Slashdot Mirror

I thought somebody might bring that up.

The difference here is that the "gub'mint takeover of journalism" should proceed differently. In the case of GM (the only actual "firing" I can find), the government plunked down some of our money, directly bought a share of the company, and then started using that share as leverage to pursue government aims. Since those aims mostly involved job preservation (the Big 3, plus their associated auto parts manufacturers, plus their retailer network, represent about 4M American jobs), I'm not too worked up about that.

On the other hand, if a bailout of the news business proceeded along the same lines, I would be shouting bloody murder. The government having a stake in hundreds of media outlets would give them too much leverage in controlling how the news is reported. While I would argue that our current president -- being a constitutional scholar and all, would be less likely to use that power than some presidents I can think of, the temptation would still be too strong.

I fundamentally agree with conservatives on that point. We part ways on two issues: First, that the free market will quickly and inevitably yield something better to replace the current failing business model. Second, that government money unavoidably leads to government control.

Point the first: The Internet is an amazing thing, and given a copious supply of open government data, it can do a lot of the job that traditional media has been doing (poorly). But I don't think there will ever be a replacement for the intrepid journalist who finds a story, and keeps prodding sources and asking questions until the truth comes out. There isn't enough of that going on right now, and the problem will only get worse as local and national newspapers and TV news outlets scale back on their reporters.

Point the second: As I've said in other posts, there are ways to set up the disbursment of funds in such a way that the government plays no role in it. One option is to give the funds to an independent panel to disburse according to some set formula. Another is similar to a proposal I once read about for financing elections. You could give $50 to each American to donate to any qualifying journalistic endeavor, with decisions about who qualifies also being farmed out to an independent panel.

In my mind, this would make for an ideal world, where so long as a handful of people believed in a journalist's work, they would be completely free to pursue any story wherever it led, without having to worry what the government, the owners of some newspaper, or some newspaper's advertisers thought.

Do you have idea what the carbon footprint of a human is?

Depends on the human ... if it's Al Gore, with his mansion, or his private jet(s), I guess it would be a lot.

Ideologically Bush is much closer than Obama with respect to Fascism. Neither are really comparable to Hitler or Mussolini though, of course.

Also, I hope you don't actually think anything on that site you linked is true. It's claims are the same type of scare-mongering as William Ayers, and Obama's birth certificate(implying Obama is a Black Panther and/or Muslim in disguise respectively, same as your link).

Ideologically Bush is much closer than Obama with respect to Fascism. Neither are really comparable to Hitler or Mussolini though, of course.

Also, I hope you don't actually think anything on that site you linked is true. It's claims are the same type of scare-mongering as William Ayers, and Obama's birth certificate(implying Obama is a Black Panther and/or Muslim in disguise respectively, same as your link).

Let's just clear some things up for you.

Reading I see where the bill is 1017 pages long. That's a bad sign right there. Never mind regular citizens, how many congressmen are going to read the whole thing? Not one of them read the entire PATRIOT Act before voting for it, I seriously doubt any will here.

Of course they don't. I assume they at least have aides skimming it for stuff to scream at the other side about, but who knows what all is in there. Most of it has been done through adding amendments though I think, so those have to be read and voted in or out in committee, so at least some people have been reading some of it. Anything controversial from either side would probably get brought to the party leadership's attention. What would concern me is the stuff that both sides have decided not to talk about because they're both getting something out of it. I'd like to know whether there's anything in there that is going to create new waste and inefficiency, or end up as just plain old handouts.

Let's just clear some things up for you.

Reading I see where the bill is 1017 pages long. That's a bad sign right there. Never mind regular citizens, how many congressmen are going to read the whole thing? Not one of them read the entire PATRIOT Act before voting for it, I seriously doubt any will here.

Falcon

"My take away from this is that it's just a press stunt to introduce new harsher behavior from the FBI agents, maybe backed by a new piece of legislation."

Well, as I understand it, within the new Medical Care Reform legislation they're trying to pass, there are provisions to let the govt. have full access to your banking accounts (without warrant, etc).

Perhaps if your are correct, this is another angle to try to get that element pushed forward: "The US govt NEEDS to monitor all checking/savings accounts, to monitor for phishing schemes, terrorist money laundering...and something about protecting children I'm sure.

Let's just clear some things up for you. The specific one you're thinking of is about 7 or 8 claims down on the page, but you might as well read them all so that you at least have some basis for what to believe when you hear all the disinformation being spread around, from both sides.

There's been waaay too many documented cases of people buying guns (and I mean big guns, like assault rifles) legally in the US with their God-given 2nd ammendment right and smuggling them to the drug cartels here.

When you say "and I mean big guns like assault rifles", it pretty much shows that you know nothing about firearms and US laws.

The articles you link to all cite the "90% of guns traced to US" lie. 90% of the guns that are submitted for tacing are from the US. Only a small number of guns are submitted for tracing, because there's no point in submitting AKs from China and North Korea with no serial number to the ATF for tracing.

