Slashdot Mirror

Please do some research before you repeat a talking point. Gramm-Leach-Bliley allowed traditional banks to engage in investment bank activities. It allowed JP Morgan to buy Bear Stearns and Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch, instead of allowing those two investment banks to crash. That may have softened the crash instead of worsening it. See more here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html

The Real Deal on the Current Economic Crisis

So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working home owners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.

Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.

Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.

Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.

The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.

Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.

Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.

The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.

An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.

Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

Sorry, skippy, your political spin is silly. The Bush administration did not allow financial institutions to create Mortgage Backed Securities... they've been around since about 1938.

If you really want to know who or what caused the financial meltdown, I'd suggest reading this piece on Factcheck.org -- skip down to the "The Real Deal" section for the executive summary, which concludes with:

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

Or disqualify McCain for the inability to use a computer.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_mccain_unable_to_use_a_computer.html

Forbes, May 2000: His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.

Besides, Obama will be raising everyone's taxes. He admits as much. He wants to repeal all the tax cuts put in place over the last eight years. When he says he won't be raising taxes on the 95% of the public, he's referring to any increases above and beyond that increase.

That is why he says you "won't be paying any more than you were under Clinton." We are currently ALL paying less than we were under Clinton. I know I may be modded down for saying something negative about Obama, but it's true... go look it up.

Utter nonsense that's been debunked over and over. Quotes are false, info's bad, and you're just hoping that enough people don't bother to look at all and just take what you say at face value. You even threw in the old "I'll get modded down for saying the truth!". Unfortunately for you, it seems more likely you'll get modded down for being full of shit.

Take a look at the write-up on factcheck.org

The deregulation of Glass-Steagall provisions had little or nothing to do with this despite what Moveon.org says.

CRA is way overblown but Fannie and Freddie were the root cause.

I wish I had mod points.

Take a look at factcheck.org

They have the most comprehensive write-up I've seen on where the blame lies.

The republican reforms were probably to little to late but I can't see how the Dems opposed them when the crisis was so obvious. The main charge against McCain is that he got on board in 2006 after the bubble had burst, but while the Dems were still opposing the regulation.

Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation (if he has it)? Everyone else has to.

What, his birth certificate (which has been verified to be valid) isn't documentation enough for you?

(You are talking about documentation of U.S. citizenship, right? Or did I just misunderstand you?)

Oh for the love of god, just post the factcheck.org article already: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html

I apologize for being a little late, but lets see here...

As for the taxes part, the $250k lower limit is what he'll do first. Reasonable, no? But the rest of the plan has some interesting aspects. From the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html And if you think that lower limit will remain $45k, you're smoking something.

Conveniently enough, I just ran across this, which even points out the specific WSJ article that you linked. Search for

Furthermore, the Journal's editorial misstated a key fact in its "welfare" argument. It said that anyone who doesn't pay federal income taxes is not a "taxpayer," which is simply incorrect.

In reading various independent analysis of the tax policies of the two candidates, I'm pretty sure that you are reading a little too much republican propaganda if you think that I'm smoking something.

---

Finally, your bit about Terrorists and Muslims is lame - yes, there are people who believe that and vote that way. There are also people who don't like McCain because, since he can't raise his arms, "doesn't look open and friendly". But it doesinvite the question about the company he keeps, and his forthrightness. Obama initially only admitted a trivial association with Ayers, but apparently there was quite a bit more to it.

McCain actually is a fairly amiable looking candidate in my opinion, despite what the media claims. But are you seriously arguing that the racism and fear of terrorism in this country is less of an issue than voting in a guy who doesn't look open and friendly (which I'd argue against)? What exactly do you define as "quite a bit more" to the Ayers connection, by the way? A meet the candidate night at the guy's house? Oh shit, they must have been preparing to bomb something. I guess what scares you about Ayers nowadays is that the foundation he is involved in funded two projects that the McCain campaign quoted as being radical - "one having to do with a United Nations-themed Peace School and another that focused on African-American studies." (from the same politifact link I pasted earlier).

