Slashdot Mirror

Maybe you need to listen to what Romney is saying.

You can find more information and commentary on the plan here.

It doesn't seem to resemble your comments much.

This will be payed by cutting . . . Public Health Mandate, Food Stamps, Subsidized Housing and COBRA aka everything the poorest among us have to not fall into desperate poverty, disease and hunger.

I believe that it is Governor Romney's* plan to move as many people off those programs as possible to a replacement that is much better for both the poor and the taxpayer while leaving the programs for the truly needy. This replacement is called a "job". I hear they work marvels. It is strange that President Obama is trying to gut the Workfare requirements in law.

You do know he was governor of "right wing" Massachusetts, infamous for its poor farms and debtors prisons, right?

Mod down

The whole point of Sarbanes-Oxley is people had no clue Enron was doing weird shit. You can hate it all you want. but its goal is to encourage transparency to protect its investors. I see nothing wrong with that

Transparency is fine in the abstract, but the implementation has a big role in determining if it is good or bad policy. Sarbanes-Oxley isn't looking so good in retrospect.

Reforming Sarbanes-Oxley: How to Restore American Leadership in World Capital Markets

THE HONORABLE TOM FEENEY: As Milton Friedman said, often a congressional solution is worse than the problem. That's another one of those truisms that has been proved by Sarbanes-Oxley. Another one is that Congress tends to have two speeds-zero and overreact. In the case of Sarbanes-Oxley, we clearly overreacted. And most importantly, I think, Sarbanes-Oxley proves the rule that the unanticipated, unintended consequences of complex legislation are often much, much worse than the positive effects that you intended. . . .

. . . some accountants, for example, have looked at the newspaper subscriptions for the officers in a $2 billion or $5 billion company. We're talking about $70 or $100 or $150 a year for newspapers in a $2 billion company, and that has generated reviews that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Procurement decisions on a very minor level have triggered these things. Why is this?

Time to Reform Sarbanes-Oxley

Obama Endorses Sarbanes-Oxley Reform To Make Small IPOs Easier

President Barack Obama backed the recommendations of his jobs council to amend the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations to make it easier for small companies to go public.

The jobs council, headed by GE CEO Jeff Immelt and including Sheryl Sandberg and Steve Case, found that the Sarbanes-Oxley was a key factor in reducing the number of IPOs smaller than $50 million from 80 percent of all IPOs in the 1990s to 20 percent in the 2000s.

Obama also said the "Spitzer Decree," which bans investment banks from using banking revenues to pay for research and expert analysis of publicly-traded companies, deserves reconsideration as well. The council said the rule shares the blame for the decline in IPOs among small companies.

The Crimes of Sarbanes-Oxley

No one denies that there was a corporate governance problem that came to a head with the Enron scandal. But in their zeal to pass new legislation, no one in Congress ever stepped back to consider the magnitude of the problem. Some 12,000 companies are required to file public financial statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission. According to George Benston, professor of accounting at Emory University, no more than a few dozen per year have ever been implicated in dishonest bookkeeping. But rather than simply step up enforcement by the SEC, all companies were treated as guilty until proven innocent and forced to comply with onerous new regulatory requirements.

The most burdensome provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation is section 404, which requires establishment of extensive new internal controls for financial reporting. A recent study by Financial Executives International, an industry group, found that the average compliance cost for large companies was $4.6 million, involving 35,000 hours of internal manpower, $1.3 million for external consulting and software, and additional audit fees of $1.5 million.

These numbers are probably very low. FEI admits that the complia

The President has always had the right to directly command all agencies in the executive branch.

I didn't realize that ISPs and cell phone carriers were 'agencies of the executive branch', since this executive order, section 5.2 says the government can take over any/all 'privately-owned communications resources' as they see fit.

How about immigration law? This article seems to think the President overstepped his authority with this little gem signed by Napolitano.

Ask Osama about his experience in international affairs.

Killing Bin Laden was indeed a military and intelligence coup, but in his success he is indebted to others. (He didn't build that, at least not alone.)

To Get Bin Laden, Obama Relied on Policies He Decried - By Michael Barone
The president deserves credit—but so does his predecessor.

For one thing, it apparently would not have happened without those infamous enhanced interrogation techniques — “torture,” according to critics of the Bush administration.

The enhanced interrogation techniques reportedly led to identification of the courier who eventually led our forces to bin Laden’s hiding place. Critics of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques assured us that “torture” could not produce reliable information.

Ahh. Reported by whom? Of course former members of the Bush administration. There is no single evidence that Osama was found based on "enhanced interrogation techniques", we'll have to take the torturer's words for it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/03/osama-bin-laden-was-not-caught-because-of-torture-but-in-spite-of-it.html

Ask Osama about his experience in international affairs.

Killing Bin Laden was indeed a military and intelligence coup, but in his success he is indebted to others. (He didn't build that, at least not alone.)

To Get Bin Laden, Obama Relied on Policies He Decried - By Michael Barone
The president deserves credit—but so does his predecessor.

Let’s cheerfully and ungrudgingly give credit to Barack Obama for approving the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. . . .

While we may not know all the details about and behind this operation, it’s fascinating to see how many of the things that made the success of this operation possible were not so long ago decried by many of the president’s fans and fellow partisans.

For one thing, it apparently would not have happened without those infamous enhanced interrogation techniques — “torture,” according to critics of the Bush administration.

The enhanced interrogation techniques reportedly led to identification of the courier who eventually led our forces to bin Laden’s hiding place. Critics of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques assured us that “torture” could not produce reliable information.

They were probably right that sometimes such techniques yield false information. But the bin Laden operation shows that they can also produce actionable intelligence.

You may remember that many Democrats called for criminal prosecution of CIA interrogators who were acting under orders vetted by legal counsel. Attorney General Eric Holder actually considered bringing such prosecutions.

Fortunately, he decided not to do so — fortunately for the individuals involved but fortunately also for his own reputation. Who would want to be known for prosecuting the people who helped track down bin Laden?

It has also been reported that in hunting down bin Laden our forces relied on intercepted communications. I wonder if any of them included contacts between suspected terrorists abroad and persons in the United States.

This was the “domestic wiretapping” revealed to great acclaim by the New York Times and presented as an intolerable infringement of civil liberties. Given what we know now, it’s a good thing our folks were tuning in.

Obama deserves credit also for employing the Navy SEALs, who are part of the Joint Special Operations Command. It was fashionable a few years ago to call the JSOC “Dick Cheney’s death squad” and “Cheney’s assassination team.”

