Slashdot Mirror

Neither of those give the police unlimited ability to impersonate me.

Once your phone lines are tapped, they can — technically — respond in your name to callers and even originate new calls. Faking your voice may have been problem before, but I'm quite certain, NSA have solved this particular limitation long ago.

Police have lied to suspects — and witnesses — including impersonations for decades and centuries. It is not illegal for them to do so.

Modern technology is different and, of course, the law enforcement adapts. Though I remain deeply suspicious of them, I don't see anything scandalously illegal still. Compared to this potential abuse, the actual abuse of power by the current Administration is far more troubling.

It isn't "potential abuse of power", when it is being reported AFTER THE FACT!

It does not matter, when it is reported. What makes it a potential abuse of power is that — unlike, for example, the IRS' power to grant or deny tax-exempt status, or the Labor Department's power to conduct audits — it has not been abused yet.

Seriously, all NZ has to do is point a few of those major headlines out, and say "No thank you USA. We would be happy to assist you, LEGALLY, in any LEGAL investigation you may have, but the requests you send us must obey OUR soveriegn rights and laws.

Yes, and the US could say in return: "Ok, guys, you follow your laws to your hearts' content. But if we pick up evidence of somebody planning to release VX in Invercargill Art Gallery tomorrow, we will only inform you of it, if we obtained that information legally. And we'll use Royal Mail to deliver the notice to you — just in case."

For better or worse, governments are judged by their results, not means. I don't like it — it lets the Executive get away with too much, but that's a fact of life — the Boston Marathon bombing, likely, did more damage to Obama's Administration (despite the press' sympathies lying solidly with the Nobel Peace Prize winner), than NSA snooping on suspected terrorists damaged to Bush's Administration (despite the press being duly suspicious of government at the time). It is not limitless — NSA snooping on all of us is more damaging still, but the public can be quite forgiving of the means — as long as there are results.

heatedly whispering among themselves asking each other how they can break the law!

I'm not a cop and generally don't like them, but I do understand, how infuriating and frustrating it must feel to see a rapist or murderer walk free, because the arresting officer fumbled his Miranda-rights or some such. Don't you? Or when, indeed, some vital information passed by a friendly country can not be acted upon, because it did not arrive by "legal" channels...

Complaining about the potential abuse of a government's surveillance power is all well and good, but their actual results may well be quite good — they just wouldn't tell us so as not tell the enemy of how to evade future detection.

Now I personally am not at all sure, the potential abuse is a fair price to pay for the actual prevention — maybe, just maybe, loosing a few hundred of fellow citizens per year is better for the rest of the country, than giving the Executive branch the power to suppress opposition. Oh, wait...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/17/trayvon-protester-strikes-woman-pleading-to-get-granddaughter-to-hospital/

Patriot Act, Patriot Act, Patriot Act.

In the years that you people have been bitching and moaning about the Patriot Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been created and is presently subcontracting the analysis of all credit card activity.

The only mention of the CFPB here on Malcontent Dot is where they 'embraced' FOSS and created an online complaint system. No concern whatsoever about the incredible power these people have to sift through whatever electronic transactions they care to. Not the slightest whiff of outrage.

So I'm going chalk this up to chronic Bush derangement syndrome and ignore it. There is no legitimacy to a discussion of privacy that exempts the CFPB or any other entity because the right party signed it into law. You want me living under the snoops created by your side then you can go to your grave under the snoops created by mine.

The state also proved Zimmerman was on top while martin was on the bottom when the shot was fired.

I think you have that wrong. The prosecution was trying to say that when the shot was fired, there was a distance between the two that would have allowed Zimmerman to retreat instead of shooting. Expert witnesses in the field of forensics say the evidence matches Martin being on the top of Zimmerman and the gun being between 2 and 4 inches with the muzzle touching his shirt. The muzzle touching the shirt is what clinches it as gravity would cause the shirt to fall away from the body. This is how the gun was X inches away but touching the shirt, in a position of being over top of someone, the shirt falls away from the body towards the gun which was held by the person on the ground and under the one shot.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/09/forensic-expert-says-zimmerman-on-bottom-fired-at-close-range/

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/28/prosecution-witness-in-zimmerman-trial-testifies-martin-on-top-in-fight/

I'm not sure where or how, but there is a lot of misinformation out there about this. I know the mass media has already been caught doctoring the 9/11 recordings to make things sound different then what happened. They have posted pictures of Martin at age 12 instead of 17 in attempts to gain sympathy or whatever for him. We have documents declaring the US government being involved and aiding protesters for some reason. It is as if there is a concerted effort to cause a problem at the ending of this trial in order to push some political agenda or something.

I don't think it's 'conspiracy' what the government's doing, they're behaving like every person and corp. Simply using legal and financial tools to get what they want.

1) Telecoms granted immunity.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/10/supreme-court-telecoms-win-immunity

2) Quest CEO claims retaliation by NSA for refusal (old)
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/13/jailed-qwest-ceo-claimed-that-nsa-retaliated-because-he-wouldnt-participate-in-spy-program/

Here's my point in relation to Microsoft: That having won the case against MS, the DOJ had them 100% 'bent over the barrel' as it were. And in exchange for their continued assistance to the NSA, they were granted the 'consent decree' as a sort of 'released on probation', rather than breaking up the company at that time (or imposing other really draconian measures). As with all of the other secret FISC/DOJ agreements, just enter one for MS in relation to this case. MS would certainly have agreed to go along. Besides, monopoly is good for state control and Linux as an alternative would have looked bad to the NSA too. Method, motive, and opportunity.

