Slashdot Mirror

Ha ha! You rubes fell for it hook, line and sinker

HAYES: Do you think what's being done now [droning brown people at hospitals and weddings] is constitutional and legal?

SANDERS: In general I do, yes.

HAYES: One more question -- the announcement today that the U.S. is going to send 250 Special Forces operators on the ground in Syria. Do you agree with that? Do you think that's permissible, given the fact that there has not been an authorization?

SANDERS: I think the -- look. Here's the bottom line. ISIS has got to be destroyed, and the way that ISIS must be destroyed is not through American troops fighting on the ground. ISIS must be destroyed and King Abdullah of Jordan has made this clear, that the war is for the soul of Islam and it must be won by the Muslim nations themselves.

You're asking the wrong question; it's now who funds them, but how they're funded. How they're funded is civil rights groups either sue them into submission or launch a negative PR campaign to do the same. The NAACP has mastered this technique:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/naa...

As a non-profit, the group’s donations aren’t disclosed, but the sponsors of its yearly NAACP Image Awards, a star-studded event celebrating “the outstanding achievements and performances of people of color in the arts” are public. In the past five years, sponsors of the Image Awards have included companies like Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Wal-Mart and FedEx, all of whom have been sued for discrimination – in some cases by the NAACP itself.

The Justice Department’s civil rights division secured a nearly $200 million settlement with Wells Fargo in in 2012 over accusations the bank steered minorities into subprime loans – a lawsuit filed by the city of Baltimore alleged that loan officers referred to subprime loans as “ghetto loans” and black borrowers as “mud people.” The NAACP dropped its lawsuit against Wells Fargo – an NAACP contributor at the time the lawsuit was filed – in 2011, after the bank agreed to help establish the NAACP Financial Freedom Center, whose mission is to “educate and empower consumers and provide tools for effective advocacy.”

The Justice Department also secured the largest settlement in the division’s history with Bank of America, $335 million, over similar accusations that its Countrywide unit discriminated against minority borrowers.

Wells Fargo began sponsoring the Image Awards in 2010, and Bank of America has sponsored the Image Awards since 2008. Both banks, the NAACP announced, agreed to the organization’s “responsible lending principles.”

FedEx, which has sponsored the Image Awards since 2008, agreed in 2012 to pay a $3 million dollar settlement over accusations that they discriminated against job applicants on the basis of race and gender.

The NAACP also backed Betty Dukes, whose class action sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart went all the way to the Supreme Court, where in 2011 the conservative majority severely restricted the ability of workers to sue for discrimination as a class. Wal-Mart was a sponsor of last year’s Image Awards, and has supported the NAACP’s work on helping the formerly incarcerated reenter society.

She still hasn't released those speeches she gave to wall street - one of which she was paid $415,00 for. She only changed her position on same-sex marriage after it was obvious which way the wind was blowing. She sent secret information to people who were not supposed to be privy to it (to which the email server is just incidentally involved).

That's three to start.

The current FBI investigation has been going on since last August, but only confirmed in February. And this has nothing to do with republicans - this is an FBI probe under a Democratic president.

Clinton is Not liked or trusted by a majority of the voters.

On the positive side, 8% of Americans say they like her, 7% describe her as capable and qualified, 5% as experienced, 3% as strong and 3% as a good politician. Smaller percentages consider her honest or smart.

Overall, 29% of Americans offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51% express something negative. The rest have either a neutral comment or no opinion. This loosely fits with her overall image among national adults as measured on Gallup tracking, which is 42% favorable and 51% unfavorable.

These are the same number she had in 2008, and she lost then. The only candidate with overall positive numbers as Sanders.