The assumption behind such criticism was that Bush administration officials were using what they termed the war against terrorism as a smokescreen for persecuting domestic dissidents. But there is not a scrap of evidence that either the Bush administration or the Obama administration was doing anything of the kind. They were too busy trying to protect us.

There was criticism as well of the idea of targeting particular individuals for assassination. But, in ordering the raid on bin Laden’s compound, Obama authorized the killing of bin Laden. And no Miranda warnings first.

Smart Diplomacy (a Danish View)

Obama Regretted His ‘Muted’ Early Stance on Iran - By Jim Geraghty - September 25, 2012

This morning, The New York Times offers a lengthy look at President Obama’s relationship with leaders in the Arab world, full of revealing detail. It never quite comes out and explicitly says the president’s approach has failed, but the overall picture is withe

Ask Osama about his experience in international affairs.

Killing Bin Laden was indeed a military and intelligence coup, but in his success he is indebted to others. (He didn't build that, at least not alone.)

To Get Bin Laden, Obama Relied on Policies He Decried - By Michael Barone
The president deserves credit—but so does his predecessor.

Let’s cheerfully and ungrudgingly give credit to Barack Obama for approving the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. . . .

While we may not know all the details about and behind this operation, it’s fascinating to see how many of the things that made the success of this operation possible were not so long ago decried by many of the president’s fans and fellow partisans.

For one thing, it apparently would not have happened without those infamous enhanced interrogation techniques — “torture,” according to critics of the Bush administration.

The enhanced interrogation techniques reportedly led to identification of the courier who eventually led our forces to bin Laden’s hiding place. Critics of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques assured us that “torture” could not produce reliable information.

They were probably right that sometimes such techniques yield false information. But the bin Laden operation shows that they can also produce actionable intelligence.

You may remember that many Democrats called for criminal prosecution of CIA interrogators who were acting under orders vetted by legal counsel. Attorney General Eric Holder actually considered bringing such prosecutions.

Fortunately, he decided not to do so — fortunately for the individuals involved but fortunately also for his own reputation. Who would want to be known for prosecuting the people who helped track down bin Laden?

It has also been reported that in hunting down bin Laden our forces relied on intercepted communications. I wonder if any of them included contacts between suspected terrorists abroad and persons in the United States.

This was the “domestic wiretapping” revealed to great acclaim by the New York Times and presented as an intolerable infringement of civil liberties. Given what we know now, it’s a good thing our folks were tuning in.

Obama deserves credit also for employing the Navy SEALs, who are part of the Joint Special Operations Command. It was fashionable a few years ago to call the JSOC “Dick Cheney’s death squad” and “Cheney’s assassination team.”

The assumption behind such criticism was that Bush administration officials were using what they termed the war against terrorism as a smokescreen for persecuting domestic dissidents. But there is not a scrap of evidence that either the Bush administration or the Obama administration was doing anything of the kind. They were too busy trying to protect us.

There was criticism as well of the idea of targeting particular individuals for assassination. But, in ordering the raid on bin Laden’s compound, Obama authorized the killing of bin Laden. And no Miranda warnings first.

Smart Diplomacy (a Danish View)

Obama Regretted His ‘Muted’ Early Stance on Iran - By Jim Geraghty - September 25, 2012

This morning, The New York Times offers a lengthy look at President Obama’s relationship with leaders in the Arab world, full of revealing detail. It never quite comes out and explicitly says the president’s approach has failed, but the overall picture is withe

The answer is pretty simple, really. The Organization of the Islamic Conference is a block of 56 countries plus Palestinian Arabs that works as a major power block in the world and the UN. They have a lot of cash, a lot of votes, and a lot of influence. They are going to keep pushing for this policy goal till kingdom come. All they need is enough votes, once, however gained. Oil concessions, perhaps? Job opportunities targeted at a particular nation? Development aid? Transit rights through a certain canal? They will keep shifting strategy until they find one that works. Now they seem to be aligning with certain predispositions of the progressives in the West to ban "hate speech". If they are able to get it passed, the real fun begins. You may want to either bind a keyboard macro to type out, "PBUH", or use the Arabic word phrase ligature in Unicode.

The OIC and the Caliphate - February 26, 2011 4:00 A.M.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference is the closest thing in the modern world to a caliphate. It is composed of 57 members (56 sovereign states and the Palestinian Authority), joining voices and political heft to pursue the unitary interests of the ummah, the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims. Not surprisingly, the OIC works cooperatively with the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most extensive and important Islamist organization, and one that sees itself as the vanguard of a vast, grass-roots movement — what the Brotherhood itself calls a “civilizational” movement.

Muslims are taught to think of themselves as a community, a single Muslim Nation. “I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke,” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini famously said of his own country in 1980, even as he consolidated his power there, even as he made Iran the point of his revolutionary spear. “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah.” Muslims were not interested in maintaining the Westphalian system of nation states. According to Khomeini, who was then regarded by East and West as Islam’s most consequential voice, any country, including his own, could be sacrificed in service of the doctrinal imperative that “Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”

The OIC vs. Freedom of Expression - Their change of tactics imperils speech worldwide. - April 7, 2011 4:00 A.M.

On March 24, the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted a resolution aimed at combating “negative stereotyping” and “intolerance” against persons based on religion or belief. For the first time since 1999, this resolution does not include a condemnation of “defamation of religion,” by which the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has repeatedly sought passage of a global blasphemy law to protect Islam from criticism. This development has been heralded as a major victory for the West and human-rights organizations that have long campaigned against this attack on free speech.

The threat to freedom of expression is however, far from over, and the wording of the adopted resolution includes several worrying elements. That threats to the freedom of expression remain is also confirmed by a new OIC initiative. In a March 30 press release, the OIC promised to present a new draft resolution on the issue of “Islamophobia” at the General Assembly in September. The press release also insisted that the OIC “did not back down from its position” in the Human Rights Council. According to the OIC, it was in fact Western cou

The answer is pretty simple, really. The Organization of the Islamic Conference is a block of 56 countries plus Palestinian Arabs that works as a major power block in the world and the UN. They have a lot of cash, a lot of votes, and a lot of influence. They are going to keep pushing for this policy goal till kingdom come. All they need is enough votes, once, however gained. Oil concessions, perhaps? Job opportunities targeted at a particular nation? Development aid? Transit rights through a certain canal? They will keep shifting strategy until they find one that works. Now they seem to be aligning with certain predispositions of the progressives in the West to ban "hate speech". If they are able to get it passed, the real fun begins. You may want to either bind a keyboard macro to type out, "PBUH", or use the Arabic word phrase ligature in Unicode.