Look what the facts of the case with the Quest CEO. The loss of the NSA contract (and the related mis-measure of income/profit as a result) directly created the situation he was charged with. I suspect that the government came to him looking for him to go along with the plan too. He didn't want to play ball, and when he tried to cash out and run away...they got him for insider trading. What's conspiracy about that? Method, motive, and opportunity.

Look at the ongoing investigation of Google now too. Not claiming that they're innocent, but DOJ gaining leverage with an 'ongoing investigation' of something or other is just their style. US Government wants into everyone's pants, any time they want too.

People did used to say I'm wearing a 'tin-foil' hat, but it's looking like the 'high fashion statement for 2013' these days.

On topic: The path of least regret would have been single payer system, but we somehow ended up with a Republican profit-utopia called "Obamacare".

Infinity Imaginary mod points to you sir.

Infinity irony points to you, fellow poster.

It is often claimed that Obamacare is a Republican creation by way of the Heritage Foundation. In fact the Heritage plan was substantially different, and they figured out quite some time ago that plan was not a good idea, and they disowned it.

In fact, Obamacare was written by Democrats in Congress with help from a progressive think tank.

Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

Obamacare was passed in Congress on a straight party line vote.

House passes health-care reform bill without Republican votes

Obamacare was signed into law by President Obama.

So how is a law written by Democrats assisted by progressive think tanks, passed solely by Democrats, and signed into law by a Democrat President a "Republican" plan?

PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’
Democrats' New Argument: It's A Good Thing That Obamacare Doubles Individual Health Insurance Premiums
Analysis: Obamacare to cost $2.6 trillion over first full decade

President Barack Obama promised his health-care law would cost approximately $900 billion over ten years when he first proposed it. Since then, the price tag has continued to climb. Total spending under the Affordable Care Act will reach $2.6 trillion over its first full decade, according to a Senate Budget Committee analysis, which was based on Congressional Budget Office estimates and growth rates.

It is said that success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. Trying to leave the Obamacare baby in a basket on the Republican's doorstep won't work. The bastard stepchild of Obamacare belongs to the Democrats.

So it is your contention that the Republicans like Obama too much?

No. I think several factors are in play here:

* Everybody knows that the mainstream media will gang attack anyone who threatens President Obama politically.

* Political consultants are likely telling the Republicans that independent voters hate partisanship. This seems to be a factor anytime we wonder why the Republicans are letting the Democrats get away with stuff.

* The top Republicans might be just too scared to try to touch an entitlement, even before it has ramped up into its "handing out the goodies" phase yet.

Despite all of the above, I really can't tell you why they are not pushing on this. The Republicans should be running ads showing a clip of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or anyone else who made promises about the ACA, and then point out that the promise was not true. "An average family of 4 will save $2,500 per year" ... actually, insurance went up by more than $2,500 per year. "If you like your plan you can keep it" ... plans are being canceled all over the country because they don't meet the standards set by the ACA. And so on...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/01/the-human-face-of-obamacares-broken-promises/

Shit, use the T-word now and you can get rid of all sorts of annoying problems. It's like that scene from "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie" where Paul Rubens (of Pee Wee Herman fame) is on the phone trying to get the police to come and arrest 'Los Guys' because they are doing a B&E to get the luggage.. (Funny Scene) anyway the cops are paying him lip service and he finally says "Look I think they're Iranians!" .. All of a sudden SWAT shows up with dozens of squad cars, megaphones blaring.... This was 1980, the embassy hostage situation was front page news everyday... Man, we're still having problems with Iran, after over 30 years, WTF. Anyway...

The point here is that I just read this Article today and it's about a local water official who at a meeting where customers were vetting complaints about the quality of their drinking water (cloudy, yucky, filthy shit) he blurts out and repeats to a stunned crowed:

“But you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there’s no water quality issues, that can be considered under Homeland Security an act of terrorism.”

So our society has now determined, or this poor misguided retard, that complaining about your water is a possible act of Terrorism? WTF.. We now treat common criminal as Terrorist acts now, if you live in New York it seems. I'm sorry I'm going to do a Farnsworth and get the fuck off this planet!

Bin Laden's stated goal [cnn.com] was to goad the US into a prolonged and expensive war that would cripple the US. He achieved that.

Your abacus must have suffered an overflow error. The cost of the war against Al Qaida and associates is a pittance of the total federal budget.

Medicare and Other Entitlements Are Crowding Out Spending on Defense

Defense spending is about 19% of the total budget. The cost of the war has varied considerably year to year, adding an additional roughly 15 - 30% to the baseline defense budget. On the other hand:

Analysis: Obamacare to cost $2.6 trillion over first full decade

... Total spending under the Affordable Care Act will reach $2.6 trillion over its first full decade, according to a Senate Budget Committee analysis, which was based on Congressional Budget Office estimates and growth rates.