I was actually a fan of McCain around 2000 before he changed a number of his stances, such as the Bush tax cuts and immigration. If you ask economists, immigration in particular is actually pretty damn good for the economy. It helps to look past the "They're taking our jobs!" meme that people like to spout out, and put a little thought into whether immigrants actually have the training necessary to take said jobs.

Quick note on the immigration from the LA Times:

As a sponsor of two comprehensive reform bills, McCain should be unbeatable on this issue. Standing up to fellow Republicans (and some Democrats), he declared that the nation could not turn its back on the impoverished millions who have come here to work and prosper. Unfortunately, the free-thinker has become a follower, trailing behind the worst instincts of his party. Abandoning problem-solving for politics, McCain has made border security and employment enforcement his new mandate. That may be good Republican politics, but it's not sound policy.

McCain used to have great ideas that go against common belief, but he has since turned his back on such in order to get more mainstream votes.

---

You seem to think that all Republicans are either knuckle dragging cretins or amoral titans of industry.

I actually like to break it down slightly differently... (but I do like your wording of one, so I'll borrow that)

• Amoral titans of industry
• Regular people (potentially church-goers, but not always) who feel

For anyone interested, FactCheck.org gives the real deal on this issue. Their short summary: "Q: Did Sarah Palin make rape victims pay for their own rape kits? A: Palin's police chief in Wasilla did that. Whether Palin supported this is not certain."

The slightly longer story is that woman in Wasilla were having their insurance charged for rape kits while Palin was mayor there. After she'd been mayor for four years, the state passed a law banning the practice. The Wasilla police chief spoke out in defense of the practice. Palin is not on record as taking a stand on the issue at the time. Since being the vice presidential candidate, Palin's spokesperson said, "the governor 'does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.' [The spokesperson] declined to answer questions about when Palin found out about the practice and what, if anything, she tried to do about it." So the bottom line is that this did happen in Wasilla while Palin was mayor and she did not stop it (or stop the police chief from supporting it), but there's no evidence that she actively encouraged it either.

In my view it's still a strike against her, but it's definitely been distorted. Then again, the idea of any politician who cannot name a single news publication she reads is all I need to see her as a liability.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html

I guess they are mistaken: Did Sarah Palin make rape victims pay...?

I live in Virginia in the Washington D.C. metro area. I've been exposed to avid fans from both sides and have decided I won't be voting for McCain. Why? Read the fifth paragraph down in this article to get an idea of what one sometimes has to deal with. And all I need to do is peruse factcheck.org to see who's lying about what.

Call me stupid & naive for desiring a non-manipulative president but I've been nonplussed with the McCain campaign (and Fox News for that matter). Both candidates twisted each others words but I haven't been exposed to many negative ads against McCain. I wish I didn't have to vote for either of them, we'll still be at war four years from now regardless of who wins--it's probably just a matter of how many countries we'll be at war with.

Basically it's a tax on the working class.

Agreed. Social Security taxes are very regressive.

In theory the tax hike was designed to build up a big reserve of cash so that Social Security could operate in the 2020s when the baby boomers started to retire.

This is really just an accounting trick so that the long term planning for the Baby Boomers' retirement is separate from the shorter term federal budget. Otherwise this would make governments in power as the Baby Boomers retire look fiscally irresponsible as large deficits are incurred when Social Security pays out.

the same chairman insisted that all this cash should not be put away someplace safe, but should rather be made available as a kind of piggy bank for the government to borrow from.

Do you have a better suggestion for "someplace safe" than government bonds? The Social Security trust fund earns interest on money borrowed by the government just like anyone else who lends money to the government.

By 2000, Clinton (and his VP Gore) had cut the deficit all the way back to a "surplus" which means we were still borrowing some from the SS funds, just not from the outside world anymore.

