Slashdot Mirror

whitewash history much?

it's not a myth. and iit was far more than "just a fragment". the tax penalty "punishment" came from them too.
really, the only things dems did was tack on minimum coverage, and a public optopn (that later got dropped).

you folks can try to whitewash the history all you want.
but no one is falling for it.

http://americablog.com/2013/10...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/h...
https://healthcarereform.proco...

and of course, the original document, in full, for your reading pleasure: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws....

One has to remember it was the Heritage Foundation who proposed the individual mandate. Written in their document were the words:

Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance

Having a PEC has, and should have, no bearing on allowing a person to obtain medical insurance. We know a certain portion of the population is born with such afflictions. Unless gene therapy kicks into high gear, we are going to have these type of people for a very long time. Denying them coverage simply because of how they were born cannot be done.

That said, requiring people to hand over their money or have the government reach into their bank account and forcibly extract the money is anathema to pretty much everything the Founding Fathers fought for. In fact, it's the exact opposite of what the Heritage Foundation itself stands for.

Yet, they were the ones who proposed it, Newt Gingrich backed it (because HILLARY was doing her own healthcare push at that time), and Mitt Romney implemented it. It's very disingenuous for Republicans to complain they got what they asked for.

What should have been done is give a person three options. 1) You hand over your money and get coverage. 2) You make your own choices and pay your own bills. 3) If you choose not to be covered, you can't get coverage until X months have passed. These options would cover everyone and allow people to make the choice which best fits their needs.

Instead, we got what the Heritage Foundation proposed. Big government forcing people to hand over their money.

obama wanted single payer. what we got, 'obamacare', is actually modeled after 'romneycare'.. a republican created fuck-up put in place in Massachusetts

Actually, what we got was based on, and followed very closely, the proposal put forth by the Heritage Foundation in 1989.

As the above article shows, there were two key parts:

1) All citizens should be guaranteed universal access to health care

2) Mandate all households obtain adequate insurance

And this article goes into more depth about how Republicans like Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich were pushing for mandated health insurance which required people, not employers, to buy insurance.

In other words, Republicans got exactly what they wanted, and they're pissed.

Nobody expected yet another election where the losing candidate gets the most votes. And to add insult to injury Trump received the third worst vote margin in all of US history, yet he already acts like he has a mandate by making some very extreme announcements and decisions. Such as supporting Ryan's plan to phase out medicare.

I don't know if I'd ever call a winning margin the "third worst" of anything.

Nobody expected yet another election where the losing candidate gets the most votes. And to add insult to injury Trump received the third worst vote margin in all of US history, yet he already acts like he has a mandate by making some very extreme announcements and decisions. Such as supporting Ryan's plan to phase out medicare.

Personally, I'm more into Russian swimwear

I mean, UC Davis trying to wipe their history off the Internet is especially disappointing, considering that University of Calfiornia Davis is an institute of learning.

I'd expect more from UC Davis. The protests were partially in response to tuition hikes in the first place, so where did the money for this come from? Remember the pepper sprayer HIMSELF got $38K in compensation. So add that into the budget.

Oh, UC Davis, how many scholarships could you have created with this money?

The battlefield for the war on terror is "everywhere". And it's just a couple of guys in a room, none of whom are particularly impartial.

And this is a nice summary:
http://americablog.com/2014/05/post-constitutional-era-scotus-allows-capture-rendition-u-s-citizens-ndaa.html

I love comments like these because they show how wingers have created an alternate reality for themselves where facts need not apply.