The Affordable Care Act will cost at least twice what the war is costing. If the road to ruin is the incremental cost of the war over the baseline defense budget, then we need to stop implementation of the Affordable Care Act now.

Entitlement Spending Will Nearly Double by 2050

I'd say the most useful item made by 3d printing was probably that trachea they printed for a sick kid a couple of weeks ago.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/25/3d-printed-tracheal-splint-saved-newborns-life/

The Keynesian model did fail though. Unlike say Fisker, Solyndra, or a number of other failed green energy companies, Tesla was the only one that had significant venture capitalist backing, because the venture capitalists recognized that they were the only one who had a viable business model. The government investments didn't even bother to look at their business model. The other ones got loan guarantees just because of the fact that they were green energy companies and they paid the right politicians (if you notice, the list of companies who received these loans is basically a who's who list of Obama campaign sponsors.)

Chances are that Tesla would have been just fine without the government loans. However when you look at this list:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/30/as-many-as-fifty-obama-backed-green-energy-companies-bankrupt-or-troubled/

It's shocking how people use Tesla as the poster child of Keynesian success, meanwhile literally billions were just thrown out. If venture capitalists made decisions as badly as the government does, there would be no venture capitalism.

Interesting. 97% of IRS union political contributions went to leftist democrat candidates. They can't be trusted either. Academia is corrupt the same way the federal government is!

Good luck with that. Even if Congress goes to the trouble of answering it, much of the media, including social media, will likely down play it if it might reflect badly on the current administration.

Heard anything about this one?

IRS sued for improperly seizing the medical records of 10 million Americans

It is just an adder to the growing pile.

The IRS Scandal, Day 8
Benghazi Emails Directly Contradict White House Claims
Congressman Paul Ryan on Benghazi, IRS, and DOJ Snooping the House: “Of course I’m troubled. Are you kidding?”

One of the interesting controversies regarding the MX missile was the plans for basing. One of the proposals was called "dense pack." The idea was that if you put a bunch of missile silos close to each other, attacking one silo with a nuclear warhead would result in so much turbulence, blast, and local radiation that if more warheads were arriving at the same time, they would be battered by the effects of the previously exploding nuclear warhead and be ineffective in attacking the silo they were targeted at. (No, I'm not kidding.) You might be seeing the political equivalent of that right now. There are so many scandals coming out of so many agencies, they compete for attention, confuse the public, allow the media to more or less squeeze them out, and attenuate the political damage. This could be one of those, "They are incompetent, insane, or brilliant" moments. I don't like much of any of what has been revealed, but I wouldn't place a bet on it having any lasting impact on the administration. Most of the media, minus AP, seems indifferent to being spied on, and you would expect that to rouse them if nothing else would. Apparently not.

you're completely full of shit

Really? Here's a typical Hollywood type on the subject:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/16/actor-blames-boston-attack-on-gun-culture-2nd-amendment-must-go/

Judicial Watch recently had a FOIA request answered after 11 years!

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/10/government-responds-to-a-records-request-11-years-later/

Direct link: http://www.google.com/search?q=gun+list+newspaper+robbed

First result: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/17/coincidentally-another-home-on-the-journal-news-list-was-robbed-of-its-guns/

I wonder how long until the victims band together to sue Gannett? Perhaps they are simply waiting for proof that the robberies were connected to the publishing of the list by the Journal News.

How else can they justify the 70+ Billion dollars on climate change research?

Got to produce reports!

Why in the hell does everyone have to mod down comments that disagree with climate change research and funding? I mod you up unfortunately without points.

Just because something isn't 100% inline with your thoughts and beliefs doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention to see if there's something you're missing. Yes I'm talking to all of you "I DON'T HEAR YOU NA NA NA NAAAAAAA" climate change die-hard pundits.

You know, there's a chance that you're right and there's also a chance you're wrong.

I'm waiting time posting this because if something doesn't fit into a black or white category most people have to be lazy and discredit it.

How else can they justify the 70+ Billion dollars on climate change research?

Got to produce reports!

Ron Paul's organization, the Campaign for Liberty, is trying to kill this thing and prevent the national sales tax from being implemented:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/15/the-national-internet-tax-mandate-must-be-stopped/

You don't think a huge investment in green manufacturing jobs would help the economy?

No, I don't. Because any subsidy that favors one industry merely extracts from another. Just look at the ass-raping the coal industry has been experiencing: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/04/report-up-to-17000-jobs-lost-from-coal-plant-shutdowns/

So the government is effectively spending our (i.e. taxpayers) money to shift X workers from industry Y to industry Z. The net result is zero on the economy, AND it costs the government money (which is an economic detractor). This is why free market advocates frequently clamor that the government rarely produces jobs. The government would be better off expanding/upgrading infrastructure. That at least _would_ produce new jobs (temporarily), because decaying infrastructure doesn't involve another competing industry.

First off, it's a non sequitur. No government went bankrupt for calling internet access a human right.

- you simply don't understand how it follows, that socialist ideology that is so prevalent and dominant nowadays causes destruction of the economy by putting undue burden on the producing population to subsidise the unproductive population. It's theft, and yes, it is theft even if it is legal.

