Slashdot Mirror

What war against al Qaida?

The Authorization for Use of Military Force makes it clear who the US is fighting again, and that it is at war. It is well settled law that such an authorization is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.

You mean that big recruitment drive for them in Iraq, where Al Qaida did not even exist before the US invasion?

Like most people in the modern era, al Qaida members are able to travel. Many of them came to Iraq to fight, some were recruited locally. If you notice from the map, Iraq is near a number of countries with a notable extremist presence, and al Qaida problem.

Iraq was a major loss for al Qaida. They made many grand announcements that turned into nothing. Many of their leaders and technical experts were captured or killed. Many of their funding sources were found out and stopped. And the biggest problem for them was that the Arab Muslim world had a ring side seat to see how their future would-be overlords behaved. Al Qaida demonstrated themselves to be barbarians before the entire Arab Muslim word. They killed huge numbers of ordinary Muslims in massive slaughters. The Muslims in the region noticed this, and al Qaida support was badly damaged.

Eventual most of al Qaida was called out of Iraq, and guess where many of them fled? To Afghanistan. That is part of the reason that Afghanistan got so hot again as Iraq was winding down.

The Taliban were created after the Russians left Afghanistan. They were a creation of Pakistan. The Taliban were not US allies. They were allied with al Qaida.

By historical standards the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have been cheap in terms of American lives lost. For dealing with Saddam and al Qaidas state within a state and training base turning out thousands of trained terrorists per year in Afghanistan, it was worth it. As to the deaths in Iraq, the Lancet study you refer to was paid for by George Soros, is bad science, and a piece of propaganda to try to mislead the public, influence an election, and derail the American war effort.

Beats "negligence or inaction" eh?

Very much so. If it had to be repeated there would need to be some fine tuning. Being as the US has been out of business of military occupation or colonial rule for a very long time it didn't have the institutional experience to make the best of the opportunities to help the Iraqi people. Part of the problem is that Saddam had diverted so many resources to building enormous palaces all over the country and to his covert rearming that the infrastructure was falling apart. What is worse is what he did to the Iraqi people, corrupting them badly. It will take them time to recover, but at least now that they are not under Saddam or his hell spawn children* Iraq has a chance. I hope they make it.

*Really, how bad are you when Saddam is the one restraining you, saying you are too cruel, as he did to at least one if not both of this sons?

Seriously, do you ever take than tin foil hat off? Audit Obama's campaign records and then talk shit about untold riches. Yep, all those innocent Democratic Klan members:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/democrats-make-it-official-they-ll-take-undisclosed-donations-too-20110429

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/02/obama-vs-the-undisclosed-donor

https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/17875/funding

http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politics/obamas_small_donor_myth.php

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/10/those-undisclos/

http://pumapac.org/forums/feck-obama-team/

Also, Ron Paul supporters... apparently gravitating to the Republican side.

Though, my favorite quote is this:

"A lot of people who follow the rabbit hole of liberty have already lost their friends and family to begin with, because they're willfully ignorant of something we believe very strongly in," he said. "And what we're creating is an individualist, intentional community, and I point out the individualist part because we're not a commune or a cult or anything; people can live wherever they want."

In other words, these are folks who are too radical for their own friends and family due to their extremist political beliefs.
They also find themselves to be the only "sane" people around.

2007, around $74 billion was spent on corrections. The total number of inmates in 2007 in federal, state, and local lockups was 2,419,241. That comes to around $30,600 per inmate. In 2005, it cost an average of $23,876 dollars per state prisoner. State prison spending varied widely, from $45,000 a year in Rhode Island to $13,000 in Louisiana. $4,020 is the basic cost of raising each child per year as estimated by the Department of Health and Human Services for 2013, whether there is one child or many children. The total basic cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is by their estimates $389,670, based on the 30 year average inflation rate of 3% increasing the $4,020 annual cost every year. According to Globalissues.org, "Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day." This statistic includes children. Using $2.50 a day, the cost is roughly US$900 for raising a child for a year, and US$16,500 for raising a child from birth to age 17 As per the cost of public education spending Colorado, for instance ranks ninth nationally in "quality" of education but spent an average of $9,155 per student in 2009, putting it among the 10 states spending the least per pupil. Wyoming though ranked 29th in quality spending the most averaging $18,068 per student. Alaska, ranked 41st for its education quality, spent an average of $16,174 per student. Overall, the U.S. spent an average of $11,665 per student. Prison stats Sources: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html?_r=0 http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2008/one%20in%20100.pdf Education stats sources: http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/education/analysis-how-much-states-spend-on-their-kids-really-does-matter-20121016