I love comments like this. Tell me what is right wing about these positions:

Tell me you've paid an iota of attention to what the Democrats have been doing for the last 30 years?

nationalizing health care

You mean far better care for far less money? Not only did Democrats take Single Payer off the table before negotiations began, top Democrats (Obama, Reid, Baucus, Pelsoi) killed the Public Option. If, on the other hand, you're referring to Obomneycare....yeah, that's a right wing, market based plan. First cooked up by the Heritage Foundation in the 90's - something both Obamabots and wingers have an allergic reaction to remembering.

paid college tuition

Where. Nothing has been done nationally, and tuition will have about doubled under Brown.

open borders/immigration amnesty

Obama deported immigrants at a rate far higher than Bush, before pulling a mini-Reagan when it was politically meaningless.

regulation of business, to a detrimental level

On some planet where Democrats haven't continued deregulating businesses? Reagan-Bush sent 800 bankers to jail over the S&L fraud; Obama hasn't prosecuted a single banker for a crisis 70 times as large. If, again, you're referring to Obomneycare, take it up with these guys.

union empowerment

"Empowered" right out of their teaching jobs with RTTT, which is Bush's NCLB on steroids. Sin taxes on union health insurance, something Obama attacked McCain for wanting to do in '08. Killed EFCA. Auto bailout gutted the union by forcing new employees to work for far less money than existing workers - and why support a union if you aren't going to get anything out of it?

higher taxes on the rich

Most of Bush tax cuts were extended, and they keep wanting to cut corporate tax rates.

more social programs for the poor

They just cut 9 billion in food stamps in the last farm bill. And who do you think "ended welfare as we know it" in the 90's, President Dole?

http://americablog.com/2014/02...

Unlike same sex marriage proponents who call it a 'right' that they are being 'denied'... they do not face criminal prosecution for them living their lives within the current system.

That makes me wonder if any gay couple has been prosecuted for tax evasion due to attempting to file "married filing jointly." Or for trespassing/disorderly conduct/any catch-all offense when trying to visit their [not-legally-recognized] spouse in the hospital. Or with fraud or whatever when trying to exercise power of attorney in each others' name. Etc.

As much as it shames me to admit that this happened in my own state, yes, homosexuals have been not only denied access to dying loved ones in the hospital, Roger Gorley was handcuffed and forcibly removed from the Research Medical Center in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, despite the fact that he had medical power of attorney over his ailing partner.

To top it off, as you'll see in the article, the hospital tried to save face by throwing Gorley under the bus, claiming he was "acting disorderly," even though eyewitness accounts and the police report indicate otherwise.

Takking a photo in public should be freakishly illegal in a "modern, developed country"?

Reductio ad absurdum - we're not talking about the practice of innocuous picture-taking, we're talking about onerous collection of personal data into a for-profit database.

And, FWIW, go try and take some public photos of, say, a courthouse, or better yet, a power station. You'll discover the "public photography" double standard rather quickly, I assure you.

Also, here's a short article regarding the legal implications of taking pictures in select public places.

The next thing you know some prick like Obama is going to be arguing for an individual grid connection mandate; because its only affordable if we all participate.

Why, did the Heritage Foundation come up with such a plan 25 years ago? Anything else would be hippie nonsense.

The issue here, is that there is a backdoor being built-in deliberately. That could compromise trust.

There is that possibility. Once again, this is a possibility we've known about for a while, and it hasn't caused people to leave Windows in droves. I think it's something most people just must not care about.

Or is this just one more made up "fact" about another age of history and how superior we are today?

First, who said we're any better today than back then? We're still killing people for cross-dressing right now, just like we were back then. If you can be killed just for how you dress, what makes you think the (heretical) idea that we came from Mars instead of from God is any less worthy of a human BBQ in the public square?

But Germany gets so much more sun than the US! We can't compete with that?!

(I wish I were kidding...)

All of you are missing the point.

http://americablog.com/2013/08/if-the-irs-gets-nsa-data-who-doesnt-this-is-a-data-trafficking-story.html

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/do-nsas-phone-internet-monitoring-programs-make-sense

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/06/breaking-fbi-nsa-massively-collecting-data-from-9-internet-companies/comment-page-2/

http://www.iowasource.com/health/2012_02_wifi.html

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

You all think ubiquitous wireless is for your convenience?