The OIC and the Caliphate - February 26, 2011 4:00 A.M.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference is the closest thing in the modern world to a caliphate. It is composed of 57 members (56 sovereign states and the Palestinian Authority), joining voices and political heft to pursue the unitary interests of the ummah, the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims. Not surprisingly, the OIC works cooperatively with the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most extensive and important Islamist organization, and one that sees itself as the vanguard of a vast, grass-roots movement — what the Brotherhood itself calls a “civilizational” movement.

Muslims are taught to think of themselves as a community, a single Muslim Nation. “I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke,” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini famously said of his own country in 1980, even as he consolidated his power there, even as he made Iran the point of his revolutionary spear. “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah.” Muslims were not interested in maintaining the Westphalian system of nation states. According to Khomeini, who was then regarded by East and West as Islam’s most consequential voice, any country, including his own, could be sacrificed in service of the doctrinal imperative that “Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”

The OIC vs. Freedom of Expression - Their change of tactics imperils speech worldwide. - April 7, 2011 4:00 A.M.

On March 24, the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted a resolution aimed at combating “negative stereotyping” and “intolerance” against persons based on religion or belief. For the first time since 1999, this resolution does not include a condemnation of “defamation of religion,” by which the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has repeatedly sought passage of a global blasphemy law to protect Islam from criticism. This development has been heralded as a major victory for the West and human-rights organizations that have long campaigned against this attack on free speech.

The threat to freedom of expression is however, far from over, and the wording of the adopted resolution includes several worrying elements. That threats to the freedom of expression remain is also confirmed by a new OIC initiative. In a March 30 press release, the OIC promised to present a new draft resolution on the issue of “Islamophobia” at the General Assembly in September. The press release also insisted that the OIC “did not back down from its position” in the Human Rights Council. According to the OIC, it was in fact Western cou

The problem areas in the American fiscal environment are pretty well known. I don't think anyone would seriously try to blame Muslims for them as it would be obvious nonsense.

FDR knew that the funding mechanism for Social Security had to change long term, and it has never been done. And please spare us from nonsense about wars and defense spending being the problem, because they aren't. Rapidly increasing social welfare spending mixed with soaring debts, and an economy that is frozen by government meddling (such as helped create the housing and mortgage meltdown) and unable to produce jobs, growth, and income, is what will push the United States over the edge, if anything.

Chart of the Week: Federal Spending on Defense vs. Entitlements

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?
Who doesn’t pay taxes, in eight charts
Public-Employee Unions Gone Wild,
The Path to Economic Disaster

And lets not forget the Euro crisis - if Europe collapses, it might very well drag down the US. Once again, it would be pretty clear what happened.

If there is a new "Hitler", he is very unlikely to come from conservative America.

Bad socialist habits coming to America: Obama's Creepy Cult of Personality

America's 'Fascist Moment'

. . . . contemporary liberalism descended from the ranks of 20th-century progressivism, and "shares intellectual roots with European fascism."

When Mr. Goldberg uses the term "liberal fascism," he is not offering a right-wing version of the left's smears. He knows it is a loaded term. What he is talking about is the historical idea of fascism: a corporatist and statist social structure that creates a deep reliance of its subjects on the government and engenders a sense of community and purpose. In American politics, this tendency toward statism has always been much more at home on the left than on the right.

It is impossible in a short review to do justice to the rich intellectual history of American liberalism that Mr. Goldberg offers to his readers. He has read widely and thoroughly, not only in the primary sources of fascism, but in the political and intellectual history written by the major historians of the subject.

Readers will learn that the very term "liberal fascism" came from the pen of H.G. Wells, the famed socialist author who delivered a speech at Oxford University in 1932 that included hosannas to both Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. "I am asking," Wells told the students, "for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis." Democracy, he argued, had to be replaced with new forms of government that would save mankind, producing a "'Phoenix Rebirth' of liberalism" that would be called "Liberal Fascism." Like the activism, experimentation, and discipline that made the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany new dynamic societies, the West too could reach such a plateau by adopting the new soft fascism that suited it best.. . . .

Indeed, America, as Mr. Goldberg writes, certainly had a "Fascist moment." It was not, however, during the current presidency, but one that extended from progressivism through the New Deal. Mr. Goldberg traces the American roots of liberal fascism to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, who saw i

The problem areas in the American fiscal environment are pretty well known. I don't think anyone would seriously try to blame Muslims for them as it would be obvious nonsense.

FDR knew that the funding mechanism for Social Security had to change long term, and it has never been done. And please spare us from nonsense about wars and defense spending being the problem, because they aren't. Rapidly increasing social welfare spending mixed with soaring debts, and an economy that is frozen by government meddling (such as helped create the housing and mortgage meltdown) and unable to produce jobs, growth, and income, is what will push the United States over the edge, if anything.

Chart of the Week: Federal Spending on Defense vs. Entitlements

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?
Who doesn’t pay taxes, in eight charts
Public-Employee Unions Gone Wild,
The Path to Economic Disaster

And lets not forget the Euro crisis - if Europe collapses, it might very well drag down the US. Once again, it would be pretty clear what happened.

If there is a new "Hitler", he is very unlikely to come from conservative America.

Bad socialist habits coming to America: Obama's Creepy Cult of Personality

America's 'Fascist Moment'

. . . . contemporary liberalism descended from the ranks of 20th-century progressivism, and "shares intellectual roots with European fascism."

When Mr. Goldberg uses the term "liberal fascism," he is not offering a right-wing version of the left's smears. He knows it is a loaded term. What he is talking about is the historical idea of fascism: a corporatist and statist social structure that creates a deep reliance of its subjects on the government and engenders a sense of community and purpose. In American politics, this tendency toward statism has always been much more at home on the left than on the right.

It is impossible in a short review to do justice to the rich intellectual history of American liberalism that Mr. Goldberg offers to his readers. He has read widely and thoroughly, not only in the primary sources of fascism, but in the political and intellectual history written by the major historians of the subject.

Readers will learn that the very term "liberal fascism" came from the pen of H.G. Wells, the famed socialist author who delivered a speech at Oxford University in 1932 that included hosannas to both Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. "I am asking," Wells told the students, "for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis." Democracy, he argued, had to be replaced with new forms of government that would save mankind, producing a "'Phoenix Rebirth' of liberalism" that would be called "Liberal Fascism." Like the activism, experimentation, and discipline that made the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany new dynamic societies, the West too could reach such a plateau by adopting the new soft fascism that suited it best.. . . .