Fully automatic guns (pull the trigger and they rattle off bullets) require a federal license with large yearly fees and an anal probe from the BATFE. They are rarely sold here and are exceptionally expensive. Even the gangs here don't buy them legally here. They smuggle them from overseas - it's way cheaper. I'm behind a censor here, but google "BATFE" and "class III license" to see what it takes to buy a machine gun.

What the ill-informed such as yourself call "big guns - like assault rifles" are military-looking guns that have been altered so that they fire one bullet at a time. To make them or import them here, they must not be alterable to fully automatic fire.

The articles you quote suggest a flood of guns from the US using faulty statistics, then go on to list a bunch of confiscated weapons that you cannot easily buy here. You can't get grenades and rocket launchers here. If they are able to smuggle those in from the third world, why would they pay US prices for rifles that aren't even full-auto?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/16/barack-obama/Obama-claims-90-percent-guns-used-Mexico/

The blogger's complaints seem to boil down to:

1) The legislation is in English
2) The legislation is long
3) The legislation amends current law

Seems to me that *any* important legislation has these "flaws," including laws that have had very positive consequences (i.e., McCain-Feingold). Thankfully, other websites actually parse and interpret the legislation rather than whine about its length.

That's not a birth certificate. That's a "Certification of Live Birth", something different.

We already know he was born (duh) - the question that has been asked is where.

And the answer is Honolulu, on Oahu Island, in the state of Hawaii. Once again, please see here. Blow-up picture here. Or were you wanting to know which hospital specifically? That is a question that would require the longer hospital-generated certificate, which the state apparently doesn't hand out copies of.

Legally, the "certification of live birth" and the "birth certificate" are equivalent, as also suggested by the plain-English meaning of these words. For what it's worth, the FactCheck article notes that it appears to be impossible to obtain a hospital-generated long-form birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, which would include more details such as birth weight, hospital name/address, etc. The short-form certification carries the same weight legally - in any situation where the government asks for a "birth certificate", they take a "certification of live birth" as being the same thing. On mine (Virginia) it doesn't have all those details and I got a driver's license, passport and everything with it. As Hawaii's notes, "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding." But again, if you want to know which hospital specifically, you probably have to look elsewhere. It appears Hawaii doesn't provide copies of long-form birth certificates to anyone, as the short-form is enough for any legal purpose.

That's not a birth certificate. That's a "Certification of Live Birth", something different.

We already know he was born (duh) - the question that has been asked is where.

And the answer is Honolulu, on Oahu Island, in the state of Hawaii. Once again, please see here. Blow-up picture here. Or were you wanting to know which hospital specifically? That is a question that would require the longer hospital-generated certificate, which the state apparently doesn't hand out copies of.

Legally, the "certification of live birth" and the "birth certificate" are equivalent, as also suggested by the plain-English meaning of these words. For what it's worth, the FactCheck article notes that it appears to be impossible to obtain a hospital-generated long-form birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, which would include more details such as birth weight, hospital name/address, etc. The short-form certification carries the same weight legally - in any situation where the government asks for a "birth certificate", they take a "certification of live birth" as being the same thing. On mine (Virginia) it doesn't have all those details and I got a driver's license, passport and everything with it. As Hawaii's notes, "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding." But again, if you want to know which hospital specifically, you probably have to look elsewhere. It appears Hawaii doesn't provide copies of long-form birth certificates to anyone, as the short-form is enough for any legal purpose.

...there would HAVE to have been a monkey/human hybrid born at some point

I know there's a GWB joke in there, I just know it... too bad he wasn't the one whose birth certificate is missing, that would be a zinger now!

Whose birth certificate is missing? It isn't Obama's.

First off, you're displaying your prejudices here. Nice.

Got me there. Mr Gore of the 20 bedroom mansion, SUV entourages and private jetting about the country was obviously not using the "Global Warming" issue to prop up his political aspirations. (sarcasm) I'm sure it was really all about the planet (/sarcasm).
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_that_al_gores_mansion.html

Any scientists that gives evidence that global warming isn't/won't happen will receive fame and fortune,

So far what they have received is scorn, ridicule and extreme criticism.

... because one side is using denialism as their only talking point.

... and the other side is using fear. And BTW, denialism is *not* the same as skepticism.

... instead we're mired in this debate about what's true. Very, very sad.

On this we can agree. As I mentioned in my post, there is far too much geopolitical fog around this issue which is preventing us from having this debate. I would love to know what the real truth is, but I find myself being put off by the shrill proclamations (which I've heard many times before ... heck in the 70s it was global cooling) and the calls to extreme action to "prevent" climate change. What if we completely destroy our economy, go back to living in caves and subsisting on berries we find lying about, only to have "global warming" happen anyhow?. We will be ill-equipped to deal with it at that point. IMHO, we should admit that climate change happens, some of it may be due to human activity, and some (most?) of it is natural (see earth's history). With that realization out of the way, I think we should be spending the bulk of our effort and resources figuring out how to deal with a warmer climate, and less trying (vainly?) to stop it. But instead there are many who view this as an opportunity to shift the balance of power on the planet; it's a chance to take the developed countries "down a peg", or to slow them down so the others can catch up.