Legality is just a term, government can make something legal or illegal in a split second. One day it's legal to sell and drink alcohol, the next day it's not. One day it's illegal to STEAL from people, the next day they call it "social justice", and it's exactly what they do - they steal private property from people via income taxes, and the reason they were able to pass it as legal (and it's not actually legal, but the system now protects the income tax regardless of the fact that it is actually illegal and it is collected illegally) was because of immediate discrimination that socialism requires, allows and is all about.

Socialism is discrimination, any idea that requires that somebody must provide you with entitlements that you didn't pay for and through the threat of government violence is discrimination and theft. The 1% or 2% that were to be hit with the new income taxes back in 1913 didn't have a choice in the matter, because of the implicit and explicit support by the huge voting majority, that was cheering for such measures.

They are still cheering today, today they don't bother even thinking about work anymore.

However the 1% or 2% who where the foot in the door thanks to the socialist ideology of theft and discrimination became the gateway for the growth of government and eventually today there are withholding taxes, the employer is turned into an UNPAID tax collector for the IRS, and everybody is afraid of the IRS that will come and confiscate your money and will throw you to jail.

And that's NOT freedom, the government must be afraid of its people, not the other way around. Americans (and the rest really), who are just too happy to vote for the wealthier than them to pay more thaxes, don't want to pay anything themselves, but they WILL snitch on their neighbours to the IRS and they will comply with every illegal rule that IRS insists is the law, but won't actually provide any documentation as to how any of it is law.

"A bird is not a creature with a beak, a bird is a creature with wings." Both are rights. You're just parroting the silly anti-human nonsense of the conservatives.

- obviously you haven't read my comments or journal entries over the years, if you have, you'd realise that I could be the standard for what you call "anti-human", of-course you are completely wrong. I am completely pro-individual, it is the socialists that are anti-human.

Socialists murdered people, socialists murdered millions of people. They do this for the 'greater good' apparently, but you don't call them anti-human. I do. They are anti-human, they are beneath dirt, they make dirt look good in comparison.

No, entitlements, in governance, refers to whether the money apportioned must be spent in a specific way or not.

- government has no money but what it steals, either steals by taxing income of the working minority or it steals by printing money (inflation), or it steals by pretending to borrow (it doesn't borrow, it has nothing to pay the debts back with).

The entire socialist, Keynesian system is based on theft, lies and discrimination. I am going to be truly happy to see the end of all of these systems, the collapse will be horrendous, but it will finally bring the

So long as we have an income tax (that's another conversation...) I say with a resounding YES: the ultra-rich (>10 million "net worth") should pay much more (as a percentage) of their income in taxes than do the working poor ($0 "net worth"). It's called progressive taxation, and it's ABSOLUTELY necessary so long as there is such a HUGE chasm between the top 0.1% and the bottom 50%, financially speaking. Granted, the culture of greed that dug that chasm is a social issue, and cannot be solved politically. Progressive taxation is treating the symptom.

That's great. Just one problem, the US tax system is already the most progressive - two different studies.

U.S. Taxes Really Are Unusually Progressive

Income taxes in America are more progressive than in other rich countries--according to an authoritiative official study which, to my knowledge, has not been contradicted. The OECD's report "Growing Unequal", on poverty and inequality in industrial countries, includes a table that provides two measures of income tax progressivity in 2005. This is evidently the source of de Rugy's numbers. Here they are in an excel file. According to one measure, America's income taxes were the most progressive of the 24 countries in the sample, except for Ireland. According to the other, they were the most progressive full stop. (A more recent OECD report, "Divided We Stand", uses different data, a smaller sample of countries and a different measure of progressivity: the results are similar.) . . . more

America has industrialized world’s most progressive income tax, says The Tax Foundation

America leads the world in many fields, but for those keeping score, the nation apparently has yet another superlative to add to its column. According to The Tax Foundation, the U.S. currently can lay claim to having the most progressive income tax among all industrialized nations.

In the mid-2000s, the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. were responsible for 45.1 percent of all income tax revenues, according to numbers compiled by the foundation. That same decile, however, only earned 33.5 percent of the market income – which makes the ratio of income tax paid to market income earned the highest of any industrialized country, at a whopping 1.35. For comparison, France stands at 1.10, Belgium at 0.94 and Switzerland at 0.89.

American Enterprise Institute economist Alan Viard told The Daily Caller that while America’s tax code is extremely progressive, it is not as redistributive as many other nations because the overall tax system is smaller.

“As a country imposes a larger volume of taxes and as the public sector gets bigger, it is almost certain that they are not going to remain as progressive in how they raise their revenue,” Viard said. “Progressivity has certain economic costs. It tends to undermine incentives to work and to save It will be more and more costly for a country to stay that progressive as their tax system gets bigger. ” . . . more

Will raising taxes pull in more revenue? Not necessarily.

Why 70% Tax Rates Won't Work

The intelligentsia of the Democratic Party is growing increasingly enthusiastic about raising the highest federal income tax rates to 70% or more. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich took the lead in February, pro

So long as we have an income tax (that's another conversation...) I say with a resounding YES: the ultra-rich (>10 million "net worth") should pay much more (as a percentage) of their income in taxes than do the working poor ($0 "net worth"). It's called progressive taxation, and it's ABSOLUTELY necessary so long as there is such a HUGE chasm between the top 0.1% and the bottom 50%, financially speaking. Granted, the culture of greed that dug that chasm is a social issue, and cannot be solved politically. Progressive taxation is treating the symptom.