Actually, there was a budget surplus without any caveats. If you check the data from the CBO, they have one column showing deficits/surpluses including Social Security (and the Postal Service) and another column excluding them. Including Social Security, there were surpluses from 1998 to 2001. Excluding Social Security, there were surpluses in 1999 and 2000.

As for the overall debt, I tend to prefer something like the debt to GDP ratio. Charts like this one show how damaging Reaganomics has been.

> That said... you want 'Real Change'?

Obama likes to make a big deal that John McCain voted with George Bush 95% of the time.
Presumably, that's bad .
Presumably, that's bad because Bush's approval rating is something like 29%.
Presumably, that's why Obama keeps telling us we need to vote for change.

But... Barack Obama voted with Democrats 96% of the time.
And the Democrat-controlled Congress' approval rating is something like 13%.

So... Where is the change that Obama will be bringing?

Already done.

If he had hacked in and found nothing (which is what he found, nothing) then just left it at that then Sarah would have had to reset the password again but probably would not think anything of it. Instead the moron posted to Wikileaks information that really was not very interesting I have to admit. In fact it would be subject to deletion for not being important had it not come from a hacked email account.

It's well-established that she and her staff have been using private accounts for state business. Anchorage Daily News has a decent story on it. It wasn't the one that got "hacked", which is why it's stupid that people keep saying that there's no story here because we haven't seen any official email.

The kid is an idiot for hacking the account. He's an unbelievably HUGE idiot for posting the emails the way he did. But really, he got into her personal account, and I don't see how that warrants any more of a punishment than if he'd gotten into anyone else's personal account.

Most importantly Obama voted to allow newborn babies who survived abortion attempts to be denied medical care, food or milk and allowed to die in a closet. Yes, look it up. He did it. Know your candidate.

Get your facts straight, idiot.

Your other arguments are too dumb to bother responding to. It's rather hilarious that you call others mindless.

Er, actually...

If you don't feel like reading that yourself, the bottom line is that even if you read everything from the GOP's point of view, at least 40 of those "votes" are bullshit.

And certainly Palin has never expressed that belief.

Sure about that?

I read that article very carefully. It smacks as being another "spaghetti" article. In that, "let's throw it against the wall and see what sticks." You see it all the time. The headline blares, "Did Mr. X avoid charges of child molestation?" or the first paragraph opens with something similarly controversial. Then when you read the article, the accusation is never actually proven or it was suggested by some anonymous accuser. But they know most readers will not read the full article and will come away with the accusation in their heads.

In this article, the music teacher that allegedly heard her make the comment is unnamed. And the second person, Munger, is described as "Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska."

Wow--a person with an ax to grind and she allegedly confesses her religious beliefs so he can exploit them. Who could have saw that coming? This is like the accusation that she wanted to ban book which was found to be false and that she never asked for a book to be banned. (Which the L.A. Times is STILL repeating, now with the suggestion that the librarian was stood up to her.) This has been debunked, but still the liberal leaning news sources are still running with it.

Then the L.A. Times being the Times basically suggests that because she didn't ram her personal beliefs down everyone's throats that she's basically a wimp. "Palin's critics say she holds back from trying to codify her faith-based views when she senses it will cost her politically."

And in fact her chief spokesman as governor, McAllister, said that "he never heard Palin make such remarks about dinosaurs and that Palin preferred not to discuss her views on evolution publicly."

"I've never had a conversation like that with her or been apprised of anything like that," McAllister said. He added that "the only bigotry that's still safe is against Christians who believe in their faith."

And the Republicans have done that much better?

Never said that...in fact, in a separate message I said that Bush AND Congress spent our money like drunken salors. Fiscal conservatives were pissed off that once finally getting both a republican president and congress in, they spent as badly as the dems, in some cases worse. Not talking about the war either...I think Bush may have vetoed 1 or 2 spending bills his whole 8 years! And that was one of my arguments--Bush is NOT a conservative--he is a moderate, just as McCain is a liberal republican, not a moderate. I've thought of him as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) for years. But the North East liberals in the republican party are convinced that a conservative cannot win. And they pushed McCain ahead by letting the more liberal states vote first. By the time the more conservative got to vote, there was no choice. Everyone else, either literally or on paper, had pulled out.)