It's protected by the US Constitution, which is "just a goddamn piece of paper", to quote your ex-president.

There's no evidence that any US president ever made that statement. Check your facts.

Yes, that birth certificate is sufficient for proving citizenship. Fact Check was shown the short-form certificate in person. They also dug up the birth announcement. Obama was born in the U.S.

The original long form was inspected by Hawaii state officials. The form produced by the Obama campaign and posted on the web site is sufficient for proving citizenship (and is real and accurate). I don't see why Obama should allow any and everyone to inspect his personal document (and lets be clear, I sure as hell am not going to pass out my birth certificate to anyone who asks). Furthermore, even producing the originals will not stop claims of forgery. There is, in effect, no way Obama can prove to the conspiracy theorists' satisfaction that he was born in the United States, so I don't fault him for not trying.

Regardless, this has been gone over again and again, and there's no doubt that Obama was born in the United States. Even his birth announcement was dug up. See Fact Check's information on the matter.

Conservatives are just engaging in wishful thinking. They hope that something will come along that allows them to remove Obama (kind of like the whole Clinton thing).

Factcheck.org, agrees that 90%-95% is wrong too, though they say the actual number is probably higher than in the fox article.

Usually when the government lowers taxes they see an increase in tax revenue because of increased spending since taxes are lower.

The "usually" here is a wonderful weasel word. You can't keep cutting taxes and seeing an increase in revenue. I mean think about it. If it was always true, why wouldn't you just cut your tax rate to zero and to maximize tax revenue? It doesn't make any sense. There's a point where you are simply cutting into revenue. Similarly, raising taxes will increase revenue, but there comes a point where they drag down the entire economy, thus cutting into revenues. There's a term for this, it's called "diminishing returns."

The fact is, that in the US the tax rate is one of the lowest of western world. In fact, according to the conservative American Enterprise Institute, tax revenue actually dropped as a result of the Bush tax cuts. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office came to the same conclusion in 2007.

Economies, especially modern economies, are complex interconnected systems. That means there are no simple solutions, and there are definitely no cure-alls. Those that constantly advocate tax cuts without regard to the situation or an understanding of their effects in the current economy, are simply advocating a means instead of ends. It's zealotry, and demonstrates no understanding of the problem.

Two guesses how that will turn out.... Not like it hasn't been tried before.

I'll go with, "better than the tax cuts that decreased revenue."

Maybe I'll just cite FactCheck.org.

A McCain-Palin ad claims the Obama-Biden ticket opposes clean coal. Not true.

But, by all means, keep believing whatever the voices tell you.

I'm curious to see how you think this budget would end up being revenue neutral. Your tax cut handouts would be prohibitively expensive. A flat income-tax rate is a sop to the rich and bilks the middle class. Are you aware that family with 3 kids making less than $26,000 is considered to be below the poverty level? But you'd raise taxes on them? Boy, talk about holding people down. And here I thought you were against "government interference".

Capital gains tax cuts are aimed at the wealthiest Americans, who are able to deduct losses on investments/real estate already. The tort reform proposal is similar to recent Supreme Court cases where states sought to impose limits on awards to victims, and those cases, even with the conservative majority, have sided with the victims.

And finally, where you get the idea of the government making more than the businesses providing the services, besides being indignantly absolute, is flat wrong. In 2005 66% of businesses in the US paid no tax - zero tax, on a collective income of $1.1 trillion dollars (Big Oil I'm looking at you!). Thanks for playing. Oh, and foreign companies operating in the US (who I'm sure you could care less about), 70% paid no taxes in 2004.

PS - if "government lawyers' were actually paying any attention to the wild west Wall Street we wouldn't be in this mess. They would've blown the whistle on the mortgage backed securities / credit default swap shadow market that nearly consumed the entire financial system. So I really don't think the average guy/gal out there trying to innovate and make some cash is facing an 800-lb gorilla lawyer who is trying to keep them down.

PPS - read up on your new best friend, the "Fair Tax", which also isn't the tax panacea your looking for:
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

Actually, in the US, your fair share doesn't actually track your income. The middle-class carries the greatest tax burden. That's why the economy is so screwed--the middle class has been decimated.

According to FactCheck.org "The top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The top 1 percent now pay a significantly larger share of taxes than before President Bush's tax cuts, and also have a larger share of income."

Where did you get your data from?

Falcon

People who don't want to believe Obama is legitmate won't, no matter what evidence is presented. The stuff you say about his birth certificate is irrelevant, because the document he presented to the press during the campaign is a real, 100% authentic US birth certificate. He did not present "a type of card" as you say. He didn't present anything different from my own birth certificate. All the evidence is there if you want to see it, but the truth is you and the OP aren't interested in facts because the facts don't fit with what you want to be the truth.

.
That's already being done.