That's great. Just one problem, the US tax system is already the most progressive - two different studies.

U.S. Taxes Really Are Unusually Progressive

Income taxes in America are more progressive than in other rich countries--according to an authoritiative official study which, to my knowledge, has not been contradicted. The OECD's report "Growing Unequal", on poverty and inequality in industrial countries, includes a table that provides two measures of income tax progressivity in 2005. This is evidently the source of de Rugy's numbers. Here they are in an excel file. According to one measure, America's income taxes were the most progressive of the 24 countries in the sample, except for Ireland. According to the other, they were the most progressive full stop. (A more recent OECD report, "Divided We Stand", uses different data, a smaller sample of countries and a different measure of progressivity: the results are similar.) . . . more

America has industrialized world’s most progressive income tax, says The Tax Foundation

America leads the world in many fields, but for those keeping score, the nation apparently has yet another superlative to add to its column. According to The Tax Foundation, the U.S. currently can lay claim to having the most progressive income tax among all industrialized nations.

In the mid-2000s, the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. were responsible for 45.1 percent of all income tax revenues, according to numbers compiled by the foundation. That same decile, however, only earned 33.5 percent of the market income – which makes the ratio of income tax paid to market income earned the highest of any industrialized country, at a whopping 1.35. For comparison, France stands at 1.10, Belgium at 0.94 and Switzerland at 0.89.

American Enterprise Institute economist Alan Viard told The Daily Caller that while America’s tax code is extremely progressive, it is not as redistributive as many other nations because the overall tax system is smaller.

“As a country imposes a larger volume of taxes and as the public sector gets bigger, it is almost certain that they are not going to remain as progressive in how they raise their revenue,” Viard said. “Progressivity has certain economic costs. It tends to undermine incentives to work and to save It will be more and more costly for a country to stay that progressive as their tax system gets bigger. ” . . . more

Will raising taxes pull in more revenue? Not necessarily.

Why 70% Tax Rates Won't Work

The intelligentsia of the Democratic Party is growing increasingly enthusiastic about raising the highest federal income tax rates to 70% or more. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich took the lead in February, pro

I call bullshit on this article. What this is: Cheer-leading and whitewashing for a U.S. government press release that promises more entanglement and "anti-terror" activity (by way of the UN) in foreign countries. Here is the meat of the article, all the way at the very end of the article, if you have the patience to get there:

At least on the African continent, change is coming. In addition to aid from the U.S. and others, groups like the Cyber Security Africa and the International Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT) are setting up regional workshops and conventions to address problems like cyber crime in Africa.

Western nations are helping out, also. In December, the U.S. Department of State has granted $250,000 to combat transnational cybercrime in East African nations. That money will be used to train law enforcement, judges and prosecutors on cyber crime prosecution, with cooperation from the US Justice Department. Still, a State Department spokesperson said the money will be spent on "fundamentals" - laying the groundwork for intra-government and international cooperation on cyber crime, as well as 'basic laws that criminalize cybercrime conduct, laws on handling electronic evidence."

It approvingly portrays a Kenyan push to require static IPs on all mobile devices to better permit tracking:

The Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK) is pushing for mobile operators to assign static IP addresses to smart phones and tablets to "help track and monitor user activity," according to statements from Bitange Ndemo, the Information and Communication Permanent Secretary there.

It includes delightful broken-window fallacies, basically in support of US-based Microsoft products, like this paragraph:

Pirated software is also used commonly throughout the continent, creating an avenue for malicious software and sapping local economies of money and jobs that would stem from a legal market for business and personal software.

This article is originally based on "State Dept throws $250,000 at UN effort to combat cybercrime in Africa" from the Daily Caller. (link from end).

That article, in turn, is originally based on "U.S. Department of State Funds UN Anti-Cybercrime Training for Africa" from the U.S. State Department website (link from that article).

"If you're going to claim systemic discrimination against conservatives"

Juan Williams, a liberal, expressed a "conservative" opinion, and was fired for it. He is a black man, and claiming bigotry against him is almost comical, except for his being fired.

" If some one holds a completely liberal ideology but hates the "Jews,here is no reason any one should tolerate them" "

You mean like many, well documented cases in the OWS protests? Well, that never happened, because they were good little Liberal Protestors, so .... excused

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/07/anti-semitism-at-occupy-wall-street/

Yeah, I'm sure you never heard about such things, because John Stewart (liberal jew) didn't report it. He was too busy protesting Sarah Palin (not running anything or for anything), or Bill Maher (another liberal jew) calling her misogynist names (again, excused). I'm sure you're lining up the excuses right now (yeah, SP is one ..., they were plants by teabaggers ...etc) They are all Hypocrites.

Even Reagan would fail to meet most of the current Republican agenda

If you're going to make an assertion like that, please back it up. How, specifically, did Reagan's views differ from "the current Republican agenda"? (If you're talking about a non-tea-party Republican like Boehner, I can see it; Reagan's deficits were probably much too small for Boehner's liking.)

