Can someone give me a layman's explanation of the troll-rating system used at Zuniga's site?
That place is strange.
Posted by Toby Petzold at July 9, 2006 01:54 AMbrilliant !!
Posted by mark miller at July 9, 2006 03:53 AMWASHINGTON, July 8 — In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters.
Representative Heather A. Wilson, whom President Bush praised in June, has said she has "deep concerns" about intelligence reforms.
The letter from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not specify the intelligence activities that he believed had been hidden from Congress.
But Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.
The letter from Hoekstra to Bush is online for those who want to read it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09hoekstra.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1152417600&en=3c391710733f7e7f&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
Sorry guys. I need to read all the posts before making any comments. Eriposte has already covered the above subject. Having said that, I wonder what else ignorant Americans are being kept in the dark about.
Posted by Judith at July 9, 2006 05:33 AMMary, stop talking common sense. It will simply cause confusion.
Posted by tempus at July 9, 2006 06:32 AMSounds pretty straigh-forward to me, Mary. Which is why it'll be rejected by Republicans.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 9, 2006 07:01 AMtoby - there's this new-fangled invention called an FAQ.
Are you just being intellectually lazy or did you want to come over here and whine because you got banned at Kos - or both?
Posted by Jim Faith at July 9, 2006 08:26 AMI wonder what else ignorant Americans are being kept in the dark about
Their ignorance.
I can't see the "72 hour" rule being supported by Congress. They don't want you to know that the majority of legislation is written by lobbys. We could maybe take-up donations and get a lobbyest to get the rule through. Otherwise, it's DOA. You got to pay to play...especially common Americans.
Posted by phidipides at July 9, 2006 08:32 AMHoekstra's concern translates to me that now we know not only the Dems, but the moderate Rep's as well as the intel committee have been kept out of Bush's loop. Obviously the moderate Rep's have been even more cowed by BushCo than the Dems and now Hoekstra blinks and realizes that he's nothing more than a pawn.
Posted by mainsailset at July 9, 2006 08:33 AMWhat it requires: bills must be posted online for 72 hours before a vote.
What's dat?
Open and transparent government? In the stasi-age of George "AWOL" Bush?
His loyalists Frist and Hasert won't like it.
Posted by Christopher at July 9, 2006 08:48 AMA Congressional "leadership" whose tactics involve routinely not permitting bills to be read before enactment, requiring legislation to allow members to have a chance to peruse the actual words they are adopting as law.
National decline? Institutional failure? Naw........just "politics" in the eyes of Right Wingers.
Posted by euzoius at July 9, 2006 09:13 AMCheck this out: Instapundit thinks that Germans sing Nazi Anthem at World Cup.
Posted by Josh at July 9, 2006 09:25 AMSo, Bush's Moral Agenda for America is not only gay marriage, flag burning, but now it is Internet gambling. The far-right wing of the GOP want Internet gambling outlawed and are saying that it is illegal anyway. So, the usual tactics prior to an election is to force the Democrats to vote against the flag, vote for gay marriage, and now to vote for gambling. Oh, and we will probably have to vote against social security before this jackass is out of office.
Posted by Judith at July 9, 2006 10:06 AMFaith:
Are you just being intellectually lazy or did you want to come over here and whine because you got banned at Kos - or both?
I was being intellectually lazy. I have never even attempted to post anything at Zuniga's site because it looks like some sort of goddamned pyramid scheme.
The troll-rating stuff, though, is fantastic. What a po-mo totalitarian's wet dream. "Autobanning algorithms"? Fantastic!
Posted by Toby Petzold at July 9, 2006 10:10 AMCan someone give me a layman's explanation of the troll-rating system used at Zuniga's site?
The way it works out is that the community, not "the boss" gets to decide who is trolling and who is not. Unlike, say, RedState or FreeRepugnant, you don't get booted for one unpopular statement. In fact, there is considerable dissent, and a lot of people call Markos unprintable names right on his own site, AND HE LETS THEM.
Imagine that! The purveyor of the most popular political site, which is five times the size of the biggest conservative blog and still increasing that margin, lets people call him names and disagree with him. In public. On his nickel.
Do you suppose Mr. Zuniga's runaway success compared to the conservative sites is due to his allowing a wide range of comments, even those which he disagrees with, or do you think the relative unpopularity of the conserviative blogs is due to the fact that they don't?
Why don't you post whatever exchange you had on DKos that led to your comment at the top of this post, so we can see whose side is worth defending?