While I agree with the Senator, I believe we must act with comprehensive reform. Laser printers are being used to print counterfeit money. Those too should be regulated and tracked just as strictly as 3d printers. All printer owners should be tracked, registered, and of course, pay a government tax to cover all this tracking.

Goddamn, I'm good at this political bullshit. Block something I don't want under the guise of "comprehensive reform." Being a greasy politician is easy.

Qwest was the only telco to refuse warrantless wiretaps during the Bush era.

Actually, 1997, during the Clinton administration.

You've got to be joking. "SpaceX among other things is self-funding exploration. That's new."

Er no, it's got external funding. Someone is paying for it, and not out of anything SpaceX is selling. NASA's paid for itself many times over as can be seen - http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20100827_1798.php I know it may be hard for you to admit, again, but an ROI of 3:1 is a win, and that's the very lowest end of estimates. What NASA is doing now is vital to most of astronomy, cosmology, etc. Actual science, actual exploration of the universe we live in, not a playboy's joyride, which is what these commercial ventures really are.

Also, they are not, as has been pointed out many times, exploring anything. Yes, the moon hasn't been visited often. When's anyone going to go somewhere NEW on the moon? Not anytime soon, that's for sure.

Also moving the goalposts isn't reason. It's sophistry at best, disingenuous most likely. Where's the "stay" part of any private enterprise? When was their longer trip to the moon? None of this has happened, and it's not even on the (serious) cards. SpaceX makes things cheaper, I never argued that they didn't. But that's not exploration, any more than the sewing machine is an explorer as I've pointed out.

Arbitrary execution.
It happens weekly -- what do you think Terror Tuesday is all about. And one for certain was completely innocent 16yo American born boy. The government knew so much about him when it killed him, that it claimed he was 21.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891#ixzz2ABHMgELN
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/

Arbitrary indefinite detention.
Obama tried to close the facility at Gitmo and MOVE the PRACTICES to the Thompson Federal Supermax in Illinois. Don't feed me that bullshit about GOP obstruction and he tried to "close GITMO" where people understand "close" to mean "stop the practices" rather than merely continue the practices at a new location.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/creating-gitmo-north-alarming-step-says-aclu
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/obama-promise-close-guantanamo-worse

Libya, and the War Powers Act. Obama conveniently redefines war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/19/obama-libya-lawyers-war-powers_n_879951.html
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/house-rejects-authorization-of-libya-intervention-20110624

Hmmm, not buying the Churchill comparison. Winston was on the outside before the war, and was more or less guaranteed the election by Hitler's castration of Chamberlain. After the war, his pre-existing problems came back to haunt him. Read Winston's War.

Chu had no prior problems, and isn't being banished for accumulated past transgressions.
His work is far from done. He doesn't have to stand for re-election. Only one vote counts, Obama's.

He's probably the person with the best science background in the whole administration.

He, like 4 or 5 other department heads is "choosing" to leave with his work half done. Why is that?
Has he been pressured into staying just long enough to get Obama elected?

Its not unusual to lose a couple cabinet members upon a second term election, especially when those
cabinet heads were more or less forced on you in your first term to garner support. Every administration
has a couple of those. More so at the end of the second term than the beginning.

But 5 is pretty big number, and the cabinet is getting whiter and male-er.

If this was a Republican administration the press would be wringing its hands at all these replacements.
But Obama is too big to fail for the liberal press, so they will just push this rush to the exit back onto page 5.

Won't happen due to the district gerymandering.

Over the last 20 years, the number of House districts that swing between political parties has shrunk by two-thirds from 103 in 1992 to roughly 35 today, Silver found. At the same time, the number of districts where parties win by landslides has nearly doubled from 123 to 242.

