Let me try to be more factual and less emotional in response to basmati:

Linking TO someone else's site to send a visitor there is not illegal and it is not “hot linking” which can be illegal for two reasons. One, if you use copyrighted files and images from the site you "hot-link" to like a music file of picture it can be a copyright violation.

Two, imbedded files from another site that are "Hot Linked" also require permission since it can affect the bandwidth of the supplier and the ability of them to provide to others at the speed they are designed to operate at. Some hosts are on a fixed bandwidth plan and cannot exceed it without additional costs. Those who do, and can show they suffered a loss due to "Hot-Linking" can sue for damages.

"Hot-linking" is calling someone else's file to your server (usually video or audio files). (MySpace.com has some serious problems with this since so many teens "Hot-Link" to music videos. MySpace has changed the format and ability to "Hot-Link" in hopes of resolving this problem. YouTube is now in this same position.)

Hot-Linking can cuase a remote system to run at a slower speed and use more bandwidth since you are in effect streaming the files through your site to an additional user(to keep with the hose analogy, the flow will only be as much as the smallest hose will allow- and you would be an additional 100 feet with a kink in your hose).

It is NOT Hot-Linking to send a user via an embeded link (like the ones that The Citizen provides html code for) to their host site (server). Google has made a living directing others to a site for your perusal.

The text files posted on this server, blogs and links, (The Citizen News) are static files and Hot Links are not permitted by or available to guest users (us).

Static files, like your posts, can use up the server memory and slow access by other users when we are all using this site. The more users that are online (on the "Highway" called The Citizen Online) – the slower the site will usually be able to address your web page request (think of it as a traffic jam).

Most of the time, adding a dedicated server is a low cost and simple solution (a SNAP server). So, in short, sending a user to another site to read something can theoretically decrease traffic if it is not "Hot-Linked" since they are no longer trying to address the local server.

By the way, it would take thousands of the average text pages (blogs, posts, links, etc.) to be the equivalent of a single average video or audio file. My little picture is probably larger than most, or all, of my posts.

I hope this helps you to better understand how a site operates. Enjoy-

You seriously need a life. Why don't you mind your own business? Who are you the blog police? I bet you spent a lot of time with your underware pulled over your head on the school bus, didn't you? Piss of basmati - you little gay turd.

Wow, you CAN say something original! Actually, if that's the best you can do I urge you to go back and cut and paste more copyrighted material....hey, you're a Republican, the law doesn't apply to YOOOOOU!

I am NOT a Republican - I am NOT a bully and I know a jerk when I see one (that would be you).

You have a pattern of behavior on here- when you see something you don't like and can't rebuff you personally attack the messenger - that's a bully's M.O. - that's you basmati.

Either comment on the content of the post or shut up. Leave personal attacks out of it.

What I posted for Major (not that it was any of your business) was to get the topic back to ideology and off of economic station of life. I see you play that same lame game with OldSchool and Major on a regular basis.

Yes, basmati, you are indeed a rude little bully in need of counseling. Face it Napoleon, you have no authority, you have no credibility, and you have nothing intelligent to say - so find someone else (like your "old'fool'") to bully and get a life!

I think the same thing about Nancy Pelosi that I think about you - you are both too close minded, angry and extreme to be of any use to anyone in a rational discussion looking for logical solutions to real world problems. Being a democrat doesn't mean being lock-step with the extremes of the party anymore than being a muslim means being a terrorist.

Mark, you certainly are a sensitive soul that cannot seem to handle any sort of criticism.

First of all, blogs are by definition a community-based exchange of ideas. As such, anyone and everyone can respond to an individual post. I chose to respond to yours. Deal with it, little man.

Secondly, I've noticed that a few extremists on this board resort to lengthy cut and pastes of copyrighted material when they are cornered. They can't make an original argument for themselves, so they have others do it for them.

