Slashdot Mirror

Are you being serious!? To not know this is to not know the origination story of the 2016 Trump campaign or the driving force behind his wanting to become president

Oh, you mean he treated Obama pretty much like Hillary Clinton treated Obama? You mean one of the many non-issues that the Democratic propaganda machine uses to demonize opponents, first by implying (with plausible deniability) that Obama was foreign, then blaming Republicans for the whole thing?

In any case, you don't seem to understand what the "birther" controversy was about. It wasn't about Obama's actual citizenship (which was a simple legal matter), it was about Obama's foreign vision for America was foreign, that of a European social welfare state and critical race theory. He articulated that in 2012 in "The Life of Julia", something so offensive to people that even MSNBC ripped it apart and Obama has now removed it from his website.

Thanks. Trump established this standard for the president and two days ago the Americans (at least 18% of them) validated it.

People were tired of the racism, divisiveness, and bigotry spread by Obama and Clinton; and they were tired of their foreign wars, constitutional violations, and crony capitalism. They were tired of politicians that believed it was justified to lie to the American people in order to implement policies Americans reject. They were tired of the broken promises. That's why so many voters voted for an inexperienced, rude loudmouth over a bigoted, racist, corrupt liar.

It will probably be impossible to ever convince people like you that your ideas are hurting people; but what the rest of us can do with the 18% of the population that voted for Clinton is to communicate to them in no uncertain terms that we find their bigoted, racist, and selfish views deplorable, and that they shouldn't fool themselves into believing that they have the moral high ground.

Please tell me you are not an American voter and that you did not vote for Trump.

I used to be a registered Democrat and I voted for Obama in 2008. I didn't find either Trump or Hillary to be an acceptable choice in this election.

I could never have voted for Hillary, if not for any other reason than because of her long standing opposition to gay marriage and her subsequent lies about it. But, hey, what's a little homophobia and lying to you, as long as you get free stuff and can wallow in your self-righteousness, right?

Quite the contrary. He sent them a message a full hour in advance, saying that they should expect him.

And who was "them" that he sent the message to? "info@barackobama.com". If you didn't know, and didn't bother to look up, that domain is used by "Organizing for Action", a "grassroots" "community organizing" group. It has "barackobama" in the name, so the President must be involved, right? He got the message the postman delivered, right?

According to the FAQ in their website asking about the group's connection to Barack Obama:

The President's legacy as a grassroots organizer helped inspire a movement of millions. OFA was founded in January 2013 to make progress on the agenda the American people voted for. From fighting climate change to working toward economic opportunity for all, OFA's mission is rooted in making real, lasting change.

In other words, they have no connection to Barack Obama at all. They were inspired by his community activism. Period.

So, the miscreant postman told some political activism website about his mission, but nobody directly connected to the US government. By email to a role address that may or may not be read for days. And what TFA calls "a time-delayed email", so delivery wasn't even attempted until after he took off.

So while it might have been "literally" under the radar, it wasn't figuratively under the radar. The White House knew he was coming and expected him.

What utter and complete bullshit. He wasn't going to the Whitehouse, he was going to the Capitol, so I guess Barry was sitting on the portico with a beer and a cigar waiting for someone else. But barackobama.com has no connection to Barry or to the US government. As they admit when asked "is OFA affiliated in any way with the federal or any other government", the answer is "NO". So how an email to barackobama.com would make it to the Prez is a mystery, and how it could be seen by ATC prior to his entry to the airspace so they would know he was coming is even more of a mystery.

Trying to defend him on the basis that he told the appropriate government officials he was coming, and the the President was looking forward to his visit, is just pathetic nonsense.

Obama's personal favorite healthcare model â" as well as that of the rest of the Left is "single-payer"

So that's why he took it off the table straight away, right? That's part of his evil master plan, right?

Quite possibly, he took it off the table straight away because he — and his team — realized, it is not going to pass. Indeed, that's what his web-site says: "Single Payer Would Kill Health Care Reform".

Whether what we are seeing unfold really was planned, or is, as it appears on the surface, evidence of gross incompetence, there is nothing impossible — nor even "unlikely" — about such plan.

Moron

Oh, the thoughtful and insightful arguments of the Left. Do post more, I beg of you.

Single payer is my personal favorite healthcare model. Not Obama's.

Can't say I've met smarter supporters of the idea...

Sorry, but you are confused. Progressive lobbyists helped the Democrats write that bill. Republicans had nothing to do with it. (Are you going to call the President of the Center For American Progress* (a fellow "progressive") a liar when she claims credit for her work?

