not libertarians, you freakin' moron.

Re:yah, good luck with that. (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680096)

WE liberals will go ahead and continue to run government according to socialist principles.

Ancient, failed "socialist" principles. And let us remind ourselves what liberalism really means [reference.com] :

a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

The true liberals, libertarians are reviled by you because freedom is "corporate control".

I have a challenge for you. You wish to be a liberal. Then find a way to implement your schemes without imposing on the freedom of the individual.

"Freedom" is ambiguous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680148)

Assuming we don't want to be forest-dwelling hunter-gatherers, no single person can do everything necessary to survive. Food-production alone is a cooperative effort, not to mention the manufacture of all our modern luxuries, power production etc.

So, we can't be completely free. Somebody somewhere has to do the work. And while there are a few categories of work that people are willing to do for free, we remain completely dependent on the precise sort of manual labor that nobody will do unless forced.

So long as these necessities are in place, there will *always* be an oppressive aristocracy with far greater wealth than they will ever need, and the financial policies they put in place will *always* ensure that the opportunities for upward class mobility are few and far between.

The only way for humanity to achieve any sort of real freedom would be for us to invent a fully automated, self-maintaining robotic labor force. Even then, transitioning to a society built upon such a force would require a fundmental shift of values (not to mention an uprooting of entrenched powers), and as such it would be neither smooth nor short.

Paging Dr. Streisand (1)

Lyrata (1900038) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679846)

I can't believe this story isn't tagged with streisandeffect or something... to that effect.

Re:Paging Dr. Streisand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35679856)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu_zwdmz0hE

Re:Paging Dr. Streisand (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680156)

You could just tag it yourself. Like I just did. The icon is right next to the existing tags, and the new tag will appear if enough people add it.

And you're right about the effect, I live in Belgium, had never heard of this Sean Duffy guy before, but now I have seen his moment of fame and I will probably remember it if I ever hear of him in some other context again.

Mr. Duffy, meet Ms. Streisand. (1)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679854)

I'm sure you have a lot in common.

some day (2, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679870)

the mostly lower middle class tea party types will understanding that declaring war on the poor and passing laws that reward the rich will actually damage this country far more than the social programs, high taxes, and labor unions they hate. let us hope this is not a third world country when they realize that

Re:some day (1, Informative)

TheGreatGraySkwid (553871) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679998)

Some day, people will learn what "First World Country [wikipedia.org] " actually means.

Oh, wait, no, that's also asking too much, isn't it?

Re:some day (1, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680002)

Some day the Liberals will figure out that it's not declaring war on the poor (Heh... You've been "helping" them for decades and we've got more poor each year...) and that the stuff you're peddling is actually hurting the country worse that your claims of the other direction. Simply put, the old saying about Socialism is true- it only works so long as you can keep taking wealth from other people and it quits working when you run out of people to rob.

Re:some day (0)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680146)

Simply put, the old saying about Socialism is true- it only works so long as you can keep taking wealth from other people and it quits working when you run out of people to rob.

So the financial crisis was caused by socialist Wall Street?

Re:some day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680190)

Perhaps if your idea of "helping the poor" weren't "shielding the banks and corporate executives from responsibility for financial chaos while hanging the rest of the country out to dry", your first point might be valid.

i am glad you stand against socialism (-1, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680206)

it is not a liberal or democratic policy to cut education and healthcare spending. it is the right's policy. thus, without a doubt, the right and republicans are at war with the poor. the right and republicans are mostly supported by the lower middle class tea party types. they are whipped into a frenzy by faux news propaganda, paid for by fat cats and corporations, to bolster support for their agendas to make more profit off of all of our backs. out of fear, disgust, and revulsion, in panic at lowering standards of living, it is easier for some to tear down their even poorer neighbors, rather than demand some accountability from the corporations and fat cats that are causing their standards of living to decline. its especially easier because they are lied to, and their emotions, their fear and panic, are appealed to, rather than their logic and reason

Re:some day (5, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680084)

the mostly lower middle class tea party types will understand...

