An alternative to violence is to vote.

Since Repubs control the voting machine manufacturers, voting may be a moot point. I'm still voting, but I don't trust electronic voting machines. Give me a paper ballot anytime.

Well, if people can't be bothered to vote, there might not be an alternative other than violence.

Here's a suggestion to those who have the time:

https://dashboard.barackobama.com/join

Create an account, and then the software will suggest where to make calls.

Or education...

It is amazing how fact free the party of the business community is. In business facts matter, numbers mean something.

The GOP has become unmoored and is adrift.

Stop Fox News: Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW!

SIGN THIS PETITION

http://act.watchdog.net/petitions/109?n=2109733.lWqwYp

Help us take Fox News off the air—get the FCC to revoke Rupert Murdoch’s broadcast licenses NOW!

The deplorable actions Murdoch has taken to run his News Corp. empire prove we can't trust him to act in the public interest. Now, a study by Farleigh Dickinson University shows Fox News can’t even claim to inform its audience: its viewers are less informed than those who avoid news outlets altogether!

It’s the Federal Communications Commission’s job to consider the character of a media owner when dealing out broadcast licenses, and to label programs as news only when they actually inform viewers. The Murdoch Mafia has failed on both counts, and we have a chance to take them down for good. Save the airwaves from bigotry and corruption: tell the FCC to enforce the law NOW!

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: Rupert Murdoch has failed every “character” test available, and the programs under his broadcasting licenses have both been implicated in scandal and have been proven to make audiences less informed, not more. We urge you to revoke Murdoch’s broadcasting licenses immediately, and to take a stand against his corrupt media empire.

Republicans, still making up their own facts, on everything.

That wouldn't bother me so much. It's their ability to shut down the truth that's a serious threat to the Constitution.

I want to know why no news media have picked up the story of UAW filing a formal complaint with the US government ethics office because Romney did not disclose a major investment in the auto industry before the bailout occurred

Hope? Cable stations don't have broadcast licenses and the FCC doesn't have the power to take them down. That only applies to over-the-air broadcasts. And, in any case, Reagan changed the regulations to make "public interest" mean "spewing any kind of content at all into the air as long as it doesn't expose the children to bare boobies or the seven forbidden words."

You need to check your facts Steve . . . oh, never mind . . . fact checking is kryptonite to right-wing puppets :

The 1934 Act has been amended many times. Communication technology has changed dramatically during the FCC's history. These changes include the introduction of the following:

• Television
• Satellite and microwave communications
• Cable television
• Cellular telephone
• PCS (personal communications) services

FCC responsibilities have increased to accommodate the regulatory issues presented by these new technologies. Consequently, it now shares regulatory power with other federal, executive, and judicial agencies.

Tax cuts for the rich REALLY does boost the economy... ONLY WHEN THEY WANT IT TO!

After the finacial meltdown and uncertainty with what Obama would do, the billionaires and millionaires shifted their money out of the country...the money is sitting pretty somewhere! But not here, not in the US in our banks and in our economy.

All it takes it waking more people up to the agenda of the right wing. The are for the one percent and only for the one percent. They want the tax cuts and they want the huge increase in Defense spending. Everything else can be on the chopping block and it will be unless more real Democrats are elected who care about average Americans.

***The More You Know™***

Hope42012, you need to go back and reread wherever you are getting your information. Cable providers are regulated in content by their franchise agreements with municipalities. This usually means that they must carry local broadcast stations and/or Community Access channels and/or Local College educational channels, etc. This is because they lease the right-of-ways from the community. Communities typically do not restrict the content that cable providers offer. That would get them into 1st Amendment territory where they would lose. Swiftly. They could carry gerbil Pr0n if it were legal. Basic cable on Comcast here in my town doesn't carry Fox (or CNN, or MSNBC, or CNBC). That comes with the Expanded Basic package which costs extra. That's not true in some cities surrounding us.