But the claim about only taxing the those making over 250K...it's funny, but my pitiful salary magically becomes worth 250K at tax time apparently because MY taxes go up too. When dems say they're going to tax the so-called rich, you'd better reach for your wallet.

you fuck, they're both liars. by singling one out you are defending a liar.

vote for either one and you're voting for a liar and taking on the job of a whore.

Given the number of lies that went unchallenged by the mainstream media after the vice presidential debate, I find it hard to trust the mainstream media any more than anyone else. Journalistic integrity is at an extremely low level and our only option is to do all the research ourselves. The only sad thing is that we have no legal recourse to do anything about these bastard liars except for to boycott them.

Whoa, I take it back, it looks like you're way off on the gramm-leach-biley act. The thing may have actually cushioned this collapse.

Factcheck.org article
Just a random quote from the article:
Bill Clinton (Sept. 24): Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill. ...You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into.

While you seem to have all the answers and the rest of us that might even dare to argue with you must be complete liberal twits..could you possibly give this a look - Who Caused the Economic Crisis

Not that I'm trying to make a defense of the Democrats, they do share the blame for this. But I've been listing to my share of Fox News and the story seems to be that there are many people to blame for this, but lets get those dirty democrats and nail them to the wall as much as possible.

Well factcheck.org gets their stuff out the next day, which is pretty good since they put together source material and also put the claims in the context of the whole campaign.

Nothing you've said is quite false, but none of it counters the GP's point, either. The policy of encouraging/forcing sub-prime loans was put into place because at the time certain politicians were able to argue that refusing these loans was indistinguishable from discrimination due to similarities in the demographics. That may no longer be the case, but it was the original reason for the sub-prime lending.

Note that the borrowers also have some culpability here; when one takes out a loan one has an obligation to pay it back. It is at least as much the borrower's responsibility to determine that he or she is not taking on an obligation in excess of his or her means as it is the lender's responsibility to determine that borrower can reasonably afford to repay the loan.

Later on we get to Mortgage-Backed Securities, where the risks of these sub-prime loans were incorrectly discounted. Before the loans were risky, but at least the risk was somewhat accounted for. Now we have securities that everyone thinks are backed up by stable loans, but in reality the backing isn't so stable after all. The situation thus goes from bad to worse.

There are other contributing factors; an error this large cannot be the result of any one (or two) cause(s). FactCheck.org has a decent evaluation of the issues; there is a partial list of contributors near the end.

In practice, he is trying to be elected a third time, or at least someone almost exactly like him.

That's an easy one. Obama wants to raise your taxes during an economic downturn. Most economists agree that raising taxes during an economic downturn will make the downturn worse. ;)

My wife and I don't make anywhere near a combined $250K, so Obama's plan won't raise my taxes, despite McCain's ads to the contrary.

First of all, you don't really offer much to support your claim that he says one thing and then says the next immediately afterwards. You offer one example of that, and it only applies if you don't accept his explanation that he meant it wouldn't be physically divided as it was until 1967. I bet you accept McCain's clarifications and explanations all the time, don't you?

Here's a McCain overnight reversal for you, and that's only the third entry in the list. You don't seem to care to scrutinize McCain the way you do Obama. I suppose you think that all of McCain's position changes during the primary season were not pandering either? You think that he wasn't modifying his positions to appeal more to fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives who he needs to energize if he's to get them out to vote in November?

The claim of saying one thing and voting another is a classic example of misleading and oversimplifying when it suits your position. Being against a provision of a bill and voting for a bill are not necessarily contradictory. As much as I hated the FISA bill, and as much as it dampened my enthusiasm for Obama after I voted for him in the primary (to the point that I donated to the EFF instead of his campaign), I do understand that congresspeople will vote for bills that they feel do more good than harm, because that's the only way they can get anything done. The fact that people like to use votes on bills that do lots of things as a way to prove support or opposition to one specific provision just shows that there are a lot of gullible people out there ready to believe that crap.