Today, 55 percent of House members come from districts where their biggest threat is losing a primary election, not the general election. Of the landslide districts, 124 are held by Republicans and 117 Democrats (one is an independent). They have little incentive to compromise. Instead, their incentive is to play to their party base. Making independent boards responsible for redistricting, as some states have done, would be far better.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/america-s-greatest-economic-weakness-in-2012-was-its-government-20121231

Just a little Econ101: salaries rise, and I don't just mean nominally through inflating a currency, when the productive capacity of an employee rises.

"For decades, productivity and compensation rose in tandem. Their bond was the basis of the social compact between the economy and the public: If you work harder and better, you and your family will be better off. But in the past few decades, and especially during the past 10 years or so, the lines have diverged. This is slippage No. 1: Productivity is rising handsomely, but compensation of workers isn’t keeping up."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-economy/the-no-good-very-bad-outlook-for-the-working-class-american-man-20121205

There have been a number of scandals, including in New Jersey, where installation of cameras was found to coincide with, or be followed shortly thereafter by, shortening the yellow-light duration, presumably to make more money from the resulting tickets.

This article implies that the cameras themselves are at fault, but I wonder if the shortened yellow-light duration is actually the primary culprit.

Oh, please. The mainstream media never got on Bush's ass 24x7 about *anything*.

Should we welcome you to America, or out of a coma?

3,000 Deaths in Iraq, Countless Tears at Home
At Grim Milestone, White House Says Focus Is on Success in Iraq
A Grim Milestone: 500 Amputees
Iraq war casualties: We're nearing another grim milestone; vigils planned nationwide

Three weeks before the 2006 midterm elections gave Democrats control of Congress, a shocking study reported on the number of Iraqis who had died in the ongoing war. It bolstered criticism of President Bush and heightened the waves of dread -- here and around the world -- about the U.S. occupation of Iraq. --- Data Bomb

(I'm pretty sure FDR didn't have to fight this kind of press as well as the Axis powers.)

Waterboarding / "torture" was another popular one for a while, of course it was only three people, it stopped 10 years ago, it was legal at the time, the US does it to its own pilots and special forces, and so on. There often seems to be far more vitriol directed against the United States for waterboarding three terrorists than against Al Qaida and its affiliates for killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA

A Grim Milestone Ignored - Thursday, November 15, 2007

The establishment media is seemingly obsessed with “grim milestones” in the War on Terror, as the Associated Press reminds us this past weekend. But in the next week those same establishment media outlets will probably stand mute when yet another “grim milestone” is reached – the10,000th attack by Islamic terrorists and militants since 9/11, which is responsible for approximately 60,000 dead and 90,000 injured

His State Department blocked the import of M1 Carbines from South Korea and the Civilian Marksmanship Program is pretty much out of them, so he's been more successful at blocking U.S. citizens from acquiring weapons which he has chosen to disallow than many of the things which he promised in his initial campaign.

For those keeping score, while he's batting better than .500, here's a list of 96 promises which he hasn't made any real headway on:

http://promises.nationaljournal.com/completeness/0/

Some specific ones of interest here:

  - most transparent government --- http://www.propublica.org/article/many-govt-agencies-still-missing-required-transparency-sites0224
  - post bills online before signing them --- http://promises.nationaljournal.com/ethics-reform/post-bills-online-before-signing-them/
  - promised copyright reform, signed CISPA --- http://www.infowars.com/obama-opposes-cispa-but-will-sign-it-anyway/

His State Department blocked the import of M1 Carbines from South Korea and the Civilian Marksmanship Program is pretty much out of them, so he's been more successful at blocking U.S. citizens from acquiring weapons which he has chosen to disallow than many of the things which he promised in his initial campaign.

For those keeping score, while he's batting better than .500, here's a list of 96 promises which he hasn't made any real headway on:

http://promises.nationaljournal.com/completeness/0/

Some specific ones of interest here:

  - most transparent government --- http://www.propublica.org/article/many-govt-agencies-still-missing-required-transparency-sites0224
  - post bills online before signing them --- http://promises.nationaljournal.com/ethics-reform/post-bills-online-before-signing-them/
  - promised copyright reform, signed CISPA --- http://www.infowars.com/obama-opposes-cispa-but-will-sign-it-anyway/

If control to the nation's power grid is accessible over the internet, then we have problems far more serious than hackers. It's almost like the head of Homeland Security doesn't even know how to use email.

