| 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 |
 |
Senate panel head critical of Microsoft settlement | |
|
||
| Time: 11:55 EST/16:55 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
``Second, I am concerned that the enforcement mechanism described in the proposed decree, lacks the power and the timeliness necessary to inspire confidence in its effectiveness,'' Leahy said in a text of his opening remarks at a hearing on the settlement. Leahy urged U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to seriously consider the alternative remedy offered last week by another nine states that have refused to sign the settlement. | ||
The
chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee expressed strong concerns on
Wednesday about a proposed Microsoft settlement as his panel begins hearings on
the landmark antitrust case against the software giant. Sen. Patrick Leahy, a
Democrat from Vermont, said firstly he was worried that the terms of the pact
reached last month with the U.S. Justice Department and nine of the states in
the case were often vague and vulnerable to manipulation.|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:17:59 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/12/2001 2:15:26 PM |
|
Honestly that link is kind of lame.
As much as they'd like to argue that Senator Harkin is a socialist, he's pretty much a down the center Iowan and so forth. The ACLU in particular is a centrist orgnization dedicated to protecting our Bill of Rights. They seem to have fallen into the Rush Limbaugh "liberal" trap, where you can't debate issues so thefore attack by stereotyping. This confusion of what is left mainly comes because some individuals who are so far right of center they really have a skewed view of the world. Maybe part of the problem is that the far right tends to feel somewhat awkward because the US was founded by liberals, so it's hard to formulate their debate and still abide by what's in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This causes a problem that centrists Americans appear like liberals to the far right. Now if you want to see far left, I would start off by looking at Ralph Nader. (Interesting he's not listed) Then go forth looking at the anti-globalization groups, the WTO protestors, the anarchists and so forth. There's a wealth of information on these groups, but notice how this link doesn't even seem to be aware of them(although Free Mumia is close). |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 12/12/2001 10:24:36 PM |
|
sunglasses: "Surely you're not saying George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were liberals? They'd be downright puritan by today's standards. "
I think the Taliban would disagree with you tremendously. Or the American Taliban(aka Falwell/Robertson/Buchanan) who still does not agree with Jefferson's belief of the seperation of church & state. One would think that Afghanistan provides a clear modern proof of the wisdom of Jefferson's words, but some people still do not listen even after 225 years. |
| #3 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 12/13/2001 1:29:33 AM |
|
#7 - Actually, the definition of liberal and conservative has changed completely since the days of the founding fathers.
In fact, way back when, "Republicans" once stood for freedom and civil liberty, and now they primarily stand for rich white people. Republicans used to be for getting the government out of people's lives, but that is simply no longer true. The war on drugs is a great example of a primarily republican initiative that is a huge violation of civil liberties and freedom. Others would include laws against suicide, assisted suicide, sexuality (including homosexuality, which is illegal in many states - mostly southern states lead by republican majorities), prostitution, gambling, and basically any law that enforces "morality" onto people that are doing nothing but consensual adult activities. Now, the big "defenders" of civil liberties, although only to a point, are the liberals. I'm a civil libertarian, which many would consider "liberal"... hence the "liber" part of libertarian, but Libertarians are very, very, very far right. That's not to say liberals (Democrats) don't violate civil liberties... they certainly do. Many could argue that affirmative action, and campaigns against sex and violence (although, for liberals, it's more anti-violence than anti-sex, that's the republicans job) on TV and in movies are violations of civil liberty. The founding fathers were just as split as we are today, although over different and imho far nobler issues. One thing almost all were unanimous on was the importance of civil liberty and the right for all Americans to do *anything* they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt the person or property of another non-consenting adult. Period. ANYWAY, this all has nothing to do with Microsoft... so I digress. ;-) |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/13/2001 4:35:50 PM |
|
#14.
Imagine a chart with X and Y axis. Along the X axis is Personal Liberties, and along the Y axis is Economic Liberties. The Democrats(or liberals) fit into a position high on the X axis and low on the Y. They favor Personal liberties, but are for economic controls to keep companies in check. The Republicans(or conservatives) fit into a position low on the X axis and high on the Y. They favor Economic liberties, but are for restricting personal behavior which they deem immoral. The Libertarians fit into a position high on both X and Y axis and favor both Personal and Economic liberties, no matter the consequences. The Fascists, Communists(any form of Dictatorship) fit into a position low on both X and Y axis and favor a great deal of economic and personal control. They want to control what you do, when you do, how much you are paid and so forth. That's the simplest description I've ever seen. It's why most charecterizations of the parties are grossly exagerrated. You'll see conservatives call the liberals Communists all the time, implying that because they are interested in certain forms of economic control to protect the citizenry they are in favor of dictatorships. But at the same time these conservatives who argue for smaller government, also argue for larger government because we must protect the citizenry from themselves, for they are stupid and do not know how to live their lives. So in the very same sense they are also Communists. I don't regard Libertarians as far-right as RMD stated. They exist again on a perpendicular line distanced from each party. The reason they frequently are associated with the far-right is because there really aren't very many true Libertarians in this country. Most of the people who associate with them are very much in favor of free economic controls and certain personal liberties, but really don't buy into all personal liberties and are pretty willing to crack down on anything they deem "immoral", like sex, drugs or rock & roll. It's also further confused that people in parties may cross over lines on individual issues. As to #16's point about big government. He actually probably favors big government, but would rather twist facts to support his notions. Since 9/11 our Federal government has grown in size moreso than it had during the 8 years of the Clinton administration. And the fact of the matter is, most of that growth in the federal government in the past 3 months is a GOOD THING. |
| #5 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 12/13/2001 7:21:36 PM |
|
#21, Soda -
You state: "Most of the people who associate with them are very much in favor of free economic controls and certain personal liberties, but really don't buy into all personal liberties and are pretty willing to crack down on anything they deem "immoral", like sex, drugs or rock & roll." Then they are not Libertarian. Period. The Libertarian credo is this: "People should be able to do anything they want as long as it doesn't physically hurt the person or property of another non-consenting adult." Again, for emphasis: PERIOD. Any "Libertarian" who believes otherwise is a liar or very ignorant. Check out www.libertarian.org for more info. Also, pick up a copy of "Ain't Nobody's Business if you Do: The Absurdity of Consenual Crimes in our Free Countery" by Peter McWilliams. It details very well the civil libertarian mantra. Again, I stress, I'm *not* a Libertarian... I'm a *Civil* Libertarian... I have not yet decided how I view many economic issues, and I don't think Libertarian ideologies address these issues perfectly because of aspects like the tragedy of the commons. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:17:59 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
