Slashdot Mirror

The indictment lodged in Washington, D.C., accuses the Russian spies of hacking into the Democratic National Committee and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton [...] The accused also hacked into state boards of elections, secretaries of state, and into companies that provided software used to administer elections

What have the FBI, the NSA, and the rest of our wonderful "intelligence" apparatus been doing, while this was going on?

Oh, yeah, they were busy trying to sabotage Trump...

At least, there is some silver lining to all this in that there is no longer any doubt, Russia is an adversary — if not an outright enemy. A big and welcome change of both long- and short-term trends.

But don't let that distract you from the soccer championship...

I understand, why Google is doing this. What I don't understand, is the mentality of the fellow Slashdotters — the so-called "Liberals" among them.

So burning is their desire to "stick it" to Trump, they are embracing the FBI using their flimsy warrant-applications to get to spy on Americans under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, monopolies — everything, which they (mistakenly) believe, will help them fight this imaginary "alt-right".

The only silver lining in all of this is that — after decades of accusing those who call it that of "war-mongering" — Russia is, finally, recognized as an adversary .

So, let's do nothing?

Yes. Until we can agree on what to do...

Are you that worried it might delegitimize your guy?

Yes, that is a valid concern. The constant talk of "treason" — despite no one being able to even state a coherent accusation, much less prove it — slows down his agenda and keeps him from fulfilling his promises. You know this and quite deliberately keeping up the talk and the shitposting on the subject.

we're so partisan we can't repel a foreign invader

Yes, we are. Such is the Illiberals' hatred towards Trump, it even made them switch their opinion of Russia.

What "illiberals"? This 25 year-old progressive, for example, who "resisted" Trump by, apparently, leaking this very story to the press. She is, obviously, more interested in "repelling" Trump, than Putin...

So, let's do nothing?

Yes. Until we can agree on what to do...

Are you that worried it might delegitimize your guy?

Yes, that is a valid concern. The constant talk of "treason" — despite no one being able to even state a coherent accusation, much less prove it — slows down his agenda and keeps him from fulfilling his promises. You know this and quite deliberately keeping up the talk and the shitposting on the subject.

we're so partisan we can't repel a foreign invader

Yes, we are. Such is the Illiberals' hatred towards Trump, it even made them switch their opinion of Russia.

What "illiberals"? This 25 year-old progressive, for example, who "resisted" Trump by, apparently, leaking this very story to the press. She is, obviously, more interested in "repelling" Trump, than Putin...

Lawmakers — and SlashDot editors — should stick to "stuff that matters". No other laws should even be evaluated, until the "Obamacare" disaster is properly abolished — with or without a replacement...

They've passed such repeals six times while Obama was President — and could be relied on to veto it. Now that Trump is eager to sign it as soon as it hits his desk, they've become "thoughtful" seeing "nuances"...

Meanwhile, regulating the seat-sizes?.. Seriously?

Florida Spring Break beach goers were asked

That's an argument to repeal the 26th Amendment and allow the states to up the voting age back to where it was before Vietnam War. Back then it was lowered under the questionable argument "Old enough to die, old enough to vote."

However invalid it always has been, that argument is simply moot now that there is no military draft... Of course, the Illiberal kind want the voting age lowered even further — to 16 and even 14.

The truth is, age should not be the deciding factor — as it is a poor indicator of maturity. Pompey celebrated his first triumph before qualifying to sit in the Senate...

With my proposal, we could eliminate it altogether — whoever can do those two things I listed, gets to vote even if they were just born (or, Heaven forfend, aborted).

The overwhelming fact about American general elections right now is that white male voters just aren't as powerful as they used to be.

Celebrate diversity, right? Democrats could not convince the electorate of their ideas, so they changed the electorate — by diluting it with a heavy dose of people from countries, where the government is the source of what little wealth there is.

They don't mind big government, and are happy to receive "free" help from it. The dilution is ongoing — while the same Administration fought tooth-and-nail to deport refugees from a rich country, who fled over homeschooling...

By the same token, female police officers are 5 times more likely to resort to using their firearm, and their partner is twice as likely to be hurt on the job.

Source?

A quick Google search will bring up several citations that female cops are less likely to shoot. But I could only find one citation from Ann Coulter that women are "vastly more likely" to shoot. I suppose that counts as a negative citation, since if Ann Coulter claims something is true, it usually isn't.

I have the ultimate solution, taken from the likes of OSS, lets make all of our textbooks setup with Creative Commons License

That will prevent authors from making perfectly legitimate profits from their writings. We don't need ultimate (nor "final") solutions — we already have one and have been using it for centuries: free market.