Its been talked about briefly today but the biggest issue is that the system needs an accurate database to work. That means either you have people driving around all the time getting new data OR you are constantly connecting to the internet and exchanging your position data and those around you all the time to a central network.

The other big problem is the huge database you'll have to carry around. We are talking about trillions of data points in the US alone. The only way you get around this have an always on data connection over the internet or private network and exchange only local data.

Either issue will kill this project unless the 'free wireless internet' that president Bush pushed for and Obama promised would be instituted with the 'newly' opened up TV frequencies from switching from analog to digital tv.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2008-12-01-free-broadband_N.htm
http://www.bigbureaucracy.com/?p=1769
http://promises.nationaljournal.com/science-technology/expand-high-speed-internet-access-in-rural-areas/

If the top one percent already own wealth equal to ninety percent of the rest of us, then why do they need more wealth before they'll create any jobs?

http://nationaljournal.com/features/restoration-calls/too-hot-for-ted-income-inequality-20120516

Very controversial notion, granted, but again it wouldn't work - with new technologies, laws need to change to accommodate them, or you will end-up having to apply telegraph-era laws to quantum computing (or in a more recent scenario - export laws to cloud computing)... The problem is not with creating laws in itself, it's with not having qualified subject-matter experts involved in creating said laws. Goes for granting patents as well, as far as I'm concerned.

He gets no credit for winding down Iraq. He and his administration in fact lobbied hard to keep the troops there longer, but the Iraqi govt forced the US to honor the Bush deal/promise for an end of 2011 deadline.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/u-s-troop-withdrawal-motivated-by-iraqi-insistence-not-u-s-choice-20111021?print=true

I think the essense of the problem is not the fact that everyone's opinion counts equally, which it does in democracy, but the way that those opinions are being informed. That's what's changing for the worse.

First of all nearly all social media now is guiding people towards opinions in line with their own. It's a technically beautiful idea, but the more successful the technology, the worse for democracy.

Slashdotters at Google, Facebook, even Amazon, everywhere else directing eyes: do you see how you're seriously subverting and polarizing our democracy. As a media organization you need to take responsibility for making sure you are not hiding alternative viewpoints. By doing this you're squeezing out the center, both in terms of how voters identify themselves and discuss issues, and in terms of politicians' loyalties.
The incredible shrinking center

And there's also the continued bite-sized-ification that prevents construction of thought-out arguments. This has been progressing for a long time, but keeps getting worse.

In both cases, we need to compare to what we had when the technology for communication was largely print and newspapers, and think about how to replace what's been eroded away.

Yes, this demonstrates the vast value of government. Throw a few hundred billion in, get a billion dollar rocket out.

I hope you were joking because the ROI on research dollars invested in NASA to the US economy is somewhere between 3X and 14X depending on which study you look at. There are over 1650 spin off technologies. NASA may run an inefficient manned space program but they are a genuine research powerhouse that MORE than pays for itself once you consider it's net effect on the economy. Just because the benefit isn't a direct one doesn't mean it isn't a benefit.

It stinks and Intel should have been busted for antitrust.

They kinda were.

"After meeting with Philips, some Republican energy-policy staffers privately admitted that rolling back the lightbulb law seemed like a bad idea, especially when they saw that the efficient bulbs looked exactly like the old bulbs, and learned that manufacturers feared they [the Republicans trying to undo the law] would hurt their bottom line."

It's still money that could be put to good use instead of being hoarded by the rich. As for the deficit, you just need to see the Best. Chart. Ever.

he'd be pretty dumb if he did. Seriously. The wars have mostly been a money grab for Halliburton and co, which suits the American Corporate ruling class just fine. Hell, fear of terrorists has set back the labor movement in the US 100 years, again, good for the sort of folk that have been in favor of meddling in the Middle East for years. Plus the wars are helping to keep these people in power. 9/11 was the best thing that could happen to global corporations. People stopped asking why their wages are falling and started cringing in fear of all them tarrafyin' tarrarists.

And of course, who could for get the Best. Chart. Ever. Thanks Bush. It's amazing how much damage one administration can do in such a short time when you let 'em do whatever the heck they want...