People can't believe in tax cuts for corporates and the rich

"Republicans want tax cuts for the rich" is a mantra you hear repeated endlessly by Democrats, and also in the media (which is largely the same thing). But in fact, the Bush tax cuts reduced everyone's rate, not just the rich. It's very telling that only in recent weeks, while trying to stir up fiscal cliff fears, has Obama begun to tell the truth; regarding expiration of the Bush tax cuts, he warns that "everyone's taxes will go up on January 1." (How can that be, Mr. President -- I thought those tax cuts were only for the rich?!)

The College Republicans regret the controversy surrounding our planned lecture featuring Ann Coulter. The size and severity of opposition to this event have caught us by surprise, and caused us to question our decision to welcome her to Rose Hill. Looking at the concerns raised about Ms. Coulter, many of them reasonable, we have determined that some of her comments do not represent the ideals of the College Republicans and are inconsistent with both our organization's mission, and the University's. We regret that we failed to thoroughly research her before announcing, that is our error and we do not excuse ourselves for it. Consistent with our strong disagreement with certain comments by Ms. Coulter we have chosen to cancel the event and rescind Ms. Coulterâ(TM)s invitation to speak at Fordham. We made this choice freely, before Father McShaneâ(TM)s email was sent out and we became aware of his feelings --- had the President simply reached out to us before releasing his statement he would have learned that the event was being cancelled. We hope the University community will forgive the College Republicans for our error, and continue to allow us to serve as its main voice of the sensible, compassionate, and conservative political movement that we strive to be. We fell short of that standard this time, and we offer our sincere apologies.

Ted Conrad, President

UPDATED: McShane Responds to College Republicans' Cancellation of Ann Coulter Event

The Republican Club tried to get the Student Association to spring for George Will, but was capped at $10,000. Fordham College Republicans withdraw Coulter invite

The Speaker's Bureau:

Campus Speaker & Board of Advisors Member - Ann Coulter

Click here to host an event with Ann on your campus!

Fun times:

The incident followed a Monday night lecture at the University of Western Ontario, where Coulter told a Muslim student to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying.

Coulter made the comment as she responded to a question from student Fatima Al-Dhaher, who asked about previous comments in which Coulter said Muslims shouldn't be allowed on airplanes and should take "flying carpets" instead. Al-Dhaher noted she did not own a flying carpet and asked what she should take as an alternative transportation. Coulter did not deny making the flying carpet comment and replied to the university student, "What mode of transportation? Take a camel," to jeers and cheers. It was a decidedly pro-Coulter audience. One man, who identified himself as a U.S. citizen, described U.S. President Barack Obama as a "Marxist."

She is well-known for her vehement views against Muslims. In a post-September 11 column, she wrote that the U.S. should invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

Coulter, who often comments on Fox News, once said Canada is "lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent" after the Canadian government did not join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Coulter speech cancelled over fears of violence

I have done quite a bit of research actually.

Right...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/20/obama-asserts-executive-privilege-over-ff-docs/?page=all
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/page/univision-news-investigation-operation-fast-furious-weapons-revealed-17352963
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/the-benghazi-drip-drip-drip/
http://www.examiner.com/article/retired-officer-obama-watched-benghazi-attack-happen-sources-say
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/20/more-than-500-economists-5-nobel-laureates-back-romneys-economic-strategy/
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/obama-congress-grades/index.htm
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2012/oct/2/real-obama-economic-policy-record/
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/07/10891-top-4-most-wasteful-michelle-obama-vacations/ http://obamagolfcounter.com/

Note the many right-wing sources like CNN and ABC News.

I saved the apology tour for last, as I found several quotes you'll no doubt enjoy:

- At a Summit of the Americas, Obama regretted how “at times we sought to dictate our terms.” In an op-ed about policy toward the America’s, Obama declared: “Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors.”

- Speaking to the Turkish parliament, Obama rationalized: “The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history.”

- Addressing CIA employees about an administration report which castigated the use of enhanced interrogation techniques against terrorist suspects, the President urged: “Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes.”

- In a speech, Obama denounced the techniques used in the war on terror: “Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens – fell silent.”

- In that same address at the National Archives, he went into full apology mode over Guantanamo: “There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against Al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law.”

0's rhetoric and actions have weakened America considerably, which is reflected in the actions of the PRC and Russia in particular.

Voted about 7pm. I didn't vote for ANY democrats of republicans. Voted for libertarians if available. If only democrat and/or republican as choices I used the "write in" and put in things like "Bozo the clown" "Mr. Ed" etc.. No I didn't wast my vote - I'm one of the 46%!.

46 percent of Americans want a third party
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/12/poll-46-percent-of-americans-want-a-third-party/

Yes assuming this "new negative news stream" that I haven't noticed is coming from Fox News. It also explains why you think no one has read the bill.

I'm sure you don't mean to be obtuse, but what I wrote was, "passed without anyone reading the whole thing first." Are you going to deny that is true? They were making massive deletions and additions up till the last moment. Do you think passing major laws with massive effects on 1/6 of the economy without reading them first, let alone study, understand, and debate them, is a good thing? This isn't the first time that happed.