When you typed "...Trump is a racist blame-and-excuse machine..." what criteria were you using? Was it the usual dishonest leftist troll criteria that "anybody who disagrees with me is a racist/sexist/homophobe"? Were you claiming that he is a racist because he thinks we have a legal right to defend the nation from a decades-long invasion and colonization by people breaking our laws aided by employers breaking our laws and politicians breaking their oaths of office? If your argument is that in opposing ILLEGAL immigration, he is a RACIST, then please consider that perhaps the REAL racists are the defenders of illegal immigration who simultaneously push-down the wages of many black and hispanic AMERICAN CITIZENS by importing poor minorities from the third world who they assume will work for slave wages and eventually become permanent Democrat voters - based on purely racist assumptions.

Tell me: were you outraged when Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid said Obama was electable because he was "clean" and lacked a "negro dialect", or when Democrat Vice President Joe Biden announced that you cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts if you don't have a slight Indian accent, and then clarified, saying "I'm not joking"???

The selective faux outrage by leftists over supposed racism is always fascinating to behold. Personally I could never be a member of the political party that has been fixated on skin color for its entire centuries-long history:

(a) Every single black slave was owned by a Democrat or an independent - no Republican in US history owned a slave of any color.

(b) Republican President Lincoln led the war to kill enough Democrats to get them to give up their slaves - and they then assasinated him.

(c) Democrats created the KKK and its founders were honored guests at Democrat national conventions. Early KKK posters and leaflets called for lynchings for BOTH "negros" AND Republicans.

(d) Democrats created the "Jim Crow" laws and every black child blocked from a white school was opposed by a Democrat governor.

(e) Famous Democrat "Progressive" president Woodrow Wilson ordered the segregation of the US federal government along racial lines. Before he was sworn-in in 1913 the federal government had NEVER been so segregated.

(f) As the public tide was turning against them the Democrats simply changed their tactics for owning and controlling blacks; they offered them enough free stuff to survive - as long as they destroyed their families and moved back onto the plantation (in the form of government housing which you only remained eligible to stay in as long as you never tried to save money or start a business - the thresholds were low enough that you'd get booted out if your economic situation improved but before it improved enough that you might become independent). LBJ was an obnoxious racist

who simply wanted to lock-in the Black vote this way, and Democrats at the time were not willing to pass his voting rights act - he needed the Republicans in congress to pass it.

(g) in the post-sixties decades, they have attempted to keep blacks on their plantation by claiming all the redneck racist Democrats mysteriously punished the Democrats for the civil rights bills.... by joining the Republicans who pushed those bills over the finish line. It's mostly liberal Democrat educators speaking to ignorant young kids who push this non-sequitur

(h) Democrats allocate political jobs and even tickets to their national conventions with racial quotas, and then they attack Republicans as "racist" for NOT being willing to play that game.

(i) After decades of taking blacks for granted and doing nothing to improve their situation, the Democrats are now shifting to hispanics and using them to push down the wages of blacks ---- whatever skin-color-groups they need to have power will do and with hispanics having greater numbers, the blacks can go under the bus that Democrats used to demand they occupy the back seats of.

Disgusting

Can all Americans who had the right to vote during the 2005 election please make their way to the local incarceration centre? Your crime is being the decision makers who elected someone known to support the use of torture... apparently this is the only way to change things, so nothing personal.

I take it you meant 2004? Not all of us voted for Bush. I take it your logic would also apply to anyone who voted for Obama in 2008 & 2012?

Watch this interviewwith Chris Hayes from MSNBC - within the first minute he claims to have bought a bunch of parts and put them together himself.

Is this the same guy? How much of this is true?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-ma... Transcript: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5336...

Mostly because of a little thing called a filibuster and the fact that the Republicans decided, on the night of Obama's inauguration to block him at every turn.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

And don't try to play the "supermajority" card before reading the following

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-ma...

Instead of spending millions lobbying why don't the unions start worker-owned companies? Because they can't cease making demands of "capitalists" anymore than a flea can jump off a plump dog

Who says they don't?