Ex-Shell CEO Says Big Oil Can Live Without Subsidies

Although it doesn't matter, because Republicans in the House voted UNANIMOUSLY to keep sending TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars in subsidies to Big Oil. And yet somehow this thread has attracted all kinds of bitching about $130 million. Talk about hypocrisy!

The Senate bill is S.23, aka "America Invents", sponsor Patrick Leahy, who's been trying to get patent reform done for years.
Bill status query at thomas.loc.gov (not sure if these are persistent), Computerworld article, National Journal with some brief comments from pro/neutral/con parties, SF Chron article.

Silicon Valley businesses large and small were mostly against it, IBM was for it. Dianne Feinstein attempted an amendment to remove the First-to-File part, but voted for it anyway after that failed. Barbara Boxer voted against.

The US patent system has been first-to-invent for a long time, while Europe has been first-to-file. There's lots of other detail, largely intended to reduce the amount of patent litigation, improve the coordination with non-US patents, potentially improve the problems with patents on things with prior art and obviousness, and affect some tax issues."

Well, Obama just mentioned in SOTU that he wants to expand 4G out to 98% of the U.S. He'll be giving a speech on Thursday to plug it.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/exclusive-obama-to-declare-the-rules-have-changed--20110125

Theres a pre-release copy of it for tonight.

I fail to see how it's a foreign policy achievement. I see it more as a "He was against it before he was for it!" .

http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/09/obamas-missile-defense-plan-sm.php

A little over a year after telling Poland "No", and it seems like that people forgot it ever happened. Googling "Obama stops missile shield" on the news search came up with no articles at all.

1.5 million people have died as a result of our attack on Iraq. White ones, brown ones, Americans, Iraqis, mostly civilians and many of them not from bombs but from starvation after the infrastructure needed for their water, food, and medical care was destroyed.

You will be relieved to know that those figures are almost certainly not true.

ORB's "million Iraqi deaths" survey seriously flawed, new study shows. More here.

Leftist billionaire George Soros underwrote the widely quoted Lancet study written by an anti-war professor. As time goes by it keeps looking worse, and worse.

The Wikileaks contents tend to undermine them as well:

The logs showed there were more than 109,000 violent deaths between 2004 and the end of 2009.

They included 66,081 civilians, 23,984 people classed as "enemy", 15,196 members of the Iraqi security forces, and 3,771 coalition troops.

Iraqi news site in english.

Or hiring a fraudulent pollster to tell them what they wanted to hear. I'm sure Fox News plays games with polls all the time, but they haven't gone that far.

Did anyone notice where this story came from? Think Progress, the far-left-liberal group.
Recently a bill was introduced in the House that would provide the FCC the ability to regulate ISPs, it was written by Free Press, a badly misnamed organization dedicated to regulating an over-use of free speech, and, among other things, criminalizing private media ownership in favor of "democratic" collective ownership, regulating bloggers, reporters, instituting government-funded reporting and journalism, and re-introducing the fairness doctrine. Woa! And government doesn't want to regulate ISPs, they just need to? Nothing bad could come of this? Seriously?

Since when were ISPs bad? They provide a great service to many people. Remember what the Internet is. It's a network of privately owned computers, linked together. Each individual has the say as to what happens with their computers and their network, each individual has every right to say how to route their data. Engineering and internal self-regulation has always solved more problems than outside regulation done by force. This is how the Internet has always operated, why are we now criminalizing this idea of Internet freedom?

I know this conversation is a million years old now, but I'd like to say thanks again for being reasonable and civil, and, like samoanbiscuit said, not mentioning hitler, nazis, or satan even once! :)

I'd like to respond to some of the questions you had though...

I don't get automatic visitation and am not automatically able to make medical decisions for my partner if she is hospitalized.

In your state, is it possible to rectify this through a power of attorney or similar medical-related document?

I replied earlier with an (admittedly opinionated) story of how this often is far more difficult than it sounds or than it should be. Read about it here

If my spouse loses her job, we are put in federal income tax brackets as if we made twice as much as we actually do (even though I am providing for her).

This is interesting, and I'm not sure I understand it. My understanding of tax law is far from perfect, but as I understand it is possible to claim anyone you want as a dependent, so long as no one is claimed twice. Is that not operable here? Or is this something else?