Passing unread laws

Welcome to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives. The “people’s House” is now a place where bills are voted on not only before legislators or the public have read them, but also before parts of the bills even have been written. Such was the case with a 300-page amendment to the cap-and-trade bill the House passed on June 26. The House leadership could not even produce this amendment on paper, in final form, before it was voted on.

Fox New, AP, whatever, I can't account for you being uninformed.

Kids with Pre-Existing Conditions NOT Covered By Obamacare
Now the AP tells us

Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

- - - - -

So let's perpetually bend over to the insurance companies hoping to God that they keep rates reasonable. The point of the exchanges is to introduce some competition so that insurance companies can't easily abuse customers as you describe.

To borrow your phrase, do you know who you will bending over to instead? (And won't that be so much better? You can always try to change insurance companies, at least till now, but you aren't really going to change the IRS, are you?)

IRS looking to hire thousands of tax agents to enforce health care laws

A March 18 report from House Ways & Means Committee Republicans estimates the IRS will need to hire between 11,800 and 16,500 new agents to enforce the bill.

No One Would Miss ObamaCare, but the Window for Repeal Is Two Years
Its alleged benefits are overrated, and by 2014 the bureaucratic mess may be impossible to untangle.

The primary place ObamaCare's pre-existing condition provision will have an impact is in the individual market, where about 14 million people buy their own coverage. Individuals are the ones most likely to wait until they need coverage to buy it; hence ObamaCare's mandate requiring them to have insurance.

However, most states had made provisions for the "uninsurables" long before ObamaCare came around. Thirty-five states have created state-based high-risk pools—Minnesota and Connecticut established the first ones as far back as 1976

There is no such protection in online voting. A church could put the computer, oh, right in front of the altar and have the congregation line up.

There is no need to conjure a theoretical example when the real example of unions and "card check" exists, and is being repeatedly litigated.

The National Labor Relations Board’s attack on the secret ballot

. . . The National Labor Relations Act established the secret ballot election as the preferred method for determining employee free choice. Although the act has been interpreted to permit voluntary recognition by card check . . .

. . . An employer does not have to acquiesce to a union’s demand (or its employees’ request) for recognition based on a card check; the employer can demand a secret ballot election. Similarly, if an employer voluntarily recognizes a union based on a showing of majority support by cards, its employees are given 45 days to demand a secret ballot election challenging the union’s majority claim.

Unions prefer card check, however, for two main reasons. First, card check is less costly. Second, unions are more successful at securing an employee’s signature on a card than they are in earning the employee’s vote when it is cast in secret. The reasons are not hard to find. A card check subjects an employee’s vote to the scrutiny of third parties, peer pressure from fellow employees, and even coercion. Unions collect cards over time, often in secret and without the knowledge of the employer, and open workplace debate on the issue of unionization. A secret ballot election takes place after a campaign participated in by the union, the employees and the employer; it reflects employee sentiment, educated by the campaign’s debate, at one point in time.

6) Resisting catching fire and exploding

I would vote for Jill, since her views are more aligned with mine. But, I have to vote for Obama to get him in the White House in order to do a few things I like.

Things like what? Warrantless wiretaps? Secret Presidential kill orders against American citizens? Ooh, I know! Trillion dollar giveaways to crony capitalist suck-ups to the government teat! How about bombing foreign countries without a declaration of war or authorization (or even notification) of congress? Or how about unprecedented levels of deportations? Ooh, I know - You're all for printing more money and driving inflation! Or massive increases in federal raids on legal-under-state-law medical marijuana providers? Drone strikes? War in Iran? No? Oh, I get it... it was using federal law enforcement to get around state limitations on asset forfeiture. (gotta make sure we can steal the property of the poor and minorities!)

Oh, that's not it... you're a fan of openness.. you are all about the prosecution of whistleblowers as spies. Wait, what the heck are you in favor of?

Now here's my point: How many people on this site will insult Glenn Beck, some nut on the radio who has no real power, while giving the White House a free pass?

Good point. Then again most people here are still giving the White House a free pass on Fast and Furious along with Holder and Obama and the killing of 300+ Mexicans a US border agent, a mass murder(most recently discovered and linked at a party of teenagers), or they're blaming Bush still because that's the line the WH is still trying to feed on the narrative. Even though under Bush's program their guns were tracked. Under Obama and Holder they simply let the guns walk away.

At least the nitwits got US made F-5 fighters in the backdrop... Unfortunately, they belonged to the Turkish Air Force...

And yet there are other models that predict the opposite.

Yes I read the thread on this link below, Nate Silver has no reason to be more accurate than those models.

I don't trust either, because this election is way trickier to predict than most past elections. I ESPECIALLY do not trust any model claiming a blowout one way or the other.

So, what do we say about Gallup now? Especially since the DoJ is investigating them heavily after Axelrod threw a hissy fit? Are they even reliable, I doubt it.

Peh. The only reason why people throw a fit over Rasmussen is because they use only "likely voters" and don't use +measurement voting statistics like other polling houses have been doing for the last decade.

Then again there is this one http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/23/university-of-colorado-prediction-model-points-to-big-romney-win/ that has been correct every time since 1980 that says Romney will win big.