This is hilarious, it was quite obvious that you only read the first paragraph article you cited... and now you didn't even read the first paragraph of what I last cited, allow me to demonstrate. You claim:

State may have them. Nobody knows except the State Department.

Except that's not what the State Department has said, to quote the last article I cited (and the first paragraph no less):

The State Department said Thursday that it could not locate “all or part” of 15 e-mails provided last week to the House Select Committee on Benghazi by Sidney Blumenthal from his exchanges with then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Still not convinced? Why not consult a whole number of articles from various sources which report the same thing?

http://news.yahoo.com/state-de...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/15...
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/26...
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sta...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes...

Noticing a trend yet?

Thus, your claim that we know she didn't turn over all of the emails is false. The State Department might have them, they might not.

So you are calling the professionals at the State Department and national archives incompetent because they cannot adequately locate these documents they may or may not have? Riiight. Occam's Razor would seem to apply.

You're misunderstanding the quote. According to them the information should have been deemed confidential.

On the contrary, I understand it quite well (as unlike you I've spent some time reading on this subject. Failing to set the 'classified' flag on an email doesn't change whether it is actually classified or not, it simply flags it for filtering & handling... not unlike putting "ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED" in a subject line of an email. It's the content that matters, not the subject of flags.

It wasn't, though. That means there is no proof that she sent material that was, at the time it was sent, deemed classified.

Again... that's not what the IGs (two of them) have said. Though even your use of the term 'proof' is laughable. The intelligence agencies do not deal in proof the way the rest of us do, but in terms of probability. And the IGs have determined it is very probable that classified information that Hillary had access to is not in the control of the government due to her. That's the first step to opening a criminal investigation which will hopefully lead to a trial and proof that even you would accept.

Say hi to President Sanders for me.

Basically, Obama and the advisers he picked decided that the only way to pass a health care bill was to give the Republicans and the corporations everything they wanted.

Riiiight. Which is why every single Republican Senator and Congressman voted against it.

If you read that Washington Post article I linked above, you will see that the complaint of the progressives is that Obama gave the Republicans everything they said they wanted, but they still opposed it. The progressives thought that Obama was making a stupid, unnecessary compromise that wouldn't even work, and they turned out to be right. Even when Obama gave away the store, the Republicans still opposed him in every way they could.

What really happened was the exact opposite of what you say. Obama and his advisors crafted a heath care bill which was so liberal, not only did it lose all the Republicans, it was in danger of losing a good chunk of the moderate-center Democrats as well. All the compromises you claim were made to appease Republicans, were in fact put in to appease moderate Democrats. Most of them didn't like it either, but were under enormous pressure by the far-left wing of the Democrat party to get this passed while they still had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (10 months from 2009-2010).

I don't know where you get your idea of "far-left wing." I went to City College of New York at a time when I could sit at one lunchroom table with the Communists, another table with the Trotskyites, and another table with the Socialist Workers Party. Those were the people who were supporting Fidel Castro, fighting against the Vietnam war, and sitting in with Martin Luther King (and getting arrested in the process). So maybe you could call them far-left.

The left wing of the Democratic Party in Congress is probably represented by the Progressive Caucus, which includes Bernie Sanders and John Conyers. I don't know why you call them "far" left, unless it just makes you feel good to throw out inflammatory adjectives.

The Progressive Caucus supports a single-payer, Canadian-style system, where the government replaces the insurance companies, and negotiates with drug companies. That's not Obamacare. The Progressive Caucus members weren't even allowed into Obama's White House Health Care Summit in 2009, until they complained. Obama first promised them a single payer option, and then took it back when Karen Ignani, head of the insurance industry lobbying organization, threatened to pull another "Harry and Louise." Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, was always hostile to the Democratic left and in one famous incident called them "fucking retarded." (Which you can look up on Google.)

You can't blame this one on the Republicans. Its legacy will rest entirely upon the Democrats because it was 100% Democrat-drafted, passed, and signed.