Well, maybe... but it's not exactly the same. A married couple filing jointly get to take the married standard deduction (double the single SD), and pay taxes in brackets as if they were two individuals making the average of the two incomes (roughly). Say I made 80,000, and my wife lost her job and made 0 for the whole year (totally imaginary, I don't make that much :) If we were married, we'd have maybe $1,000 of income in the 25% tax bracket, while if we file separately, I get $40,000 dollars counted in the 25% tax bracket, if I'm doing the math correctly. Assuming head of household, I'd get a higher standard deduction, which I *think* equals the married filing jointly deduction once you add in the personal exemption for a dependent, but our income would get put in tax brackets like an individual, not a couple... so I think it works out that everything is the same, except $34,000 dollars gets taxed at 25%, instead of about $1,000 at 25%. My head hurts. The real solution is to structure tax law so that this works out the same either way, but that's not the way it works now. One of my very libertarian friends suggested abolishing the welfare system and implementing an equivalent negative income tax, which actually solves the whole marriage tax inequality problem nicely, but it is too early in the morning to argue the merits of that :)

In my state, it is illegal for us to adopt children.

Is it illegal for you to adopt children as an individual? (I recognize that this is an unattractive alternative to a committed couple, but I am not aware of any state where only married couples may legally adopt.)

Florida (the state I live in) prohibits single and joint gay adoption, as far as I know. It sucks. At least one of us could biologically have children, but I'm not sure if the other could adopt them. There's apparently a constitutional ruling on the 1977 law that's being appealed right now, so in the future, who knows...

It costs a great deal of money to put her on my company insurance plan, and everyone else at my company gets it for free.

Is this not something your company, or your insurance company, is willing to address? Or is it illegal for them to do so in your state? Do you feel that additional state intrusion is the best possible approach to this particular problem?

No, I don't think that state intrusion is the best approach, and of *course* it's not *illegal* for them to do so in Florida, but companies tend to follow the lead of the government. If there were no such thing as state sponsored marriage, then they'd have to

The rights and obligations incident to marriage are almost all available through other means--for example, a carefully drafted will, or a contractual relationship. Of course, that "almost" is a sticking point, and the comparative convenience is also something worth discussing.

But you're painting the picture as deliberately bleak. This is good rhetoric, I suppose, but if my statements were disingenuous for painting an unnecessarily rosy picture, yours fall prey to the same problem in reverse

Methinks you may have not tried it before.

The beast has been growing ever since and has reached scary dimensions by now.

Interestingly (and by "interestingly," I mean "unsurprisingly") the American public disagrees with you. All

It is even trying to consume our health care now â" whether it succeeds at that or not, that it is even trying is bad enough.

Especially since the private sector has been so successful in holding down costs. Why is it that prescription drugs are 10 times as expensive in the US than Canada? Am I really supposed to believe that the entire Canadian is a profit loss? Why is the "fix" to (sometimes) allow reimportation of drugs? Why is it that healthcare is routinely denied (i.e. "rationed")? Why is it I can turn on my television and see an advertisement where a woman is talking about how her insurance refused to pay for catheters, and so she has to buy them from someplace else? The stellar system where private sector bureaucrats decide what treatment to pay for, or if even someone should remain on the insurance rolls? The system where some middle manager decides if my doctor is on a list of approved doctors? The system where premiums are rising 3 times inflation. That system? Oh yeah. Best in the world. If your criteria is costs. Performace? 37th. Overall health? 72nd. Goddamn those "socialist" Swedes.

It simply defies all comprehension, that â" after the decades of mediocrity, outright failures, and spectacular cost over-runs of highways

I don't see any private sector highways. No one is stopping anyone from buying up a bunch of land and paving it. Why not? Especially since every private sector endeavor comes in on budget on time.

, Postal Service

Name the private sector company that has door-to-door residential pickup to any address in the United States, six days a week, for 44 cents, and 2 day shipping for 3 dollars?

Public Schools

Damn those universities.

MediCare

Do you mean the Medicare that is extremely popular , more trusted than private insurance, and is the single largest insurer in the United States? The insurance that can't be revoked? The insurance that the private sector commits the most fraud against? That one? No obviously not. You must be speaking about some other hither-to-unknown medicare.