On the debate issue, Obama's camp had offered to do more debates. They were turned down by McCain, apparently because he only wants to do them if he can do them in the format he wants. Info here. Anytime, anywhere doesn't mean that McCain should get to pick the rules. So, offers were made from both sides. Neither side could live with them. So it didn't happen. No story there.

And since when is verbosity a virtue? Any average 8th grader can write a 3 page paper in 5 pages. What takes skill is to write that 3 page paper in 1.

It's not a virtue in itself, but it is a virtue to truly discuss the nuances of the issues rather than spout the bumper-sticker version for the masses that have no clue about the complexities of foreign policy and international relations. Some candidates just like to appear tough and firm in their positions (e.g. Bush). That definitely doesn't make them a good person to be running things. Bush played the cowboy with the kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out philosophy. It's been a disaster for us. Better to have someone willing to discuss things and keep options open as the world is a constantly changing place. I want someone who's really going to put effort into working out problems rather than taking the approach that everyone should do what we want or else.

A good place to start is factcheck.org. If you only see the lies of one side, then you don't have an accurate view of reality.

We're looking at the candidate who has spoken for and stood for change and integrity from before his political career started, and the candidate who has resorted to making bald faced, demonstrably false and misleading lies that in a non-political context would be grounds for a successful slander/libel suit.

Alright, I'll take the bait.

Let's start with the "bald faced, demonstrably false and misleading lies". Perhaps you're referring to Obama's whopper of a lie that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq? Or maybe his bald-faced lie that under McCain's plan, Florida's seniors would have lost their Social Security in the recent stock market troubles?

When considering technology specifically, your choices are Obama, who at least understands technology well enough to have created a successful social networking style community site, and McCain who admits he barely even knows how to turn his computer on.

Also not true. McCain's war injuries make typing painful for him (though he can do it), so he usually asks someone such as his wife to serve as his typist. This one got started because McCain has a self-deprecating sense of humor, which to Obama seems to be an invitation to falsely claim McCain can't send email. In fact he does email daily.

We're looking at the candidate who has spoken for and stood for change and integrity

To me, actions speak louder than words. McCain has on numerous occasions risked his political prospects and fought with his own party to achieve bipartisan agreements/legislation on controversial issues. He did it on campaign finance reform, immigration, judicial confirmations, tobacco legislation, and education. As Hillary reminded us, Obama just has a nice speech he trots out periodically. He doesn't stand up to the special interests within his party, nor has he worked in a bipartisan way on any controversial issues. If you want real change, given that the President is not a dictator and must work through Congress, you've got a far better chance under a President McCain than you would with a President Obama.

We're looking at the candidate who has spoken for and stood for change and integrity from before his political career started, and the candidate who has resorted to making bald faced, demonstrably false and misleading lies that in a non-political context would be grounds for a successful slander/libel suit.

Alright, I'll take the bait.

Let's start with the "bald faced, demonstrably false and misleading lies". Perhaps you're referring to Obama's whopper of a lie that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq? Or maybe his bald-faced lie that under McCain's plan, Florida's seniors would have lost their Social Security in the recent stock market troubles?

When considering technology specifically, your choices are Obama, who at least understands technology well enough to have created a successful social networking style community site, and McCain who admits he barely even knows how to turn his computer on.

Also not true. McCain's war injuries make typing painful for him (though he can do it), so he usually asks someone such as his wife to serve as his typist. This one got started because McCain has a self-deprecating sense of humor, which to Obama seems to be an invitation to falsely claim McCain can't send email. In fact he does email daily.