Obamacare was modeled on a Heritage Foundation plan. I can blame it on the conservatives, Democrat and Republican:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Busin...
The irony of Republican disapproval of Obamacare
The Democrat's version of health insurance would have been cheaper, simpler and more popular. But we enacted the Republican version. So why are they so upset? Because it an achievement for the Obama administration.
By Robert Reich October 28, 2013

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the...
The Heritage Foundation disowns its baby

The Intercept should just claim the photo is appropriation art and then claim a copyright on the Sunday Times front page for himself ... like Richard Prince with Instagram photos.

How about these:

http://www.msnbc.com
www.dailykos.com

Um... Climate Change?

Here is what the sitting Dem President has to say: “I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.” - President Barack Obama, June 25, 2013" https://www.whitehouse.gov/ene...

Here is what the Dem candidate for President in 2016 says: "Clinton began her remarks at the National Clean Energy Summit by laying out the problems climate change is already causing today, including extreme weather and droughts. “[These are] the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face,” she said. “No matter what deniers say.”" http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hil...

Here is what the last Rep President had to say: " In 2001, President Bush decided to pull out of the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, a worldwide agreement to try to keep greenhouse gases down. Environmentalists were aghast. The president said he had his reasons. "That I felt the Kyoto Treaty was unrealistic. It was not based upon science. The stated that mandates in the Kyoto Treaty would affect our economy in a negative way."" http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

And here is what a Rep candidate for 2016 has to say about it: " Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, questions whether global warming is real, arguing that the "data are not supporting what the advocates are arguing." "The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened," said Cruz." http://politicalticker.blogs.c...

So, yeah there are real differences between US political parties, particularly on the subject of this article, Climate Change

I Think that just goes to show that they target different members of the population, not that they have real meaningfully different agendas. They almost always vote the same on things like domestic spying, invading foreign countries, etc. The only thing they really fight over is how to slice the pie.

Um... Climate Change?

Here is what the sitting Dem President has to say:
“I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.” - President Barack Obama, June 25, 2013"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ene...

Here is what the Dem candidate for President in 2016 says:
"Clinton began her remarks at the National Clean Energy Summit by laying out the problems climate change is already causing today, including extreme weather and droughts. “[These are] the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face,” she said. “No matter what deniers say.”"
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hil...

Here is what the last Rep President had to say:
" In 2001, President Bush decided to pull out of the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, a worldwide agreement to try to keep greenhouse gases down. Environmentalists were aghast. The president said he had his reasons. "That I felt the Kyoto Treaty was unrealistic. It was not based upon science. The stated that mandates in the Kyoto Treaty would affect our economy in a negative way.""
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

And here is what a Rep candidate for 2016 has to say about it:
" Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, questions whether global warming is real, arguing that the "data are not supporting what the advocates are arguing." "The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened," said Cruz."
http://politicalticker.blogs.c...

So, yeah there are real differences between US political parties, particularly on the subject of this article, Climate Change

And if you know a place that's "rolling back property taxes" I would love to fucking see it.

You've had that power all along, Dorothy! All you have to do is click the heels of your ruby slippers together three times and say, "There's no place like Kansas!" Actually, I'm not sure if it's property taxes, but it's certainly rolling back taxes for the folks that matter (big business and the 1%).

You like the internet as it is now?
Then you like net neutrality.
It's that simple.

Granted, the GOP tried, and failed, to capture the term with their deceitful House Bill a couple weeks ago, but most folks saw right through it.

And as for the big scary ACA:
http://mediamatters.org/resear...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-ma...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07...

Several ACs here have misunderstood my post. Rather than responding to each of them, I'm responding to my own to cover each of them. No offense intended.

First of all, I'm far from a Republican shill. I happen to like MSNBC. And although she's obviously biased, I think Rachel Maddow is an insightful commentator and I enjoy watching her show.