Indeed, America, as Mr. Goldberg writes, certainly had a "Fascist moment." It was not, however, during the current presidency, but one that extended from progressivism through the New Deal. Mr. Goldberg traces the American roots of liberal fascism to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, who saw i

I'm afraid you've got things a bit wrong.

It's also no small matter that the UK has the BBC. . . . The licensing fees you pay are amply repaid not just in terms of quality programming, but also unbiased programming.

BBC chief Mark Thompson admits 'Left-wing bias'
Mark Thompson: “There was massive left-wing bias at the BBC”

That has been found more than once, by the way.

Lastly, the UK was bombed into near-nothingness. The US never has been. The closest we've come to having to reassess economically was the Great Depression. Because we never had to rebuild from scratch, we never learned the social lessons that an experience like that offers --

19 - Ruins of Charleston, 10 - Damaged Atlanta, 7 - Burned-out Richmond

Besieged, bombarded and blocked from commerce, Charleston suffered greatly in the war. Sidney Andrews, a Northern reporter in Charleston at war’s end described it as “a city of desolation, of vacant homes, of widowed women, of deserted warehouses, of weed wild gardens ... of miles of grass grown streets.” - - The Destruction of Charleston in the Civil War

Ruins seen from the State Capitol - Columbia, SC, 1865

It's not socialism per-se that we're afraid of -- it's the idea that we aren't in control of our own fate. That we aren't individuals, but actually part of something more than ourselves, . . . .

Religion takes a back seat in Western Europe
The Europe Syndrome and the Challenge to American Exceptionalism

For us, socialism is a sign of weakness;

Soviet internationalist socialist "weakness" on parade
Chinese internationalist socialist "weakness" on parade
North Korean internationalist socialist "weakness" on parade
Polish internationalist socialist "weakness" on parade
Czeck internationalist socialist "weakness" on parade
German internationalist socialist "weakness" on parade (Same tailor as below?)
German Nationalist Socialist "weakness" on parade (Same tailor as above?)

The Big Lies of the Soviet Union

I was recently re-reading John Gross’s marvelously entertaining Oxford Book of Parodies when I came across a 1938 passage from George Orwell that attempts to explain the strangeness of

>>>or that they've lost $15,000 in loans to Goldman Sachs and Solyndra

Thanks for demoing how easily people are duped. Solyndra went out of business (as did almost all the other green companies that received loans). That money is GONE and the taxpayers will never get it back. As for Goldman & other banks they still exist but they also still owe the U.S. Treasury (i.e. the taxpayers' treasury) trillions of dollars.

And no TARP was not paid back. I wish people would stop repeating that myth. All the companies did was borrow money from a *different* loan program and then use that second loan to pay off the original loan. It's called accounting trickery. Similar to how Hollywood claims no movie ever makes a profit.

READ: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/242731/did-tarp-money-really-get-paid-back-kevin-d-williamson#

you are joking right? I havent seen anyone say this is a good movie, or that it is representitive of how we feel. even the president apologized for the movie (he shouldnt have) Im not even religious, but this movie is a joke, bad production quality and just a horrible horrible movie that never should have been made. I havent seen muslims condemn anything, in fact I have seen more embassies get attacked in the past few days...Where are these muslims that are speaking out???

His name is Terry Jones and he's calling himself a Christian.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/316612/terry-jones-and-assault-us-missions-daniel-pipes
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/13/anti-islam-minister-terry-jones-says-he-feels-no-responsibility-for-u-s-ambassador-s-death.html

I'm not talking about politicians like the President apologizing. Of course the US government is going to do that. I'm talking about putting ordinary Christians on TV to set the record straight so that the Muslim community can understand the views in that film are not mainstream views and not only that but that the film itself is hate speech. It might be free speech but it's as much hate speech as holocaust denial and racist video games.

Oh yeah, because it pays sooo well. Sorry you hate your life. Maybe you should chop off a few fingers and jump on that sweet sweet gravy train.

Granted, OP was probably being a fascist dick in making the comment, considering the assholish phrasing, but whether they meant to or not, they actually made an excellent point - too much income from a job will substantially decrease the amount of disability assistance this individual receives, likely to the detriment of their livelihood.

It's not a 1:1 ratio; getting a higher-paying job (or even a raise) can totally fuck the impoverished over financially.

Real income dropping? Like the increase in cost of healthcare due to legislation? My company just announced that healthcare premiums are going up by 50% because of the new laws. http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20120823/NEWS0107/208230314/
War on the thinnest of pretenses against people who did nothing to us? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/world/middleeast/obama-threatens-force-against-syria.html
Greedy self serving bastards line their pockets with tax payers money while politicians blow them? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/obama-fundraises-with-players-in-solyndra-scandal/ http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314694/bad-worse-obama-s-gm-bailout-michael-barone

I won't mention the shift in wealth or the smoking hole in the economy because you can't pin that on the 4 or 8 years of any one president much less any one party.

Before you reply, did I say anything good about Republicans? But stop calling the kettle black if you are the pot. BOTH parties should be fired. Don't get blinded and think that only the right are corrupt assholes.

Your claims are wrong and your reasoning specious (not to mention that the US only waterboarded three people, the last in 2003*).

In short, you're completely wrong.

At the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, a.k.a. Tokyo Trials, . . . only seven Japanese war criminals were executed. Every one of them was convicted of either being complicit in or directly comitting atrocities and murder on a grand scale.

. . . it seems pretty clear we executed these men for charges that far surpass concerns about waterboarding.

Now it does appear that various forms of torture were a consideration in some of these cases that resulted in death sentences at the Tokyo Trials. Media Matters marshals some evidence to that effect, but again waterboarding was presented as just one of several types of torture, many of which appear to be more severe. (Media Matters also appears to cavalierly lump all forms of Japanese water torture together and, say, forced ingestion of water — an execution method centuries ago — is obviously very different from waterboarding.) . . . . There are examples of war criminals convicted of waterboarding, even alongside convictions for a number of harsh forms of torture, who were not put to death.

In no way, shape or form could waterboarding be said to have been the predominate reason any one of these people were hanged. Begala suggesting people at the Tokyo Trials were hanged for waterboarding is akin to noting that Charles Manson is guilty of trespassing on Roman Polanski’s home and then insisting that’s the reason he got a death sentence. (Not that I’m suggesting trespassing and waterboarding are equivalent crimes; I’m just making a logical point.) --- Sorry, Paul Begala — You’re Still Wrong

More:

Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It’s Not Torture While Insisting It Is
The Waterboarding Trail to bin Laden
Waterboarding and Torture
Regarding Those Claims About WWII Waterboarding

* Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA

Your claims are wrong and your reasoning specious (not to mention that the US only waterboarded three people, the last in 2003*).