We're looking at the candidate who has spoken for and stood for change and integrity

To me, actions speak louder than words. McCain has on numerous occasions risked his political prospects and fought with his own party to achieve bipartisan agreements/legislation on controversial issues. He did it on campaign finance reform, immigration, judicial confirmations, tobacco legislation, and education. As Hillary reminded us, Obama just has a nice speech he trots out periodically. He doesn't stand up to the special interests within his party, nor has he worked in a bipartisan way on any controversial issues. If you want real change, given that the President is not a dictator and must work through Congress, you've got a far better chance under a President McCain than you would with a President Obama.

Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years, and is a staunch supporter of civil liberties. Beyond that, he just seems like a pretty reasonable, thoughtful person.

I've heard a lot of outcry, particularly on slashdot, that he voted for telecom immunity. But as the grandparent noted, that bill was a FISA ammendment, and Obama has since voted twice, on 2/12 and 7/09, to revoke telecom immunity. I don't completely agree with his stance on this, but he did say that he supported the ammendment because it put the power back in the hands of legislation, as opposed to the president's.

Also, as others are noting, Obama's plans tend towards ensuring accountability in the government through the use of technologies which make their actions visible. Specifically, he wants to create publicly accessable databases and websites to display this information. I don't have the same kind of confidence in McCain's ability or desire to do something concrete about this.

Personally, I just think Obama is smart enough to pick the battles that he can win. From what I've read, seen and heard, it's pretty clear to me what his goals are, and I have to say this is the first time I've ever found myself trusting, liking, or agreeing with a politician to any significant degree. I think Obama will do a fine job as president.

Everyone probably already knows about this resource, but I've only recently discovered it:

factcheck.org

It's a non-partisan site that checks the facts of the candidates' statements.

Neither are 100% honest (shock! gasp!) but McCain is clearly the bigger liar of the two - especially when talking about Obama. Definitely opened my eyes a bit.

Based on the information I've seen, Palin was in favor of (and specifically lobbied for) the "Bridge to Nowhere" until after congress cut the earmark. So, her statement at the GOP convention that, "I told the Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere" is nothing but a bald-faced lie.

Firstly: Even the war on drugs?

The "war on drugs" is a bipartisan thing.

Secondly: $40 billion out of a $2.8 trillion budget isn't much of a difference between social security and defense. Do you really think that justifies voting Republican over Democrat or vis versa?

I think, I knocked your argument on its back — that, no, contrary to your jest, "current Republicans" would not "spend all the money on wars". Now you are splitting hairs trying to get back — not realizing, even, the huge amounts spent on "social security" and other rob-rich-to-buy-poor's-votes schemes by the States, who don't have their own defense budgets. Plus, of course, there are charities — they don't spend on Defense, but they do spend on the poor. So, no, once again, "the current Republicans" would not "spend it all on wars" — far more is spent on hand-outs, despite the "current Republicans" being in power for so long.

instead of mucking about the world wasting my money and getting foreigners pissed at me.

Quite evidently, some foreigners were pissed at you on September 10th, 2001... The others got pissed later — out of envy. They can not attempt, what we did, and so they come up with various reasons, why we should not be doing it either. For example, when we are trying to bring just governance to failing states (Iraq, Afghanistan), they blast us for not fixing North Korea, Sudan, and Iran at the same time.

Hell, if I were smart I'd vote for Obama since the easiest way to cut the budget is to pull right out of Iraq

No, actually, that would not help — we both reviewed the Defense spending, and both concluded, that it is a relatively small part of the budget. So, no, the ignobility of pulling out too early would not help the budget much — and is likely to end up costing even more, because he will be gleefully blaming all problems on Bush, while claiming credit for whatever silver linings there may be. Heck, he is already revealed to have tried to stall the withdrawal process to leave more of the glory for himself...

Therefore, if someone is going to make a big difference in spending it will be a Democrat.

Some Democrats are disagreeable, because they are scumbags, however smart (i.e. Clinton). Obama is revolting because he is a Socialist — he wants to increase taxes on the rich (never mind, that they already pay far more than others) so as to be able to buy the votes of the "middle class". If I wanted to live in his "ideal society", I would not have left Soviet Union. I don't want the America of my dreams (which his pastor would "god damn", no less) to be "Changed" even further in the Socialism direction — it was quite a disappointment to find it as it was 16 years ago...