Though colleges still compete with each other for students, other aspects of a proper market are missing. When the actual consumers of a service or product aren't the same people as the payers for it, prices spiral through the roof: education, in the modern Western world, is similar in this regard to health-care.

Would you not choose a 64Gb version of a smart phone over a 16Gb one, if someone else were paying for it anyway? Would you not agree, that the nice janitor-lady should get a raise — as long as it does not come out of your pocket? Of course, you would.

Now, the deceptive pricing — a course may cost $1000, but the $180 book required for it is extra — is a disgusting trick, which would subject a car-dealer, for example, to Attorney General's scrutiny (and prosecution). But it is a relatively small manifestation of the much bigger problem. Big Ed ought to be grilled the way Big Tobacco once was.

I claimed that some Americans were joining the military for the same reasons that some Muslims become terrorists, to defend their religion and culture against its perceived enemies.

Well, in that case our participation in Korean war is evidence, we are full of Buddhist terrorists.

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company

None of the references cited on that page actually promote fighting or armed struggle. They were put there to comfort the soldiers — all religions help followers do non-survivable (or hard-to-survive) things. But only Islam requires that.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity

Ann Coulter was, quite obviously, trolling — she is very good at it. Just last week she wrote, that the Rolling Stones reporter, who falsely accused some college students of rape, received an award from Rape Hoax Monthly. Are you going to cite that as evidence, such a society exists? Her article simply reversed the tables — it expressed the sentiment written into "religion of piece".

The mechanisms are different but Christianity has it's own long history of aggressive attempts to spread the faith.

Secular leaders have used Christianity to justify conquests and subjugation, yes. But those aren't part of the scripture — neither Christian god, nor any of His prophets have ever called for anything of the kind.

Then get off your ass and start a parents union, or a voters union.

It is an uphill battle. Teacher's unions — as well as all other trade-unions — have the official support of the law.

A unionized workplace — private or governmental alike — can only hire union-members. This makes unions a monopoly, that ought to be illegal under the anti-trust laws, but aren't...

That's true for any union in general. In addition to that, teachers are uniquely positioned to place their points of view into the young minds. Though most tend to wise up as they gain life-experience, with the voting age set to the ridiculously low 18, those youngsters are a powerful and energetic — though largely clueless — voting block. And, to be sure, "educators" are now making noises towards lowering it even further.

So, yes, any corruption can — in theory — be dislodged. But it is not always easy in practice... I for one am doing, what I can, right here and now typing this...

Why the fuck did the US invade Iraq in 2003?

We resumed the hostilities suspended in 1992, because Saddam Hussein failed to fulfill his cease-fire obligations and our patience finally ran out. Yes, we should've done it earlier, but Bill Clinton was not the kind...

the US young service men and women I feel sorry for.

Yeah, the "sophisticated" (but impotent) Europe might be understanding it, but here in America we have a distinct dislike for mad dictators. Why, some of us even still subscribe to the doctrine of that previous adorable President from Chicago:

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

By withdrawing from Iraq too early, we failed the Iraqis. The fault, however, is not in invading in the first place, but in electing an incompetent "community organizer" to Presidency on account of his race — with a lunatic providing "foreign policy expertise"...

It is a shame, which Obama is finally beginning to rectify. Unfortunately, I doubt he'll succeed — not for lack of trying, but simply due to incompetence of a man, who never ran anything successful until his own election campaigns. Maybe, his spectacular failure will inoculate Americans against his kind of approach for a few decades — the way Jimmy Carter's presidency did in its time...

GP is a chickenhawk.

Bzzz... Ad-hominem detected. Attaching labels to your opponents does not win an argument.

People like him are the reason for the current mess in Iraq.

The current mess in Iraq (and Libya) is the doing of your Nobel Peace Prize boy-wonder. Had we pulled troops from Western Germany in 1950ies, there would've been a new wave of violence there too — gleefully supported by the Communists occupying the Eastern part...

Sure, it was Bush, who prepared the plan for our withdrawal, but only someone trying to appease the "anti-war" crowd would execute the final part of it, given the ISIS' growing power.

Obama's weakness — and the catastrophic results of that weakness — were predictable. And unavoidable, given the sort of lunatic, that is the fount of "foreign policy expertise" of the Administration.

Besides, the mess in Korea was American's fault in first place - they have supported a bloody dictator for the sole reason of being an anticommunist. It was so bad that up to the 1970ies North Korea had higher standard of living. Without that meddling things could have been way better.