In short, you're completely wrong.

At the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, a.k.a. Tokyo Trials, . . . only seven Japanese war criminals were executed. Every one of them was convicted of either being complicit in or directly comitting atrocities and murder on a grand scale.

. . . it seems pretty clear we executed these men for charges that far surpass concerns about waterboarding.

Now it does appear that various forms of torture were a consideration in some of these cases that resulted in death sentences at the Tokyo Trials. Media Matters marshals some evidence to that effect, but again waterboarding was presented as just one of several types of torture, many of which appear to be more severe. (Media Matters also appears to cavalierly lump all forms of Japanese water torture together and, say, forced ingestion of water — an execution method centuries ago — is obviously very different from waterboarding.) . . . . There are examples of war criminals convicted of waterboarding, even alongside convictions for a number of harsh forms of torture, who were not put to death.

In no way, shape or form could waterboarding be said to have been the predominate reason any one of these people were hanged. Begala suggesting people at the Tokyo Trials were hanged for waterboarding is akin to noting that Charles Manson is guilty of trespassing on Roman Polanski’s home and then insisting that’s the reason he got a death sentence. (Not that I’m suggesting trespassing and waterboarding are equivalent crimes; I’m just making a logical point.) --- Sorry, Paul Begala — You’re Still Wrong

More:

Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It’s Not Torture While Insisting It Is
The Waterboarding Trail to bin Laden
Waterboarding and Torture
Regarding Those Claims About WWII Waterboarding

* Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA

Your claims are wrong and your reasoning specious (not to mention that the US only waterboarded three people, the last in 2003*).

In short, you're completely wrong.

At the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, a.k.a. Tokyo Trials, . . . only seven Japanese war criminals were executed. Every one of them was convicted of either being complicit in or directly comitting atrocities and murder on a grand scale.

. . . it seems pretty clear we executed these men for charges that far surpass concerns about waterboarding.

Now it does appear that various forms of torture were a consideration in some of these cases that resulted in death sentences at the Tokyo Trials. Media Matters marshals some evidence to that effect, but again waterboarding was presented as just one of several types of torture, many of which appear to be more severe. (Media Matters also appears to cavalierly lump all forms of Japanese water torture together and, say, forced ingestion of water — an execution method centuries ago — is obviously very different from waterboarding.) . . . . There are examples of war criminals convicted of waterboarding, even alongside convictions for a number of harsh forms of torture, who were not put to death.

In no way, shape or form could waterboarding be said to have been the predominate reason any one of these people were hanged. Begala suggesting people at the Tokyo Trials were hanged for waterboarding is akin to noting that Charles Manson is guilty of trespassing on Roman Polanski’s home and then insisting that’s the reason he got a death sentence. (Not that I’m suggesting trespassing and waterboarding are equivalent crimes; I’m just making a logical point.) --- Sorry, Paul Begala — You’re Still Wrong

More:

Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It’s Not Torture While Insisting It Is
The Waterboarding Trail to bin Laden
Waterboarding and Torture
Regarding Those Claims About WWII Waterboarding

* Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA

Well we all can't be NPR listeners I guess... But Daily Show viewers did rank right under them for answering the most questions regarding domestic and international issues correctly..

Always happy to go a round: The Truth-O-Meter Says: False

or two: Rush, ‘H&C’ Audiences Smarter Than ‘Daily Show’ Viewers

when I have time.

By the way, if you like NPR, you might find this program interesting. Host is a law professor, author, worked in public broadcasting for 10 years, and hosted his own national NPR series. Lots of interesting guests. Poetry segments are on Fridays. Nationally syndicated program.

Romney has a clearly laid out plan for what he wants to do. You may not like the plan, but he has one.

As numerous sources have pointed out, his proposals do not work mathematically. Coming to even this conclusion is problematic because Romney maintains his budget proposals cannot be scored". I don't think this satisfies a common-sense definition of a "clear plan."

Meanwhile Obama and Democrats in general have failed to produce a budget for THREE FUCKING YEARS. How can you vote for that kind of nonsense?

The OMB submits a budget recommendation every year. The House also passes a budget every year, the last one was passed under the Budget Control Act.

You're confusing a knock against Senate Democrats with a knock against Barack Obama, a complaint which is itself baseless and relying on semantics.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277040/strange-facts-about-america-s-poor-robert-rector

some high-lights;

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Fully 92 percent of poor households have a microwave; two-thirds have at least one DVD player and 70 percent have a VCR.

Nearly 75 percent have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.

Four out of five poor adults assert they were never hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food.

Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.

Half have a personal computer; one in seven have two or more computers.

More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as Xbox or PlayStation.

Just under half — 43 percent — have Internet access.

A third have a widescreen plasma or LCD TV.

One in every four has a digital video recorder such as TiVo.

Does this mean there are no truly poor? no, of course not, it does show that we have different ideas of what is classified as poor.

Or you think having the highest infant mortality rate is a sign of a good health care?

Stop perpetuating this lie. The IMR is high because of differences in definitions of "live births" from country to country: http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/253314/debunking-richard-cohen-how-does-us-health-care-system-stack-thomas-p-mill

You obviously weren't living the same life as the majority of Americans during Reagan's administration. Even left leaning CNN and MSN give Reagan some credit here.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/06/news/economy/obama_reagan_recovery/index.htm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276826/obama-vs-reagan-deroy-murdock
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576530412322260784.html
http://money.msn.com/investing/election-12-obama-vs-reagan-bloomberg.aspx

Ah yes, the man who routinely wins a two thirds margin despite his district not having voted for a GOP president since 1984 is disliked by his constituents.

I think you must be mistaken. I don't see that any Republicans voted for it in the Senate. Here is the list of sponsors of the bill. Charie Rangel - Democrat, and 40 co-sponsors. I doubt that any are Republicans.

. . . .it seems that some might need a refresher course on the history of Obamacare’s enactment. Reconciliation didn’t play a small role in Obamacare’s passage, as has been suggested. Without reconciliation, Obamacare would not have become law at all. It’s true that the main Obamacare structure was passed by the Senate in December 2009 under normal rules for legislative consideration. That’s because Democrats at that time had 60 votes (including two independent senators who caucus with them). They didn’t need to resort to reconciliation to pass the bill as long as all 60 of their senators stuck together and supported passage, which they did.

But then Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate race in January 2010; the Democrats lost their 60-vote supermajority and could no longer close off debate on legislation without the help of at least one Republican senator.