Sorry, repeating Big Lies doesn't make them true, it just makes you a bigger and more pathetic liar. The mandate has been a Republican idea for decades, and that's just a fact you'll have to deal with. As well as Romneycare literally being the inspiration for Obamacare. You'll have to deal with that as well.

Are you going to claim with a straight face that the progressive (not to be confused with Obamabots) position was the mandate? This on some planet where progressives didn't want single payer, and then the public option as a compromise?

That would be difficult for you to do since I'm simply relying on the facts.

A bigger and more pathetic liar. Heritage had no problem with Romneycare, for years. Pretending their about-face has nothing to with partisan politics is as absurd as pretending that Obama's election had nothing to do with anti-war Democrats turning into supporters of drones in January 2009.

Sounds like one of the annual half dozen food recalls for e-coli here in the US, Captain Anecdote.

Really? Cholera reportedly kills 15, sickens hundreds in eastern Cuba [miamiherald.com]

Really, you can't read? Murika: ecoli sickens people in 5 states.

Oct 2008: "You'll never get elected and pass healthcare."

Nov 2008: "We'll never let you pass healthcare."

That's a nice long list. Slight problem: not only did we get health insurance reform instead of health care reform,

And of course we all know, health insurance reform has no change whatsoever on peoples health care .
Except for people who now get healthcare, people who get cheaper health care etc.

but what we ended up with was a Republican plan to start with.

That just makes the situation worse.
It shows that the republicans were never really against the plan. Just against the government and the economy, to try and score cheap political points and appease some teabaggers.

Oct 2008: "You'll never get elected and pass healthcare."

Nov 2008: "We'll never let you pass healthcare."

That's a nice long list. Slight problem: not only did we get health insurance reform instead of health care reform, but what we ended up with was a Republican plan to start with.

In the 90s???? You act like ideas/politics/thought is static and doesn't change after decades of situational differences. The Democrats were for slavery back in the 1850s -- does that mean they'd be all on board a slavery bill today??? Clearly current day politicians don't agree with the Heritage bill (which doesn't surprise me since the austerity movement is a relatively new thing), so I have no idea why this is relevant.

Clearly someone is making up ad hoc arguments when the rug has just been pulled out from underneath his storyline. The problem with arguing that 1992 was ancient history is the fact that today's Democrats are far to the right of where the Republicans were then.

Herbert Walker Bush raised taxes to reduce the deficit, whereas Obama made most of Dubbya's tax cuts permanent. H.W. withdrew from Iraq, he didn't try to force regime change the way Obama did in Libya and wants to do in Syria, didn't occupy Iraq for over 5 years like Obama has occupied Afghanistan, and didn't argue that he had the right to blow up anyone anywhere on the planet with drones.

The other reason your ad hoc falls flat is the fact that Obamacare == Romneycare, litearlly. Romneycare was signed into law in 2006, a mere four years before the passage of its bastard son, Obamacare.

It's a Republican plan, and that's just a fact you're going to have to deal with.

I think this is what you're trying to say:

I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

Debs didn't believe that you should go off into Galt Gulch, and he ultimately rejected the violence of the IWW. He believed that people should organize themselves into collective action. http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/pete_seeger/talking_union.html

Leaders will pop up, and they can be useful, but you have to know how to be skeptical of them and you can't fall in love with them, which is a failing of liberal Democrats. http://www.barackobama.com/

Naturally, the platform has to be mainstream enough to appeal to everyone possible. The reality is that the party has been co-opted by extremists hostile to some important pieces of science that impact policy. Here's your cites:

Exhibit A
Exhibit B (Yeah, it's Obama's list, but most would certainly embrace the denier label)
Exhibit C [youtube.com]

There are enough dangerous nuts in the great GOP Venn diagram (and a considerable overlap with elected officials) that the GP is basically correct.

Perhaps the original poster was speaking of your beloved politicians?

Exhibit A
Exhibit B (Yeah, it's Obama's list, but most would certainly embrace the denier label)
Exhibit C

People will judge you by the leaders you choose. Perhaps if you and your party voted for rational human beings we'd have more respect for you?

I stopped giving you any credibility at Obama Phone.