I can well see, how a kinder gentler Southern regime would get overrun by Communist North — turning the entire Korean peninsula into a hellhole. But I fail to understand, what would have made things better for today's North Koreans, had the South Korea become democratic earlier. Could you elaborate?

Are we secure from the Putins though? He seems to have fun with the idea his nukes let him do whatever he wants.

Putin's doctrine is that Russia ought to "protect" both ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people of any ethnicity anywhere in the world. That you don't see "polite" gunmen organizing a referendum in Brighton Beach is a sign, our force does deter Putin still.

I'm very glad, America is rearming itself, because Russia spent the past 20 years nourishing a buttheart like no one had ever had before. They lost the Cold War and they want a revanche. With a Nobel Peace Price dimwit in the White House, and a bona-fide lunatic providing foreign-policy expertise, this is Russia's hour...

So the South wouldn't try to exclude the former slaves from voting by declaring they weren't citizens.

It is perfectly possible to achieve that without allowing everyone to vote. The criteria could be — from Heinlein's other writings — an ability to solve a linear (or square) equation, for example. Regardless of the rule, as long as the race is not explicitly mentioned, various classes of people could be disenfranchised — quite possibly to the betterment of the society.

Then there's the elitist shitbaggery of ...

Come, come, there is no need for such robust language — the man is dead for over 20 years anyway. I was just explaining the point he tried to make in the book (not inviting anybody to necessarily like it) and pointing out, that almost none of it made its way into the movie.

Now, as far elitism, of the three protagonists who sign up into service, one is rich, but, being not that smart, ends up in the infantry, the other is poor, but, being smart, ends up in intelligence, and the third — the girl (her family's wealth not mentioned) — becomes a pilot. All of them are equally entitled to full citizenship upon completing their service — regardless of wealth. See, maybe you should read the book before mouthing off the author for "shitbaggery"?

Did Heinlein also sit around and wonder why there was a push to lower the voting age from 21 when 18 year olds could be drafted to go off and die in capitalist wars on the other side of the planet?

I postulate, that although a man is capable of soldiering at 18, he is rarely capable of a rational and educated vote at that age (some people never develop this ability, but virtually none have it at 18). Thus I fail to see a connection between the two ages. Indeed, we don't let people buy alcohol (or even enter bars) until 21 — yet, nobody is pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to stop that travesty...

That said, you may be relieved to learn, that Heinlein considered conscription to be a form of slavery, which he denounced. Himself a former officer (Navy), he did not want any one in the service, who did not want to be there himself.

Whether the wars were "capitalist" (whatever that means) and which side of the planet their theaters are, is not at all germane to the discussion. I struggle to understand, what — other than rabid hatred for America and Capitalism — could make you mention these irrelevant bits.

Finally, I'm curious about your own opinion — now that we are decades since abolishing the draft , would you be willing to allow the States to set the voting age as they see fit — because the argument used to lower it to 18 no longer applies?

An argument can be made, for example, that If, as we are told by the current Administration, children ought to be allowed to remain on their parents' health-insurance up to the age of 26, maybe, that's the age they ought to begin voting as well?

You keep saying this in reference to Obama, when Obama's history since 2009 has been to continue the policies of Bush and implement Republican ideas like Romneycare.

Other than politician's name followed by the word "care", there is very little in common between Obama's and Romney's programs.

Am I supposed to feel sorry for you, that the charlatan you elected turned out to be less red than you wanted?

You'd think so, but the problem is that sometimes the safety obtained is not only imaginary, it's negative. If you're going to balance in that situation, you have to go even further from one party's position....

The Newtown mass shooting happened in a gun-free zone, but even that shooting was ended by a citizen with a gun using it against the shooter. If there had been more citizens with guns present, perhaps the death toll would have been lower. Ann Coulter had an interesting list in an essay pointing out the dangers of selection bias when looking at the statistics involved.

Jabs and accute politicking aside, the two men offer very different ideologies and views on life. Whereas Joe Biden says "privatization" like it is a bad thing, to Paul Ryan "government's control" is the worst curse.

Having grown up in the USSR with first-hand experience of government's control of economy, I would've preferred Ryan even if he did not look so persuasive and hands-on and even if Biden has not shone his uber-smile in such unsettling manner all the time.

Last, but not least, I still remember Biden's sequence of idiocies (no, not gaffes) from 4 years ago...

>>Can you provide a link to support your claim about "all the other network heads for their bias in reporting the news"?

Ann Coulter is a right-wing pitbull, but she makes a pretty good point attacking the NYT for hypocrisy on the issue (they've used hacked cell phones before, and defended their use):
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-07-20.html

Only because the terrorists are Muslims do we pretend not to notice who keeps trying to blow up our planes.