The only thing the FCC regulates is their equipment, the same way your computer or iPod or microwave oven is regulated. To make sure it does not cause electromagnetic interference with other devices outside its intended function. This is the crux of why the FCC gets to regulate what goes out over the airwaves. It's a communal resource that by its nature can cross civic and state boundaries.

But political speech is special. You don't like Fox? Here in California, a convicted felon and con artist Lyndon LaRouche (Think John Bircher, but loonier) who was a 7-time candidate for the Democratic nomination for president spewed some really crazy stuff that only Glenn Beck would listen to. He'd rent 1/2 hour airtime on local stations. And it was his right to do so.

What we need is a law like Canada's that says that if you are going to call yourself a news and information provider, you must provide factual information. It's a little tricky because of the 1st Amendment and our deep love and social commitment not only to satire, but the right to watch unintentional satire. Here in Northern California, we loved Dr. Gene Scott on channel 38 in the Bay Area. Total nutcase, used to blackmail his watchers and throw tantrums. The crazy guy on the street corner/college quad, but with a television studio and station of his own!

***The More You Know™***

Repeating Right-Wing Robotic Rhetoric is not knowledge . . . but whatever helps you get out of bed in the morning right ?

FCC responsibilities have increased to accommodate the regulatory issues presented by these new technologies. Consequently, it now shares regulatory power with other federal, executive, and judicial agencies.

Jefferson had the foresight to know that occasionally force would be necessary. Of course the GOPTP thinks this is the time for all the wrong reasons. I think we should be very afraid on the one hand, and fearless on the other (should another treasonous idiot be appointed or elected as our President.)

Sorry Miracle. Let me share something that is "The More You Know." Until Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine, broadcast channels had to give equal access to political speech. Were it not for the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine, Fox News could not exist today. The same cannot be said for MSNBC because they don't make up their own facts. As much as you would like to educate us, turns out you need a bit of education yourself.

The More You Know . . . indeed.

Fox News and Fox Business are cable channels. It is not regulated by the FCC. The fairness doctrine would never apply.

The Fox that broadcasts The Simpsons over the air is not the same entity. They are all owned by News Corp

All you are succeeding in proving is that we on the left have low-information dolts as well. Go back and re-read wherever you think you got this information and look out for qualifying adjectival phrases like over-the-air (OTA). Broadcast does not mean over the air. Broadcast means one to many.

Careful with that snark r1nl8, it's a double edged blade and you're bleeding on the floor.

The 1934 Act has been amended many times. Communication technology has changed dramatically during the FCC's history. These changes include the introduction of the following:

• Television
• Satellite and microwave communications
• Cable television
• Cellular telephone
• PCS (personal communications) services

FCC responsibilities have increased to accommodate the regulatory issues presented by these new technologies. Consequently, it now shares regulatory power with other federal, executive, and judicial agencies.

FCC responsibilities have increased to accommodate the regulatory issues presented by these new technologies. Consequently, it now shares regulatory power with other federal, executive, and judicial agencies.

Fox News promotes and fosters treasonous lies that put in danger the security of our society. They deliberately tell half truths at the expense of our security.

Limits of Freedom of Speech

Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.

Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.

Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages

Sources for quotes above about FCC and Cable TV

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/evolution-cable-television

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United_States

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101514.html

Blank's post translated:

Troll!

The Republicans main political goal has been to make the rich richer and the working class poorer.

You do understand the two aren't related, right?

I would disagree with the part about Republicans' goals include making the working class poorer. I doubt the very wealthy give the working class much thought at all. If they did, Marie Antoinette couldn't have made her Romneyesque statement about cake.

As for trickle down or supply side or whatever you care to call it, if the "idea" had any validity, the French peasantry would not have had to revolt. The United States was born of the idea that taxation without representation is not a good thing. The very basis of representative government is the idea that a burden shared is a lighter load, two heads are better than one, e pluribus unum, one man one vote, "...all men are created equal..."