Oh, I dunno. Maybe by watching something like this?

http://noticias.univision.com/destino-2012/

Or reading one of these?

http://www.eldiariony.com/
http://www.mittromney.com/es
http://www.barackobama.com/es/

There's an entire media industry serving tens of millions of people which you seem to be ignorant of, you racist twit.

http://www.barackobama.com/
http://www.mittromney.com/

There, now you can have both sets of propaganda, and be almost exactly as well informed as you were before you read any of it.

From Obama for America PRIVACY POLICY: "we may use personal information we collect...for any other purpose for which the information was collected....We may store and process personal information in the United States and other countries... You may also opt out of allowing OFA to collect your geographic location by changing the location settings on your mobile device..."

http://www.barackobama.com/tax-returns/

Your move.

No.... where are his secret tax returns... you know, from Kenya?

And don't give us no silly 1040 EZ paperwork, we want the long form!

Where are your messiah's income tax returns

12 years worth, for both Obama and Biden:

http://www.barackobama.com/tax-returns/

Your move.

Actually you can. Dumbass.

But NASA Watch points out that the Democratic platform is even less specific than the GOP's.

Yeah, that blogger appears to be right about the DNC. But Obama's got specifics with a track record. What scares me is that Romney says he'll privatize as much as possible. He's quoted as saying:

“I think fundamentally there are some people—and most of them are Democrats, but not all—who really believe that the government knows how to do things better than the private sector And they happen to be wrong.”

He promises to cut non-defense spending and NASA is a non-defense expense that politicians are pushing hard to privatize.

No, people simply disagree about what "helping" means. Does helping mean creating a lifetime dependency on government handouts, as in Obama's The Life of Julia? Is that the kind of life you want for yourself and your children, a life in which other people decide where and how you go to school, how you insure yourself, how you receive medical care, how you retire?

Like this one? =)

Well, I'm not a huge fan of either party, but after carefully considering who I would prefer in the Oval Office, I've decided to vote for our current President. So, I raised $600 for the campaign through a "grassroots" fundraising page. Guess what? Now I get a spam email almost every single day with a 1-click instant donation link. I've already told them I'm tapped out and I won't be raising any further funds for them, but I offered to make calls or pay visits to people if they would simply give me a list of people to contact. They can't be bothered to even respond. I took the further step of opting out of all but the most "important" messages, but that hasn't stopped the flood of spam that I get.

The following email exchange is reflective of the Democrats' spam:

--
From: Bill Clinton
Subject: Meeting you
Date: May 24, 2012 8:49:09 AM PDT
To: Andrew Watters
Reply-To: Rufus Gifford

Andrew --

I've been in President Obama's shoes before -- less than six months to go before an election to let you finish what you started. It was tough enough back then, but this election is going to be tougher.

We're facing a tidal wave of anonymous, unlimited spending. The other side has pledged to throw more than 1 billion dollars into tearing down our president.

It's unprecedented.

Fortunately, so is the grassroots organization you're building.

Pitch in what you can today to strengthen the campaign -- and you'll be automatically entered to join me and President Obama in New York City, with the campaign covering airfare and accommodations.

By clicking here, your saved credit card will be charged immediately:

QUICK DONATE: $56

QUICK DONATE: $35

QUICK DONATE: $50

QUICK DONATE: $100

QUICK DONATE: $250

Or donate another amount.

If our opponent succeeds, so much of what we've fought so hard for will be rolled back. Health care reform -- which many presidents, including me, tried to pass and couldn't -- will be gone. Same goes for the opportunity for millions more Americans to afford to go to college, and a growing economy that works for middle-class families.

Our opponent is actually advertising a more extreme version of the policies that got us in trouble in the first place: policies that will leave us with more debt, weaker regulations on risky investments, and fewer jobs.

All of that's at stake between now and November, but here's why I'm feeling good about our chances: I know people like you have the President's back.

And I can't wait to meet you. I hope you'll give it a shot:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Presidents

Thanks, and good luck,

Bill Clinton

--
From: Andrew Watters
Subject: Re: Meeting you
Date: May 24, 2012 12:44:19 PM PDT
To: Rufus Gifford

Thanks Mr. President, I actually met you once in Hawaii, and several years back I worked for one of your big time fundraisers, ___________,
of _________, CA.

I'm sorry to say that I can't afford to contribute any more money to President Obama's campaign. However, I remain available to assist in the
President's fundraising efforts in some capacity, as indicated in my prior emails including the one attaching my resume. What would be great is
simply a list of people in my area whom I could call or drop in on.

Thank you for your consideration sir.