I've got a couple of problems with this. First of all, it's a violation of copyright law. Second of all, it's a drain on the Citizen's website bandwidth. Thirdly, flooding a blog with someone else's words is in my mind a blatant attempt to stifle conversation, not stimulate conversation. This is regardless of whether you claim authorship of the words in question (like ArmyMajRetired used to do until I called him on it) or whether you just simply cut and paste entire articles like you did.

You can whine all you want to...heck take it to Our Benevolent Blogfather Cal Beverly if you think you have a case!! But you may assume that until a moderator tells me differently, I am going to continue to point out your intellectually bankrupt habit of violating copyright laws. Here's a thought: why not post something original for a change?

I look forward to your inevitable near-incoherent rage of a reply.

Have a nice day!

As an independent who voted for Bill Clinton twice .... and supports Gov. Bill Richardson(D. New Mexico)for President in 08 - let me advise you of something else you don't know so that you don't make all liberals look like idiots.
Here is your quote:

"I've got a couple of problems with this. First of all, it's a violation of copyright law. Second of all, it's a drain on the Citizen's website bandwidth."

Two issues - First One - YOU are not the 'copyright police' (I know that crushes you) and I have not violated copyright. If you think I have, then sue me if you can even find out who I am or have me "fined". You are so Internet illeterate that you can't even identify me, duh. You already said you turned in my alleged violation - good for you - do I sound worried? Let's just see what happens basmati - let's see if the Times is as concerned as you are 'deputy Fife'.

Issue Two - you are completely lost when you talk about a post somehow "draining the citizen's bandwidth". You are litterally IGNORANT regarding this topic. (I will not waste my time trying to teach you how the Internet, Routers, Hubs, Daisy-Chains, Packets, Bandwidth, twisted pair, 10-base T connections, LANs, WANs, or fiber optic work nor how web pages and Internet connections manage their space.)

Allow me to simplify, the size of the garden hose is not affected by the type of flowers you water.

Therefore, a posting on the server of a website (a blog), or the reading of said post by a viewer, has about as much to do with bandwidth as you have to do with copyright enforcement.

Having been in this field for the last several years, I challenge you to explain how any post on this site affects the Citizen's bandwidth (ability to carry data to and from the Internet).

Just be advised you are ignorant to how "Bandwidth" is used and what it is if you think my post affects it. Maybe you should stick with personal attacks after all. Here, try this new word "memory".

The courts ruled in Washington Post vs. Free Republic, September 28, 1998. Case No. 98-7840 that copy and pasting copyrighted articles in their entirety on another website without permission was considered theft under copyright laws. Take your beef up with the courts if you don't agree.

Secondly, you are using a non-standard definition of "bandwidth" as it relates to websites. For example, I run a hobby recipe website on the side. I pay X amount of dollars each month for 35gigabytes of bandwidth, bandwidth in this instance consists of pages viewed, posts made, and files uploaded and downloaded. Each time a page is displayed on my website, part of my 30gb monthly allotment is consumed.

I'm very sensitive to copyright issues as I have been given cease and desist letters before....virtually every month when "southern living" magazine comes out, someone uploads a copy of a copyrighted recipe, and I have to remove it and replace it with a link.

Unlike you, I have respect for copyright laws.

I'm done with this discussion, since you seem like the type that has to get the last word in, go ahead and bray and declare victory and all that other kewl stuff your type does.

جندي السِم

Your statement that "... copyrighted articles in their entirety on another website without permission" does not apply here. You say it does, I say it does not.

YOU are the one who brought up and claimed to have reported this alleged "violation" in an attempt to intimidate me - sorry - doesn't work. But just so you'll know, I'll be the first to tell you if I get a cease and disist letter - it's certainly no big deal - you just cease and desist - end of story.

As for your criticism of my definition of bandwidth, stay with cooking. My definition is accurate I can assure you. Maybe you should re-read and do some googling just to make sure.