This can't be rocket science. Even this old red necked Ozark hillbilly gets it.

Maybe gop shooter can explain why his party hates unions so much then ? if its not living wages and bennies , what is it then? You people just hate the union picnics?

I would disagree with the part about Republicans' goals include making the working class poorer.

Wealth and power are relative. There comes a time when making yourself richer is much more difficult because you can already afford pretty much anything you want. But making others worse off? That gets the same result with much less difficulty.

Power and wealth can both be defined as the ability to coerce person-hours of work. So making the rich richer and the poor poorer can be related though they don't have to be. The Republicans have decided more money for them and lower wages for working people both lead to greater wealth.

I have challenged Republicans to name an issue where the GOP has taken the side of the working man in the last 40 years. No one has been able to do so. It has happened once- in the George W. Bush administration, but it was rather obscure.

All these conspiracy theories!!!!! Who REALLY shot JFK? We know who sht JR.

The tale of "The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs" is not a very long story, and its point is not at all obscure. Even Henry Ford figured it out.

Short-sighted self-interest is invariably myopic.

Customers are the true job creators and when things are as bad as they are and nothing is moving, owners need the government to give the 99% a boost so they have people to buy their products and services.

Since we've determined by experience during the Obama administration, things like the stimulus, and the payroll tax cut didn't do anything, perhaps you should ask yourself where people usually get the money to become customers. (Hint - a job)

But hey, I understand that's not politically correct. God forbid you actually find ways to make profits, even though profits are the source of jobs and tax revenues.

Thanks for the examples. If you look at all of the estimates they say that on the low-end the stimulus created 1.5 million jobs and at the high-end it created 3 million jobs. If you don't think that's enough, you're right, we should have done more stimulus. 1/3 went to manufacturing and construction workers to do some of the much-needed infrastructure work now, while the costs are cheap and we need the jobs. Since you mentioned the payroll tax cut, the other 1/3 of the stimulus went to tax cuts for the middle class that I thought Republicans were for. The other 1/3 was support for the jobless at a time when we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, but I know you don't want to support the jobless. Those at the top income levels have continued to rake it in over the last 10 years and they're not creating more jobs because they won't invest in anything if they don't have customers to turn a profit. The more money you give them, the more they'll hold onto and no one can afford that, least of all our deficit. It's called strength through balance. Skyscrapers are built from the bottom up, not the top down.

What's really funny is that even though 1/3 of the stimulus went to tax cuts, Republicans don't cut 1/3 of the cost of the stimulus bill from their figures. Ya know cause tax cuts are free...except when they're not

My thought exactly. We can't have truth because the Republicans don't like it?

Is no one asking: What have Republicans done for anyone lately? Like in the past 12 years?

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

Question: Why does the media not challenge Republicans on Republican talking points despite them being misrepresentations of fact or flat out lies?
Answer: Because doing so would violate the "both sides do it" meme and give credence to the Republicans-are-all-victims-of-the-big-bad-media meme. The media will not challenge Republican lies because doing so makes Republicans cry "partisanship!" "liberal bias!" and so on. Journalists who are attempting to keep their credibility as non-partisan or middle-of-the-road therefore forgo facts in favor of a better reputation.

It's quite possible that the motivation here wasn't to help Republicans, but rather because the Congressional Research Service did not want to lose it's credibility as a non-partisan.

Cartoon , imo that would be determined by THE REASON the CRS gave for withdrawing the report , what reason did they give , or did they even give one ?

Look , the public is not going to be outraged , because the public does not know about this , this is an issue dems should be hammering , anyone with a brain has figured out trickle down is a joke , until dems fight tooth and nail , the gop will just keep ruining us all with it

@Pat:

Fair enough. For the record it's from this that I was extrapolating my belief:

The pressure applied to the research service comes amid a broader Republican effort to raise questions about research and statistics that were once trusted as nonpartisan and apolitical.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday will release unemployment figures for October, a month after some conservatives denounced its last report as politically tinged to abet President Obama's re-election. When the bureau suggested its October report might be delayed by Hurricane Sandy, some conservatives immediately suggested politics were at play.