Andrew Watters
-

No response, despite name-dropping a well-known powerhouse fundraiser who has many pictures of himself with President Clinton from the 1992 campaign, held a fundraiser with candidate Edwards in 2004 at his home, was on the boat with candidate Kerry in the 2004 campaign, etc. In addition to noting that yes, I have actually met Bill Clinton. Despite this, I got another spam email a few days later, a

the purpose of attackwatch.com

But they forgot to leave a way to upload pictures of the targets to be terminated. Oops.

This initiative is especially amusing coming shortly after this innovation from Obama's Organizing for America. Click the link and (unless you get an error) you'll get a page based on your location, with the phone number of a voter to call. You get the name, age, gender, city, and party ID. You're supposed to read a short push-poll from a script, get their opinions of the President and his policies, and report on the person's response. No potential for abuse there, having political opinions linked to individuals in a central database run by the President's organization!

Just some more notes I was holding on to comparing Obama and Bush:

http://origin.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w.php
>> As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

Wiretap
http://donttreadonmike.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/obama-the-same-as-bush/

Total
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/wall.bush-obama/index.html

Used the terrorist threats to call a national state of emergency
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/16-2

You are absolutely correct, in a classical sense (read basic econ) the commodity markets are dominated by supply and demand. However, due to some loopholes in how the commodities are traded the prices can be significantly swayed one way or another by speculation. See here and here (sorry not the best sources I didn't have time to find better ones).

You are also correct in pointing out that I was mistaken. A group, such as OPEC, can and routinely does influence the market by curtailing or increasing supply (though it is not always effective). I was mistaken in my terminology I specifically meant one company. But you also cannot deny that speculation plays a significant role in price, do you really think that demand has changed by that much as to cause the drop in oil prices seen in the last two years (approx 50%)? The demand is a speculation of what will happen in the future, it's a guess, nobody knows what China or the US (two of the largest consumers of oil) will really need in the future, some bet it will be high and the price goes up or they bet low and the price goes down (note the correlation in oil prices with news about the status of the economy - no mention of changes in supply or actual demand, just guesses right or wrong after all it's futures).

...is let the president know of our support for Clean Energy:

http://my.barackobama.com/CleanEnergy-auto

There have been many times in the United States where our government will push something like Social Security, saying "This is to help the widows with children", which, yes, is a noble cause that many can't argue with. But look at it now, it is a system used to hook the societal leeches and give paychecks to fat-asses who are too lazy to get up and work.

What the hell are you talking about?

Social Security is offered to "societal leeches" who are 65 and over and have been making payments into the system their whole lives. Social Security was never billed to help "widows with children". It was "pushed" during the Depression (1935) when the elderly had absolutely no social safety net and had their entire life savings evaporate. Unemployment was at 25%, we were experiencing a spiral of deflation, and old people were starving to death in the streets without dignity.

Social Security passed with a large margin-- in the House with 372 yeas, 33 nays, 2 present, and 25 not voting. In the Senate with 77 yeas, 6 nays, and 12 not voting.

while on the surface what Uncle Sugar is doing may seem beneficial to average Joe, there sure as hell are things going on behind the scenes that I guarantee will hurt you personally in the long run.

Yeah......not that you enumerate what those "behind the scenes" things are or anything. You just "sure as hell" know "there are ulterior motives most likely at hand" and they'll "hurt you personally".. What the hell kind of logic is that?

In 10 years, do you think it is that out of the question that your tax money will be used to subsidize lower-class internet connections?

Seriously dude. WTF are you talking about? Like, what's a "lower-class" internet connection even mean? Do you mean a low-bandwidth connection? Or do you mean a connection for the "lower-class", aka poor people?

You DO know that the Internet was invented by ARPA, which is a part of the US Government... which was paid for by "your tax money". I'm guessing you don't know that.

The Internet as a private service came very late in the story. After the government (.mil, .gov) and its tech contractors (ibm.com) had it. After the educational system (.edu) had it... after AOL and Prodigy and Compuserve...

You have it backwards. The internet is not a god-given right for ATT & Time Warner to own, my friend. IF they're going to sell connectivity to the public using public technology and publicly funded networks, they better fucking keep their hands off the bits.

As for subsidizing Internet access for the poor, that's already happening, as it should.

Your taxes subsidize infrastructure grants that go to these companies, and when these companies are limiting freedom of speech through their filtering agendas, then yes, there is an argument. But watch the other hand.

Go read up on how the Internet started. Seriously. If you are subsequently embarassed and feel the need to come back for a mea culpa, that'd be fine.