It is entirely possible and reasonably that what Palin was doing was illegal at the time she did it, regardless of what the Alaskan legislature did or did not pass after the fact.

Oh, yes, of course. It also "entirely possible", that you are molesting a 3 year old right now...

Legal or not, I would conclude that her actions were outside the spirit of the laws concerning official government correspondence.

You know, she would really fade away as soon as you stop thinking about her... ;-)

Invent a creature and it could exist somewhere simply because we don't know otherwise.

Okay, how about this?

Nah--too weird...

But let's be honest; how many can you say to yourself have actually followed this path? So far few, if any, local state education boards have implemented this "learn from others' mistakes" ideology

Citation needed.

State governments are more than free to NOT TAKE Federal money. No one forces the cash down states' throats. But guess what? If you want to feed at the Federal trough, you play by their rules.

Yes, this is the simple-minded explanation, that satisfies, uhm, simple minds... What's wrong with it, is that the government does not have its own money (that you affectionately refer to as "trough") — it all comes from taxes, that the States' residents pay. So, it taxes us first, and then tells us, we can only get the services, that the taxes were meant for, if we follow some extra rules "voluntarily".

This same idea is now played with in the Obamacare projects: giving the States a "right" to "opt-out" of parts of the programs is a sham — the States will only be allowed to out-out of receiving services, not from paying for them. Pay attention...

But how many unsuccessful attempts have there been?

(No, seriously, I have no idea and am curious.)

If you truly are interested, then do your own research. The point being made by abortion-opponents (a majority in this country, BTW), is that they are being unfairly vilified. Whereas terrorist acts by fanatics of other religion(s) (and they too have plenty of little-reported failures) are immediately followed by calls to not consider all adherents of the religion terrorists, the anti-abortion Christians are never defended in this manner. Worse — as this very thread has shown — they are being openly accused of sharing each terrorist's views and thus their guilt.

If you don't think the first thing people think about when they see a headline with the words "human embryo" is the abortion debate

People do think of that, and these people are wrong. That was the point of my response...

And those are the ones not busy cutting crosses into their wadcutters hoping to get a shot at the doctor who would perform that pap smear.

As evidenced by, what, a whopping five abortion-providers killed since 1993? Although each death is one too many, you are still overly concerned with this particular injustice.

That's odd. I thought it was monopolies, and the bizarre situation where everyone along the chain passes the buck

It is monopolies — the government-created ones. Why is our health-insurance tied to our employer by the tax-policies — the employers do get to deduct insurance costs from their revenue, but individuals don't? Why are insurance companies barred from selling policies across State-lines — thus limiting competition?

Why did 0bama mock (and grossly misrepresent) McCain's plan to put an end to both of these issues — by a) ending tax-deduction for employers, b) providing tax-deduction for individuals instead, c) ending limits on insurance-selling across State-lines — last year? Because he wanted the government to keep and expand its control — in a, perhaps sincere, belief, that the government can do a better job (at anything), than the free market.

The fact that the US spends multiples what other OCED countries spend (16% GDP versus 10% GDP)

16% vs. 10% is hardly "multiples"...

while the US is 15th in life expectancy the only metric for effectiveness of healthcare

Not only is life expectancy not "the only" metric of effectiveness of healthcare, it is not a metric of it at all. Here is from the source, sure to delight you:

The life expectancy argument is so stupid even The New York Times hasn't made it -- except in news stories quoting others or in the ramblings of the Times' more gullible op-ed columnists. You mostly hear the life expectancy argument from Hollywood actresses and profoundly dumb Democrats, such as Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland.
[...]

For example, more Americans are murdered with guns than in any other industrialized country. (And it would be even more without concealed-carry laws! See John Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime.") According to a 1997 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the homicide rate with firearms alone was 16 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

That will tend to reduce the U.S.'s "life expectancy" numbers, while telling us absolutely nothing about the country's medical care. (I promise that if you make it to a hospital alive, you are more likely to survive a gunshot wound in the U.S. than any place else in the world.)

It's comparing apples and oranges to talk about life expectancy as if it tracks with a country's health care system. What matters is the survival rate from the same starting line, to wit, the same medical condition. [emphasis mine -mi] Not surprisingly, in the apples-to-apples comparisons, the U.S. medical system crushes the welfare-state countries.

Public schools, USPS, and highways are enough...

You were giving positive examples here, right?