â" anybody still holds the opinion, that a Government taking over a part of life from private sector will improve it...

obviously isn't blind to the gross abuses and inefficiencies of the private sector.

Personally I love how the insurance companies are saying "ZOMG! The big inefficient, ne'er do well federal government is going to run us out of business!" Wait? The people you just called a walking clusterfuck are going to run you out of business? How fucked up are you then?!

We already know what it would be like to have "an agency like that running a healthcare system." It's called Medicare, and it has significantly higher customer satisfaction ratings that private insurance.

Remember his promise not to hire any lobbyists? One review I found shows that 30 out of 267 nominees or appointments had been lobbyists. If that's not a lie, I don't know what is.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/sl_20090321_4967.php

He even came up with some sort of waiver policy because after he won the election, he suddenly decided that we just absolutely had to have lobbyists. Not to mention the need for tax cheats to run Treasury, a governor lax on border issues to run Homeland, an RIAA lawyer into justice, etc.

Also, if a swindle can be a lie.. let's not forget the most expensive lie in recent memory. "The stimulus will create jobs." Well, maybe. No one ever really explained how, especially when a lot of the money went to community groups and pork barrel spending (remember how he also said he'd refuse to sign bills with pork in them?). So then the official story became "the stimulus will create or retain jobs." That's not what we were sold, and it's impossible to measure.

At what point is he going to step up and say he's the President now and actually follow it up with action?

There are numerous websites keeping track of Obama's campaign promises and the progress (or lack thereof) he's made on them.
http://promises.nationaljournal.com/
http://obamapromisetracker.com/index.html
http://ideapalooza.com/blog/?p=133
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ to much too quickly instead of focusing on war and economics.

That said, large parts of Obama's agenda are going to be read in the context of Bush's 8 years, because so much of the agenda is "I'm going to fix Bush & Republican actions."

In the neither here nor there range, I actually looked up the National Journal Vote Ratings awhile back.

It's kinda funny, because you have the vote-ratings "OmiGod Barack is more liberal than Ted Stevens!!!!", and then you have, quietly to the side, the actual 'issues' that they decided Barack Obama voted 'liberal' on.

Now, to be fair, some of these votes were pretty definite conservative/liberal issues.

But there were a lot of votes that it was so obvious that they looked at where he voted, and then worked backwards from there to make it a 'liberal' vote. Balancing the Budget is now a liberal issue! So is searching cargo at ports! So is requiring Mexican Trucks to meet U.S. standards driving inside the U.S.!

It was about half pathetic, as often as that thing got quoted, how obviously it had been rigged to change Obama from 'left of center' to 'Oh my God, he's a Radical!!!'

Pug

In the neither here nor there range, I actually looked up the National Journal Vote Ratings awhile back.

It's kinda funny, because you have the vote-ratings "OmiGod Barack is more liberal than Ted Stevens!!!!", and then you have, quietly to the side, the actual 'issues' that they decided Barack Obama voted 'liberal' on.

Now, to be fair, some of these votes were pretty definite conservative/liberal issues.

But there were a lot of votes that it was so obvious that they looked at where he voted, and then worked backwards from there to make it a 'liberal' vote. Balancing the Budget is now a liberal issue! So is searching cargo at ports! So is requiring Mexican Trucks to meet U.S. standards driving inside the U.S.!

It was about half pathetic, as often as that thing got quoted, how obviously it had been rigged to change Obama from 'left of center' to 'Oh my God, he's a Radical!!!'

Pug

Not insane or clueless, just dont read neo-con trash mags like Drudge, Fox News, and the National Journal. You hardly prove your point by posting links to known ultra-conservative sites. You could have posted a link to Stormfront for all that matters to try to prove your point.

Is National Journal really that bad? I'd never heard of it, but looking around I found this glowing analysis of Obama that compares him to Roosevelt and Lincoln and explains why he has what it takes to be a brilliant president.

The problem with the National Journal report is that they don't actually measure liberal -vs- conservative votes. Instead, they measure Democrat -vs- Republican votes. IMHO, this is one of the problems going on today. People assume that anything the Republican party stands for us conservative, even though that is often far from the case.

For some examples, take a look at their 2007 Vote Ratings.

