home

Newsweek's Web Re-Design and Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 10:05:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Newsweek debuted a new design this week. I don't know about you, but when I log on to a site and the audio of a commercial loads instantly, forcing me to either search for the button to turn the sound off or exit the site, I exit immediately.

Goodbye, Newsweek unless you dump that feature quick. I also dislike the in-your-face lightbox with huge rotating pictures and headlines.

The site is also crowded as hell. Back to the drawing board, Newsweek, this one's a bust.

And, since it's Friday, how about an open thread?

< Did Wyden Insert Poison Pill In Senate FISA Capitulation? | Dodd To Filibuster FISA Telecom Amnesty >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Newsweek's Web Re-Design and Open Thread | 29 comments (29 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Use (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 02:59:22 PM EST
    firefox with adblock and it's no problem at all. Except for all the blank space on the page. :)

    Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Troll (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 03:33:27 PM EST
    Just curious how a person can expect to be taken seriously about being in favor of NHC while at the same time continuing to be unswervingly devoted to those MOST adamantly opposed to it.
    Rather like a career bull fight promoter claiming to support the ASPCA.

    The sleepwalking-through-history Bush platform currently is the frenzied, quasi-religious crusade
    for "regime change in the M.E" (costing hundreds of billions of dollars), and "privatization", i.e., paying back the major donors. These people dont give a tinkers damn about NHC and never will.
    No way, no how.

    So, the question remains: who do you think you're kidding?

    The Rub Is (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 03:59:39 PM EST
    Or should I say the Repub is, make the poor disproportionately pay for it though a national sales tax.  

    Just curious how a person can expect to be taken seriously about being in favor of NHC.....


    Parent
    I guess... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by desertswine on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:49:04 PM EST
    that's the idea; to keep the poor, poor and impotent while protecting the assets of the wealthy.

    Just curious how a person can expect to be taken seriously about being in favor of NHC.....

    Does anyone take "that person" seriously?

    Parent

    You are doing what you do best (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 09:37:29 PM EST
    which is trying to change the subject.

    You can be for, against or neutral against S-CHIP, expansion of same or NHC and be concerned, not concerned or neutral about the national debt.

    hehe

    Parent

    Nope (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 09:25:16 AM EST
    Your conclusion doesn't follow.

    A person could be against S-CHIP expansion because he believes it will increase the national debt and he doesn't think that is a good thing. He could also be for program X, knowing it will increase the national debt, but be for it because he thinks it worthwhile.

    Or any combination thereof on any number of subjects.

    I understand that you are a numbers guy, and that's fine. But people don't add and subtract and look for answers just in numbers.

    Parent

    Beyond Innumeracy (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 11:50:41 AM EST
    It is just ppj politics, and nothing less. The numbers are irrelevant.

    Parent
    Please don't make things up (1.00 / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 01:23:47 PM EST
    and be honest...

    I never said that I didn't worry about the National Debt.

    I said that it is possible to worry about one, either, both or none.

    You, as usual, one to change the subject, making incorrect claims..
    tehe

    Parent

    Nope (1.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 05:59:30 PM EST
    You just made some claims up.

    It's what you do best.

    And everyone knows.

    Aren't you just a teeny tiny bit embarrassed??

    Parent

    Well, squeaky brags about it... (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 10:57:26 AM EST
    ppj does as ppj does (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST

    (I had written.)So because Rove is doing wrong, it is okay for you to do wrong?

    (Squeaky replied.) I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.

    Now you too are good, very good in fact, but nothing like squeaky.

    As for your risible response:

    I will admit that might be a possibility, but most people don't have the gut to blatantly lie for small reasons like you, PPJ.

    I see that, having lost the argument your resort to your usual tactics of personal insults.

    As for your claim that the numbers who would cheat is smallm let us say it is 5%.... Out of a population base of 217 million that would give us around 10.5 million...call it 10 million...

    Let's further say that the amount of the fraud averages $20. each visit, then that is $200 million dollars per year based on one visit per year... If we factor in multiple visits for the adult and include the children's visits... then the number becomes much, much higher.. But who keeps score in your world?

    And here I thought you were numbers guy.

    tehehe

    Parent

    The US Gov stats on population (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 07:00:14 PM EST
    no doubt part of the Great Right Wing Conspiracy...

    tehe

    Parent

    And how can you expect to be taken (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 09:53:12 PM EST
    seriously when all I ever see from you is "Bush bad."

    Why don't you tell us, in some detail, how you would pay for NHC, and how you would persuade the taxpayers to accept the bill??