You really think so? Our public schools are constantly derided by all — left and right — for producing rather mediocre results. A particular example:

In international comparisons, American 12th-graders rank in the 14th percentile in math and the 29th percentile in science. The U.S. outperformed only Cyprus and South Africa in general math and science knowledge. Worse, Asian countries didn't participate in the last 12th-grade assessment tests.

Next. USPS sucks and can't pay for itself — needs billions of "bailouts" every once in a while — including right now. Had it not been for the government support, and the government-mandated monopoly (private companies aren't allowed to compete with the "First Class" mail) they would've gone bankrupt long ago.

And highways? Are you really proud of them? Despite insane amounts of money put into them (thanks to the inflated union contracts), an average American spends a week waiting in traffic. For Los Angeles (and, other big cities) the time is two weeks...

Is this — the mediocre results, the constant cost overruns, and pathetic wait times, what you think are "positive examples"? Something you want to see in health care?

People who can use punctuation, capitalization, and spell properly. Actually, I think he was referring to those who voted the President into office.

Actually, no, most of the people voting for Obama didn't know some very basic things about him or the opposition. And what they did know, was often wrong.

In the particularly striking example, the vast majority attributed the infamous I can see Russia from my house! to Sarah Palin, when, in fact, the phrase was coined by Saturday Night Live, who were mocking her lack of foreign policy experience, while willfully ignoring Joe Biden's — whom Obama picked for the supposed foreign policy expertise — lunacies.

What's much worse, though, is that these supposedly educated and well-versed people are now trying their damnest to keep the truth from becoming known — people trying to add mentions of Obama's association with (unrepentant) terrorist Ayers to Obama's Wikipedia entry have their changes reverted within minutes and their accounts banned for days...

You'll note that McCain himself didn't seem to eager to buy his own insurance rather than take his employers.

A more bogus statement is hard to find... How could McCain possibly switch to his own insurance — or even display notable reluctance to do so — if no such insurance plans are being offered to individuals, because no market exists for them, thanks to the decades of government's insistence, the insurance must go either through employers or, uhm, the government?

Going off-tangent (a little), if you and your "inspiring" president have your way, US Health Care will be as awful (and embarrassing) as US Public Schools (or highways, or trains, or prisons, or anything else the government does, really). And here, BTW, the major proponent's hypocrisy can be seen very easily. Despite pushing $100bln inside "stimulus" package for "education" and banning use of of that money on private schools, Obama sends his own daughters to a private one... And so did Clintons...

The most efficiently run medical payment service in this country right now is medicare with over 95% efficiency in terms of money going to treatment vs. overhead.

Another bogus statement — the number is often-cited and quoted to the point of self-perpetuation, but makes little sense, for it is derived from Medicare's Board of Trustees' own reports. They count overhead costs and the care costs themselves, and — spending somebody else's money — pay no attention to:

1. fraud,
2. waste,
3. customer satisfaction.

Here, from "your own" newspaper:

according to a confidential draft of a federal inspector general's report, those claims of success, which earned Medicare wide praise from lawmakers, were misleading.

In calculating the agency's rate of improper payments, Medicare officials told outside auditors to ignore government policies that would have accurately measured fraud, according to the report. For example, auditors were told not to compare invoices from salespeople against doctors' records, as required by law, to make sure that medical equipment went to actual patients.

As a result, Medicare did not detect that more than one-third of spending for wheelchairs, oxygen supplies and other medical equipment in its 2006 fiscal year was improper, according to the report. Based on data in other Medicare reports, that would be about $2.8 billion in improper spending.

Whether or not the $2.8 billion is accurate, the report touches on only a small subset of Medicare-paid items — why would waste/fraud in other areas be much different? Sure, private plans have to spend on advertising (Medicare does plenty of lobbying too), but do you wish for the government to provide us all with, say, food — to save the monies currently going to restaurants' advertising and supermarket circulars?

she probably hasn't read this thread yet. Ann Coulter a /.'r? *shudder*

As strange as that would be, it's even stranger that she used to attend Grateful Dead concerts, and still considers herself a fan.

If one subscribes to the idea that violence in the region is Israel's own doing, obviously the dead girls are killed (ultimately) due to actions of Israel.

Your line of logic, although correct, is longer, than most people's attention spans, unfortunately. They see a dead child on a screen and blame whoever's weapon killed him. That's it...

For crying out loud, Americans have elected a Vice President — chosen, supposedly, for his "foreign policy expertise" — despite his saying, on national TV the following utter senility:

When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."

The above statement was wrong on so many levels, but almost nobody noticed — none of his supporters, and very few of his opponents.

I have no idea, without further information, who or what this "cheap shot" you complain about is supposed to be at.

