| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Statement from Microsoft on Presidential Signing of E-Government Legislation | |
|
||
| Time: 15:17 EST/20:17 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Press Release | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
In the wake of President George W. Bush's signing of legislation creating an Office of Electronic Government, Microsoft issued the following statement from Jack Krumholtz, Director of Federal Affairs: "Microsoft applauds Congress and the Administration for bringing the e-government vision to reality with today’s Presidential signing of this important legislation. This law will give more Americans access to their government using the Internet and other information technology, and assist those with disabilities to better access information under Section 508. Microsoft shares the belief that technology can revolutionize the way government operates and empower citizens by making government resources more readily available. By committing the federal government to providing a wide array of services electronically, more citizens will be empowered to participate in our democracy and realize their full potential." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 306 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:37:26 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/17/2002 4:00:35 PM |
| Microsoft is one of the leaders in writing software to assist those with disabilities. I would imagine they'll get lots of contracts under §508. |
| #2 By 2 (24.51.234.43) at 12/17/2002 5:42:55 PM |
|
bush. bah. (that comment was not directed towards people with disabilities, this act, etc, just bush). ;-) This post was edited by AWBobStein on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 at 17:44. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/17/2002 7:17:58 PM |
| I'm being nice to Bush this week... he's finally distancing the GOP from Reagan's racist legacy. |
| #4 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/17/2002 7:43:58 PM |
|
#4: Oh my gosh, I can't stop laughing from that one. Where do you get your info? You really should open your eyes. Your brainwashing is really embarassing you.
Just for the record, in case anyone is paying attention, it was Reagan who made Martin Luther King day a national holiday. Perhaps Soda is referring to Reagan's comments on "states' rights" which, when taken out of context, implies Confederate slavery images, but when put into full context, you'd see that Reagan was talking more about the conservative ideal of putting the power of the United States into the hands of local and state government. Because the more power you give to the Federal government, the more it'll get abused, it's a matter of fact, it just happens over time. The longer you can keep power in local governments (where the effects are more observable and voters can respond accordingly), the longer your country lasts and is prosperous. This is opposed to the liberal/socialist/marxist ideal of having the Government do everything because you are too stupid to do it yourself and it's best that the "smart" Democrats control every aspect of your life. Such as affirmative action which is probably the most rascist, anti-black policy to ever come from the U.S. next to slavery. That policy automatically assumes that minorities (especially blacks) are too stupid to get their own jobs and that the Man needs to help them do it. Assuming that minorities cannot operate on their own merits is the most basic form of racism and equates to the way slaves were considered equivalent to "pets" in the slavery days. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/17/2002 8:15:54 PM |
| daz, where I come from civil rights are a foundational element of the document which this country is founded on and should be protected by the federal government above and beyond the independence of piss@nt, redneck states. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/17/2002 9:57:52 PM |
|
daz - I've always said you were out of touch with reality. This most recent rebuttal just seems to further reinforce that belief.
What President Bush has done this past week was the right thing to do... What Trent Lott demonstrated is he was sorry for getting caught, but he is completely clueless as to why people are upset. You seem to share the same difficulty. Like I said... Good move on the part of Bush, and it's about time he returned the GOP back to the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower instead of McCarthy, McGovern and Reagan. You'd do well to heed his words, and stop trying to emulate McCarthy. |
| #7 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/17/2002 10:08:54 PM |
|
BTW, a few good articles for daz to read to educate himself:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html?cnn=yes http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399926,00.html http://www.msnbc.com/news/848176.asp?0dm=C16SO http://www.msnbc.com/news/847736.asp?0cv=KA01 And lest you think I'm biased by using mainstream news sources... you might just want to read this article, as it discusses the history of the "State's rights" claim: http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens121702.asp Sorry I couldn't find anything worth linking to off newsmax... although I think they claimed space Aliens are speaking to Bush again. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/17/2002 10:22:01 PM |
|
Oh, and one last comment on race. I, like most Americans, are pretty oblivious to it. I just don't think it matters, as MLKjr said children should be judge not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Deeds, not accidents of birth is what matters.
I don't believe there is any specific need of programs for one race over another, there is rather specific needs for people in unfortunate circumstances. Unfortunately over the past 30-40 years, it has been the GOP who has worked to create those unfortunate circumstances in many places in the South. Prior to that time it was the Democrats, granted, until the wisdom of Harry Truman drove the bigotry of Thurmond out the door of the 1948 convention. I mean good grief, even as recent as 1993 we had a huge fight in Congress over the Motor Voter Act, which was instituted primarily because southern states were purposefully and maliciously working to prevent minorities from voting. Worse yet, we had to have yet another voting act passed here in 2002 with which to address further racial inequality issues in voting rights as demonstrated quite readily to the public in the 2000 election cycle. I mean good grief, enough is enough! If the GOP would stop trying to force racial issues onto the public scene, there wouldn't be fights surrounding them. Then we could focus on some real issues that effect all Americans rather than a few holdovers from the Civil War. |
| #9 By 931 (66.180.122.28) at 12/17/2002 11:36:59 PM |
|
I nearly choked when I read that....
Sodablue needs some serious help. |
| #10 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/18/2002 11:06:22 AM |
|
How'd I know you guys would take ME out of context as well.