My point was that MSNBC has not done what greenwow claims. I can find no evidence that MSNBC "exposed" as a "lie" the report of 800,000 healthcare.gov users receiving false tax information. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Check the last paragraph in this article.

Why did it take the murder of these people when thousands have died already and they stood by and did nothing.

Exactly. Like this attack, which might have killed 2,000 people. From the article:

In an interview with the BBC, district leader Musa Alhaji Bukar also estimated that 2,000 residents of Baga and 16 nearby towns had been killed by the Islamist terror group, and that Baga was now “virtually nonexistent ...”

I guess Anonymous is getting involved now, because of the issue of freedom of speech. However, if Boko Haram, ISIS or Al-Qaeda kills you for not agreeing with their religious beliefs, that's a free speech issue also.

How about a non-Islam run country? The United States doesn't exactly have clean hands in this regard.

NJ State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg says she will work to reverse a law making smart guns mandatory in her state – if the NRA will agree to stop obstructing them.

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/wa... http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

It does not give a pass for stupid laws from being passed in NJ that mandated a certain type of gun in the first place. However, there was a willingness to compromise to allow consumers make the choice and repeal said stupid law.

I am for gun rights, but the debate is so soured that any discussion to make guns safer cannot even take place.

Citations, please.

I found the following related to the above quotes. The first one I couldn't find anything in context, only that Bush supposedly said it, and the second one is part of the the Constitution being just a piece of paper quote which was false. As to the rest. . .

"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." George W. Bush - Link

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - George W. Bush - Link

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." - George W. Bush - Link

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." - George W. Bush - Link

Jury selection is based on voter registration lists - blacks in the community disproportionately choose not to register to vote leaving them with a predominantly white elected government...and predominantly white juries.

Why don't they register to vote?

If they win in 2016, it will be while losing the popular vote but rigging the electoral college. Apparently, if you're a corrupt politician and people aren't stupid enough to fall for your normal BS, you just make a blatant power grab and change the rules.

Oh yes, only the GOP. The intellectual and always morally-straight democrats would NEVER do something like that...

If they win in 2016, it will be while losing the popular vote but rigging the electoral college. Apparently, if you're a corrupt politician and people aren't stupid enough to fall for your normal BS, you just make a blatant power grab and change the rules.

1. There are no legitimate uses for TOR. Anyone using it is a terrorist.
2. The FBI is not in the business of law enforcement. Go find somebody that cares. Good luck.

[citation needed]

Unless this women is one of those liars or illegals you ranted about.

Really, what criminal is going to say: "Okay Google, set a reminder for 6pm Thursday to abduct Susie from the Playground on the corner of 5th and Lexington"?

Well, there's this guy. And there's this guy. And this guy. But aside from that I'm sure that every other criminal is smart enough not to write anything down where it could easily be picked up by investigators.

It would be more convincing if you had cases where the police found something on someones phone that prevented a crime, vs. the criminal to be announcing to the world on a public forum that he was about to commit a crime.

Really, what criminal is going to say: "Okay Google, set a reminder for 6pm Thursday to abduct Susie from the Playground on the corner of 5th and Lexington"?

Well, there's this guy. And there's this guy. And this guy. But aside from that I'm sure that every other criminal is smart enough not to write anything down where it could easily be picked up by investigators.

And how would having the phone have prevented any of this? All three of these are incidents where the guy told, in a public forum, exactly what he planned on doing. And in the case of the selfie, that was while he was doing it. Newsflash: Advertising that you are committing/planning on committing a crime gets the attention of the police. Stopping the guy and searching his phone would have given the police NOTHING more then what any concerned citizen would have already told them.

Really, what criminal is going to say: "Okay Google, set a reminder for 6pm Thursday to abduct Susie from the Playground on the corner of 5th and Lexington"?

Well, there's this guy. And there's this guy. And this guy. But aside from that I'm sure that every other criminal is smart enough not to write anything down where it could easily be picked up by investigators.