I'd put good money on the snarky comment right in the first paragraph of TFS – the one about...

lower-wattage bulbs

My reaction upon reading that? "M'kay, look... if you disagree with someone, you disagree, but can we stop calling each other dim-wits, please? It's kind of immature." And I thought this was a scientific study...

The majority of people were so fed up with the extremism and bullshit of the current administration ... against the "neocon Republican" ticket.

No, you were fed up with the media's constant bashing of the current administration. That's the point — the poll I was referring to demonstrated, that all of Obama voters knew even the minuscule flaws of the "neocon ticket" (and McCain is not a neo-Conservative, in reality) — including a made up flaw of Sarah Palin claiming, she sees Russia from her house.

News-papers and TV — including Saturday Night Live — have made such a good job uncovering everything there was to uncover (and even something, that was not) about McCain and Palin, but failed to do a similarly thorough job on Obama and Biden. Not even when Biden's lunacies were enumerated to them by a partisan hack.

Easy to dismiss with the bogus "Reality has a liberal bias" line, but no less true. Media has a liberal bias, which was especially huge this season... It is like McCain had to play basketball with his basket set two feet lower than Obama's...

Secondly, the press did cover Biden's "gaffes".

They did cover gaffes — socially awkward or tactless acts. But not the "gaffes" — stupidities and outright lunacies smoothed-over as mere gaffes. For example, if it were anyone from the opposing ticket, claiming:

When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."

MSNBC would've had a "Lebanon History Special" at prime time to show the entire nation, just how pathetically wrong that statement was — and on how many levels!

But it was Biden and up until very recently even a well-meaning slashdotter (not some Joe Carpenter) didn't realize, just how far from this Universe the man, chosen by Obama for his "foreign policy credentials," really lives.

McCain chose Palin. That was part of his strategy to energize the Religious Right AND an attempt to get the female vote.

And Obama chose Biden. That was part of his strategy to alleviate the concerns of his own foreign policy inexperience and reduce the impact of racial prejudices. That one strategy worked and the other didn't is works of the press and their now-documented bias towards Obama. The media — dishonestly — claimed, that Palin's inexperience trumps Obama's (as if they ran for the same post!), while looking the other way as Joe Biden mounted one lunacy over another.

Now that Obama has won, we might see more penance from the reporters and editors. We may even get some buyer's remorse from the voters. But they'll be justified, claiming, the papers misled them. This will be studied in journalism courses as a great example, of how not to write...

What he said doesn't make sense. It was a gaffe.

You know, the word "gaffe" has already been made more famous by Obama/Biden in 2 months, than the word "snafu" — by Clintons in 8 years. But this was not a gaffe, a term defined (thank you, WordNet) as: a socially awkward or tactless act. A gaffe — such as Biden's statement, that Hillary would've been a better choice than him — is still factually correct, it is just "awkward or tactless".

What Biden said — and what I quoted was only one of the pearls — was not a gaffe, and no amount of spin can help that...

We all know Biden has plenty of foreign policy experience. Experts in foreign affairs say he does.

Oh, well, you should've started with that! Of course, if you say, that the experts say, it is true, then it must be true. It is just that somewhere higher in this thread a plea was made to concentrate on "people's actual articulated positions", rather than "hearsay"...

I only listened to Biden once — he never came to my state, which Democrats take for granted. I was quite astounded, that his "actual articulated positions" were so factually wrong. And a few days later, Ann Coulter has summarized it rather well — and added one, that I didn't notice myself. You can discount her for a partisan hack she is, but she didn't invent any of his words...

We also know he is also prone to some gaffes.

I'm sorry, but, as already stated, this was not a "gaffe". Bush had gaffes: "Don't misunderstimate," — that's a gaffe or, perhaps, a misstatement, for the intended meaning is clear and obvious. Biden — as quoted — was either lying trying to burnish his and Obama's credentials, or simply having a senior moment on national TV.

Much was made of the Bush's funky "nukular", even though, it was still perfectly clear, what he meant. But when Biden is going to be needed as a foreign policy expert, who can possibly rely on his advice?

So either they're all lying [...]

Why, yes, they probably are. Obama — to "spin-down" the consequences of the leak, Canadians, having received their assurances — not to rock the boat.

Obama's position on coal is ... That's not shifting, that's reasonable.

I didn't say "Obama's" — I said, Obama's campaign's. Biden is on record talking against coal, and Obama himself talked in January (when he needed to appeal to the Left, rather than the whole country), how he'll bankrupt the coal industry. You can call it "nuanced", but if it were McCain or Bush, you would've called it "ever changing" or worse.