What do you think all those extra FCC related charges are on your cell bill.

I don't know. What did Glenn Beck tell you they were?

Mods, come on. You can do better than that.

If you use open source, then you're a pirate? Ok, slap him in prison. go on, I'd love to see them try :)

I would certainly hope that if a law was passed outlawing OSS, that the President would not be above that law.

If you use open source, then you're a pirate? Ok, slap him in prison. go on, I'd love to see them try :)

whats wrong with sony, samsung, or intel. I'm sure they could produce chips for government related applications, not some shady business no ones heard of before.

Are you familiar with efforts to foster American small businesses in the United States by the government (note this is nothing specific to Obama)? If you want to get into government contracts, I suggest you start a small business owned by a woman who is a minority. You'd be amazed at how easily you can land contracts and subcontracts as the government and big contractors strive to make quotas.

Want to keep your citizens in line, with false statements and a warped view of the world? There's an App for that.

Yes, we've seen that before. Important "news" from our Dear Leader!

Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration’s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.

Also, I thought he was assembling a cabinet critical of warrantless wiretapping?

he hasn't even particularly changed foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan

I took this news as a sign that the Nobel committee determined that the ongoing lengthy engagements with Iraq and Afghanistan are a bloody means to a peaceful end. I don't really share this opinion and I think a lot of people in the world would (similarly) support the removal of the Taliban but not whatever you want to call Iraq right now. The interesting thing is that they should have given Bush the Nobel Prize for Peace if they felt this way last year ... he started those wars after all. The only other explanation is that these wars were largely overlooked. I only draw dangerous discrediting conclusions if I look at the situation logically.

Having gotten into office he's discovered the world is more complicated that a sound bite for a political stage allows.

I think every president discovers this. Obama's Responsible, Phased Withdrawal from Iraq (biggest of many reasons I voted for him) reads thusly:

The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

I honestly have heard no word of this. I guess he got into office and things got too real too fast for him? No word on that although I haven't been scouring his speeches. Now if that's why they gave him the Peace Prize, I'd agree with them. But that was a paragraph buried in his campaign promises (and not in progress yet), not something he's done.

I'd suspect this award was given out for the purposes of sparking controversy or to put the onus on Obama to become what they want him to become -- a peacemaker. I agree this was not a prudent decision although I don't see it as critically as most people. It is just an award after all.

Here you go

Single payer has come up several times as a system and several more progressive groups are angry that Obama has said quite simply, that it's off the table for discussion. However, while he never said he'd like a single payer system now, he did say if we were starting from scratch, that's what he would do. It almost seems contradictory, but here's an example: "Well, if I had to start over, I'd buy a Mac. As it is, I'm going to upgrade to Windows 7 rather than sticking with Windows XP".

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with the current proposals, but I'm a liberal. I also really like the healthcare co-op idea that's been floated -- but unfortunately the early report is that pundits can't tell the difference between a non-profit and a gov't I guess -- despite its success in conservative places like northern Idaho.

Is Obama any better? Don't know yet, it takes more than a few months after jumping into the cesspool to find out if the new president is actually better, worse, or caught by the undertow.

I'll help you out here and toss an apropos metaphor your way: "Out of the frying pan, into the fire" Let's see why:

• Obama has been paying Perkins Coie something in the order of 2.3 million dollars since he announced his candidacy for president. This law firm is one of a few that have been defending Obama in the courts against people who are demanding more than a COLB as evidence of his place of birth. It is a fact that collections are still being accepted to pay for this.
• How much do we really know about Obama? Not a lot, it seems.
  • We know that Senator McCain's long form and short form birth certificates were released when his citizenship was challenged during the presidential race. To date, we have a COLB from Obama, a document that is not accepted by Federal agencies to obtain so much as a passport.
  • We have Senator McCain's 1974 thesis from his days at the National War College. Obama refuses to allow anyone access to his Columbia thesis.
  • Despite having been president of Harvard Law Review, Matthew Franck noted in National Review Online, "A search of the HeinOnline database of law journals turns up exactly nothing credited to Obama in any law review anywhere at any time."

The list goes on, but this should give you an idea of what we're up against.

If you'd stop rolling your eyes into the back of your head and foaming at the mouth, maybe you can figure out the difference between counterproductive fear/hate mongering and constructive criticism and debate.