That model is a joke. It didn't exist 6 months ago. Just look at it! PA for Romney? It's not even considered a battle-ground state anymore and the Romney campaign has pulled ALL advertising and has none scheduled.

It's a peer-reviewed scientific journal article. Don't be a Denier. The science is IN!

According to him, Obama has a 69% chance of winning, but will only barely get a majority (not even 51%).

Dream on.

University of Colorado model that's nailed every election since 1980 say Romney in a landslide.

Hmm. 1980. So Jimmy Carter II will be a one-term failure just like Jimmy Carter I.

I guess every generation has to learn what a dumb idea it is to put Democrats in charge of both Congress and the Presidency.

But Obama's cliques in college are, of course.

...for the least transparent administration in American history. Perhaps the Obama Administration will restore the petition shortly after they turn over the Fast and Furious documents Obama has claimed Executive Privilege over.

This is also par for the course for the Obama Administration's constant defense of the TSA. When Texas tried to pass a bill to ban TSA groping in the state, the Obama Administration threatened to impose a no fly zone on Texas over the right for TSA agents to grope people. Do you think think the Obama Administration will be any less protective now that they're unionized.

Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz has called for the abolition of the TSA. Given the wasteful, intrusive, and ineffective security theater they stage, does anyone think the America public would object to to their abolition?

Forgive the offtopicness, but I couldn't let this one fly:

Debt problem: real problem, but caused by Bush policies. At least things are headed in a better direction.

Wrong! Under the Bush presidency, the deficit never reached the $502 billion mark. Since 2009, the deficit has never reached BELOW the $1300 billion mark. I don't think it's Bush's policies that are the problem. Also note that the President does not write policy. Congress does. In Jan 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.6%. Since 2009, it has not been below 8%. What changed in Jan 2007? Democrats took control of Congress.

Source

Not sure what your point is about the racist in the Justice dept, haven't heard anything to make me think that's remotely true.

Black Panthers harassed voters in front of a polling place. The justice department did nothing. If that were a Klan member doing the exact same thing, don't you think the Justice Department would have prosecuted?

If you can't see you're on the wrong (morally) side of the photo id laws ... that's just sad.

If you can't see that without ID laws that it's REALLY easy to vote for other people and almost impossible to catch... that's just dumb.
http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-16/metro/31062045_1_voter-fraud-absentee-ballot-application-absentee-voting-laws
http://www.wtoc.com/story/16571904/south-carolinas-attorney-general-detects-voter-fraud-for-primaries
http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/mississippi-naacp-leader-sent-to-prison-for-10-counts-of-voter-fraud/

True, just like there's plenty of palestinian law against terrorism ...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/14/iranian-defectors-khamenei-said-anti-nuke-fatwa-wont-matter/

If you want to know whether or not muslims would really do this, why not read a story from the quran :

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/jews.htm

You missed a great opportunity there. The post contains specific facts that are fairly easily checked. You could have easily provided either a better source or tried to provide new facts to try and show they are wrong (good luck). Instead you called names and whined about the sources.

Since you don't like Fox News (which I don't cite) I'll throw you a bone. . . maybe you'll like this.

Publicly Held Debt Set to Skyrocket

federal spending

The Ryan Budget: Confronting the Nation’s Spending Crisis

Committed as ever to the 1st Amendment: Liberal journalists suggest government censor Fox News

how long? before Iran retaliates and the whole thing escalates into WW3

You mean like seeking regional hegemony, running terrorist campaigns worldwide, threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, threaten Europe's energy supplies to freeze people, use suicide boats to attack gulf shipping, arm Hezbollah to attack Israel with and ultimate goal of destroying Israel, attack US troops, send suicide bombers to Europe and America, aid America's enemies, threaten attacks on nearby countries and cities with missiles, kill diplomats, subvert nearby countries, unleash the suicide bomb brigades (serious), and the ninjas (you decide), perhaps adding some WMDs to the attacks?

I doubt that many people will buy it.

. . . a coal-powered car. And if the cost of purchasing, insuring the-higher-value vehicle, and additional maintenance is factored in, it becomes significantly more expensive than an equivalent efficient gas-powered car. And according to reports, the average income of a Chevy Volt buyer is over US$170,000. Not exactly a recipe for a significant solution, even if the purchase and operation economics were more favorable. . .

How about the surveillance video from the police station showing Zimmerman with no injuries after he was brought in? If his head was slammed into concrete such that he was at risk of dying, you would have been able to see it half an hour later. Here's the link you asked for. [cbslocal.com] I bet you don't even view it - you've already made up your mind.

Yes, I've seen that video. Now I've got a few things for you.

When the 6'3" (1.9m) tall Martin slammed Zimmerman's head into the concrete, it represented a lethal danger, not actual damage. It is like you playing in traffic on a freeway that doesn't stop - you are in danger of being hit and killed, but you aren't dead yet. Martin banged up Zimmerman, but didn't inflict mortal damage to him. Understand the difference?

Here is the police report that states he was injured and treated at the scene:

"While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head. . . .

Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD.

Police surveillance video of Zimmerman may show head injury

Now that you have direct police testimony (go ahead, download the original), and a different view, you're left with a question - what do you believe now, and why? If you believe Zimmerman wasn't injured, you're simply wrong.