Posted by Repack Rider at July 9, 2006 10:26 AMToby:
I was being intellectually lazy. I have never even attempted to post anything at Zuniga's site because it looks like some sort of goddamned pyramid scheme.
So you are complaining about something that has never happened to you on a site where you have never posted and which you boast that you have never examined with the object of understanding its method of operation.
Toby, you have created your own troll stereotype, a guy who complains about stuff that hasn't happened to him, and who admits he doesn't understand or even try to understand the subject of his complaint.
(Gratuitous question) Can you remind us why you don't join the Army to fight the war you were all in favor of? I seem to remember you saying it was because you were too fat, but I don't want to speak for you.
Please explain the "pyramid scheme" comment. I post there all the time, and it doesn't cost me anything. Where did you get the impression that Markos charges his users for posting on his site?
Posted by Repack Rider at July 9, 2006 10:41 AMget ready to find the Bush footprint all over the Mexican elections. The most Bush friendly candidate "wins" while ony getting about 35% of the total vote. The Mexicans won't lay down and roll over as easily as Americans. One big reason, the Media isn't controlled down there.....they actually still report truth, not spin. Obrador, the barely loser, apparently has recordings of his adversaries plotting to throw the election to the BushBuddy. Another word to remember: ChoicePoint.
Posted by T2 at July 9, 2006 11:10 AMT2, I believe they will take to the streets and be an inspiration for the apathetic populace here. (one can hope...)
Posted by Anjha at July 9, 2006 12:25 PMwhat Mexico is seeing is the same pattern we saw in the Iraq 'elections" and in our own. Its more than probable that we'll see the same in November, and in 08.
Scenario:
Opposition appears to be leading right up to election, appears to win election, vote count mystery gives win to incumbent by the slightest margin. They then promise to rule in everyone's interest, and procede to rule for the wealthy and powerful only. It's the new World Order in action.
"I am a Joe Lieberman democrat"...Donna Brazil on George Steph today. Stick a fork in him.
Posted by TIKI AL at July 9, 2006 03:19 PMRepack:
Toby, you have created your own troll stereotype, a guy who complains about stuff that hasn't happened to him, and who admits he doesn't understand or even try to understand the subject of his complaint.
I would hope that if I were known by a stereotype, it would be much more interesting than what you have described.
You have spent entirely too much of your time responding to me. I am sorry for you. In my own way.
Posted by Toby Petzold at July 9, 2006 08:39 PMTrollby: Take it to ratemypoo.com., we have enough crap here.
Posted by TIKI AL at July 9, 2006 08:52 PMToby:
I would hope that if I were known by a stereotype, it would be much more interesting than what you have described.
Life isn't fair, is it?
You have spent entirely too much of your time responding to me. I am sorry for you. In my own way.
So it is your contention that anyone who responds to you is wasting his or her time. You are reinforcing the stereotype you created earlier, but I must admit that this is the first time I have seen a troll admit to that status.
Maybe if you enlisted in the Army and put your money where your mouth is, you would feel better about yourself.
Posted by Repack Rider at July 9, 2006 09:37 PMThe earmarks are so engrained in the process of governing and maintaining the incumbent status quo, that our representatives can not even imagine how to pass a bill without them. Thats why this bill has no chance, nor any kind of meaningful earmark reform - barring a sea change in the Congress in '06. I realized this while watching the Liebermant/Lamont debate. As important as the war, was the exchange on "earmarks". Lamont took a strong principled stand, while Lieberman felt perfectly comfortable promising that he would make sure Connecticut got their full share of slop at the public trough. This is a bigger issue than just Connecticut, and is key to whether incumbents nationally will continue to have a free hand to run roughshod over the US taxpayers in the interest of getting reelected. I comment on this in a linked video of the exchange, along with the transcript in the most recent post in my blog: To earmark or not to earmark, that is the question.
Posted by mw at July 9, 2006 10:39 PMWhile we are offering reasonable bills that no incumbent could ever vote for - the representative has to actually write (i.e. type) the section of bill they wish to add themselves - no cutting and pasting. Considering that they spend all that time not in congress legislating, I think they can handle the "extra" work. In addition to giving a strong incentive to direct language, we will also know exactly who wrote what and that they should have understood the implications of that particular section of law as they, in fact, wrote it.
b
Posted by Bob at July 10, 2006 04:07 PMI would hope that if I were known by a stereotype, it would be much more interesting than what you have described.
It's not.
Where is Bendito to give us his salient analyses? Ouuuuuhhhh. There is no Bendito on salient topical analyses. Speaks volumes.