Republicans have also tried to discredit the private Tax Policy Center ever since the research organization declared that Mitt Romney's proposal to cut tax rates by 20 percent while protecting the middle class and not increasing the deficit was mathematically impossible. For years, conservatives have pressed the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to factor in robust economic growth when it is asked to calculate that cost of tax cuts to the federal budget.

That makes it sound, to me at least, that Republicans are hounding all economic studies that do not conform to the ideological belief of trickle down economics. Which means that if any institution wants to remain credible they have to automatically disavow the study the second Republicans begin to whine about it otherwise that means the institution's credibility automatically becomes suspect.

Should it be that way? No. Republicans, and not the researchers who put their time and thought into these studies, should be the ones to conform OR they should be forced to prove why the study is wrong. But that is not going to happen.Those who should be backing down are not going to back down; those who should not be backing down are going to be forced to in order to maintain any credibility (as paradoxical as that is). And thus you have Republicans justifying a lie by creating conspiracy theories about a liberal bias living among all institutions thought non-partisan simply because those institutions had the audacity to disagree with the Republican Party platform.

Recall that whenever possible I try to point out the ridiculous ego of the modern day Republican mindset. They have an ego problem and automatically start from the premise that everything they say is intrinsically correct and anything anyone else says is automatically incorrect if it doesn't agree 100% with their pre-determined world view. That attitude creates a situation in which you must purge any and all information that does not conform to the pre-conception: or, as other bloggers have put it, it's an ideology purge.

Either assimilate or be destroyed. We're watching you.

I will be looking into the reasoning and post it in one of Steves CONSIDER THIS AN OPEN THREAD posts , to be clear , I am not trying to argue with you , I am sure you realize that , these people are doing the job they are assigned , and they are being shut down , WHY that effort to shut them down was successful is what irks me and makes me curious as to how it went down , I do not buy that THEY FOLDED TO KEEP THEIR CREDIBILITY , because folding makes it all NON-CREDIBLE , so the details matter , as well as this study being broadcast loud and clear

So true. "Non-partisan" is obviously a misnomer if they're bowing to the wishes of their Republican masters.

Not Soviet, Chinese

Beijing is these peoples city on the hill, the kind of world they would aspire to. Information is under the absolute control of the state. Labor is cheep to the point of slavery. Government regulation is dependant on the amount of kickbacks and bribes you are willing to pay and who your enemies are and the wealthy can do as they please with impunity...

Good point.

The 99% have embraced the reality that we have to continue to do more with less. The 1% are the only ones who have continued to make more throughout this recession and could easily do more with less, but they refuse to.

Kassr, It drove me nuts when not one of the debate moderators bothered to as a follow-up to Romney's "I'm not going to give a tax break to the wealthy. It will be offset with eliminations to deductions and loopholes."

Well then Governor, given that you've spent your entire campaign saying the wealthy need tax breaks in order to create jobs, would you describe your current claim as dishonest or irresponsible?

Oh yeah. And if you reduce taxes, then eliminate loopholes to make the whole exercise 'revenue neutral', what's the point? Under which cup is the pea, really?

Troll strategy #1: try to distract from the issue on the table. Troll strategy #2: repeat the same nonsense over and over. Benghazi is still brand new by this standard (some are still squealing about birth certificates and college records. Probably shouldn't even point that out).

As long as they hide it no one will know that what they are saying is a lie...they are idiots.

Right wingers change the rules to suit their agenda. Here in the UK we have a system were if 100,000 people sign a government petition, it triggers a parliamentary debate.

So, when our glorious conservative leaders decided to wreck our National Health Service, a petition was drawn up to stop them. It reached 160,000 signatures, and the government decided to dismiss it out of hand as it wasn't what they wanted to hear.