You'll note, had you read my post, that I acknowledged the "usual" and "underlying" meaning of the words "states rights" (i.e. Confederate slavery). Sodajerk, as usual, misread my post and assumed I was talking about the confederate version, which I wasn't. States do have rights. I was using "states' rights" in the generic sense, not the Confederate sense. So was Ronald Reagan in his speech that the liberal media so often misquotes. If you read the entire transcript (I'll try to find the link), you'll see he was using the generic "States' Rights", not the Confederate "States' Rights". It was not a rascist remark, but of course the liberal press misquoted him (just like you guys did to me) and twisted it into a remark. Most conservatives like myself are not racist. I believe states should have more power to control themselves, but when it comes to basic human and civil rights, that's a federal issue and I agree wholeheartedly with that, as did Ronald Reagan. But when it comes to things like education, criminal justice, farming, etc -- things on a more local level that have direct impact on the people of that state, States should have more power. But, I know that no matter what I say, you guys will brand me a racist and assume that because I use the words "States" and "Rights" in a sentence, than I mean the Confederate sense, so why do I bother trying to reason with unreasonable people like you. |
| #11 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/18/2002 11:15:38 AM |
|
Oh, and interestingly, there are a disproportionate number of Democrats sitting in the house and senate that ran on the Confederate version of "States' Rights" and segregation in the 50's and 60's.
Strom Thurmond was a Democrat when he ran in '48. Specifically, he was a Dixiecrat which were people who were Democrats, but believed in "States' Rights" and segregation. Most of the Democrats believed in it too, but it wasn't their primary platform like the Dixiecrats. In fact, Madalin Albright, former SecState has a history of segregationist platforms. Interestingly enough, you'll find that recently a number of prominant Democrats have made racist remarks that the mainstream, liberal, press have ignored. Robert "KKK" Byrd called middle-class conservative blacks White "N**gers". And don't get me started on the hate and racism spewing from Louis Farakhan and Al Sharpton. The problem today is that the "leadership" of Blacks in America today like Sharpton, Farakhan, and Jackson are playing the victims for blacks rather than empowering. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. inspired Black people to better themselves and win and earn their respect. Democrats today just want to give Black people a bunch of freebies and make them complacent and dependent so they'll keep voting Democrat. It's offensive to me. If I were a Black person, I would be offended that Democrats consider me a second-class citizen, someone who is incapable of changing my own destiny and empowering myself. What Blacks need today, more than anything, to help close the racial devide, end racism and descrimination that they experience is empowerment. When Blacks rise up and realize that they are a very strong and vocal political, economic, and social force, they will rightly take their place in our society. It's unfortunate that most of the masses are lulled into a sense of complacency and class-envy by the Democrats. There is a growing trend, however, of successful, middle-class conservative African Americans that are growing in numbers and power. Hopefully a leader will emerge and rally support and create the political force that African Americans so rightfully deserve in today's society. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/18/2002 1:30:46 PM |
|
daz - Oh good grief... Are you seriously going to [bad word deleted] sit there and claim that it's ok if the GOP is racist because a handful of Democrats are?
Give me a break, and grow up. I am so tired of listening to your moronic political opinions. You act like I'm going to sit there and defend Byrd, Sharpton, Jackson and so on. I won't, I've never cared for Sharpton and Jackson and one difference with the Democrats is that the party has been very vocal about this lack of caring. Meanwhile Lott goes off and says something far worse than any example you can bring up, and you're sitting there defending it as a state's rights issue. consultant - "The problem is with the "yankees" that ASSume they know of what they speak." It's not an assumption. Listening to daz's rants pretty much proves that point. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/18/2002 8:27:40 PM |
|
daz, I wasn't making any interpretation of the twaddle you wrote so, no, I didn't misread.
consultant, yes, I am from New England, but live in Cal, and have had strong anti-American sentiments since I was about eight years old. My comments were not directed at the South; they were directed at all rednecks. (My family is from Indiana, and every time I visit that state, I get the strong impression that it's probably the most racist state in the country, some of my own relatives included.) daz, do not call the Dixiecrats democrats--how the hell can you call a party that intended to segregate races in every aspect of civil life democratic? I guess you still believe that the "separate but equal" bullsh!t is a workable, equitable, and deomcratic solution? Lott has to go, plain and simple. He knows what he did was wrong and apologizes for it? But what did he do? If he wasn't endorsing Strom and Dixiecrat ideals (of which there is only one--segregation of the races--I won't start quoting Strom's platform in case some may be offended), then what the hell was he doing? What "problems" would have been "avoided"?Strom only had one agenda when running for president. So, yes, no matter how small a matter it was, I got to see the true Trent the other day, someone who had no scrupples whatsoever about saying, "Things would have been alot better if this Racist, segregationist bastard had been president at the height of civil rights progress!" Similar to the Trent scenario, you raise a bit of concern in me too: Democrats feel "that minorities (especially blacks) are too stupid to get their own jobs and that the Man needs to help them do it." Democrats? Especially blacks? That sort of parsing tells me you are not the type of person I want to know. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 at 20:30. |
| #14 By 1124 (165.170.128.68) at 12/19/2002 9:09:51 AM |
|
I agree with both soda's comments.
daz- Why do you almost always use the names Sharpton, Farakhan, and Jackson when discussing blacks and politics? These guys run their own small organizations. But they don't speak for all or most blacks. I could do the same to you by calling racist or just plain stupid leaders of organizations that are republicans like David Dukes, Jerry farwel, Bucannan etc, but race baiting is stupid and shows you for what you really are. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 306 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:37:26 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