Here's some actual information about that ACORN thing: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_stimulus_bill_include_a_52.html

Spare me the tired old "pay the rich only" right-wing lie about unions being the problem

As colbert says, "when the ship runs aground, we all know the barnacles are responsible"

The heritage foundation is a right-wing think tank, you may as well link to the RNC or to anti-union activist sites.

here is the reality.

>The Big 3 have labor costs about three times higher than other auto makers in America.

You're quoting a lie that's been well-debunked:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_auto_workers_really_make_more_than.html

Health care costs are certainly hurting Detroit, but that's because they're competing against nations which benefit from "socialized medicine".

And that, my friend, is why I will not consider him legally elected until the matter of his citizenship is investigated and resolved.

Say hello to your legally elected President Elect.

and I am not one of those liberal 'the end justifies the means' types...

I too am I stickler for the rule of law and I've got a major problem with your post and a simple question for you:

Problem: I'm getting REALLY sick of people pretending that those that hold a different philosophy are all slimy connivers while people that profess to hold a similar philosophy are somehow virtuous.

Question: Are you as vocal against conservative 'the end justifies the means' types?

• Obama has never provided proof that he was born in Hawaii.

  When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both show copies of it.

• That Certificate of Live Birth isn't the same as a birth certificate.

  For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.

• It looks like a fraud done by a computer, for example it doesn't list the hospital, there's no doctor name, the form was revised in 2001, etc.

  When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a certificate, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature. The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth".

• But this makes Obama a liar because this isn't his original birth certificate that's because he doesn't have one.

  To be clear, Obama's team has never claimed that the COLB was his original birth certificate only that it was an official copy of his birth certificate. As for possessing an original birth certificate, many people do not have theirs. They may have been lost over the years. For most people, when you request a copy from your state, most likely the state will print out a copy as Hawaii as done here.

• But there was no seal or signature on the so-called "copy" I saw on the website.

  Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures.

• The signature doesn't look real.

  Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.

• Still, it doesn't look like any other birth certificate I've seen.

  The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.

• But the COLB only records that someone was born somewhere. It doesn't actually prove he was born in Hawaii.

  The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".

• But you can get a COLB for people born outside Hawaii and the US even.

  Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.

• Why is the certificate number blacked out? This means it was altered.

  Obama's campaign says blacking out the numbers was a cautionary move just in case the number was security sensitive just like you would not post a SSN online. As it turns out, it was not. FactCheck shows the number.

• FactCheck's photos have the datestamp of March 2008 even though their article claims to have seen it around October 2008. This proves a fake.

  A datestamp on the jpeg can mean anything like

• Obama has never provided proof that he was born in Hawaii.

  When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both show copies of it.

• That Certificate of Live Birth isn't the same as a birth certificate.

  For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.

• It looks like a fraud done by a computer, for example it doesn't list the hospital, there's no doctor name, the form was revised in 2001, etc.

  When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a certificate, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature. The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth".

• But this makes Obama a liar because this isn't his original birth certificate that's because he doesn't have one.

  To be clear, Obama's team has never claimed that the COLB was his original birth certificate only that it was an official copy of his birth certificate. As for possessing an original birth certificate, many people do not have theirs. They may have been lost over the years. For most people, when you request a copy from your state, most likely the state will print out a copy as Hawaii as done here.

• But there was no seal or signature on the so-called "copy" I saw on the website.

  Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures.

• The signature doesn't look real.

  Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.

• Still, it doesn't look like any other birth certificate I've seen.

  The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.

• But the COLB only records that someone was born somewhere. It doesn't actually prove he was born in Hawaii.

  The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".

• But you can get a COLB for people born outside Hawaii and the US even.

  Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.

• Why is the certificate number blacked out? This means it was altered.

  Obama's campaign says blacking out the numbers was a cautionary move just in case the number was security sensitive just like you would not post a SSN online. As it turns out, it was not. FactCheck shows the number.

• FactCheck's photos have the datestamp of March 2008 even though their article claims to have seen it around October 2008. This proves a fake.

  A datestamp on the jpeg can mean anything like

McCain is covered under three clauses. Children born abroad to 2 Citizens are considered natural born citizens at birth. This was enacted in the very first Congress. At his birth, the Panama canal (not the entire country of Panama) was a US territory. McCain was born in a Naval hospital as his father was stationed there.

As for Obama he was born in Hawaii in 1961 and Hawaii became a state in 1959. As for the other conspiracy allegations:

• Obama has never provided proof that he was born in Hawaii.

  When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both show copies of it.

• That Certificate of Live Birth isn't the same as a birth certificate.

  For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.

• It looks like a fraud done by a computer, for example it doesn't list the hospital, there's no doctor name, the form was revised in 2001, etc.

  When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a certificate, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature. The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth".

• But this makes Obama a liar because this isn't his original birth certificate that's because he doesn't have one.

  To be clear, Obama's team has never claimed that the COLB was his original birth certificate only that it was an official copy of his birth certificate. As for possessing an original birth certificate, many people do not have theirs. They may have been lost over the years. For most people, when you request a copy from your state, most likely the state will print out a copy as Hawaii as done here.

• But there was no seal or signature on the so-called "copy" I saw on the website.

  Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures.

• The signature doesn't look real.

  Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.

• Still, it doesn't look like any other birth certificate I've seen.

  The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.

• But the COLB only records that someone was born somewhere. It doesn't actually prove he was born in Hawaii.

  The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".

• But you can get a COLB for people born outside Hawaii and the US even.

  Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.

• Why is the certificate number blacked out? This means it was altered.

  Obam

McCain is covered under three clauses. Children born abroad to 2 Citizens are considered natural born citizens at birth. This was enacted in the very first Congress. At his birth, the Panama canal (not the entire country of Panama) was a US territory. McCain was born in a Naval hospital as his father was stationed there.

As for Obama he was born in Hawaii in 1961 and Hawaii became a state in 1959. As for the other conspiracy allegations:

• Obama has never provided proof that he was born in Hawaii.

  When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both show copies of it.

• That Certificate of Live Birth isn't the same as a birth certificate.

  For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.

• It looks like a fraud done by a computer, for example it doesn't list the hospital, there's no doctor name, the form was revised in 2001, etc.

  When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a certificate, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature. The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth".

• But this makes Obama a liar because this isn't his original birth certificate that's because he doesn't have one.

  To be clear, Obama's team has never claimed that the COLB was his original birth certificate only that it was an official copy of his birth certificate. As for possessing an original birth certificate, many people do not have theirs. They may have been lost over the years. For most people, when you request a copy from your state, most likely the state will print out a copy as Hawaii as done here.

• But there was no seal or signature on the so-called "copy" I saw on the website.

  Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures.

• The signature doesn't look real.

  Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.

• Still, it doesn't look like any other birth certificate I've seen.

  The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.

• But the COLB only records that someone was born somewhere. It doesn't actually prove he was born in Hawaii.

  The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".

• But you can get a COLB for people born outside Hawaii and the US even.

  Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.

• Why is the certificate number blacked out? This means it was altered.

  Obam

Sorry, I was being lax. The loss is closer to the difference in labor costs between the big 3 and manufacturers like Toyota, not the total cost. When the actual cost of an hour of labor is almost 2.5 times the wage the laborer is getting, there's a problem. A problem which is now my problem, since I'm now supposed to pay for untenable union contracts.

• Obama has never provided proof that he was born in Hawaii.

  When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both show copies of it.

• That Certificate of Live Birth isn't the same as a birth certificate.

  For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.

• It looks like a fraud done by a computer, for example it doesn't list the hospital.

  The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth". When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a COLB, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature.

• But there was no seal or signature on the so-called "copy" I saw on the website.

  Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures.

• The signature doesn't look real.

  Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.

• Still, it doesn't look like any other birth certificate I've seen.

  The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.

• But the COLB only records that someone was born somewhere. It doesn't actually prove he was born in Hawaii.

  The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".

• But you can get a COLB for people born outside Hawaii and the US even.

  Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.

• Why is the certificate number blacked out? This means it was altered.

  Obama's campaign says blacking out the numbers was a cautionary move just in case the number was security sensitive just like you would not post a SSN online. As it turns out, it was not. FactCheck shows the number.

• Just because he has a COLB doesn't mean he has an original.

  Because of the voluminous questions surrounding this issue, the Director of Health of Hawaii Dr. Chiyome Fukino, and registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka have viewed the long form original in private and affirm Obama was born in Hawaii. The governor of Hawaii considers this matter closed and will not entertain any more inquiries.

• There are birth records that Hawaii won't let anyone have access to, like the original long form. What are they hiding?

  All birth records are always deemed private by the State of Hawaii. This is not an exception made for Obama. No one but the family can ask for them.

• How do we know Obama's Democratic friends aren't j

• Obama has never provided proof that he was born in Hawaii.

  When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both show copies of it.

• That Certificate of Live Birth isn't the same as a birth certificate.

  For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.

• It looks like a fraud done by a computer, for example it doesn't list the hospital.

  The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth". When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a COLB, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature.

• But there was no seal or signature on the so-called "copy" I saw on the website.

  Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures.

• The signature doesn't look real.

  Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.

• Still, it doesn't look like any other birth certificate I've seen.

  The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.

• But the COLB only records that someone was born somewhere. It doesn't actually prove he was born in Hawaii.

  The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".

• But you can get a COLB for people born outside Hawaii and the US even.

  Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.

• Why is the certificate number blacked out? This means it was altered.

  Obama's campaign says blacking out the numbers was a cautionary move just in case the number was security sensitive just like you would not post a SSN online. As it turns out, it was not. FactCheck shows the number.

• Just because he has a COLB doesn't mean he has an original.

  Because of the voluminous questions surrounding this issue, the Director of Health of Hawaii Dr. Chiyome Fukino, and registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka have viewed the long form original in private and affirm Obama was born in Hawaii. The governor of Hawaii considers this matter closed and will not entertain any more inquiries.

• There are birth records that Hawaii won't let anyone have access to, like the original long form. What are they hiding?

  All birth records are always deemed private by the State of Hawaii. This is not an exception made for Obama. No one but the family can ask for them.

• How do we know Obama's Democratic friends aren't j

Thanks for proving my point because you seem to spouting the uninformed rumors that conspiracy nuts are spreading.

• Obama has never provided proof that he was born in Hawaii.

  When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both show copies of it.

• That Certificate of Live Birth isn't the same as a birth certificate.

  For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.

• It looks like a fraud done by a computer, for example it doesn't list the hospital.

  The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth". When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a COLB, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature.

• But there was no seal or signature on the so-called "copy" I saw on the website.

  Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures.

• The signature doesn't look real.

  Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.

• Still, it doesn't look like any other birth certificate I've seen.

  The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.

• But the COLB only records that someone was born somewhere. It doesn't actually prove he was born in Hawaii.

  The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".

• But you can get a COLB for people born outside Hawaii and the US even.

  Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.

• Why is the certificate number blacked out? This means it was altered.

  Obama's campaign says blacking out the numbers was a cautionary move just in case the number was security sensitive just like you would not post a SSN online. As it turns out, it was not. FactCheck shows the number.

• Just because he has a COLB doesn't mean he has an original.

  Because of the voluminous questions surrounding this issue, the Director of Health of Hawaii Dr. Chiyome Fukino, and registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka have viewed the long form original in private and affirm Obama was born in Hawaii. The governor of Hawaii considers this matter closed and will not entertain any more inquiries.

• There are birth records that Hawaii won't let anyone have access to, like the original long form. What are they hiding?

  All birth records are always deemed private by the State of Hawaii. This is not an exceptio

Thanks for proving my point because you seem to spouting the uninformed rumors that conspiracy nuts are spreading.

• Obama has never provided proof that he was born in Hawaii.

  When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both show copies of it.

• That Certificate of Live Birth isn't the same as a birth certificate.

  For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.

• It looks like a fraud done by a computer, for example it doesn't list the hospital.

  The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth". When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a COLB, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature.

• But there was no seal or signature on the so-called "copy" I saw on the website.

  Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures.

• The signature doesn't look real.

  Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.

• Still, it doesn't look like any other birth certificate I've seen.

  The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.

• But the COLB only records that someone was born somewhere. It doesn't actually prove he was born in Hawaii.

  The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".

• But you can get a COLB for people born outside Hawaii and the US even.

  Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.

• Why is the certificate number blacked out? This means it was altered.

  Obama's campaign says blacking out the numbers was a cautionary move just in case the number was security sensitive just like you would not post a SSN online. As it turns out, it was not. FactCheck shows the number.

• Just because he has a COLB doesn't mean he has an original.

  Because of the voluminous questions surrounding this issue, the Director of Health of Hawaii Dr. Chiyome Fukino, and registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka have viewed the long form original in private and affirm Obama was born in Hawaii. The governor of Hawaii considers this matter closed and will not entertain any more inquiries.

• There are birth records that Hawaii won't let anyone have access to, like the original long form. What are they hiding?

  All birth records are always deemed private by the State of Hawaii. This is not an exceptio

http://cbo.gov/budget/historical.shtml http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

You may find this ironic, but I have asked all my Christian friends to challenge Obama if given the opportunity; since he claims to be a Christian, we are expected to call him out on his support of the murder of the unborn and even viable infants. He also supports the farming of clones for fetal tissue to support embryonic stem cell research.

Citations needed. I've read his positions and aside from some claims that were debunked, I don't see anything about him supporting these things.

Perhaps you should check your facts on the whoppers told by the Obama campaign.

Note that the above link is about all the big lies on BOTH sides. Which still makes the point that BOTH sides produced some pretty uncontested (by the press) deceptions. This was a vicious campaign, and to imply that one side didn't participate in the BS-slinging (although the McCain campaign, IMO, was worse about it) is pretty absurd.

I figure providing a counter source will be more effective than modding you down.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

Every time I have heard him talk, he has talked about how gun regulations at a federal level are completely infeasible, and it should be up to the cities themselves to determine how gun control issues should be handled.

It's obvious that a set of restrictions in Chicago aren't necessarily going to be as effective in Dallas or Los Angeles etc.

Remember Geraldine Ferraro being called a racist?

For saying that black men get it easy in this country? Gee, I wonder why.

McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing over the whole "Keating Five" thing, so the fact that you bring it up shows your ignorance or intentional deceit.

Obama was never even *charged* with any wrongdoing. McCain was in a heck of a lot deeper. In Obama's case, it wasn't Rezko who bought the lot. His wife did, and she turned a profit on it.

As for factcheck, I think they are full of crap too.

Well, thanks for positioning yourself so far out in right field that you're in the parking lot.

Let's see. Worked together for years... Check.

On a charity board that met quarterly. Whoop-de-freaking-wow.

Close friends? Debatable, but the coffee thing is pretty damning.

A single campaign meet and greet, and you think this even *possibly* passes the "close friends* test?

I didn't even see the Infant Born Alive Protection Act on factcheck's site. (Although I didn't look too hard)

No kidding you didn't look hard. It's right there -- Born-Alive Baloney.

Do you know that "Joe the Plumber" does not have a plumbing license in Ohio? It was widely reported.
Do you know that "Joe the Plumber" does not need a license as a plumber to work as one as long as the company he works for has that license? That was NOT widely reported.

Did you know that everything he said to Obama, from his income to his plans, is bunk? That he has a problem with actually paying his taxes, but if he did, he'd get three times larger of a tax cut under Obama's plan than McCain's?

Do you know that William Ayers gives money to schools? Widely reported, but not true. William Ayers gives charity money to hand chosen companies to do stuff for schools.
Do you know that one of the main points of William Ayers "education plan" is to teach children to question authority? Fine idea, but it should be taken with a grain of salt when the guy pushing recommended "killing pigs" and "killing your parents". This has not been reported by any news outlet.

You're confusing Ayers and the Annenberg Challenge itself. Ayers was just one member of the board of the Annenberg Challenge. It has a diverse board; it was even founded by a member of the Nixon administration. Education Week says the group reflects mainstream thinking about education reform.

But seriously, do you really want to play the "Did You Know" game with me?

Remember Geraldine Ferraro being called a racist?

For saying that black men get it easy in this country? Gee, I wonder why.

McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing over the whole "Keating Five" thing, so the fact that you bring it up shows your ignorance or intentional deceit.

Obama was never even *charged* with any wrongdoing. McCain was in a heck of a lot deeper. In Obama's case, it wasn't Rezko who bought the lot. His wife did, and she turned a profit on it.

As for factcheck, I think they are full of crap too.

Well, thanks for positioning yourself so far out in right field that you're in the parking lot.

Let's see. Worked together for years... Check.

On a charity board that met quarterly. Whoop-de-freaking-wow.

Close friends? Debatable, but the coffee thing is pretty damning.

A single campaign meet and greet, and you think this even *possibly* passes the "close friends* test?

I didn't even see the Infant Born Alive Protection Act on factcheck's site. (Although I didn't look too hard)

No kidding you didn't look hard. It's right there -- Born-Alive Baloney.

Do you know that "Joe the Plumber" does not have a plumbing license in Ohio? It was widely reported.
Do you know that "Joe the Plumber" does not need a license as a plumber to work as one as long as the company he works for has that license? That was NOT widely reported.

Did you know that everything he said to Obama, from his income to his plans, is bunk? That he has a problem with actually paying his taxes, but if he did, he'd get three times larger of a tax cut under Obama's plan than McCain's?

Do you know that William Ayers gives money to schools? Widely reported, but not true. William Ayers gives charity money to hand chosen companies to do stuff for schools.
Do you know that one of the main points of William Ayers "education plan" is to teach children to question authority? Fine idea, but it should be taken with a grain of salt when the guy pushing recommended "killing pigs" and "killing your parents". This has not been reported by any news outlet.

You're confusing Ayers and the Annenberg Challenge itself. Ayers was just one member of the board of the Annenberg Challenge. It has a diverse board; it was even founded by a member of the Nixon administration. Education Week says the group reflects mainstream thinking about education reform.

But seriously, do you really want to play the "Did You Know" game with me?

Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't.

Yeah, it's not like the press spent about three months talking almost exclusively about them during the primary or anything. It's not like an entire primary debate was almost an exclusive Ayers/Wright/Rezco "Gotcha-fest" toward Obama or anything. That must have been in some parallel universe, right?

Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?

You mean like this?

They didn't get any traction because the press ignored the argument that was presented and slammed McCain for "negative campaigning", although nothing that was said was false.

As for accuracy...

First, once the primaries ended, all remotely honest reporting ended with it. Even the primaries coverage was biased. Remember Geraldine Ferraro being called a racist?

McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing over the whole "Keating Five" thing, so the fact that you bring it up shows your ignorance or intentional deceit.

As for factcheck, I think they are full of crap too. Not intentionally of course, but because they only work with what they are given. An example would be where they say that McCain's add about Ayers is false. Here are some quotes:

A McCain TV ad says Obama "lied" about his association with Bill Ayers, a former member of the radical, bomb-setting, anti-Vietnam War Weather Underground group. In a Web ad, McCain says the two are "friends" who have "worked together for years." ...
They met in 1995, when Obama was asked to head the board of a school reform group, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that Ayers had helped start. ...
Also, Obama and Ayers overlapped for two years on the board of another foundation ...
Ayers hosted a coffee in his home when Obama was running for the Illinois state Legislature.

Let's see. Worked together for years... Check. Close friends? Debatable, but the coffee thing is pretty damning.
So, my fact check on factcheck. FactCheck.org FAILS!
I didn't even see the Infant Born Alive Protection Act on factcheck's site. (Although I didn't look too hard)

Here are some examples of the media's bias and bias by omission:
Do you know that "Joe the Plumber" does not have a plumbing license in Ohio? It was widely reported.
Do you know that "Joe the Plumber" does not need a license as a plumber to work as one as long as the company he works for has that license? That was NOT widely reported.
Do you know that William Ayers gives money to schools? Widely reported, but not true. William Ayers gives charity money to hand chosen companies to do stuff for schools.
Do you know that one of the main points of William Ayers "education plan" is to teach children to question authority? Fine idea, but it should be taken with a grain of salt when the guy pushing recommended "killing pigs" and "killing your parents". This has not been reported by any news outlet.
How many times has CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC or ABC shown the picture of Ayers standing on the American flag?

Please! Don't even try to say the press was balanced during the campaign.

Wrong! McCain/Palin had to bring up Ayers, and Wright, and Rezco, because the press wouldn't.

Yeah, it's not like the press spent about three months talking almost exclusively about them during the primary or anything. It's not like an entire primary debate was almost an exclusive Ayers/Wright/Rezco "Gotcha-fest" toward Obama or anything. That must have been in some parallel universe, right?

Could you imagine the outcry if McCain had received favorable (extremely favorable) business deals from a convicted slum lord?

You mean like this?

They didn't get any traction because the press ignored the argument that was presented and slammed McCain for "negative campaigning", although nothing that was said was false.

As for accuracy...

We've already discussed Health Care, The War, and the Economy. Today I'm opening up the floor to discuss education. Perhaps no other issue will matter more in 50 years.

I would contend that if "The War" is still going on in 50 years (and I mean the Iraq war, not the "War on Terror" or "War on Drugs") it may well be more important than education right now. I'd like to think that it's not even possible but look at our involvement in the Korean War (or "Conflict"). While we're not losing troops like we used to be (did you know over 36,000 Americans have died supporting South Korea?) it's still going on.

Before anyone interjects with McCain's statements of 100 years in Iraq, get the facts (last section).

Also a quick reminder that people everywhere seem to just tuck away & forget: We're still at war. Americans are still dying on foreign soil. And the most surefire way to stop that is to remove them from that soil.

Also, that 97% number keeps going up...it was 90% a month or so ago. Are they discovering new votes?

No. A month ago, August 29th to be exact, factcheck.org stated the 97% figure. Youre a little busy I'm sure, so I'll post the relevant sentence:

  He said McCain, far from being a maverick whoâ(TM)s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.

So, when we ask someone with some credibility, you fail on both sides. Sorry.

To quote the wikipedia article:

Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

How is the government taking the earnings and profits of people who have earned it in a free and open market and deciding that others should have it NOT socialism?

You mean like the idea of giving $1000 to people unwilling to work will improve our economy?

No. I mean this: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/24/palin-fruit-flies/ and http://chicago.about.com/od/neighborhoodshistory/a/AdlerDebateStmt.htm (which he mentioned TWICE in debates), http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html (hint: DNA study), etc.

Or something like this: http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/03/04/mccain-perpetuates-vaccine-autism-myth/

Stupid positions on foreign affairs? Like maybe the willingness to sit down with tin-pot dictators who would get populace support from demonizing the US and then forcing the our leaders to negotiate with them?

Ok. What else do you propose? Kill these poor people to save them from suffering? You'll HAVE to talk to them.

Look, I'm from Russia. We had our problem with Chechen terrorists, it is now mostly solved. But only after Putin made peace with a former Chechen terrorist and supported him in rebuilding destroyed Chechnya.

No, I don't think I can overlook that one either. Pandering to the extreme religious right? You mean instead of pandering to the extreme religious left? Yeah. I'll probably let that one slip by in a "don't care" conditional.

How about not pandering to religion at all? Or _at_ _least_ pander to religious moderates.

Oh well, I'm already diversifying my business. I guess I won't have much clients from the US after another 4 years of Republican administration.

You need to do some fact checking on that 90% figure. Have you ever looked at a list of votes the Senate takes? An large number of them are for inconsequential things, like "congratulate team X on winning Championship Y." Heck, Obama has voted with President Bush 40% of the time. There's a serious signal-to-noise ratio problem in that 90% figure.

You are crazy if you think Glass-Steagall's repeal caused the financial meltdown. I challenge you to name just one bank that failed because an otherwise sound deposit and lending structure was undercut by anything other than the housing meltdown ruining their otherwise sound lending structure.

The truth is that the meltdown in credit was caused by the meltdown in housing; taking banks and the counter-parties in credit default swaps down further than the market expected they could reasonably go. This caused a panic in inter-bank lending, as no one could be sure whether any institution, even those well-rated risks, could be trusted. The meltdown had many fathers, but the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act was not one them.

Blaming Clinton's lack of a veto on a piece of legislation that actually firmed up the banks that took advantage of the removal of the pointless regulations, allowing, for instance JP Morgan to buy Bear Stearns. The major impact of the act was to allow you to buy a mutual fund at the same place you had your savings and checking accounts. The bill was not controversial, and was long past its time. It passed the house by...(looking it up) 362-57 and the senate by 90-8. It was no cause of the meltdown. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html