Ah, but by then they'll all be retired, collecting Social Security and Medicare, but still bitching about the "welfare state". From The Truth About the Tea Party [rollingstone.com]

  • "I'm anti-spending and anti-government," crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. "The welfare state is out of control."
  • (Reporter): "OK," I say. "And what do you do for a living?"
  • "Me?" he says proudly. "Oh, I'm a property appraiser. Have been my whole life."
  • I frown. "Are either of you on Medicare?"
  • Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!
  • "Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"
  • "Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."
  • "But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"
  • "Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much."

The article is a sad, revealing story of the hypocrisy of the Tea Party and it's members...

Tea Party, Limbaugh Republicans, NeoCons (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680160)

the mostly lower middle class tea party types will understanding that declaring war on the poor and passing laws that reward the rich will actually damage this country far more than the social programs, high taxes, and labor unions they hate. let us hope this is not a third world country when they realize that

This is what you get when your education systems turn out a load of morons - people who don't understand Macro Economics, Separation of Powers and Government Finance, but they do know how to have their heads filled with propaganda without so much as the mention of 'critical thinking' and vote against their own best interests.

repubs always cut healthcare and education (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680250)

keep them dumb enough to be in a constant state of propagandized anger, and make sure they die before they wise up

Re:some day (1)

tacokill (531275) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680282)

Funny, if it's so obvious, then why don't they realize it already? Why does it take someone like you to help them "understand"? Could it be....perhaps....that they are not as dumb as you think they are?

For the things you listed, you basically used the same argument as unions use against business. "No really...we are GOOD for you. You should want us. We are an overall net positive effect for the business". If that was true, then there wouldn't be any problem and the two sides would reach agreement and peace. However, as any reasonable person watching will tell you.....that is the opposite of reality.

The reality is that there is vehement disagreement about high taxes, social programs, and union precisely because it is not clear whether they are positive or negative.

You say it's settled. The other 50% say it's not.

republicans (3, Interesting)

polar red (215081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679874)

maybe the GOP should let the top 10% income pay even less taxes ?

Re:republicans (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680048)

maybe the GOP should let the top 10% income pay even less taxes ?

Makes sense - that leaves more left over for campaign donations, now that that messy campaign finance reform law was thrown out.

Re:republicans (0, Troll)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680118)

Let's just drop that old saw right now. Taxing them more heavily isn't going to FIX anything and it'll actually make things worse.

WHERE do you think all the jobs are coming from, hm? It's not UNIONS. It's not the Government (even though they employ people...)

IT'S THAT "TOP 10%".

Why don't we ditch the class and race warfare that the Liberal (Marxist?) crowd loves to push out and about? It's not valid. It accomplishes nothing.

Re:republicans (1)

Soylent Beige (34394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680214)

Rich people don't create jobs, (well maybe in hobby endeavors like chasing the X-Prize).

Demand creates jobs. Especially small businesses forming to meet those demands.

Re:republicans (1)

SwordsmanLuke (1083699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680260)

I've seen this argued both ways for decades now, but I've never actually seen any evidence either way. So, please understand I'm not challenging your assertion here - I'm genuinely curious: do you have a citation to back up that claim? *Do* most jobs come from the corporations owned by the top X% of the wealthy?

And as a corollary to the original question, if so, have the number of jobs traditionally been reduced (or increased) according to fluctuations in taxes on the wealthy?

Re:republicans (2)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680270)

IT'S THAT "TOP 10%".

Thank you, Your Grace, for the field upon which my family and I labor! I gladly offer to you the greater part of my crops, in return for your continued beneficence! True, my hut is collapsing and my children cry with hunger while yours grow fat in your castle, but I understand that this is the natural order of things as ordained by God, and I swear to you that I pay no attention to those troublemakers who suggest otherwise!

This man is struggling to survive, please help! (5, Funny)

merc (115854) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679878)

There's currently a charitable food and clothing drive designed to assist our indigent struggling Republican Senator.