There was and is absolutely no change in Obama's tax plans, or anywhere near it.

His running mate said "$150K" and Obama himself never made it clear — and I did watch all three debates trying to figure it out — whether the magical "$250" is per person, per couple, or per "working family". And what exactly qualifies as a "working" one...

That link you cite is not even from Obama speaking.

I was referring to Obama's campaign... TFA talks about the campaign computers being broken into, you know...

The Obama campaign restated it's policy after Biden's misstatement - it says that in the very same article you cite.

It rang hollow. I think, it was not a "gaffe", but a slip — much like the earlier one, when he said, Hillary would've been a better VP (damn right, she would've!)

Biden's saying "When the US and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, Barack and I wanted NATO forces moved in to fill the vacuum. Otherwise Hezbollah would walk back in."

Are you serious? I mean, in good health and clear mind? Because the statement you entered above, trying to defend your vice-President by claiming, the official transcripts of the debate is somehow wrong, is not better than what Biden actually said. It is wrong on many levels and sub-levels and there is no way in the world to rephrase it to make less idiotic:

1. First and foremost, nobody has ever kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Not yet, anyway.
2. The only country, that even tried — unsuccessfully — was Israel. Not France and not US.
3. Neither Lebanon, nor Israel, are NATO-members, so what justification could there possibly be for NATO forces there?
4. Last time France was in Lebanon, was in between First and Second World wars — they are the ones, who left the country with its arcane Constitution.
5. Last time the US was in Lebanon, was when Reagan sent marines there, who — far from kicking anybody out — ended up blown up by a truck bomb themselves. That was before Hezbollah was formed, and before Barack Obama, who, supposedly, joined Biden's in calling (on who?) to send NATO troops there, even got to the Law School.

Now, I don't blame you for not knowing any the above facts — and Sara Palin has not demolished him over it either, but for a senior US Senator, a supposed "foreign policy wonk" to be so wrong is flabbergasting. Senility comes to mind, pardon the pun.

Had McCain or Palin said anything even remotely idiotic like this — and there were plenty of other "gaffes" during the debate, all of them by Biden — they would've been written off as "geezer and gidget", by the same newspapers, who continued to smooth things over for Biden, presenting h

For example, McCain shuffling aimlessly around the stage toward the end of debate #2.

Is "shuffling aimlessly", what you are going to decide on?

Sorry, the important things are in the transcript — even if it takes a dedicated pundit to fish out the particularly striking idiocies.

"French kicked out Hezbollah," — said the supposed "foreign policy expert" — that's what I'm going to be making fun of, for sure...

Liberals can certainly defend their positions with legitimate arguments, but generally don't.

And you went to a "major university"? Do they give refunds?

I'm not basing this on the internet per se, although that is highly relevant in this day and age. My opinions are based on the 2004 Republican National Convention protests. The nuts handing out political fliers all over the city.

Well, it's a good thing that conservatives never do crazy stuff like that.

Propaganda produced by the likes of Michael Moore.

I applaud your even-handed assault on divisive political propaganda.

My own education in a major university.

I'm going to guess that you majored in something technical and didn't spend much time in classes that discuss public policy. Getting the flavor of academic political analysis based on fliers and student club activities doesn't count.

The endless parade of media personalities.

Again, a landscape entirely dominated by liberals.

Lets not forget the hordes of hipsters with their "I hate Republicans" signs, clothing, and tattoos.

I can't imagine conservatives being so crass.

We even have anti-conservative graffiti here in NYC.

Ah, yes, vandalism. A tactic completely isolated to the left.

Last but not lease - I've personally had to deal with liberals accuse me of a wide variety of bad things. I've been told I hate the poor despite the fact I'm not particularly wealthy. I've been told I hate minorities, despite the fact I'm hispanic.

For what it's worth, I believe that I've been accused of being anti-American, even though I am an American. I've also been accused of wanting "the terrorists" to win, even though I go to work every day and specifically work on projects designed to help catch them, which is more than most of the population is doing.

I've been told I hate gays, despite the fact I'm friends with a few prominent gay men.

You mean that people were--gasp!--making a rude and unfair assumption about you based on the actions of extremist elements whose political positions you happen to sometimes share? Say it ain't so! What kind of jackass would do that? Then again, does it bother you that the party you support has done such a good job of cynically exploiting anti-gay sentiment with their "protect marriage" propaganda?

I've never in my life heard a conservative in real life say anything like that to a liberal.

Well, you're presumably out of college, so I'm guessing you're old enough to have spent some time in bars. I just don't know what to say to that except to applaud your choice in bars.