In case for some reason you didn't know, your "file uploading and downloading" is where you are wasting your money on buying your "bandwidth". I suggest you learn more about web hosting, link imbedding, and get yourself a new ISP if what you say is true.

Regardless, I already tried to teach you something about bandwidth and the Internet - just take it or leave it.

In regards to "go ahead and bray and declare victory and all that other kewl stuff your type does." (sic) There will be no bragging here buddy - just sticking to the facts. Maybe you just don't know my type as well as you think you do.... maybe.

I feel sure they have better things to do than worry about an improperly cited editorial - BUT, if they don't I'll be happy to pay the "$300 bill" for you myword_mark. Don't worry about a thing kid.

Contact me if you get a bill and we will post it on here too!

Good job posting some facts that can't be twisted.

Don't let the bullies on this small town litle blog here like basmati run you off. They think they are BIG fish in this little pond of ours here.

You speak your mind and post whatever facts you want. This is a blog and the laws on them are very fluid right now. You tried buddy Blogs are not basmati's forte Bullying and personal attacks are!

Again, if you get charged - I'll pay it.

Take care youngblood-
OldSchool

The Washington Times has a little link down at the bottom of its editorials saying anyone can post their editorials on a website for a low rate of $300 a month.

Hey, OldSchool, if you are against capitalism and free enterprise, that's your First Amendment right. You can be a Communist if you want to....but you know, there aren't that many Communist Ex-Marines that I can think of.

In fact, Lee Harvey Oswald is the only other one that comes to mind.

*shrug* You sure keep some unusual company!!

There is no provision required or available for linking the article to a blog. In fact, none of the options available relate to this format. They do have click to print and click to email options however.

basmati is just wrong - as usual. basmati may want to actually look at the options that do NOT require reproduction permission including but not limited to those previously mentioned. basmati, feel free to run tell - and be consistant whenever you do. Nearly every blog here is linked to information - muddle may be in danger next! Run catch them too! This is just more of the same old personal attacks by an obtuse little bully.

They are good at entertainment, but I'm not sure they are the be all end all when it comes to news.

You have to remember, the producers of this show have an agenda too. The Westmoreland election went about exactly like most expected it would. It helped him that Sonny ran a strong campaign and the base in Georgia was energized, mainly due to the negative campaigning of Taylor. IF the McGraw folks really thought they had a majority of the votes in Fayette/Coweta, well, let's just say that says a lot about them.

An actual response to the item at hand would impress me, but as usual, Repugs sidestep the issue. Hell, Mike might have lost the lection anyway, but the vote is delegitimized as long as people don't believe the polls and machines are protected, publicly transparent and auditable.

Who is in charge? You think they went to the trouble to "hack" the votes in only this district? IF one party had control, you seem to imply the Pubs do, don't you think they would have figured out how to keep control of the House/Senate. I'm sorry, although anything is possible, I'm going to have to just disagree.

As political scientists are noting all over the country, somehow either Georgia is like night and day compared to Tennessee and Alabama or Diebold has gone unchecked in Georgia and have a deal with the devil. The fact is, the machines were not certified throughout Georgia at the time of purchase, they didn't do a dry run in the week preceding the election, which is the law, and somehow, we are expected to believe that not only Republicans voted the way they did, but Dems and Indies voted for them as well. Interestingly, the least endorsed, most embarrassing "do-nothiner" in Congress won by a greater margin than any in Georgia.

They appear to have all cheated; this just seems to be the most obvious.

One would other wise think that Georgia was the Quebec of the US in terms of our socio-political and cultural differences.