WON'T YOU PLEASE HELP!

http://upt.org/misc/SeanDuffyCharity.jpg [upt.org]

Re:This man is struggling to survive, please help! (2)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680058)

Maybe he should run for office from Mercer Island, WA [youtube.com] instead... they have an institution that would help him out ;-p

If I recall correctly... (3, Informative)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679908)

isn't video/audio of a public servant saying/doing something automagically made public domain?

Re:If I recall correctly... (4, Informative)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679954)

Nope. Copyright still belongs to the person who made the recording. (The Zapruder film, for instance, which showed the assassination of President Kennedy is owned by the Zapruder family.) However, there is a pretty good case for fair use in this case, especially since this Duffy video is being used for news reporting/commentary purposes.

Re:If I recall correctly... (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680114)

It sounds like there were many people recording this particular appearance. Surely the Republican party would not have a legal leg to stand on with regards to pulling clips made by multiple people. I could understand if the Polk Cnty. Republicans wanted to pull their particular recording, but what if somebody else were to release the clip that they made into the public domain? IANAL, so if somebody could explain that to me, I'd really appreciate it.

Another reason to love (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679922)

the internet..brought to you by american tax dollars.

Re:Another reason to love (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680028)

It was designed by American tax dollars, but it was commercially grown.

7 kids? (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679940)

Having 7 kids without the way to pay for them is living outside of your means.

Isn't that what the GOP hates so much? Why is it so righteous to have so many kids? It's not. It's as bad as the welfare mom that has a Cadillac.

Re:7 kids? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680064)

No, Republicans like to live outside their means, Democrats like to have less means.

Congressional salaries (1, Redundant)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679948)

EVERYONE in Congress gets $174,000, people. Whatever your opinion is about the video, his salary is irrelevant. Keep that part out of it, unless you want to start asking why Chris Dodd needed a super deal on a Countrywide mortgage with his $174,000 salary, or Charlie Rangel needed to omit his properties and stock holdings from his tax returns, or why VP Biden doesn't donate anything to charity when he makes even more than Congress.

Re:Congressional salaries (2)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680098)

Its relevant because he claims to be struggling. If congress folks were paid, say 70K a year it might be more understandable but at $174 which is much higher than the average family in America its hard not to see him as an ass, especially while his party is attempting to drive down the salary of folks who are getting by on a lot less money right now in order to save enough money to have tax cuts for people like themselves.

Re:Congressional salaries (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680152)

You didn't answer why it's OK for Charlie Rangel-- who writes the tax laws-- to not pay his taxes? Or how about Geithner, who is a guy who can't figure out how to do his taxes but he's in charge of enforcing the tax laws?

Re:Congressional salaries (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680200)

Who said it was OK what Charlie Rangel is doing, or what Geithner did or what Biden is doing? No one did. You can put away the straw man. This is about a two-bit political hack who is bitching about the fact that making three times the state average is not enough, yet thinks that others making much less still make too much.

Re:Congressional salaries (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680182)

Whatever your opinion is about the video, his salary is irrelevant.

Then why did the congressman make it relevant by complaining that he was "struggling?" Here's an idea, I propose that congress take a 7% pay cut and work two more days a year to reflect the reality that average working Americans are really facing i.e. working longer for less. Not to mention the fact that American's net worth is down by 23% [gobankingrates.com]

BTW, is that the best we can do in selecting our leaders - by finding dross off from reality TV?

Re:Congressional salaries (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680232)

I think their salaries are too high, too. You're talking to the wrong guy. That being said, at least they haven't taken a cost of living increase in two years.

If you want to start disqualifying people because they worked in TV, then I guess Al Franken is gone as well.

New poverty line statistic from GOP? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679960)

Won't you please take a moment to think of your poor, starving representatives in Washington DC? They barely get by on $476 per day. With your unreported gifts you can help make their lives more comfortable and perhaps get something in return. Please act now, don't wait until it's too late. Send your dollars to: Starving GOP c/o Sean Duffy, Washington DC

Gosh. I feel so stupid and selfish when I complain about my salary and lack of pay increase for over 5 years. I'm truly humbled.

Welp, about lunch time. Have to see what's in the bins around the park.