Did this great system tell them that the Boston Marathon was going to be bombed? No, it didn't. It should have, after all, that was what it is for. But it and the NSA have failed miserably.

So they should just stop trying? There is no doubt such a system is an effective intelligence tool or they would not use it and no one would even be afraid of it. A single failure does not justify scrapping what is otherwise a very effective system. Even if they're only telling the truth about 10% of the threats they claim to have thwarted, that's 30 terror plots that would have otherwise been successful. And perhaps even more to the point, it surely slows down the development of a plot when those involved must go to such great lengths to avoid detection.

Because right now it's being abused.

According to whom? Snowden? What evidence has he presented? He has exposed the existence and some portion of the nature of these programs, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence that it is being abused in any systematic way - or even by any individuals. He has made various claims about what he could have done, but does that mean he could have done it and gotten away with it? No. There are surely abuses of every such system and oversight is necessary, but claiming that it is being abused without evidence sounds a lot like what Daryl Issa is trying to do. Which brings me to...

And if you don't believe that, remember that the IRS targeted "by accident" various political groups recently.

You're kidding right? Read this or this or this and any number of other reports about the fact that the IRS targeted any group claiming tax-exempt status in the months leading up to the election. The whole "keyword" fracas turned out to be a wash as they targeted just as many if not more progressive groups as tea party groups. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that anyone in Washington had anything to do with the Cincinnati office and their unfortunate use of keywords in group names to filter the thousands of PACs requesting exemptions. Why do you think no one cares anymore but Fox? And even they dont talk much about it anymore. The GOP in general has disavowed it and not even the leadership thinks that dog will hunt.

This database, as it stands now, is only being used for abuse, and/or for monetary/political gains by people with access to it.

Where exactly are you getting this ridiculous nonsense? The Weekly World News? The Enquirer? Oh, must be Newsmax. Did you see the one about Obama being an alien? (Not the foreign kind...like from space).

Questions:

Say that you were a member of a minority group in the USA today that still isn't fully protected. For example, if you were gay/lesbian. In many states you could be fired just for being who you are, with no recourse, if your boss found out. You could be denied healthcare coverage, you could be denied the right to visit your significant other in the hospital. You could very easily be challenged at the hospital even if you were carrying the identifying documents making you Power-Of-Attorney .

So-called "christian businesses" whose function had nothing to do with religion could nevertheless refuse to serve you, refuse to admit you, kick you out if they realized who you were after the fact. And have done so.

NOW: what is the proper role of government in this? I submit that it OUGHT to be to promote the greatest aggregate of liberty and the right of ALL members of the society to be treated as equals. The "right of association" of the business owner is LESS important than the RIGHT of all citizens to be treated as, and participate in, society as EQUAL CITIZENS.

That is what government's purpose is. When two people claim a differing "right" of "liberty", government's job is to determine which right holds sway to protect and support the GREATEST exercise of liberty, not the least.

And if that means treading on the "right of association" of a thousand bigots, I'm perfectly ok with that, because there are more important rights at stake.

It just made sense for them to do that. After all, they get more sunshine there.

That's the point, we need to stop legislating our morality on other people's lives. You give people the widest berth for freedom and self expression, then you educate them about the vital need to be responsible for their actions. You can't say never to abortion. A 31 year old woman in Ireland died this last week when she was refused a necessary abortion in the midst of her miscarriage and the Irish hospital refused for 4 dies upon which time she died a terrible death of toxic shock. A completely unnecessary and barbaric death because of a backwards and cruel lack of consideration for the currently living over the potentially born. Personally I don't agree to abortion as a means of contraception, though I do feel its infinitely better than bringing a child into the world who will grow up unloved. unwanted and abused in the government child care system. This is born out by the miserable record these children have for success or even turning out as nonviolent offenders. The sad fact is that over the last 30 years there has been a decline in certain categories of violent or antisocial crime, and that decline tracks very nicely with the introduction of abortion. That or you can go to the churches who promote and end to abortion, and say, okay, you wanted the child born, who among your parishioners with take on raising this child. It seems to hypocritical and grotesquely unfair to force a woman to endure pregnancy and labor, only to have that new life subjected to atrocities.