Not all criticism of Obama is "foaming at the mouth". Personally, I'd be satisfied with acceptable evidence of his proof of citizenship, so I could move on. I don't have to like the sitting president (I didn't like Bill Clinton either, but I accept the fact that he was the legally-elected persident), but it's a lot easier to accept or deal with the antics of the president when one knows that he actually belongs in the office.

And yes, this is the last post I will make to this article and thread. Rant all you want and spit into the wind to your hearts content, I will not respond.

You're free to ignore this if you want. Last time I checked, that was your right. I hope that you'll at least think about the things I've mentioned.

Actually Obama supports nuclear energy:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/11/the-energy-wars/

Harry Reid is the one causing problems with Yucca Mountain.

Aside, the WSJ isn't really giving us any new information, is it? Obama was advocating CCS during the election, so is it really surprising that his secretary is now advocating it?

A little offtopic, but I stopped reading the WSJ soon after it was bought out by News Corp - repackaging old information and re-distributing it to produce FUD seems to be their new penchant.

Obama mentioned his support of CCS several times during the election (although notably late in the election), and his position is pretty clearly stated in his Energy Plan, available at:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy/.

Go to page 6 - the second paragraph from the bottom is clearly titled "Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology".

It does, however, amaze me how the media can restate old information and rattle the chains of the watchdogs. Selective memory is a hell of a thing- and it seems to be a pretty powerful advantage in the media to understand when the populace, or certain sections of it, employ it.

A vote is never "against" anyone, and all statements to that effect are lies

I disagree. I don't think the 3rd party (or 4th) ever made a difference. Both the R's and D's have too much in common to "allow" a 3rd to actually win anything important. They (the R and D) control the right issues so any 3rd party candidate either cannot fall on the majority side of voters (and actually WIN an electoral vote) or NOT fall into either R or D. In either case, the 3rd party candidate won't generate enough votes to win anything (and didn't get more than 1% in 2008, or 1% in 2004), or they can't fall into R or D, because those are chosen via primaries where the Indy or 3rd party is effectively eliminated.

stated to keep the 2-party system that's destroying the country.

While I agree with you 100% the 2 party system is a travesty, and is absolutely destroying the faith, honor, and trust of those actually paying attention ... the 2 party system is a perpetual motion machine.

Furthering the mess is that the Indy or 3rd parties don't have a primary in which they choose the strongest platform/candidate so they cancel each other out by splitting up the few thousand votes they each get as a candidate or write-in.

Its a win-win for the 2 party system. It's a lose-lose for a 3rd party. Here is a list of all the 3rd party candidates and here is nice table of the election results from 1789-2008 including vote counts for 3rd party candidates (link) for those interested in seeing them.

Now don't go thinking that all of that could be said about a non-white for the first 220 years. there have been non-white candidates before. The difference is the we all knew he was real moonbat and the media wasn't ready to sell it, like they did in 2008 with a relatively unknown candidate whom they could spinspinspin.

Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 -- more than 7 years after the war began.

How's that going, by the way?

Now consider what happens under Obama. The DHS will be quietly dismantled; every excuse to split power back up into different agencies will be taken.

That's a nice rosy view of the future, but not one with much credibility. I don't see any move toward dismantling the DHS, quite the contrary. What I'm seeing are moves to consolidate power into the (politically controlled) White House.

He is also planning on moving other traditionally non-partisan functions under control of the White House, Rahm Emanuel and other ideologues, such as The US Census, which controls representation in Congress.

He's also busy building an army of activists that have pledged their allegiance to him, regardless of the details of his proposals might be.

This most recent proposal will basically put the Internet under the control of one party. This can easily start as a "cybersecurity" issue, then since they can do it they could say "well we want to block child porn" (because no one will defend child porn), and eventually they can shut down whatever they want, and you can't find out what's blocked because "it's a matter of national security".

Go ahead and say "It can't happen here".

I know it must be hard for you to bear, having a responsible centrist president. But fortunately THESE election results were valid, unlike your Mr. Chimp's first election by judge. It shows your real character, that winning is more important to you than democracy. So I don't feel too sorry for you. In fact, I'm glad the Republicans have become the marginalized party of the deep south, religious fanatics, and wingnuts everywhere. Please, please run Palin for president! That would guarantee another four years of Obama. Seriously, you guys just need to form a new conservative party. Your current one is deceased.

Centrist!=responsible any more than left/right-wing==irresponsible.

You want responsible? Don't look at BHO. He just ballooned your personal debt to $42521.12 (individual share = total debt/population). That's debt you can't escape by filing bankruptcy. And if you don't pay it, <hyperbole>Dog the bounty hunter will come to your door with a Swat team of</hyperbole> IRS agents and take your freedom.