Especially you, McDonough, should find it hard to beleive that half the black voters (in Henry) went Republican. I think not. We are not just dealing with "possible"; this is statistically impossible. But some people think 4 inches = 8 inches

As much as I enjoy the Republicans here scaring yourselves with witchy stories like kids daring each other to go into a graveyard on Halloween, I am going to go out on a long limb here to predict that there isn't going to be a President Hillary. There's not even going to be a nominee Hillary. First of all, she cannot possibly win. However, I'm basing my prediction not on the rationality of the Democratic Party, which would be exceptionally foolish, but on simple history of how the Party works. In the last 75 years in an open election, no candidate that has ever been the front runner this early has even come close to getting the nomination. Ask President Dean! The Democrats will eventually nominate someone who is probably not from the Senate, probably a governor, and who is going to be relatively unknown at this point in the process. All of which points to the "not Hillary" candidate. Its fun to frighten yourselves in the middle of the night thinking about her though so carry on! And she will raise a ton of money for the Democrats and energize the base so she's not a complete write-off. Thats my prediction, y'all hold me to it.

I am not a Republican! I pray that Hillary will never be my President!!

I think the Repubs will re-energize myself. It won't take much of Pelosi to get people's attention. I will say this, the Dems couldn't have a much more liberal President to work with than W, that's for sure.

Her values are these: Married to the same man who gave her five kids; five kids she raised admirably. She is a wife and grandma who works in a tough town. If she is anything like the average mother and grandmother of so many, she certainly knows how to communicate and bridge gaps. I think we'll all be pleasantly surprised...

Cheers and good night,

Kevin Hack King

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.asp?CID=N00007360&year=2005

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - 2005
Net Worth: From $14,746,108 to $55,085,000
Ranks 9th among all members
of the House

Assets: 115 totaling $22,746,118 to $92,085,000

Liabilities: 10 totaling $8,000,010 to $37,000,000

Transactions: 22 totaling $1,338,022 to $2,926,000

The Pelosi family has a net worth of over $25 million, mainly from Paul's investments. Besides a large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, he also has millions of dollars worth of shares in publicly traded companies such as Microsoft, Amazon.com and AT&T.[4] In 2003, the Pelosi family sold their (non-union) 8 acre Rutherford vineyard.

Some of Grandma Pelosi's Record:

The Washington Times
A look at Pelosi's voting record
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
November 3, 2006
"Mrs. Pelosi has consistently voted against welfare reform, including the 1996 bill signed by President Clinton and its re-authorization.

There is more - much more - just say she is a liberal and be done with it-

What in the world does this info you wasted what I assume to be valuable time dredging up have to do e=with the price of milk in Uzbekistan? I mentioned concensus building and communication skills and you bring us assets and liabilities? Impressive ones at that.
While you are at it, let's look at some other leaders' info. Please, if you have an honest bone, tell us about the President's oil company dealings before the Rangers. Then tell us about the Ranger's payolla. Then skip over to Halliburton obligations to the VP. How much has he made since March 2003 from that no bid baby?

I'll check back later for the info.

Hack

So armymajretired should we hate her because she is successful and smart with money?

She definitly is not your average frumpy dumpy fat house wife with a load of credit card debt, driving a birthcontrol failure van(minivan).

We need someone who is smart and can manage money in congress.

President Clinton 2 is in our future and that is the club Pelosi will use to try and keep the Democrats in line. No small task at all. One of her first challanges is Charlie Rangell - he's trying to take over Cheney's office in the Senate office building. Small and petty to be sure, but Pelosi needs to control stuff like that and if she does, Hillary is in.

Then of course we will see socilaized medicine, higher taxes, weakened military and intelligence gathering and another 9/11 attack - but larger.

And the Republicans let it happen. At this point you have to conclude their leadership is weak. Remains to be seen if the Democratic leadership is strong, but I think it will be if dump Dean and bring back some Clintonistas from Bill's gang and let Pelosi lead from the front.

I hate it, but it is probably all going to happen.
meow

Mudcat always has to be so negative. Get out of the Direct PAC and set yourself free. (And don't forget to take your de-worming medicine.)

It's uncanny.

The day after the democrats clean up, Rumsfeld steps down. Today's headlines: Bush to meet with committee for exploring new course in Iraq.