I've never met a conservative teacher...

What "major" university did you say this was, again?

...nor seen conservatives take to the streets as a show of force...

No, I suppose that when conservatives do it, it's called protesting and not "taking to the streets as a show of force."

My point is just this - these kinds of t

"It's certainly possible that we are some kind of alien-primate hybrid or a mutation of primates caused by alien microbes even. There's no real hard evidence to suggest that

No evidence? Have you seen Ann Coulter? If she isn't at least part alien, I'll eat my hat.

I have found the source. I gave an incorrect figure. 81% of Fox News Channel employees contribute to Democrats, not 80%. See http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?ar ticle=192, second bullet. Presumably, this figure is also present in Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't, by John Lott.

The thing with google is that it is, at present, one of the most liberating constructs ever created. It allows the access to relatively unfiltered information, and allows the reader to infer what is real and what is not. However, google is primarily a advertising egent, and therefore has the power to influence reality. If every ad for the search Sicko is an attack on the movie, then the reality will be shifted to the idea that the movie has no basis in reality. And this is why what google is doing is evil. If what the industry is saying is valid, then people will point to those finding and those finding will move up in rank. By offering to package ads, google is no better than the link farms that are increasingly making the search engine useless.

On the YouTube video summary (thanks to the guys that put that up, btw), this just lends more credence to what the "liberals" or "democrats" or whatever you want to call them have been saying. By acting childish, and being vulgar and stupid, these idiots are showing that they have no legitimate argument or opposing viewpoint to give. Because of that, they just spew complete trash, and hope to ridicule the people that think that there is something -very- wrong in this country right now.

The problem isn't with the 'Conservatives', 'Republicans' or with any political party but is (in fact) that few people listen to opposing viewpoints and try to counter them intelligently. If you bring up the fact that Mars' polar ice caps are melting and this should be explained before we blindly accept the conclusion that Global Warming is man made you will see a lot of "liberals" or "democrats" acting childish, and being vulgar and stupid; if you say that Homosexual Unions should have a different term than "Marriage" you will see a lot of "liberals" or "democrats" acting childish, and being vulgar and stupid.

I remember reading an article by Ann Coulter that talked about how the standard "Liberal" response to well informed debate from a "Conservative" was to Pie them; lots of well respected politicians and public figures who have achieved a lot of impressive things have been pied because someone disagreed with them and couldn't produce an intelligent counter argument. Whether or not you agree with someone it is highly disrespectful to sing from the audience in the middle of a debate.

If you really want a more intelligent debate you have to get mad at both the conservatives and the liberals when they're acting like children.

(PS. I'm neither a Republican nor an American)

BTW, for the record, I said "Seriously, part of being a 'responsible consumer of knowledge' from any source is knowing that the facts may be different than presented.", I do not limit my skepticism from any source, in particular Slashdotters who use 3rd grade taunts.

And here's some FAA guidelines to prevent people from bringing liquids onto planes, which will prevent[2] terrorists from hijacking or destroying a plane in flight!

The funny thing is that Ann Coulter actually agrees with you.

I am a concerned citizen of Skylar Durden's Ivy Nation against Ann Coulter's Adam's Apple.

I am a concerned citizen of Skylar Durden's Ivy Nation against Ann Coulter's Adam's Apple.

I am a concerned citizen of Skylar Durden's Ivy Nation against Ann Coulter's Adam's Apple.

Depending on the altitude these things go at, I wonder how many of them will be shot down by citizens? I am a concerned citizen of Skylar Durden's Ivy Nation against Ann Coulter's Adam's Apple.

1. Bush claims he is not bound by any laws. The Attorney General agrees with him. How would *you* define dictatorship?
2. "free speech zones", reprisals/threats against people not toeing the party line. Sure sounds like he's suppressing things.
3. Industry controls government, which is even worse.
4. Invading other countries, citizens with guns at the borders, mainstream conservative pundits allying themselves with white supremacist groups and repeating their talking points. If that's not extreme, you're certainly well on your way.
5. With all the "patriots" talking about how they'd love to go to Iraq (if only they weren't too old, too sick, etc) and kill them some sandniggas, it's only a matter of time before racism becomes an acceptable political platform (see also point 4). Right now, the administration's policies are mostly working against the poor, which just happens to include minorities.

There's the rantings of a paranoid anti-Bush slashdotter, which might receive some credibility.

Or there's the quick history lesson that Ann Coulter published just Wednesday, reminding us that no U.S. mission to Africa was ever undertaken, and that the intelligence about Saddam's nuclear aspirations came from British, not Yankee, information.