She's probably just fine with the *state* peeping into your (not her) business. That's the very definition of a self labeled "progressive". Guns, drones, private (no tax man involved) monetary interactions between people, healthcare, retirement, etc.

Actually, Sotomayor is a bit of an outlier on the Supreme Court and has been highlighted for laying the groundwork to reinstate stronger Fourth Amendment protections -- particularly against the government intrusions -- especially in her ruling in United States v. Jones . (For details on her privacy rulings before joining the Court, you can see EPIC's summary here.)

Note that in TFA she was warning about "Orwellian" surveillance, which specifically tends to refer to a world where the government is spying on you, not just private citizens. The quotation highlighted in TFS seems to focus on private citizen regulations, but she has also demonstrated more concern about many government invasions of privacy than most other Supreme Court members, including those who are definitely NOT ''progressives."

Yes, there was a super majority. It wasn't as effective as thought because Democrats kept electing Kennedy and Byrd in honor of their efforts to murder Blacks and women throughout their lives.

The Democrats’ 134-Day Supermajority

Democrats Had a Filibuster-Proof Senate Majority for 72 Days During President Obama’s First Term

A fleeting, illusory supermajority

Democrats' Senate Supermajority Not as Strong as Advertised

What’s So Super About a Supermajority?

111th United States Congress

What's that? Not the first time a republican has drummed this shit up and this guy is an Alabama SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

It"s about risks. It was a fair comparison.

Unlike your comparison, which is not.Near as I can tell, skylys ahs done nothing. Obama on the other hand has done a lot. Here is a short list of his accomplishments:
Legislative Prowess.
Despite the characterizations of some, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office. Though he is often cited as superior to Obama, President Lyndon Johnson’s success rate in 1965 was only 93%. http://n.pr/i3d7cY

Fiscal Responsibility.
Within days after taking office, Obama signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5

Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. http://n.pr/hcgBn1

On his first full day, he froze White House salaries. http://on.msnbc.com/ewJUIx

He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending. http://www.cio.gov/

He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems, and also signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system. http://bit.ly/hOw1t1 http://bit.ly/fz8GAd

Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. http://bit.ly/hwKhKa

Improving the Economy, Preventing Depression.
Obama pushed through and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as “the stimulus package,” despite the fact that not one Republican voted for that bill. In addition, he launched recovery.gov, so that taxpayers could track spending from the Act. http://1.usa.gov/ibiFSs http://1.usa.gov/e3BJMk

In his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE

Obama completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and recovered virtually all of its costs. http://1.usa.gov/eA5jVS http://bit.ly/eCNrD6

He created the Making Home Affordable home refinancing plan. http://1.usa.gov/goy6zl

Obama oversaw the creation of more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years. http://bit.ly/hrrnjY

He oversaw a bailout of General Motors that saved at least 1.4 million jobs, and put pressure on the company to change its practices, resulting in GM returning to its place as the top car company in the world. http://lat.ms/zIJuQx

Obama also doubled funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership which is designed to improve manufacturing efficiency. http://bit.ly/eYD4nf

He signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system. It also created a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown. http://abcn.ws/g18Fe7

Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, which was designed to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices. http://1.usa.gov/gIaNcS

He increased infrastructure spending after years

NBC News vs. MSNBC.

Not the same thing.

The FBI's prime directive is to protect the citizenry from corporeal harm, not protect the corporations from perceived financial harm.

The FBI's prime directive is to, "to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States".

Not any more... "The primary function of the FBI is national security."

It wasn't to punish someone who wouldn't endorse him. That's just a flashpoint scandal, nothing big. I half suspect it to be one that's being sent out intentionally to exhaust the media's attention before the real scandal starts getting out.

Basically he screwed over some Democratic Judge, and the Dems in his area announced they would be very critical of a Republican Judge that was coming up for reconfirmation in retaliation, so he pulled the same screwjob on that Republican Judge to prevent her from being questioned by the Dems. The next day he pulled the bridgegate crap in the home district of the head Democrat.