At that point, the president and his allies had two choices. They could compromise with Republicans and bring back a bill to the Senate that could garner a large bipartisan majority. Or they could ignore the election results in Massachusetts and pull an unprecedented legislative maneuver, essentially switching from regular order to reconciliation at the eleventh hour, thereby bypassing any need for Republican support. As they had done at every other step in the process, the Democrats chose the partisan route. They created a separate bill, with scores and scores of legislative changes that essentially became the vehicle for a House-Senate conference on the legislation. That bill was designated a reconciliation bill. Then they passed the original Senate bill through the House on the explicit promise that it would be immediately amended by this highly unusual reconciliation bill, which then passed both the House and Senate a few days later, on an entirely party-line vote. - - The Reconciliation Option

The Democrats own Obamacare, which may not be good news for them.

Poll: Obamacare Still a Huge Issue for the Voters This Fall - By Grace-Marie Turner - July 19, 2012 1:26 P.M.

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll dives into public opinion on Obamacare following the Supreme Court decision and finds opposition to the law virtually unchanged from when it was enacted in 2010, with about half disapproving and one-third supporting the law.

And those who strongly disapprove (36 percent) continue to significantly outnumber those who strongly approve (14 percent) of the law.

Support for repeal also remains strong: 61 percent of those polled say they want Congress to repeal the individual mandate (27 percent) or the entire law (34 percent). Only 15 percent want to keep the law as it is.

I think you must be mistaken. I don't see that any Republicans voted for it in the Senate. Here is the list of sponsors of the bill. Charie Rangel - Democrat, and 40 co-sponsors. I doubt that any are Republicans.

. . . .it seems that some might need a refresher course on the history of Obamacare’s enactment. Reconciliation didn’t play a small role in Obamacare’s passage, as has been suggested. Without reconciliation, Obamacare would not have become law at all. It’s true that the main Obamacare structure was passed by the Senate in December 2009 under normal rules for legislative consideration. That’s because Democrats at that time had 60 votes (including two independent senators who caucus with them). They didn’t need to resort to reconciliation to pass the bill as long as all 60 of their senators stuck together and supported passage, which they did.

But then Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate race in January 2010; the Democrats lost their 60-vote supermajority and could no longer close off debate on legislation without the help of at least one Republican senator.

At that point, the president and his allies had two choices. They could compromise with Republicans and bring back a bill to the Senate that could garner a large bipartisan majority. Or they could ignore the election results in Massachusetts and pull an unprecedented legislative maneuver, essentially switching from regular order to reconciliation at the eleventh hour, thereby bypassing any need for Republican support. As they had done at every other step in the process, the Democrats chose the partisan route. They created a separate bill, with scores and scores of legislative changes that essentially became the vehicle for a House-Senate conference on the legislation. That bill was designated a reconciliation bill. Then they passed the original Senate bill through the House on the explicit promise that it would be immediately amended by this highly unusual reconciliation bill, which then passed both the House and Senate a few days later, on an entirely party-line vote. - - The Reconciliation Option

The Democrats own Obamacare, which may not be good news for them.

Poll: Obamacare Still a Huge Issue for the Voters This Fall - By Grace-Marie Turner - July 19, 2012 1:26 P.M.

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll dives into public opinion on Obamacare following the Supreme Court decision and finds opposition to the law virtually unchanged from when it was enacted in 2010, with about half disapproving and one-third supporting the law.

And those who strongly disapprove (36 percent) continue to significantly outnumber those who strongly approve (14 percent) of the law.

Support for repeal also remains strong: 61 percent of those polled say they want Congress to repeal the individual mandate (27 percent) or the entire law (34 percent). Only 15 percent want to keep the law as it is.

Sorry - I didn't realize you assumed a reality where corruption and mismanagement were unheard of in a giant project. The reason I called it $100+ billion is we are dealing with transforming miles of coastline. And not just the coastline - but 1-2 miles inland for the infrastructure. Have you even looked at the scale of the port facilities in and around New Orleans? The project would be an order of magnitude bigger than the Big Dig and I scaled appropriately - from real-world numbers.

Yes - all at the same time. Bare - not much grows there so it's a lot of surface rock. However, it isn't perfectly smooth, so you get large areas of shallow march in the depressions. I also like the hand-waving "we'll drain it!" Draining thousands of square miles and making it ready for farming may be beyond our ability. Look how hard it was to dig the Panama Canal. Or, watch a documentary on building the oil industry in Alaska. Making a single road to the fields was a nightmare and you want to transform the entire landscape.

You are also off by orders of magnitude for your migration stats. Moving within a city, or even the next city over is not a migration. According to this article 2 million left California over 10 years. That's 200k/year and California has 12% of the US population. So we get 1.8 million as a rough estimate - far below your tens of millions.

Urban decay has not been successfully ignored. It is being ignored - and forcing cities to consider bankruptcy. I'm sure all the people who will lose their jobs or get pay cuts won't successfully ignore the problem.

Good luck with your hand-waving away of big problems - I hope you live somewhere away from the coast and pack heat to protect what's yours from those who don't have anything and are starving. (Also: Read up on the Dust Bowl - it caused hundreds of thousands of people to move and was one of the most horrible times in our nation's history.)

First, neither the National Review nor Mother Jones seem to think TARP has actually been paid back.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/242731/did-tarp-money-really-get-paid-back-kevin-d-williamson
http://www.motherjones.com/bailout/2009/06/big-bank-bamboozle

Second, TARP itself was only a part of the bailout, estimates on total money given to the banks by the Federal Reserve run as high as $29 trillion.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45674390/The_Size_of_the_Bank_Bailout_29_Trillion

So, yes, it does help to "read and understand the news instead of merely believing what you wish were true". You should try it sometime.

Well good luck with getting people to pay exorbitant worker salaries to warehousing labor where cheap temporary laborers will suffice. Also that Super Saver shipping by the USPS sure isn't making the postal service any money... http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/310002/usps-prepares-default-reform-stalls-robert-verbruggen

Above posted by your local Republicantard shill.

You have no data to prove me wrong.
You have no argument to prove me wrong.
So name calling is what you go with? Do even 5th graders respect that?
What might the great "Republicantard shill" Abraham Lincoln say? - Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

They Don’t Know Us

President Obama is a crony, just like George Bush. He is idolized by the left for his charisma and as a result of his ability to move people with populist rhetoric. But he is a crony too. His cabinet is full of ex-JP Morgan and ex-Goldman Sachs employees and his regulatory efforts have padded big businesses. His bailouts of the banks fattened the bonuses of Wall Street. To say he is not a crony is to ignore facts, which is a tendency of the American public as a whole.