So if you are going to outlaw abortion, it should be only for use as contraception, and you better have plenty of alternatives and education made easily and publicly available (and I'm sorry to those Christian who believe that any sex must be in the cause of starting a life, because there is a lot of recreational sex going on out there and they just simply need to get over the abstinence as birth control fantasy... it has never works and its still not working now... a perfect record.) And, you better come up with a sane way to love and raise these babies, so they can grow up to be contributing members of society.

I love your other points and perhaps it time for the "Sanity in Government" party. Let folks know in advance, we don't deal in wedge issues because their designed to divide us not bring us together and in any case, these have been issues for hundreds of years, they'll do fine on the back burner until we manage the more pressing issues of the day. A conscious end to the smoke and mirrors. It should come with its own press corp, so people can begin getting real, unbiases news with about the crappy stuff going on behind closed doors, have auditors checking both the candidates and the reporters. Bring real transparency to government. Of course, the people currently in power would plotz. You'd have some serious authority to buck. It wouldn't go easy.

I do consider those (although the only one I can think of that he's admitted to is gay rights). There are many areas where he hasn't practiced what he's preached but hasn't come out and said that his opinion or position has changed (transparency, war in Afghanistan, IP issues) - and I consider failure to meet a goal or hypocrisy to be worse than a (slowly or consistently) changing position.

Since you're being lazy or obtuse or looking through glasses that are rose-tinted to the point of opacity, here, have a spoon-feeding:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitt-romneys-top-contradicting-comments/story?id=14805513

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82058.html

These are the most blatant, undeniable, concrete examples, but there are plenty more where he bends sweet lady truth into a pretzel that could be considered flip-flopping, such as:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/mitt-romney-lies-newt-gingrich-super-pac-ads_n_1195119.html

I think we need some of that new quantum state measurement tech to figure out his position on abortion:

http://americablog.com/2012/10/romney-flip-flops-twice-on-abortion-in-one-day.html

DON'T LOOK:

https://www.google.com/search?q=romney+flip-flop

Unlike some other former presidents who during from 1/01-01/09 spent a great deal of time relentlessly attacking the then President and attempting to undermine him... 43 seems to have opted to allow the current president to succeed or fail on his own.

No, he delegates the undermining to former VP (and part cyborg) Cheney.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/10/at-bush-administration-reunion-cheney-attacks-obama-again/
http://www.americablog.com/2011/01/cheney-attacks-obama-for-doing-what-he.html
http://www.alan.com/2012/04/15/cheney-attacks-obama-as-unmitigated-disaster/

These liberal blogs that I am following have been very critical of Obama:

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/
http://www.americablog.com/
http://agonist.org/
http://crooksandliars.com/
http://www.juancole.com/

Dailykos mission is too elect Democrats. They are more partisan than the progressive blogoshpere at large.

Actually former secretary of homeland security, but the point is still valid:

http://www.google.com/search?q=michael+chertoff
http://www.cov.com/mchertoff/
http://gawker.com/5437499/why-is-michael-chertoff-so-excited-about-full+body-scanners
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Chertoff
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/11/19/michael-chertoff-behind-tsa-pornoscanners/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/history/biography_0116.shtm
http://www.americablog.com/2010/11/airport-full-body-scanners-are-made-by.html
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Chertoff_Michael
etc.

kdawson should've taken a couple of minutes to read the comments from people who know what they're talking about on the http://www.americablog.com/2010/07/bp-fakes-another-oil-spill-photo-this.html link he included with this story because it's reactionary nonsense and does a disservice to legitimate stories about BP's malfeasance.