Rachel Maddow has done all the work and has an interview with said head Dem.

Or you could turn to Fox News, where somehow it was Obama's fault because Benghazi.

Because making "one" site to accommodate mobile and desktop means you end up with garbage layouts like this:
http://www.msnbc.com/?cid=sky|ps|Google|b-Brand|msnbc

Yep. Nothing worse than a site that is usable from both desktop and mobile.

I'm a bit surprised that we seem to accept the "Obamacare" nomenclature. Can we at least try to be objective? http://www.prosebeforehos.com/video-of-the-day/10/06/obamacare-versus-affordable-care-act/ http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/27/poll-more-oppose-obamacare-than-affordable-care-act/

Go google for this. Then pull up the links: Ann Coulter did not object to the news about NSA phone snooping on principle, but does have a problem with it under this particular president.

I guess you could call Ann Coulter a "neo-con", but she is just a talking head, so she'll make hay out of anything that her audience wants to hear.

Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin asked: “How could the phone records of so many innocent Americans be relevant to an authorized investigation as required by the Act?” In a separate newspaper column, Sensenbrenner went further, claiming the administration was abusing the law. that piece of trash sat on Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security (Chairman) when all of this went down. He was right in the MIDST of it all, and then claims that he knew nothing about it, while claiming O is behind this.

Sensenbrenner is trash, but I don't see where he really "claimed O was behind this", he is, however, claiming the program went too far, and he didn't know how far, apparently, because he wasn't in the right meetings. But Snowden's documents have shown that even the Intelligence committee was not informed about everything going on, although there were "lawmakers from both houses" briefed. A total of 8, according to leaked documents.

The interesting part about this is that even Sensenbrenner, who loved the PATRIOT ACT and all this federal power and secrecy, thinks the PRISM and NSA programs go too far. That's a pretty stunning indictment.

On Sunday, the Republican senator and libertarian firebrand from Kentucky declared that he planned to file a class action lawsuit against the Obama administration, claiming the NSA surveillance programs that intercept internet communications (for supposedly foreign targets) and sweep up the phone records of Americans are "unconstitutional."

Rand Paul is not a neo-con. There is no credible definition of that term I have EVER seen that would apply to Rand Paul. I guess you're just using it to mean "anybody on the right," but that's not how it's typically used. Rand is on the side of liberal Democrats more often than he is on the side of the neo-cons.

That Piece of Trash

Paul? Fuck you, you piece of stinking garbage. I know Rand, and he has more honor in his pinky than you have ever thought of exhibiting in your entire life.

sits on Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (starting 2011). IOW, the senate version of what Sensenbrenner is on. He has almost certainly known for the last 2 years.

Nope, as pointed out, the NSA revealed this information very selectively, the committee did not know the extent of it. Didn't you hear about Clapper actually lying to committees when questioned about it?

I could continue on and on, but what is the point of it? The fact is, that the outrage by the neo-cons, is just another made up garbage.

It is, you made it up. There is no outrage from the neo-cons, only from the civil libertarians. You lumping the two together just shows your ignorance. You might as well stop now.

However, this one has backing with far left, and Libertarians, all of whom have NO idea of what is really going on.

I don't really know what you're trying to say, here.

I mean YOU have ma

Go google for this. Then pull up the links:
Ann Coulter did not object to the news about NSA phone snooping on principle, but does have a problem with it under this particular president.

Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin asked: “How could the phone records of so many innocent Americans be relevant to an authorized investigation as required by the Act?” In a separate newspaper column, Sensenbrenner went further, claiming the administration was abusing the law.
that piece of trash sat on Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security (Chairman) when all of this went down. He was right in the MIDST of it all, and then claims that he knew nothing about it, while claiming O is behind this.