Note that I have not endorsed his contender, because he is terrible as well. But people- open your eyes. Government is corrupt too. Men are not angels!

We do have a poverty problem. But neither Republican nor Democrat policies will fix it. Democrats think that giving poor people free money will fix poverty. Republicans think that giving rich people free money will fix poverty. How about giving nobody free money? Redistribution of wealth upwards does not work, and redistribution of wealth downwards does not work. If anything, the government should give entrepreneurs free money. So long as we live in a country where the government siphons enormous sums of money from productive people, we will have poverty. And so long as the people think that bigger government can fix systemic, structural issues in an economy, our future will look bleaker and bleaker.

I recommend reading and listening to Thomas Sowell, who debunks these issues with impressive clarity. One of my favorite points of his regards foodstamps and starvation in general. He talks about his youth and how he had to work to feed himself, or he would literally starve. It's not exactly the same today.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273368/political-poverty-thomas-sowell

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279037/hunger-hoax-thomas-sowell

"We have now reached the point where the great majority of the people living below the official poverty level have such things as air conditioning, microwave ovens, either videocassette recorders or DVD players, and either cars or trucks.

Why are such people called “poor”? Because they meet the arbitrary criteria established by Washington bureaucrats. Depending on what criteria are used, you can have as much official poverty as you want, regardless of whether it bears any relationship to reality." -Thomas Sowell

President Obama is a crony, just like George Bush. He is idolized by the left for his charisma and as a result of his ability to move people with populist rhetoric. But he is a crony too. His cabinet is full of ex-JP Morgan and ex-Goldman Sachs employees and his regulatory efforts have padded big businesses. His bailouts of the banks fattened the bonuses of Wall Street. To say he is not a crony is to ignore facts, which is a tendency of the American public as a whole.

Note that I have not endorsed his contender, because he is terrible as well. But people- open your eyes. Government is corrupt too. Men are not angels!

We do have a poverty problem. But neither Republican nor Democrat policies will fix it. Democrats think that giving poor people free money will fix poverty. Republicans think that giving rich people free money will fix poverty. How about giving nobody free money? Redistribution of wealth upwards does not work, and redistribution of wealth downwards does not work. If anything, the government should give entrepreneurs free money. So long as we live in a country where the government siphons enormous sums of money from productive people, we will have poverty. And so long as the people think that bigger government can fix systemic, structural issues in an economy, our future will look bleaker and bleaker.

I recommend reading and listening to Thomas Sowell, who debunks these issues with impressive clarity. One of my favorite points of his regards foodstamps and starvation in general. He talks about his youth and how he had to work to feed himself, or he would literally starve. It's not exactly the same today.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273368/political-poverty-thomas-sowell

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279037/hunger-hoax-thomas-sowell

"We have now reached the point where the great majority of the people living below the official poverty level have such things as air conditioning, microwave ovens, either videocassette recorders or DVD players, and either cars or trucks.

Why are such people called “poor”? Because they meet the arbitrary criteria established by Washington bureaucrats. Depending on what criteria are used, you can have as much official poverty as you want, regardless of whether it bears any relationship to reality." -Thomas Sowell

My goodness . . . I thought dissent was the highest civic duty, but it looks like "Occupy" partisans don't tolerate dissent. Will wonders ever cease?

But, here again is the link: Occupy Wall Street Blotter

What's the betting that protesters get way higher average sentences than the guy who has had too much to drink and is causing a nuisance in a public place.

Given the range of criminal behavior that the "Occupy" protesters have been involved with the chances are pretty high.

Of course members of the "Occupy" movement have engaged in far more serious behavior: Occupy Wall Street Blotter

So they will not be paid to teach as much as they will be paid to lead meetings... just what we need in the education system is less teaching and more meetings -not-

It really all depends on what you need from the "education" system, doesn't it?

Teachers’ Unions 101: ‘A’ Is for ‘Agitation’

It may not be politically correct point out uncomfortable things about our own country, and you may get all offended and call it "America Bashing," but it is reality.

You're joking! America bashing is at the heart of much political correctness, especially among "progressives" . . . "Oh Gawwd Peak Oil". (nudge, nudge)

On your second point, I have yet to meet a non-feminist who doesn't consider this a blatant attempt to destroy a random guy's life for embarrassing the US government.

If that is true, you need to get out more, and maybe take in some news and views from other sources that don't play to your prejudices. And you should be clear, Assange isn't a "random guy", far from it. No suprise he picked Ecuador though.

I have 100% confidence he has no shot whatsoever at ever getting anything even remotely resembling a fair trial, either in Sweden or in the US.

Don't be ridiculous. I doubt that even half of the people eligible for jury duty have heard of Assange in either country. Fair trial, no problem.

I only hope "we" let him go down in a Swedish court rather than one of our sham anti-terrorism tribunals

Rape isn't terrorism. Espionage isn't terrorism. Copyright infringement isn't terrorism. Military tribunals were fine to try American and German spies and saboteurs in WW2, they are perfectly adequate for trying Al Qaeda members. The only sham is your understanding.

On your second point, I have yet to meet a non-feminist who doesn't consider this a blatant attempt to destroy a random guy's life for embarrassing the US government.

If that is true, you need to get out more, and maybe take in some news and views from other sources that don't play to your prejudices. And you should be clear, Assange isn't a "random guy", far from it. No suprise he picked Ecuador though.

I have 100% confidence he has no shot whatsoever at ever getting anything even remotely resembling a fair trial, either in Sweden or in the US.

Don't be ridiculous. I doubt that even half of the people eligible for jury duty have heard of Assange in either country. Fair trial, no problem.

I only hope "we" let him go down in a Swedish court rather than one of our sham anti-terrorism tribunals

Rape isn't terrorism. Espionage isn't terrorism. Copyright infringement isn't terrorism. Military tribunals were fine to try American and German spies and saboteurs in WW2, they are perfectly adequate for trying Al Qaeda members. The only sham is your understanding.

On your second point, I have yet to meet a non-feminist who doesn't consider this a blatant attempt to destroy a random guy's life for embarrassing the US government.

If that is true, you need to get out more, and maybe take in some news and views from other sources that don't play to your prejudices. And you should be clear, Assange isn't a "random guy", far from it. No suprise he picked Ecuador though.

I have 100% confidence he has no shot whatsoever at ever getting anything even remotely resembling a fair trial, either in Sweden or in the US.