Bush wasn't particularly responsible in a lot of ways. I most certainly didn't agree with his actions regarding my freedoms enumerated in the constitution. I didn't agree with a lot of his fiscal policy, either. Especially towards the end. He wasn't the worst president, but he aslo wasn't the best. However, this isn't about him. He can never be president again. I wash my hands of him as much as I can.

Now, let's address your messiah, Obama. Noted in various sources to have been one of the most liberal senators in office (when he showed up for a vote), he arose out of nowhere in the political landscape and won his elections by invalidating his opponents' candidacies (not challenging the election counts, or mudslinging, he literally made himself the only choice).

He promised Hope(tm) and Change(tm) and to Clean Up Washington(tm). And how does he Change(tm) things? Hmmm, let's see. Looks like a more liberal version of the Clinton administration (complete with insiders from the original Clinton administration!). Obama also seems to have a distinct preference for nominating people for his cabinet who have tax issues. Definitely a Change(tm) we can all Believe(tm) in.

He promised responsibility, but we got a pork-laden "stimulus" package with such gems as more funding for ACORN and MoveOn.org. Certainly these wonderful organizations simply want to empower you! What's that? You went to ACORN and asked them to help you get out the vote for Ron Paul? Oh, right. They want to empower you only so long as you vote for their approved candidate. I knew there was a catch in there.

"But...", I hear you say, "he's upstanding and honest, a real bang up guy who wants to stand up for me!" O`Rly? That's why his VP is one Joeseph Biden, a known copyright hound. That's why three of his top appointments to the justice dept were lawyers for the RIAA. You know, the RIAA that seems to think suing children, grandmothers, disabled people, state universities, and laser printers is a good business model. That's why he stands up for more regulation and law like Roe v Wade which purports a right to privacy, but in reality just usurps state control for the federal government. That must be why he wants to send your money to other countries to support abortion. Surely that's out of the goodness of his heart.

I could go o

Where the **** are my mod points when I need them.

You want to 'protect' American jobs? Get your savior to fulfill his campaign promises to the unions and stand up to Europe, Asia and the rest and start restricting and/or banning imports. Renegotiate NAFTA.

For instance, when the euros start yelling about 'buy American' language in the Obama payoff bill you'll need to grow a pair and ignore it.

Don't bitch when the prices double or triple, and whatever you do DO NOT ask yourself if IBM is actually right and if so why.

Grassroots is our next step. Obama is in the process of setting up a new grassroots organization, "Organizing For America" to help us connect with our legislature.

Check out the video
http://my.barackobama.com/page/m2/55c13e0e/5004f5b0/3bc0ea31/11884c10/4128887817/VEsE/

You must have bet some real suckers as Obama made his FISA position clear well before he was elected. There was even a big thing on his website about it.

Kudos on your score!

You mean this statement?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/179530?from=rss

The fact that he didn't commit to following up on sweeping criminal prosecutions for people in the previous administration is not at all the same thing as saying he is in favor of continuing the same policies of Mr. Bush in this area.

In fact Obama has been one of the most severe critics of the Bush administration in this area.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaTorture.htm

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/04/obama_torture_and_secrecy_betr.php

So let's be a little more reasonable about the level of cynicism here. Yes, I don't expect miracles, but I do expect an big improvement over the Bush policies.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 â" more than 7 years after the war began.

He better have a really good reason for not starting to redeploy brigades from Iraq with an end goal of 16 months. A really good reason.

For us tech minded geeks, his fact sheet--including:

Protect the Openness of the Internet

And if I don't see him take the steps he talks about in that plan, I'm going to quickly realize he's just another lying politician. Here's another point that needs to be reprinted all over:

Open Up Government to its Citizens: The Bush Administration has been one of the most secretive, closed administrations in American history. Our nation's progress has been stifled by a system corrupted by millions of lobbying dollars contributed to political campaigns, the revolving door between government and industry, and privileged access to inside information--all of which have led to policies that favor the few against the public interest. An Obama presidency will use cutting-edge technologies to reverse this dynamic, creating a new level of transparency, accountability and participation for America's citizens. Technology-enabled citizen participation has already produced ideas driving Obama's campaign and its vision for how technology can help connect government to its citizens and engage citizens in a democracy. Barack Obama will use the most current technological tools available to make government less beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists and promote citizen participation in government decision-making. Obama will integrate citizens into the actual business of government by:

• Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities. Greater access to environmental data, for example, will help citizens learn about pollution in their communities, provide information about local conditions back to government and empower people to protect themselves.
• Establishing pilot programs to open up government decision-making and involve the public in the work of agencies, not simply by soliciting opinions, but by tapping into the vast and distributed expertise of the American citizenry to help government make more informed decisions.
• Requiring his appointees who lead Executive Branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can watch a live feed on the Internet as the agencies debate and deliberate the issues that affect American society. He will ensure that these proceedings are archived for all Americans to review, discuss and respond. He will require his appointees to employ all the technological tools available to allow citizens not just to observe, but also to participate and be heard in these meetings.
• Restoring the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials.
• Lifting the veil from secret de

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 â" more than 7 years after the war began.

He better have a really good reason for not starting to redeploy brigades from Iraq with an end goal of 16 months. A really good reason.

For us tech minded geeks, his fact sheet--including:

Protect the Openness of the Internet

And if I don't see him take the steps he talks about in that plan, I'm going to quickly realize he's just another lying politician. Here's another point that needs to be reprinted all over:

Open Up Government to its Citizens: The Bush Administration has been one of the most secretive, closed administrations in American history. Our nation's progress has been stifled by a system corrupted by millions of lobbying dollars contributed to political campaigns, the revolving door between government and industry, and privileged access to inside information--all of which have led to policies that favor the few against the public interest. An Obama presidency will use cutting-edge technologies to reverse this dynamic, creating a new level of transparency, accountability and participation for America's citizens. Technology-enabled citizen participation has already produced ideas driving Obama's campaign and its vision for how technology can help connect government to its citizens and engage citizens in a democracy. Barack Obama will use the most current technological tools available to make government less beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists and promote citizen participation in government decision-making. Obama will integrate citizens into the actual business of government by:

• Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities. Greater access to environmental data, for example, will help citizens learn about pollution in their communities, provide information about local conditions back to government and empower people to protect themselves.
• Establishing pilot programs to open up government decision-making and involve the public in the work of agencies, not simply by soliciting opinions, but by tapping into the vast and distributed expertise of the American citizenry to help government make more informed decisions.
• Requiring his appointees who lead Executive Branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can watch a live feed on the Internet as the agencies debate and deliberate the issues that affect American society. He will ensure that these proceedings are archived for all Americans to review, discuss and respond. He will require his appointees to employ all the technological tools available to allow citizens not just to observe, but also to participate and be heard in these meetings.
• Restoring the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials.
• Lifting the veil from secret de

Both private plans subsidized by small employers (one plan available, take it or leave it) and a public plan could be difficult if the disagreement is with insurance company itself. I have argued with bureaucrats, and upward. Those around me have shown me the frustration of fighting with an HMO for a second opinion, and third. A patient actually needs someone to show up daily to check on the staff and the care given in most health care facilities, regardless of the type of insurance. Dollars talk more than any complaint form. Again, others experiences will be different, but I have seen poor care given for more frequently that good care for illnesses that are not done in a day or two. The threat of money being lost gets management moving, while complaints are just handled.

The last proposal that I read any of was HR676, 2007, which establishes a new American national health insurance program by creating a single payer health care system. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care program that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. It certainly seems to seek expanding Medicare into an HMO, effectively rolling up the private practitioners into it.

So I Google about for Obama national health insurance to find some details on current plans, and find quite a few references to HR676. Ignoring those hits, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ gives the high-level vision and no details. http://www.orthosupersite.com/view.asp?rid=31812 has some more overview, all sounding good, sort of like everyone gets what they want and for less cost, because the federal government said so. I'll believe it when it shows up. I'm not saying this is impossible, just that it is heavy on hope.

We have to get rid of the greed in the system to get costs down, which means getting down the greed pretty much everywhere.

The problem with the cost of health care is not the system, it is the society it exist within. And the society is what I do not see changing.

Bluntly stated -- does this guy give two sh*ts about consumer interests?

The guy pretty much wrote Obama's tech plan, the motto of which is "Open Government, Open Networks, Open Market." And he's an advocate for 'Net Neutrality.

The FCC isn't charged with creating standards and products, it's about policy. Technology policy, but policy nonetheless. It is a regulatory body. Nothing more, nothing less.

I know it's the cool thing today to be cynical about Obama's decisions, and I haven't agreed with many of them lately as well, but this is a good pick.