Re:New poverty line statistic from GOP? (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680080)

maybe lowering corporate taxes will help this ?

Re:New poverty line statistic from GOP? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680136)

Don't forget to send your donation to Charlie Rangel, too. Apparently he can't even afford his taxes.

Re:New poverty line statistic from GOP? (1)

aslagle (441969) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680264)

You do realize that they have to maintain two residences, and one of those in Washington, which has a really high cost of living?

cost of living comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35679980)

living in the Washington DC area is a little more expensive than living in Wisconsin - but he still screwed up pointing it out ...

Whiner (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35679992)

Just because no one watches CSPAN doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to watch you talk through other media outlets.

The Streisand effect kicking in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680012)

Yet another fellow who is going to experience the full blast of the Streisand effect.

So putting something up on YouTube... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680014)

...now suddenly puts it in the public domain?

Re:So putting something up on YouTube... (2)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680198)

He published something, allowed comments on it, didn't like the comments, and wants to take it down? No problem.
    But even after taking down your file, others are allowed to use that captured content under fair use terms, like all news of a public servant making a public speech where the press was invited.

    Is he going to all the newspapers that published a written account of his speech?
    How about knocking on doors requesting to cut the article out of the delivered newspaper, only after he overhears people in the town square laughing at it?

    Essentially, removing the proof of his idiocy doesn't change the truth, but the evidence sure is fun to look at.

And now with this action - we have just more story of the idiocy, making for the Streisand effect. Some people don't get it.

$175k == not enough trickle-down economics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680022)

Obviously he should focus on making cuts to his expenditures, because he can't expect hard-working taxpayers to increase his revenue. They're taxed enough already.

Alternatively, he can always hold up a sign: "Will legislate for food", or get a second job to make ends meet.

[What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander]

Babs called.... (1)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680034)

Babs called... says you're doing it wrong.

Also, something about it all ending in tears.

opportunism or principle? (1)

tchdab1 (164848) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680046)

Someone or something needs to teach opportunistic politicians the difference between aggressive opportunism, and principled action.
Going to court or to the floor of Congress to force the erasure of your mistakes is definitely in the opportunism column.

I typically vote GOP, but... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680128)

I typically vote Republican for the simple reason that they tend to screw me over a little bit less, but with crackpots like this, I might as well just start writing in Homer Simpson for every election.

Re:I typically vote GOP, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35680302)

I typically vote Republican for the simple reason that they tend to screw me over a little bit less...

Dude, back away from the cocain.

bah! (1, Interesting)

Blymie (231220) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680204)

Listen.

If you want quality talent, and people more difficult to bribe/influence, you MUST pay them well.

What's the average CEO's pay? What's the average salary in any national sports league? What about a successful TV star? Movie star? Race car driver? Author? Put another way, what's the average salary for someone that made it to the TOP of their career?

A federal politician is just that -- at the top of their career chain. You get more for running committees, you get even more if you're the President.

Frankly, I think some of these people are *under* paid. Does the president make any where near what the #1, top billed movie star make? What was the top paid baseball player paid last year? Who makes more -- the top of the largest corporation in the US, or the President?

People need to be paid in line with comparables!

It really annoys me when I see people working on assembly lines, or front line jobs, complaining that their salary isn't any where near what some politician's is. How about this ... work your ass off, clearly be extremely skilled in your field, have a *goal* to make the big bucks,and don't make mistakes that might derail you -- and then complain to me if you don't make it.

Media Savvy politician (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680212)

It's great to see a media savvy politician who really understands the Internet, having been on 'The Real World' and all, trying to ban a video. Consequences will never be the same!

public figure = celebrity status (2)

applematt84 (1135009) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680230)

last i recall, a public figure classifies under celebrity status which protects any member of the public from being sued for publishing content about said public figure. the only way this can get you in trouble is if you publish it with the intent of actual malice. i believe the video was published just to reveal the truth. http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/libel.htm [about.com] if i'm wrong, please let me know.

The Internet is like a series of magic lamps (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35680252)

Once the genie escapes theres no putting him back in his bottle.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?