    Parent

    Doesn't work (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 09:03:02 AM EST
    It would be paid by the taxpayers and a co-pay from the person responsible for the bill(to prevent system abuse of 'free services') unless the individual in question is unable to afford said co-pay, then there would be a sliding scale so that they pay what they can afford.

    That is "means testing" and is wide open to abuse and fraud. Plus, how will the payment amount be determined? National ID??

    And that doesn't say "how" the taxpayers will pay.
    Which, of course, is the question that the voter will want to know, along with who and how much.

    The answer should be: Everyone will pay. They will pay through the collection of a National Sales Tax. The Tax will be sliding, from 0% on unprepared food (etc) to 10% on jewelery.

    BTW - Is that your self-description?? Wow.

    Parent

    Really? (1.00 / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 10:24:07 AM EST
    They "means" test all the time?

    If they use a Medicaid card, then the test has been done by the state, not the health care facility.

    If they use a Medicare card, then the test has been done by the US government.

    If they use a Insurance card, then the test has been already been done insurance company.

    If they use a Credit Card, etc....

    But that isn't what you said:

    and a co-pay from the person responsible for the bill(to prevent system abuse of 'free services') unless the individual in question is unable to afford said co-pay, then there would be a sliding scale so that they pay what they can afford.

    How would you do that without some type of National ID?

    "Trust me Ms Cashier. I have no income."

    Yes, we know the taxpayers pay. I mean, wow. What an insightful and informative comment.

    The question is HOW.

    And that was sarcasm??

    Fooled me.

    Parent

    BTW (1.00 / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 06:10:18 PM EST
    That's the means testing they do, and it appears to work.  It also helps if the co-pay is small enough(usually 25$ or so) so that no one is tempted to 'cheat'.

    Let me see. It is getting to the 25 dollars that invites the cheating.

    Parent

    As I said (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 01:20:08 PM EST
    This is a wide open invitation for fraud.

    And since they aren't checking for citizenship, you have the US taxpayer paying for free..... they have paid nothing...health care for illegal aliens.

    And that is why  NHC will not pass unless you pay for it fairly and by everyone.

    And I still believe your self description.

    Parent

    Pee on your shoes?? (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 06:04:03 PM EST
    I doubt you even know when it's raining.

    You try to change the subject, which is how to pay for NHC by saying it is paid for by the taxpayers.

    Well, duh. That sure explains everything.

    Anything that is "means tested" is considered to be unfair by the great unwashed.

    So NHC is not going to be adopted with any plan that does so.

    Parent

    Hmmmm (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 09:06:47 PM EST
    And you write of being taken seriously??

    hehe

    How many times do I have to explain something to you?

    sigh....

    And you refer to me as a "Troll?"

    hehe

    Go read the dozen or so comments I have made on how the cost to those in the lower income can be lowered.

    First, let us remember that the argument against any sales tax is that it is unfair because the lower income group spends a greater portion of their income on things that are necessary, such as unprepared food, utilities, transportation..

    To fix that problem, simply do not tax unprepared food, utilities, gasoline, etc. Increase the tax on such items as alcohol, restaurant meals, luxury cars, sporting events, etc.

    duhhhhhhhh

    Parent

    by unprepared food (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jen M on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 08:05:56 AM EST
    does that mean only the outer walls of the grocery store? (produce, dairy, uncooked meat, bakery, etc) or do you basically mean any food from the grocery store?

    Parent
    Playing "devil in the details," eh? ;-) (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 09:16:38 AM EST


    Parent
    I try to keep an open mind..... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 09:41:17 AM EST
    on the national sales tax idea, either as a substitute for the income tax or to fund health care.  

    The way I see it, we would be taxed based on consumption.  A person, rich or poor, who lives humbly will pay less than those, again rich or poor, who live lavishly.  I'm not convinced that is a bad thing.  Personally being in the middle/low bracket, I could see myself paying less tax if we taxed consumption instead of income.

    As for people at poverty level, as long as staples like food and no-frills clothing are exempt, they still would pay little to no tax unless they buy a tv or luxury item.

    And for the rich, there would be less ways to game the system with tax shelters and what not...buy a BMW and taxes are due at point of sale.

    What am I missing?

    Parent

    That's about it (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 10:08:55 AM EST
    A secondary advantage is that it picks up taxes from people who aren't paying now. i.e. Drug dealers, bookies, illegal aliens, etc...

    And the rich don't pay taxes, or not like everyone assumes they do..(that's what lawyers and accountants are for, boys and girls)....The simplest way to avoid FIT is to put your money in municipal bonds. (I'm not sure about FICA and Medicare taxes.)

    The people really getting snarfed are in your middle class.. These people are already paying in the 50% range when you include all taxes and fees..