Is that all it took? Tomorrow he'll join the Sierra Club, next day he'll give in to pressure to open up new stem cell lines, a week later he'll wonder why he ever objected to partial birth abortion in the first place.

I'm just kidding, of course, but his sudden willingness for dialog and new ideas, after all this time of sticking to the original plan, strikes me as odd.

Maybe he is afraid the backlash will effect the outcome of '08 and give Hilary a shot and figures he needs to act fast in repairing the political damage.

There is no change! Two things: he doesn't want to be impeached---goodness knows he deserves it as much as Clinton did; and he wants to try and salvage a good legacy for himself. He is the same low gravitas, con artist as he ever was---just like Limbaugh, O'Riley, Hannity, Coulter, and Krautheimer, the same bunch that did him in with the independents. When Bush was nominated, it was apparent to all but the brain dead that if he was who they wanted, and not McCain, or many others available, that we were in for eight years of management by those whose job is to get votes and not give a darn about the average citizen. John D. Rockefeller used to pass out shiny mew dimes to starving kids in order to make him appear benevolent. It cost him about $2.00 a day. It only disturbed the poor even more. One doesn't have to associate with dumb, poor, nasty, lazy people if they don't wish to, but they had better provide them a job and health care, and church guidance without pounding on them, or they will be cut down.
Also, there is a columnist who writes for this paper, a religious man, who wants to know everyone's name who writes stuff he doesn't like and assumes to be untrue and that supposedly defames people. What does he plan to do with those names? Shut the defamers up, maybe? Does he think that he is the only one who can distinguish what to think? I get tired of self righeous people condescending to most others. Just preach what is right and quit judging. I'm sure Mother Teresa might have thought you didn't amount to very much!

I've lived in a lot of places, but this the the most close-minded area I've lived in my entire life.

I firmly believe that people in Fayette County could not be swayed from voting Republican even if they had hard evidence that Republicans were planning to destroy the world.

There may be a lot of money in Fayette County, but not a lot of open minds. Thinking is a crime in Fayette County.

I'm glad the Democrats won. Bush and Westmoreland are effectively neutured. Watch the way they walk from now on. They're hurting.

You are correct, sir. Many here would vote republican if they were sure it would cause us to lose a war to Haiti. It's just that they get physiclly sick even considering voting for the best person and throwing out bums. We should all be Independent voters, that is, voting either democrat or republican, depending on the the candidate. I don't like belonging to groups anyway that ignore common sense and the good of all. I feel more secure being independent.

The trouble, though, is that you might be faced with this dilemma:

Jones is a family man and a person of the highest integrity, and is also exceptionally bright and talented.

Smith is a known womanizer and was involved in some shady business deals in the past. He's also not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

All other things being equal, I would choose Jones over Smith.

But all other things might not be equal. Jones' political philosophy may be diametrically opposed to my own, whereas Smith's political views align with mine. I have good reason to believe that, if elected, Jones will push for an agenda that I find abhorrent, but Smith will not.

Now how shall I vote?

Beyond this consideration, I question the common charge that single-issue voting is for boneheads. It is possible for a political or moral issue to be such that it trumps all others. Neither party includes the precise arrangement of planks in its platform that I would choose. And I've never seen a single candidate who did, either. Something is always sacrificed for me when a vote is cast, and the only reasonable approach is to think in terms of a hierarchy of importance.

Amen GreatLogic. I couldn't agree more. I've lived in 7 cities in my lifetime on both coasts, this is by far the most conservative close-minded area that I ever saw. Very back-woods'ish. Its almost like they choose to live in a bubble that is about 10 years behind the rest of the world.

The hardline Repubs deserved the kick in the teeth that they got.

It was well earned.

Don you really think half of the blacks in rural Georgia voted for Republicans in this election?

HBO-Hacking Democracy-Complete

After watching this you will understand. Watch soon as it will probably be taken down soon due to Copyright permissions. It is there for the moment. Or watch it on HBO.

HBO-Hacking Democracy Complete (Correction)