You are right, that the next President is unlikely to undo the existing travesties completely, but Obama is likely to introduce new ones — beginning with the socialized medicine (I did try it, thank you very much). So, to borrow a slogan: No way - no how!

On the other hand, I have no reasons to worry, that McCain and Palin will try to force me to shoot bears, and if my daughter ever needs an abortion, I'm confident, she'll be able to get one, even if the Federal law guaranteeing access to it (a.k.a. "Roe vs. Wade") is overturned.

Bah. I've already posted, but if I hadn't I'd mod you up. These are exactly the kind of worries one might have about a system like what Berners-Lee is suggesting.

But there's something else here. Suppose we were to pick one of the first two options you present (users or an uninvolved organization). Then the suggestion isn't terribly original. There are already sites that incorporate user input to rank sites (and some of them *koff*digg*koff* don't work all that well). And the idea of a neutral fact-checking group/site isn't too interesting either. Just thinking of factcheck.org and snopes.com, it isn't too hard to see something like a rating service coming down the line. (And there are probably more obvious relatives than those that I'm just missing.)

Just doesn't seem like a very good idea...

Wow, how do people manage to fall for this stuff.

She never advocated for the teaching of creationism in schools, she did say there isn't a problem addressing it in class, and that was only in a debate.

She never demanded books be pulled from shelves: she was trying to address the opposite, what would happen if an angry parent, say, demanded a book be pulled? Oh, The librarian in question was re-hired the next day.

At least she understands that the federal government isn't a place to enforce your views, personal or economic, on other people, and her veto record clearly shows that.

Get your facts straight, and check your spelling too please: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

Are you a fucking moron? From the first paragraph:

A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.

Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners. If you're going to try to argue semantics at least do it right you typical windbag. Furthermore, as outlined in the page I just linked you to, "And the bill, which would have allowed only 'age appropriate' material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor - and the bill never left the state Senate."

So what the hell are you talking about again? This is legislation he didn't sponsor that had plenty of ways for parents to keep the information away from their children if they so desired. Get a clue before you start trying to act like some pathetic internet toughguy on Slashdot.

P.S. -- You don't have to answer every single goddamn "WHY?" question a child asks, and if you're trying to tell them don't talk to strangers, don't take candy from strangers, and don't let strangers treat you like you're their best friend, and here's what to look out for, you are in no way saying the bad man wants to get off on you with his penis. Jesus Christ, you must be a horrible person to ask for directions and advice for sensitive subjects if you haven't the slightest idea how to speak in generalities and non-specifics when necessary.

Hmm. Who is more like GWB
- Politician who has not sponsored a single bill on his own. Go here to read about Bills sponsored by Obama to the 109th and 110th United States Congress. He's sponsored 131 bills so far.
- Person who hired one of the most manipulative old hands in the senate. I'm not even sure who you're referring to right now..
- Person with only one election ever to a state wide office? Obama has been elected to the Illinois State senate 3 times, and the US senate 1 times -- that's a total of 4 elections to a state wide office or better.
- Person who voted for the bridge to nowhere? This is something you fabricated in another post as well. Obama did not vote for this.

or

- Person who has been a pain in the side of corrupt officials in both parties: This same person was absent from all key votes on the Bridge to Nowhere (link). So much for being a pain in the side of corrupt officials -- he even offered Ted Stevens advice when he was being investigated for corruption!
- Person who was literally tortured for his country: It's a commendable feat, but how is this a criteria for becoming president?
- Person who opposed Rumsfeld for years before he was kicked out by the administration: Then why is he running on the same party's ticket? Because his ideology is the same.
- Person who pushed for the strategy in Iraq that has resulted in the level of violence being lower then it was pre-war: Lower than it was pre-war? Where do you get this stuff from?? And remember -- he's still running on the ticket of the party that got us into this damn war in the first place. Never forget - we are invading a foreign country here - this war was of our making, and we were *wrong* to wage it. Iraq had no involvement in 9/11. Iraq had no links to Al Quaida until we invaded it. We sent more of our troops to their deaths than the number of people we lost in 9/11. We have killed well over 100,000 Iraqi civillians and displaced over 1 million of them to refugee camps. And we spent 1 Trillion dollars on this war, when our economy is extremely weak, all the time making noise about 'small government'. That's the result of the think-tank McCain belongs to.