    And they know it. And if you are going to hit them with another tax, you had best be ready to convince them that it is:

    1. Fair. And by that I mean paid by EVERYONE. paying the same percent.

    2. Will provide them with a service that is at least equal to what they are currently receiving.

    3. Will provide a service that helps those less fortunate.

    Note which is last.

    Parent
    I should have written (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 10:11:49 AM EST
    EVERYONE paying the same sales taxes.

    Parent
    Speaking of crusades.... (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 09:48:23 PM EST
    You recently claimed that I:

    if you've got some evidence (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:40:21 PM EST

    of anyone here defending holocaust deniers statements, I'd like to see it.

    Nice try though; right up there with your defence of the pogrom commiting Crusaders.

    Thanks for the amusement. (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 09:29:26 AM EST

    Duhhhhh..
    You claimed that I defended the Crusaders..

    I noted that I had not, and challenged you to prove that I had.

    You did not. And you know you can't.

    Now you want me to educate myself...

    About what? I made no claim.

    You are a smearer, Jondee.

    Troll is your name and Trolling is your game.

    hehe

    You kept changing the subject, never admitting that what I had written was:

    The crusades were (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:58:20 PM EST

    800 or so years ago.
    So why do you think they have anything with this.

    Further, the crusades were against Moslems who were attacking and killing Jews in their desire to control the "Holy Land."

    Now. Tell us that the Pope called for a crusade to retake the Holly Land because Moslems weren't invading it???

    And hey weren't killing Jews?

    Why can't you hold the separate thoughts in your mind that the Crusaders fought the Moslems and also did bad things to Jews??

    Parent

    Friendly Islamofascisits (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 01:53:26 PM EST
    Two of ppj's oft quoted friends, David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes are sponsoring islamofascist terror while condeming it. No wonder ppj can't keep it straight.
    During the week of October 22-26, an official announcement effuses, "The nation will be rocked by the biggest conservative campus protest ever - Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a wake-up call for Americans on 200 university and college campuses." Ringmastered by David Horowitz, this circus will be performing under the tent of something called the "Terrorism Awareness Project."

    But the MEK, a commie terror cult, is OK fine and dandy.

    The MEK would in fact make an ideal target for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week and Terrorism Awareness efforts, no?

    Well, no. At least one of the carnival's acts, it turns out, is rather fond of the Islamo-Stalinist-terrorist cult group, and has repeatedly argued for the removal of the MEK from the State Department's list of terrorist groups and indeed urged the U.S. government to embrace it. Daniel Pipes, who will be speaking at Tufts on October 24th as part of the Horowitz high jinks, has made the MEK a recurring theme in his writings going back several years: here, here, and here.

    link via digby

    Huh?? (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 06:07:27 PM EST
    You have a problem with discussing the problems???


    Parent
    Yeah, since they appear to be against the (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 11:11:43 AM EST
    existing bunch of terrorist enablers I can see why they are fair game for some on the Left.

    From a link contained with the link so thoughtfully NOT INCLUDED by squeaky we find:

    Navigating the fractious currents of émigré politics is never easy, and especially for the Iranian opposition group known as the Mujahedeen-e Khalq or the People's Mujahedeen of Iran. Simply put, the rogue oil state regime it opposes terrifies one half the West and tempts the other, and the MEK is itself accused of being a superannuated Marxist-Islamist terrorist cult.
    These obstacles have not, however, prevented the MEK from trumpeting Islamism as the new global threat, providing important intelligence to the West - for example, about Iran's nuclear program - terrifying the regime in Tehran, and putting on major displays of anti-regime solidarity
    ...... These factors, combined with the mullah's near-phobic reaction toward the MEK, suggest that the organization presents a formidable tool for intimidating Tehran.
    Alas, Westerners presently cannot work with the MEK, due to a 1997 decision by the Clinton administration, followed five years later by the European Union, to offer a sop to the mullahs and declare it a terrorist group, putting it officially on a par with the likes of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbullah. A Portuguese member of the European parliament, Paulo Casaca, notes that "Officials on both sides of the Atlantic are on the record as saying that the only reason why the group was put on the U.S. terrorism list in the first place was to send a `goodwill gesture' to the Iranian regime..

    Link

    Can you say, "An enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

    tehe

    Parent

    Defend them?? (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 07:03:05 PM EST
    I merely note what others have said.

    It appears to be another case of a screwed up Clinton foreign policy.

    Parent

    This is absolutely drop dead laughing (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 09:49:45 AM EST
    funny. Don't miss it.

    Newsweek's Web Re-Design and Open Thread | 29 comments (29 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment