Slashdot Mirror

Harvard study: Hey, maybe we’re placing too much emphasis on a college education
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/02/harvard-study-hey-maybe-were-placing-too-much-emphasis-on-a-college-education/

http://educationresearchreport.blogspot.com/2011/02/we-place-far-too-much-emphasis-on.html

And pardon me, the left doesn't specialize in slander, hate speech and distorted ideologies.

I didn't realize that you were such a comedian. Have you ever considered taking that act to Vegas?

The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco

Sirhan Sirhan dedication backfires on Bill Ayers 36 years later

Acid Rhetoric Flashbacks

SEIU protesters descend on bank exec’s home, terrifying his son

Leftist groups plan a riot as Oakland boards up downtown

The Manchurian Candidate

Are Communists (or neo-Communists) Dangerous?

The Surreal World of the Progressive Left

Encounters with the Left

5 Reasons the Environmentalists’ 1010 Fantasy Film of Blowing Up Non-Conformists Is Bigger Than You Think

Extreme BDS watch: Vermont group wants to overthrow the Bush administration

Dude, you really need to find a legitimate news site. The paranoid rantings of those couple of sites are WAY off the deep end.

Thanks for the Michelle Malkin link, tho. Amazing amount of delusion coming from one source. Great stuff.

And pardon me, the left doesn't specialize in slander, hate speech and distorted ideologies.

I didn't realize that you were such a comedian. Have you ever considered taking that act to Vegas?

The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco

Sirhan Sirhan dedication backfires on Bill Ayers 36 years later

Acid Rhetoric Flashbacks

SEIU protesters descend on bank exec’s home, terrifying his son

Leftist groups plan a riot as Oakland boards up downtown

The Manchurian Candidate

Are Communists (or neo-Communists) Dangerous?

The Surreal World of the Progressive Left

Encounters with the Left

5 Reasons the Environmentalists’ 1010 Fantasy Film of Blowing Up Non-Conformists Is Bigger Than You Think

Extreme BDS watch: Vermont group wants to overthrow the Bush administration

Dude, you really need to find a legitimate news site. The paranoid rantings of those couple of sites are WAY off the deep end.

Thanks for the Michelle Malkin link, tho. Amazing amount of delusion coming from one source. Great stuff.

And pardon me, the left doesn't specialize in slander, hate speech and distorted ideologies.

I didn't realize that you were such a comedian. Have you ever considered taking that act to Vegas?

The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco

Sirhan Sirhan dedication backfires on Bill Ayers 36 years later

Acid Rhetoric Flashbacks

SEIU protesters descend on bank exec’s home, terrifying his son

Leftist groups plan a riot as Oakland boards up downtown

The Manchurian Candidate

Are Communists (or neo-Communists) Dangerous?

The Surreal World of the Progressive Left

Encounters with the Left

5 Reasons the Environmentalists’ 1010 Fantasy Film of Blowing Up Non-Conformists Is Bigger Than You Think

Extreme BDS watch: Vermont group wants to overthrow the Bush administration

Dude, you really need to find a legitimate news site. The paranoid rantings of those couple of sites are WAY off the deep end.

Thanks for the Michelle Malkin link, tho. Amazing amount of delusion coming from one source. Great stuff.

And pardon me, the left doesn't specialize in slander, hate speech and distorted ideologies.

I didn't realize that you were such a comedian. Have you ever considered taking that act to Vegas?

The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco

Sirhan Sirhan dedication backfires on Bill Ayers 36 years later

Acid Rhetoric Flashbacks

SEIU protesters descend on bank exec’s home, terrifying his son

Leftist groups plan a riot as Oakland boards up downtown

The Manchurian Candidate

Are Communists (or neo-Communists) Dangerous?

The Surreal World of the Progressive Left

Encounters with the Left

5 Reasons the Environmentalists’ 1010 Fantasy Film of Blowing Up Non-Conformists Is Bigger Than You Think

Extreme BDS watch: Vermont group wants to overthrow the Bush administration

And pardon me, the left doesn't specialize in slander, hate speech and distorted ideologies.

I didn't realize that you were such a comedian. Have you ever considered taking that act to Vegas?

The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco

Sirhan Sirhan dedication backfires on Bill Ayers 36 years later

Acid Rhetoric Flashbacks

SEIU protesters descend on bank exec’s home, terrifying his son

Leftist groups plan a riot as Oakland boards up downtown

The Manchurian Candidate

Are Communists (or neo-Communists) Dangerous?

The Surreal World of the Progressive Left

Encounters with the Left

5 Reasons the Environmentalists’ 1010 Fantasy Film of Blowing Up Non-Conformists Is Bigger Than You Think

Extreme BDS watch: Vermont group wants to overthrow the Bush administration

And pardon me, the left doesn't specialize in slander, hate speech and distorted ideologies.

I didn't realize that you were such a comedian. Have you ever considered taking that act to Vegas?

The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco

Sirhan Sirhan dedication backfires on Bill Ayers 36 years later

Acid Rhetoric Flashbacks

SEIU protesters descend on bank exec’s home, terrifying his son

Leftist groups plan a riot as Oakland boards up downtown

The Manchurian Candidate

Are Communists (or neo-Communists) Dangerous?

The Surreal World of the Progressive Left

Encounters with the Left

5 Reasons the Environmentalists’ 1010 Fantasy Film of Blowing Up Non-Conformists Is Bigger Than You Think

Extreme BDS watch: Vermont group wants to overthrow the Bush administration

Uh, I guess for you it's "open sand, insert head". You've crossed over from damn lies to statistics. While true in once sense, your numbers paint the rosy little picture that matches your ideology so you don't have to think. Here are some charts to help set the record straight.

See here, and here.
And in case you care to pay attention to our unemployment problem, which is where the government actually gets its money, see here.

Here's a sampling of articles from conservatives / libertarians on net neutrality:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rOQpQYQtA0

http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/2006/06/neutrality_for_.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juw5Ew_fKgs

http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/17/free-press-and-the-art-of-profligate-fudging/

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/28/if-the-fcc-had-regulated-the-internet-from-the-beginning/

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/04/06/net-neutrality-aint-over-til-its-over/

http://www.freetoassemble.com/blog/cincinnatuschili/net-neutrality-comcast-vs-level-3-communications

A few points:

1) Not all conservatives / libertarians oppose net neutrality
2) Most of these writers have a pretty good understanding of the issue
3) Several who oppose it do it on free market principles
4) There is a legitimate distrust of the FCC - some view the net neutrality issue as being used as an excuse for an FCC power grab

According to Guardian's WikiLeaks and the first amendment, it doesn't matter what was the newspaper's (WikiLeaks') stake in the matter:

...how any news organisation can be said not to have colluded with a source when it receives leaked documents. Didn't the Times collude with Daniel Ellsberg when it received the Pentagon Papers from him? Yes, there are differences. Ellsberg had finished making copies long before he began working with the Times, whereas Assange may have goaded Manning. But does that really matter?

What matters is whether publishing leaked documents poses such a grave danger to national security that it warrants prosecution. The supreme court, in the 1931 case of Near v Minnesota, ruled that the standard for stopping publication – that is, for censorship – is whether the information is so sensitive that it would be akin to revealing the movement of troops during wartime. That standard was affirmed in the 1971 Pentagon Papers case...

To the question "were any troops endangered" U.S. already has posted an answer: Pentagon review: No troops endangered by Wikileaks documents. If Slashdot was a TV show you'd be hearing "I rest my case".

Really, because from what I've read, even the Pentagon had admitted that no troops were endangered by the leaks.

Yes, they originally stated that lives were endangered, but later had to change their tune after they really couldn't find anything to that effect.

So unless you count lives being endangered by people being more pissed off at the US in general (a symptom I attribute more to the ignorance of corporate-government policy and meddling than wikileaks), I'd say that the only real danger thus far has been to the careers of various high-up politicos and corporations.

Actually, apart from doing things like pressuring private companies like Amazon and PayPal to "voluntarily" kick Wikileaks off their systems, and making public statements musing that Mr Assange should be assassinated (all reprehensible, to be sure), has the US government actually done anything concrete to censor Wikileaks?

Is that not enough? The first amendment says "congress shall make no law". What's so frightening is that the government has found a way to silence people without even running it by congress. The fact that the governments actions here aren't unconstitutional doesn't mean that they're OK, it means that the first amendment is insufficient to protect our freedom of speech. We need similar restrictions on the other branches of government.

I'm curious, apart from vague allusions to "censoring websites from the entire world", what are you referring to exactly?

Specifically, he is referring to this.

I don't really see the US doing those things. Or perhaps you want to suggest that they are doing those things but that we don't know about them because the US has silenced anyone who talks about it.

They DO do them, they are doing them, and you know about it. You even mentioned them in the first sentence of your post. Somehow in your mind they don't count. Whether the repression happens at the barrel of a gun, or with a nudge and a wink, it's still repression.

So because you don't like how some frank discussions were revealed, you think it's appropriate to cover up killings and who knows what else under a veil of "classified"?

There are procedures for dealing with questionable deaths on the battlefield, both as potential war crimes and for compensating the victim's families. Manning didn't make use of them, but instead collected and distributed secret government documents to do as much damage as he could. Now we are dealing with informants against terrorists being killed, disruption of highly sensitve diplomatic discussions that could lead to open war, and more destabilization of the Middle East.

EU officials give first analysis of WikiLeaks impact

More investment in European External Action Service (EEAS) security, loss of goodwill in the EU's special relationship with the US and heightened tension in the Middle East are all likely consequences of the WikiLeaks scandal, EU insiders say.

Loose lips sink friendly ships

The publishing of the stolen secret documents by Wikileaks makes about as much sense as protesting problems with the Social Security Administration driving some people to suicide due to delays by publishing the social security number of all Americans and exposing them to identity theft, fraud, and other problems.

Wikileaks is worse than that - it's actions will result in people being killed, and maybe a fresh war or two.

So because you don't like how some frank discussions were revealed, you think it's appropriate to cover up killings and who knows what else under a veil of "classified"?

There are procedures for dealing with questionable deaths on the battlefield, both as potential war crimes and for compensating the victim's families. Manning didn't make use of them, but instead collected and distributed secret government documents to do as much damage as he could. Now we are dealing with informants against terrorists being killed, disruption of highly sensitve diplomatic discussions that could lead to open war, and more destabilization of the Middle East.

EU officials give first analysis of WikiLeaks impact

More investment in European External Action Service (EEAS) security, loss of goodwill in the EU's special relationship with the US and heightened tension in the Middle East are all likely consequences of the WikiLeaks scandal, EU insiders say.

Loose lips sink friendly ships

The publishing of the stolen secret documents by Wikileaks makes about as much sense as protesting problems with the Social Security Administration driving some people to suicide due to delays by publishing the social security number of all Americans and exposing them to identity theft, fraud, and other problems.

Wikileaks is worse than that - it's actions will result in people being killed, and maybe a fresh war or two.

Being able to arbitrarily specify what the laws are is about as chaotic as it gets.

Actually it isn't completely arbitrary, at least not in a durable fashion. You see, we have a Constitution that limits and directs the government, a Supreme Court the helps enforce the Constitution, and the law making process needs agreement between the Legislature and the Executive branch to pass a law. The political process is self-correcting after a fashion, as the voters select new representatives when things go too far off base, e.g. the 2010 elections. The political system also tends to mitigate against extremism by pulling the parties toward the center. On occasion, even the ethics process works after a fashion.

Obama administration has denied more FOIA requests than Bush administration:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/16/surprise-obama-administration-defies-more-foia-requests-than-bush-wh/

What kind of rank idiot fucks up something like that?!?!

Are you supposing that Obama made the rug himself?

There are plenty of substantive issues you could have criticized him for.

Given that The Annointed One of Hopenchange was attributing Parker's quote to King, and was notified of it back in 2008 by a Unitarian minister, and then changed his speeches:

Fast forward to April 2008, when I heard Barack Obama attribute the quote to Dr. King...I immediately emailed the Obama Campaign the actual citation in the interest of accuracy. Just a point of information.

I have no way of knowing if the Obama Campaign ever attended to my email. I'd like to think so. What I do know is that I cannot find an instance of Barack Obama using "the arc of the moral universe" after April 2008....until the evening of November 4th in his victory speech at Grant Park in Chicago, when he said (referring to the historic election):

        Its the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

Maybe the Obama Campaign did get that email! They changed the arc of the moral universe to the arc of history and bent it toward hope instead of justice.

But then again, the Obamatuer struck again. In June of 2009, right-wing site Hotair noted Obama's misrepresentation of Parker's words as King's.

So, really, what kind of rank idiot fucks that shit up? And keeps fucking it up. For years. Over and over.

First, the we get the Slashdot story about conservatives burying stories on Digg, that ignored similar actions by leftists a few years earlier, in 2007.

Now we get this story, and again it sounds oddly familiar... because in 2005, it was the left doing it.

Hey CmdrTaco, how about getting out of your leftist shell and paying full attention?

Not blogging, but: how about bribing senators in actual legislation (e.g., healthcare bill)?

Referring to blogging itself, this is probably going to be a "biased" blog, I'm sure, but, hotair has a piece on it. He doesn't mention "payola blogging" and Democrats specifically... but how about, ohhh... ACORN?

And to cap it off, this "news" lists a few "supposed examples" according to this guy, which does not even show any sort of rampant "GOP pays friendly bloggers!!!!!!!!11!!11" thing. Gasp, there are corrupt people who are Republicans? Shocking. And here I thought the Republican party were all saints.

heya,

Your first point, I'm not going to argue on, because I don't know of the cases you're referring to. I assume here you mean recent ones? Perhaps you could cite examples.

Your second point - it is actually quite cheap, if you look at the whole picture, both the initial outlay and the ongoing cost. And it is relatively clean - the public likes to drum up the fears about nuclear waste, but the actual amount of waste is considerably less than that from the coal industry. A few pounds of nuclear material is enough to power a small city for a year. You compare that to the amount of coal you have to burn, and hundreds of metric tonnes of resulting pollution.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

And assuming you find safe ways of getting it out of the way, it doesn't pollute the air and contribute to lung cancer. France themselves are leading pioneering research in recycling/reprocessing their nuclear waste. In the US, I believe there's a moratorium on reprocessing dating from the Carter Era, over fears that widespread proliferation of such technology might make it easy for terrorists to get nuclear weapons.

Your third point - that's the current situation. Isn't the whole point of this article to try and look as possibly increasing that percentage?

Fourth - as mentioned above, there's a massive outlay, obviously. It's not like you're just digging up rocks from the ground and burning them in a giant pit. And also, I think you're being a bit disingenious and selective with the facts here - the government also funds the coal industry...lol....and to a much larger amount. E.g. see this earlier story, when they were up in arms, when the Congress-funded U.S. Export-Import Bank denied them several hundred million dollars in loan guarantees:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/27/obamas-promise-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-to-cost-1000-jobs-in-upper-midwest/
http://blogsforvictory.com/2010/06/27/obamunism-coal-industry-jobs-lost-because-of-obama-policy/

(Yes, I've noticed both of those blogs seem to be pro-coal, or pro-global warming, if that makes sense...haha).

Cheers,
Victor

washington times = a list of individuals often labeled "right wing" (white supremacist), when chances are, they aren't "right wing" by any other definition than lumping bigots into that group. Except when bigotry is on the left (Black Panther, Nation of Islam etc) it is excused or marginalized where no such thing is afforded to the "right".

Gawker is just a repeat of the big "three" individual offenders listed in the WT article. If that is all the left has... that is pretty sad.

Daily Kos is nothing more than "faux news" for the left.

MN Publius article is interesting in that it simply ignores that violence against (R) offices. Again, for every alleged infraction of the "right" I can easily point to one from the left.

http://www.channel3000.com/politics/3776992/detail.html

not to mention all the "Fake" hate crimes that never happened ..

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/516936/posts

http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/39720/godmother-fake-hate-crimes

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/partial-list-of-fake-hate-crimes-2006-2007

Or the nice young man who was just guarding the polls

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/06/video-the-nice-young-man-eric-holder-left-off-the-hook/

Yeah, you can repeat the three "massive hate crimes" by large groups (meaning idividuals) of angry Right Wing Extremists (Lone Fringe kooks), but that is all you got.

Okay.

Graph of the "cliff."

Retail sales data put into a chart (with links to origin of graph and the sales data itself, which came from the government, in case the right-wing bias of hotair.com makes you want to disregard). Here is the original graph/blog and person that made it.. It also has a variety of other info, like the cost per ton of CO2 reduced, etc.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/c4c-chart.jpg

Seriously, By what measure?

Car Sales?
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/c4c-chart.jpg

Domestic Production? (This is kind of a strawman as most of the cars on the list are made in the US factories by foreign owned entities, but most GE cars and some of Fords are manufactured in Canada.)
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1036/top-cash-for-clunkers-trade-ins-and-new-cars/

then the best candidate should be B, not A or C

Which is why a two party system is so much better than multiparty or cumulative. With two-party and one vote per candidate, both parties have to *compromise* in order to represent a majority of the electorate. Multiparty or cumulative voting means fringe groups get disproportionate representation.

Those who want Puerto Rico statehood are stuck in your ABC scenario today (Statehood, Independence, sovereign protectorate, or status quo). The Obama administration is trying to force their agenda through by requiring a Yes/No vote on status quo first, then after that is off the table a second election to pick one of the other options. The slight plurality who will settle for nothing other than statehood will be happy, but the other 70% of the electorate will be very unhappy.

It's also worth noting that apparently the majority of Latinos in Arizona are actually in favor of the new immigration law:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/27/rasmussen-majority-of-latinos-in-arizona-support-letting-cops-check-for-immigration-status/

Add to your list business expenses, property taxes, sales taxes, municipal bonds, home improvements, child care, and political contributions.

The tax code is 3,800 or so pages. The tax regulations written by the IRS is over 13,000 pages. That's nearly 17,000 pages. taxcode info

Compliance with the code and regulations cost around $340,000,000,000 a year (that's 340 billion, with a 'b', dollars). Hundreds of billions doesn't get collected because compliance is too low (below 70%, apparently, according to the GAO).

The instructions for that 1040 EZ you mention are over 40 pages long.

The poor pay proportionally 12 times as much of their income on compliance, making this a very regressive system.

The Ways and Means Committee, which has the most to do with the tax code, gets over $55 million a year in campaign contributions -- more than any other committee. You don't suppose that's for special tax breaks, do you?

The tax compliance industry employs about 3.8 million full-time equivalents, or hours that normally translate to that amount. All of us who know CPAs know that from January 1st to April 15th is double or double and a half hours for accountants, not to mention all those paid paraprofessional "tax preparers" that are seasonal. Tax compliance is one of the largest industries in the nation, larger than the federal government itself or the education industry.

Would a flat tax with one single sizable standard deduction to offset the proportion for the poorer among us really be that bad? Could an extra $340 billion in the economy being spent on actually boosting bottom lines hurt?

The majority of people don't support the bill. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/24/bloomberg-poll-shows-majority-opposition-to-obamacare/ - the key sentences in there are "and like almost every poll taken in the last several months, a majority of respondents opposed it. Moreover, a majority also consider it a government takeover of the American health-care system". Also, if people support the bill, then how come the approval ratings for Democrats are in the dumps? Pelosi has an approval rating of 11% and Reid has an approval rating of 8%. Yup, that shows that the people really support them!

Here's the original Bloomberg article http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2R1ChNYjoag and it says that only about 40% of people support it. Now I don't have a PhD in Statistics, but I'm pretty sure that 40% isn't the same as "the majority of people support it".

Being against Obamacare has nothing to do with being "right-wing" or "left-wing", it has to do with personal responsibility, following the Constitution, and not wanting to fuck the economy .

As for you comment of "The majority of the people do support what's in the bill and they support they bill when they understand its provisions", that's quite amusing since I was just reading an article on CNN about people who did support Obamacare who are now furious over some of it's provisions, such as a 10% tax on going to a tanning salon, which is estimated to cause about 9,000 jobs to be lost due to cut labor or tanning shops closing due to their customers not being willing to pay the extra money.

In the UK we have the NHS. Lots of people moan about it. It's not perfect. But if you're ill, for the most part, people are thankful that it is there.

Oh yes, the NHS. How I wish we had something similar...

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/02/26/uk-health-care-horror-1200-die-needlessly-in-filthy-blood-splattered-hospital/ :

An NHS hospital let 1,200 patients die for no reason in the filthy, blood-splattered hospital where patients were routinely neglected and left in disgusting conditions.

Patients were left unwashed in their own filth for up to a month as nurses ignored their requests to use the toilet or change their sheets;

Four members of one family. including a new-born baby girl. died within 18 months after of blunders at the hospital;

Medics discharged patients hastily out of fear they risked being sacked for delaying;

Wards were left filthy with blood, discarded needles and used dressings while bullying managers made whistleblowers too frightened to come forward.

The Francis report said staff numbers were allowed to fall 'dangerously low', causing nurses to neglect the most basic care. It said: 'Requests for assistance to use a bedpan or to get to and from the toilet were not responded to.

'Some families were left to take soiled sheets home to wash or to change beds when this should have been undertaken by the hospital and its staff.' Food and drink were left out of reach, forcing patients to drink water from flower vases.

This isn't an isolated incident. Another NHS hospital faced a similar scandal when 70 patients died after suffering similar conditions. Another NHS hospital let a premature newborn die... because infants born before 22 weeks are not allowed treatment. NHS also gave free Viagra to a convicted child molestor who was set free.

I personally prefer the Avatar review by the inimitable Dr. Zero: The Suicide Fantasy

I would summarize his article, but frankly I could never do it justice. Click through and read. It's fantastic.

John Kerry and Charlie Rangel.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/31/kerry.mccain/index.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/26/video-rangel-says-men-join-the-army-only-if-they-cant-have-a-decent-career/

http://sayanythingblog.com/images/recruits_by_quintile.gif

C'mon man, 2 minutes on google.

Exactly. Iran is a country that

Doesn't have any gays. How exactly these executions of non-existing homosexuals work is a mystery to all ...

Doesn't have any protests against islam* (just look through the link, you'll find no mention of protests, and certainly none of what exactly was protested against). However despite there not being any protests, they must stop, or the Iranian state will start killing people

* strictly speaking it's protests against "islamic government". However, if you take the laws out of islam there's nothing left, like with judaism. All parts of the islamic "religion" and practice are centered around the islamic state (there's no real equivalent in Judaism anymore), the "caliphate". Due to the last caliph ditching the muslims after (well, actually shortly before) being ousted by a gay Ottoman colonel, however, generally one refers to the "ummah" instead of the long dead headless carcass that is the islamic state. In theory muslim laws state that any muslim who does not live in the (now non-existent) muslim state should either emigrate (but one can't emigrate to a non-existent country of course) or kill themselves, to avoid helping infidels. Not many followers of that specific law, though. Ayatollah khomeini (a child-rapist, like the muslim prophet), found of the islamic republic, famously said that there is no spirituality of note in islam, there are only laws. Factions attempting to introduce various forms of spirituality, foremost the Sufi muslims, are persecuted and even massacred for it.

How any muslim can (legally) be a muslim, given that the state islam doesn't actually exist, is not very clear, a fact that is frequently explosively illustrated by the more nutty terrorists among them. This may seem like an idiotically absurd issue, not legally (according to sharia obviously) being a muslim, but for a hell of a lot of people in the middle east this is a huge issue. Jews have a similar issue, due to Israel, while claiming to be a Jewish state, actually follows western law with a few tiny exceptions (ie. marriage). It does not, for example, follow the "a tooth for a tooth" principle of Jewish law. If you injure a Jew in a car accident in Israel, the police will not chop of your leg (muslims have inherited this law from judaism, but even in the worst muslim states, the practice is dying). Nor will you lose limbs for stealing. For many Jews, Israel is a state where Jews are safe, not so much a Jewish state. And for people who live by the most idiotic of laws, which may (or may not) have been reasonable at one time, but have long since lost all meaning, this is a huge problem.

One thing people don't understand is the fundamental differences between ideologies. Jesus Christ (the figure, real or not, described in the new testament) abolished this practice of blindly following laws. Faith in Jesus Christ, according to the gospel, is supposed to follow not from rigid adherence to rules, but from love and trust in the Lord, Jesus Christ. The standard of behavior for Christians is not a rigid set of laws, but a following of a good example. A Christian in trouble would sit down and pray, and honestly believe, that God will rescue him/her, a strange, but very Christian, behavior you will not find amongst muslims. Even in medieval books describing good behavior you will find this reflected : Christian books lead by example, while Jewish and islamic behavioral laws are strict laws.example 1 example 2 The tinyest of behaviors is exactly regulated, and a muslim is supposed to follow these rules,

And ice can be a blistering 273 Kelvin! Wow, that's a huge number!

The AP has ~4k fact checkers. So you're looking at about 0.25% of the total AP fact-checking force to look at a new release political book. Whadda ya know, context means something.

Also, various news programs and reports from members in the McCain campaign, including John McCain himself, has criticized the veracity of several comments in the book. There are also email records directly at odds with her statements regarding the Tina Fey skits.

Finally, here's an AP fact check from yesterday, and a direct check on a speech in September. Took me 15 seconds on Google to prove you wrong. I somehow suspect you get all your news from Glenn Beck and O'Reilly. It has that familiar evangelical pundit feel of "translate every criticism into an attack on Obama, warranted or not, because OMGZOBAMASSOCIALIST and eats Christian babies".

In other words, pwnd.

Such a convenient excuse (if true)... but still doesn't explain all of the fake jobs 'created or saved' in New Hampshire, Florida and Georgia, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Connecticut, or Michigan.

Given the scope of the fakery going on... there are two options... even more errors, or a deliberate attempt to cook the books.

Giving the amazing failure of the stimulus... the latter is far more likely given the continued delusional claims that it saved us from the brink... instead it is setting us up for a double dip and massive inflation.

Such a convenient excuse (if true)... but still doesn't explain all of the fake jobs 'created or saved' in New Hampshire, Florida and Georgia, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Connecticut, or Michigan.

Given the scope of the fakery going on... there are two options... even more errors, or a deliberate attempt to cook the books.

Giving the amazing failure of the stimulus... the latter is far more likely given the continued delusional claims that it saved us from the brink... instead it is setting us up for a double dip and massive inflation.

Such a convenient excuse (if true)... but still doesn't explain all of the fake jobs 'created or saved' in New Hampshire, Florida and Georgia, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Connecticut, or Michigan.

Given the scope of the fakery going on... there are two options... even more errors, or a deliberate attempt to cook the books.

Giving the amazing failure of the stimulus... the latter is far more likely given the continued delusional claims that it saved us from the brink... instead it is setting us up for a double dip and massive inflation.

Such a convenient excuse (if true)... but still doesn't explain all of the fake jobs 'created or saved' in New Hampshire, Florida and Georgia, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Connecticut, or Michigan.

Given the scope of the fakery going on... there are two options... even more errors, or a deliberate attempt to cook the books.

Giving the amazing failure of the stimulus... the latter is far more likely given the continued delusional claims that it saved us from the brink... instead it is setting us up for a double dip and massive inflation.

Such a convenient excuse (if true)... but still doesn't explain all of the fake jobs 'created or saved' in New Hampshire, Florida and Georgia, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Connecticut, or Michigan.

Given the scope of the fakery going on... there are two options... even more errors, or a deliberate attempt to cook the books.

Giving the amazing failure of the stimulus... the latter is far more likely given the continued delusional claims that it saved us from the brink... instead it is setting us up for a double dip and massive inflation.

Such a convenient excuse (if true)... but still doesn't explain all of the fake jobs 'created or saved' in New Hampshire, Florida and Georgia, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Connecticut, or Michigan.

Given the scope of the fakery going on... there are two options... even more errors, or a deliberate attempt to cook the books.

Giving the amazing failure of the stimulus... the latter is far more likely given the continued delusional claims that it saved us from the brink... instead it is setting us up for a double dip and massive inflation.

Such a convenient excuse (if true)... but still doesn't explain all of the fake jobs 'created or saved' in New Hampshire, Florida and Georgia, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Connecticut, or Michigan.

Given the scope of the fakery going on... there are two options... even more errors, or a deliberate attempt to cook the books.

Giving the amazing failure of the stimulus... the latter is far more likely given the continued delusional claims that it saved us from the brink... instead it is setting us up for a double dip and massive inflation.

Such a convenient excuse (if true)... but still doesn't explain all of the fake jobs 'created or saved' in New Hampshire, Florida and Georgia, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Connecticut, or Michigan.

Given the scope of the fakery going on... there are two options... even more errors, or a deliberate attempt to cook the books.

Giving the amazing failure of the stimulus... the latter is far more likely given the continued delusional claims that it saved us from the brink... instead it is setting us up for a double dip and massive inflation.

Such a convenient excuse (if true)... but still doesn't explain all of the fake jobs 'created or saved' in New Hampshire, Florida and Georgia, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Connecticut, or Michigan.

Given the scope of the fakery going on... there are two options... even more errors, or a deliberate attempt to cook the books.

Giving the amazing failure of the stimulus... the latter is far more likely given the continued delusional claims that it saved us from the brink... instead it is setting us up for a double dip and massive inflation.

Why is it that Obama's Czars are news when his predecessor had more Czars?

Support your argument or withdraw it.

Wikipedia claims that Obama has 32 czar jobs at present... while Bush had only 31... while the DNC claims that Bush had 47... but then they are counting every person to sit in a czar job, even double counting the same job... and given the degree of turnover in this administration, President Obama may just find himself going beyond 47 here in the next couple of years as more Van Jones or Anita Dunn like people are brought to light.

Those on the left like to talk about how Bush was an imperial president and avoided so many of the checks and balances... and yet never consider degrees. In his entire term in office, Bush only created 5 czar jobs that did not require confirmation... while in the first 7 months of his time in office, President Obama has created 17.

In addition, the subpoena was issued on January 23rd, which was indeed after the Obama administration took power, so Obama's acting AG or AG Holder would have had to sign off on it at some point. While perhaps the original case was started by the Bush DOJ, this subpoena was signed off on by an Obama DOJ pick.

I would find it hard to believe that either the Bush or Obama administrations would demand such a subpoena without a pretty bulletproof case, because of the attention paid to it. Even the conservative aggregator Hot Air takes Indymedia's side on this.

I'm assuming you're referring to the video of "military" troops grabbing somebody and shoving them into an unmarked sedan... they were police officers in military-style uniforms, not actual military personnel.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/25/video-the-purported-military-arrest-at-the-g-20-protest/

The endless fear-mongering by Republicans to attack the health-care reform bills is one example of this. Sponsoring groups to simply go to townhalls and cause havoc is another example of this.

Fear mongering like "The government has no right and no business being involved in healthcare? It's in the constitution."

Bringing in groups like the SEIU to beat-up and intimidate people at meetings and astro-turfing by bringing in fake doctors to try and bolster their failing arguments?

Wait...that's the Democrat party...

But I won't lie to you, if you have the sniffles and go to an emergency room, you're gonna wait a long time. You should go to a clinic(free also) for these minor conditions.

Canadians sometimes have to come to the US for life saving treatments. Without some sort of price mechanism health care costs will eat too much of the economy and or lead to rationing.

You're missing the point (of course). People who make under $250k are absolutely going to be paying more taxes. A LOT more taxes. Have fun with that.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion? At all? Besides "Barack Hussein Obama is a non-natural-born secret Muslim black Nazi socialist communist DemocRAT, so of course he wants to take my hard-earned money away!", I mean?

Are you really so stupid as to think that just because Obama's going to "tax corporations" that YOU don't pay for it?

Think it through, bright boy. Who OWNS the bulk of the corporations in the US? Where do you think YOUR pension and retirement funds are invested?

And just who do you think is going to get HAMMERED when the oh-so-FUCKING-green-and-good-for-us-all "cap and trade" TAXES start driving up the price of energy? Is it the lawyers making $500,000 a year, or the poor schmuck making $45,000 who has to drive 90 miles a day between two jobs trying to keep his family fed and his kids in school, and who can't afford to move because he's underwater on his mortgage because of the Barney-Frank-and-Chistopher-Dodd-and-Barack-Obama-and-OTHER-DEMOCRAT-fueled housing bubble has burst?

Video of DEMOCRATS saying "nothing wrong at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae" back in 2004. They did that in response to George W. Bush wanting to tighten accounting standards on the US financial industry in general and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in particular.

Yes, that's right - the current recession that started with a meltdown of the housing mortgage industry could have been prevented if DEMOCRATS had not prevented Bush from fixing the financial industry BEFORE it collapsed.

Grow a brain, you fucking moron.

I don't get it, where do you people get that everyone thought of Obama as a messiah? I don't know anyone that did and I know a lot of people that voted for him.

What a coincidence - just saw this today: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/16/borders-obamessiah-moment/

If shareholders held CEOs accountable for irresponsible and unethical behavior, we wouldn't be in the financial crunch we are now...

Don't you mean VOTERS instead of shareholders, and DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS instead of CEOs"

To wit, with a nice video of DEMOCRAT Barney "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae" Frank:

Video: Democrats insist "nothing wrong" at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2004

By 2004, all of the elements of the current financial collapse had been in place for several years. The aggressive approach to enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) started under Bill Clinton in 1998, and the seemingly endless appetite for paper by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had turned massive amounts of bad loans into mortgage-backed securities to spread their cancer throughout the system. In 2004, a year after the Bush administration tried to tighten regulation and oversight on Fannie and Freddie, Congress was told yet again that disaster loomed. The Democratic response is instructive to seeing who really sat back and allowed this collapse to occur (via Power Line)