Don't be ridiculous. I doubt that even half of the people eligible for jury duty have heard of Assange in either country. Fair trial, no problem.

I only hope "we" let him go down in a Swedish court rather than one of our sham anti-terrorism tribunals

Rape isn't terrorism. Espionage isn't terrorism. Copyright infringement isn't terrorism. Military tribunals were fine to try American and German spies and saboteurs in WW2, they are perfectly adequate for trying Al Qaeda members. The only sham is your understanding.

Nah, Americans are stupid all year long.

You must understand that American stupidity is a moderate stupidity, plumbing neither the heights nor depths of what is achieved in European civilization and many of its offshoots. (I expect you'll take this news sitting down.)

Well..if the US government (stuxnet for example) can do it (with no declaration of war), then it mustn't be illegal right? /ironyoff

If Iran can do it without a declaration of war, then it mustn't be illegal, right? (After all, what is a string of assassinations and a little planning for genocide among friends? No doubt the Iranians are envious because they didn't think of it first.)

At least they have a clear vision for the future, one that seems remarkably free of Jews in the Middle East.

"almost certainly help".... do you realize how little the existing gun registries have done to actually help solve crimes? Canada had a long gun registry for 14 years - it was never used to solve a single murder.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291304/death-long-gun-registry-john-r-lott-jr#

All this is ever going to tell you is that "hey, this guy was shot with a gun someone reported stolen five years ago." Just like almost every other gun used to shoot someone was.

That assuming that the stamping is still legible. With current technology, after just a few hundred or thousand rounds through the gun (ie, one or two trips to the range), half of the case stampings were illegible.

...except with goals that are in line with the most public good, curing disease for example...

And thus socialism always fails. As Justice Scalia sagely observed, "It is the first instinct of power to protect power."* The goal of your hypothetical socialized pharma industry would not be to cure disease. It would be to collect and broker power. It would be to make the rich richer under the auspices of protecting the poor. Some individuals are very good at being altruistic. Governments are not. The people who wrote our Constitution understood that and put in a bunch of roadblocks to prevent the federal government from getting too big and powerful. We have systematically dismantled those roadblocks---usually under the auspices of protecting the little guy---and thus managed to subjugate the little guy we pretend to protect.

*What, you want a cite? Okay. Here. Read this dissent if you've been wringing your hands about the recent opinion overturning campaign finance limits.

You are constantly spewing new lies in your continued ...And again you keep bashing actual scientists ... You are basically admitting that this is all about politics to you, and that you are denying simple scientific facts because you are worried what someone might do about them.

Looks like you'll never get it. I am an actual scientist. I have no problem supporting science that's science. It's great. They are facts. You can rely on them. You can reproduce results. You can plan the future around them. Something I make a great deal of money doing.

Back in the early 1980s I did the many years of study to understand this stuff. I managed to pull up his paper in an effort to support him in the Goddard library (now online as I sent to you). I couldn't support his science with a good conscience for the reasons I outlined before. I.e. "sun heats us up, we get warm, later we get CO2" to "more CO2 means we get more heat". That could be, however he hasn't proved it. He also won't consider anything else. I honestly think he's wrong. What I told you were not lies. They are fact, some by very respected news and science outlets. You have chosen to ignore them too. I thought for sure if you bothered to look up mars and the disappearing CO2 that you would capitulate. Hard to deny what you can see with your own eyes. I bet you chose to not even look. As for politics, I addressed it simply because the left has chosen to combine science with politics (which is predictable - http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228752/comrade-lysenko-copenhagen/alex-alexiev#). You get bad science when that happens. That with scientists that produce papers with results that cannot be duplicated.... because it's crap in an effort to get yet another grant, it's bad. Seems like the NY Times picks up these crap studies all the time and publishes them. Sometimes I can't believe we made it to the moon. Yet I saw it them do it. BTW, I really don't care if you think we never made it there. Seems like I'm hearing that crap from young people more and more.

So I'm giving up on you. One day I sincerely hope you understand the truth. If you don't, that's ok too. Just don't pretend that you know what you are talking about, because you don't.

>In case you haven't heard one of Obama's admins was selling guns to drug dealers in Mexico,

In 2006.

When Obama was secretly President.

God damn him and his time machine.

--
BMO

Predictable.

Fast & Furious Was . . . Bush’s Fault

I was only able to take in parts of Attorney General Eric Holder’s just-completed Senate testimony. But that was enough to see that “Bush did it” is going to be the Democrats’ excuse for the inexcusable “Fast & Furious” operation conducted by ATF on the Obama administration’s watch.

On the Obama administration’s watch. That is the biggest problem with the Democrats’ strategy. Fast & Furious did not begin until 2009, months after the end of the Bush administration. Given that, one might think that even today’s Democrats would be unable with a straight face to lay this disaster at the feet of Obama’s predecessor. But then one wouldn’t know today’s Democrats.

The key to their strategy is conflating two very different programs: Operation Fast & Furious and a Bush era ATF initiative known as “Operation Wide Receiver.”

F&F Keeps Getting Worse

>In case you haven't heard one of Obama's admins was selling guns to drug dealers in Mexico,

In 2006.

When Obama was secretly President.

God damn him and his time machine.

--
BMO

Predictable.

Fast & Furious Was . . . Bush’s Fault

I was only able to take in parts of Attorney General Eric Holder’s just-completed Senate testimony. But that was enough to see that “Bush did it” is going to be the Democrats’ excuse for the inexcusable “Fast & Furious” operation conducted by ATF on the Obama administration’s watch.

On the Obama administration’s watch. That is the biggest problem with the Democrats’ strategy. Fast & Furious did not begin until 2009, months after the end of the Bush administration. Given that, one might think that even today’s Democrats would be unable with a straight face to lay this disaster at the feet of Obama’s predecessor. But then one wouldn’t know today’s Democrats.

The key to their strategy is conflating two very different programs: Operation Fast & Furious and a Bush era ATF initiative known as “Operation Wide Receiver.”

F&F Keeps Getting Worse

State ‘Death Panels’ Attributable to Single-Payer

It is almost unbelievable that everyone doesn't realize that government run healthcare is a panacea, isn't it?

State ‘Death Panels’ Attributable to Single-Payer
Carolina Man Battling Breast Cancer May Have to Pay After Denied Treatment
Letter noting assisted suicide raises questions
Oregon Tells Patients State Will Pay for Assisted Suicide, Not Health Care

Does everybody in the UK understand that?

Elderly dying due to 'despicable age discrimination in NHS'

Some people will believe anything despite the evidence, eh?

Try this instead, as it was the subject.