309/S1927 Renew FISA which allows wire tapping
The FISA is an example of an extreme liberal position. It increases government powers and bypasses constitutional protections. Yet the National Journal says voting against that is liberal.

77/SConRes20 Funding for US troops
An example of a liberal foreign policy would be nation building and preeminent attacks (Ironically, in 2000 Bush commented about how nation building is a terrible mistake and the US needs to get out of it). Yet in modern society people assume that anything military = Republican = conservative. But that isn't true. A defensive volunteer-only military is conservative. An aggressive military that invades other nations and rebuilds them is liberal. Yet the National Journal thinks that any vote that is in favor of bigger military = conservative.

In today's society, party affiliation trumps philosophy. Most people pick their party, then follow it no matter what it does. In order to break out of that people need to understand different philosophies without the context of a party. Check out sites like The Political Compass and skim Wikipedia articles on Socialism, Communism, Conservative, Liberal, etc. for details on what these ideas really mean.

Obama is not a normal Dem, he is a moderate in many ways (even though the Repugs tried to claim he was this super liberal which is more what his running mate is) And they are on notice.

I don't understand comments like this when people say Obama is a moderate. He may govern as a moderate but his voting record has been noted as the "most liberal" of 2007. Now if he is really more of a moderate but voting liberal, does that make him one to just follow the crowd (for his own gain) and not vote along his principles?

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

also an important link

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/methodology.htm

Obama is not a normal Dem, he is a moderate in many ways (even though the Repugs tried to claim he was this super liberal which is more what his running mate is) And they are on notice.

I don't understand comments like this when people say Obama is a moderate. He may govern as a moderate but his voting record has been noted as the "most liberal" of 2007. Now if he is really more of a moderate but voting liberal, does that make him one to just follow the crowd (for his own gain) and not vote along his principles?

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

also an important link

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/methodology.htm

Obama is not a normal Dem, he is a moderate in many ways

Uhm... are you insane or just clueless?

The Dems didnt get the magic 60, they WANT that filibuster proof margin and before they get it they have to cater to at least the fiscally conservative republicans to get them on their side.

Actually, all the Dems need is a few RINOs (that's "Republican In Name Only") to break a filibuster on their pet issues and there are still plenty out there. For example, John McCain's Senate seat (which he didn't bother to resign) isn't up for reelection for another two years, so that counts as at least one RINO right there.

But what I would really like to see ... is a comprehensive breakdown of funding ...

The problem is, the Obama donations have been shown to not even implement the simplest of credit card validation. Their software readily accepts made-up names and addresses, gift cards, and doesn't even filter for credit cards sourced by American accounts (which is a violation of campaign finance laws to have contributions from foreign countries).

• In early October, citizens began reporting fraudulent donations made to the Obama campaign on their credit cards. Flash in the pan, lasted about 2 days on the talk radio circuit, but...
• PowerLine broke the story by discovering that Obama's donation site bills no questions asked, including readers from England and made-up names/addresses...
• National Journal finds gift cards work which can be purchased anywhere in the world, and wonders why the FEC isn't enforcing this campaign law violation...

Essentially, they are using the $200 reporting limit to masquerade illegal donation practices, and none of it will hit the mainstream media until November 5th.

Barack's folks have this technoid /grassroots thing well in hand, so either donate at BarackObama.com, or send money to the DSCC.

Other than that, citizen, the best thing you can do is VOTE.

If you're really interested, there'll be some good theater coming up on October 2 during the first and only Vice Presidential debate. McCain's VP pick, Sarah "Barracuda" Palin, will be attempting to sandbag Joe Biden -- as though Democrats can't or haven't read her profile in the Almanac of American Politics.

Erm... Yeah he most certainly is. Whether or not you believe "leftist" is a good or bad term is subjective, but he very definitely is a "lefty."

Examples:
His plan to include broadband in the Universal Service Fund
Being the most liberal Congressman: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
He is opposed to capital punishment
He is in support of a federal single-payer health plan
He is against any restrictions on abortion
He is in support of state laws to ban the manufacture, sale and even possession of handguns (ouch!)

I can even continue on if I must. Sorry to burst your bubble pal, be he's definitely EXTREMELY "leftist."