On Sunday, the Republican senator and libertarian firebrand from Kentucky declared that he planned to file a class action lawsuit against the Obama administration, claiming the NSA surveillance programs that intercept internet communications (for supposedly foreign targets) and sweep up the phone records of Americans are "unconstitutional."
That Piece of Trash sits on Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (starting 2011). IOW, the senate version of what Sensenbrenner is on. He has almost certainly known for the last 2 years.

I could continue on and on, but what is the point of it? The fact is, that the outrage by the neo-cons, is just another made up garbage. However, this one has backing with far left, and Libertarians, all of whom have NO idea of what is really going on. I mean YOU have made a number of accusations, yet, you are showing no proof of it.

MSNBC specifically Rachel Maddow's blog seems to think the IRS thing is ok, the four Americans killed in Bengazi and the lies and cover up for it are ok, spying on reporters perfectly legal.

Ask and you shall receive. I don't think Bill Maher has run this week yet, or I would send you video clips of him saying the same thing.

Call me a poor web searcher, but I couldn't find a link to an official stream on MSNBC's web site. The "Video" link near the top is to clips, not a live stream of the channel.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/20/bombs-grenades-guns-how-the-boston-suspects-escaped-from-police/

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/17/17797311-nra-gets-caught-lying-again

The NRA does tell lies... just like every other political action group in the US including those who support gun control legislation. Calling them out on it hardly makes you a 14 year old.

Currently, the Democrats benefit from the voter fraud, nominally through a misapplication of the 1973 Voting Rights Act, predominantly in Florida, but one in eight voting registrations are flawed and/or illegal , while the Republicans benefit from the below market labor costs, so neither party actually wants the practice of illegal immigration stopped. Here is the NY Times article on it from the Pew Center for the States: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/us/politics/us-voter-registration-rolls-are-in-disarray-pew-report-finds.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]

What a bullshitter you are. The article basically says there are lot of errors in the registration systems to the point that dead people are still in the roles (not that other people are using those identities to vote), that people that move often end up registered in more than one state (not that they are voting in more than one), that a high percentage of registrations contain data errors serious enough that the voter will not receive a ballot (flawed, but not "illegal" as you insinuate), and that approximately 1 in 4 eligible voters isn't even registered. It then says that Democrats want to make it easier to register people, but that Republicans don't want that because of fear that it could introduce fraud. The last election highlighted several occurrences of voter fraud, none of which being identity fraud that the Voter ID laws Republicans have been pushing would have stopped, and the most serious being perpetrated by Republicans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/gop-voter-fraud_n_1990104.html
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/19/14556980-gop-registration-worker-charged-with-voter-fraud?lite
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/19/gop_voter_registration_scandal_widens/
http://www.npr.org/2012/10/02/162176990/republican-firm-tied-to-voter-fraud-allegations
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/06/the-real-gop-voter-fraud-employees-admit-forging-voter-registration-forms/

I've always contened that Obama wasn't any better or only marginally better than anything from the other party

It's all very confusing... Obama is a Constitutional scholar, yet the Constitutional violations that began under Bush continued, and probably got worse, under Obama. The spending that was out of control under Bush, the vast increases of the deficit that we might expect to see under a Democratic president, apparently have been slowed and controlled under Obama, yet Republicans are still screaming and treating him like he's an out-of-control Democratic spender.

For the record, last year, over President Obama's first four years, the deficit shrunk by about $300 billion. This year, the deficit is projected to be about $600 billion smaller than when the president took office. We are, in reality, currently seeing the fastest deficit reduction in several generations.

source

Another Republican idiot who watches too much Fox News. Guess what, in the real world (not the Faux News world where the Earth is 6,000 years old, Obama is a Kenyan who faked his US birth certificate, and Global Warming is a scientific conspiracy) the senate did come up with a budget that the Republicans, surprise surprise, filibustered.

Flash is required to watch the redwings and the kings game. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45340521/