It’s obvious to anyone familiar with digital photo editing that the image in question on this blog made a selection of ('masked')the projection screen, which was overexposed, and darkened (‘burned in’) that area so that you could see what bit of detail could be salvaged. This is not uncommon when photographing and editing images of monitors, projections, and windows. It's done all the time when you have an area in the original image that is overexposed and it has been done since the beginning of photography. Before Photoshop, it was done by exposing certain areas of the photo-sensitive printing paper to the light passing through the negative longer than other areas.

The areas inside and outside the masked area contain the same colors and continuations of shapes, just darker (look at the lower left corner, lower right corner, & the top of the guys’ heads). If something that wasn't there originally was 'pasted' over that mask, you wouldn't see the tops of the people's heads within the mask.

The only problem with this photo is that it was edited poorly (i.e. noticeably). If you have an issue with 'darkroom' photo editing (i.e. photoshopping), you have an issue with just about every single professional photo you've ever seen.

Good job propagating irrelevant reactionary nonsense into the discourse regarding BP and the oil spill.

according to the Americablog site this photo was taken in 2001. If that's true this is more than aesthetic manipulation.

http://www.americablog.com/2010/07/bp-photoshops-fake-photo-of-command.html

As far as I can see, the photoshop edit made to the other faked photo is only of cosmetic nature: the computer presentation has been made darker in order to reduce contrast and make the content better visible. So I don't see a big deal here.

BP likes to use crappy, self-serving 'shops, too. Like their "crisis command center."

Note that they have had a form of tort reform for medicine in Texas. and it has done nothing to curb the costs of medical care there.

Technically, the insurance companies add no value to the medical care that you receive. They act as a middleman collecting graft from both sides of the deal. Unfortunately, they are such a powerful lobby, that they have a stranglehold on congress (look at Lieberman promising to filibuster the bill - just a couple of years after he said he believed in universal coverage).

So, you have two things. A congress rife with special interests and no political will anywhere to do anything about them, and an unnecessary amoral (if not immoral) business demanding that they make ever increasing profits off the sick and healthy who they have not dropped off the roles yet.

This is why Republicans are so afraid of the public option - that it might actually work. The post office works pretty good for me, so their dire predictions seems pretty shrill. I think that it's unconscionable what they have done by sitting on their hands all these years and suddenly they come up with some pathetic plan involving tort reform that will do nothing for the millions that are uninsured. Not to mention all the Obama haters who are using numerous scare tactics to sway the uninformed. Worse yet, are those healthy people (who have a job and insurance) around who will fiercely tell you and me that there is nothing wrong with the system.

For me, they need to to do something to fix health care, and tweak the legislation down the road as it is needed.

She called him on his cellphone. Cellphone records are public and can be purchased. I can purchase yours, you can purchase mine. So buy his cellphone records for the period of interest. Her phone number is the one originating in the Austin area.

Political cartoonist Tom Tomorrow reminds us about

that oddly specific moment where Andrea Mitchell, in the course of interviewing New York Times reporter James Risen about his reporting on the NSA and government wiretapping, asked if he knew anything about the administration spying on Christiane Amanpour â" a question the network promptly scrubbed from the transcription.

I'd forgotten about that incident.

The Bush administration has its own list of scandals, of course. But just as significant a scandal may be the way that our so-called media hid from its audience the true scope of government wrongdoing. Recall that the New York Times sat on the NSA wiretapping scandal for a year before it thought it was time to let us citizens know. If it turns out that the industry that was supposed to be keeping the public informed about things like violations of the Constitution by top elected officials was deliberately concealing that information, it may be time to reconsider whether we have a press in America that's worthy of the name, and what we can do about it.

Anyway, Tom Tomorrow asks what other revelations about the Bush administration are likely to follow. Anyone have any ideas?

You clearly have not heard of the gay terror that is plaguing the USA. You probably missed the *cough*secret*/cough* nota.

Pentagon anti-terror investigators labeled gay law school groups a "credible threat" of terrorism

Here are a couple links: http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/438542.html http://www.americablog.com/2006/05/t-mobile-says-they-did-not-participate.html