She has strong libertarian roots, has made a point to go after Ted Stevens - and the bridge to nowhere that Obama also voted for.

Obama didn't vote for the bridge. Why are you fabricating this stuff?

In fact, the media is trying to portray McCain as having aggressively opposed the the bridge, when in fact he did no such thing, and he was absent from all key senate votes on the matter: http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html

To McCain's credit he has been a reliable opponent of pork-barrel spending. But your post simply gets the facts wrong (about Obama's vote), and the media does as well when they portray McCain as having opposed spending on the bridge. In fact, you're even wrong about Palin opposing spending on the bridge -- she was initially in favor of it, and changed her stance only when it became clear how tainted the project was, and that there was no support for it in the senate.

Apparently Rezko made roughly a $54,500 profit on the overall property. Here's more on that story from FactCheck.org (a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, and generally extremely careful and even-handed in their analysis): http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/rezko_reality.html

Without claiming to support them, here are a couple of arguments:

* People don't all start their lives under the same economic situations; there are often factors that influence income that are beyond the control of the people involved

* It creates enormous incentive for black markets (especially for high priced goods; a seller will go an awful long way to help a buyer avoid taxes on a $30 million yacht if he thinks he will get some of the millions of dollars that are saved)

* the figures used in discussing the tax aren't 'reality based'

These guys don't like it for poor people (surprising, given that it is being pushed by a billionaire):

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

Etc..

No proof that this was actually said. The only source for this supposed statement was Doug Thompson of Capital Hill Blue.

Actually, Wilson didn't totally debunk it. At least not in his report concerning his trips. He simply stated that it is unlikely to have been true but also claimed that Saddam sought to meet with Niger about expanding economic relations in 1999. That in and of itself is not a debunking but an opinion about a set of events put in a historical context. In fact, Wilson used stronger language in in his editorial efter the president talked about it then his report handed to the CIA.

Other governments have debunked it- not Wilson. Wilson was correct in his sentiment and final disposition but he didn't even use strong language in pointing it out. Look at the report, it has been declassified. I can under understand your misconception though, all sorts of claims about Wilson that have turned out to be lies and half truths have circulated over this.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

Bush did not make an argument about Yellowcake that Saddam had. He said he was buying more... which ... was...a... LIE.

Here is what President Bush said: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Given that:

• The British Government still stands by that claim, and
  
• Joe Wilson himself confirmed that Iraq had sent contacts to Niger in the late 1990s to try to deal for uranium, and
  
• multiple sources since then have also confirmed these claims

I find it pretty sad that you are still blindly claiming that it was a "lie". Try thinking for yourself once in a while instead of following the Bush-hating sheep.

Actually, Obama claimed three pieces of legislation in one of his ads, and FactCheck.org debunked all three claims to varying degrees.

But a more careful review via thomas.loc.gov reveals the following:

110th Congress: 19 amendments to other bills sponsored and passed. All of these amendments (including parent poster's "ethics and lobbying reform" were passed by voice vote or unanimous consent.

109th Congress:
S. 2125, Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006. Passed both Senate and House without recorded vote.
S. 3757, Named a post office after someone. House version passed both House and Senate without recorded vote.
A variety of other amendments to other bills were passed as well.

I didn't see any major pieces of legislation at all, and I must have missed the other ones the parent mentioned above (though I was only looking at legislation that became law).

As for compromise, Obama pales in comparison to his opponent.

Yea, that may have been made up, too bad it overshadowed the very real issue of Bush's questionable National Guard service.

Yes he was.