Slashdot Mirror

rather than any principled stance. I base that on what little I can find on his voting record.

Still, the GOP has been pretty pro-surveillance (not that the Dems have been helping in that regard, even Bernie's voted on the wrong side at times). Still, he's back in line. Maybe Pence is. Does anyone have any recent discussion on Pence's stance on stuff like warrantless wiretapping?

Yes, Republicans used their only African-American senator, Time Scott, to speak for Jeff Sessions. No big surprise that he is supporting his party.

Saying that Corretta Scott King was thanking Jeff Sessions for the Rosa Parks Library is rather misleading. She was just acknowledging his presence. There was no thank you in the speech to Jeff Sessions. He was just acknowledged as being there along with all the other notable people in attendance. She was given a list of names to read for the opening of the library; his name was on the list. If you actually watch the video she has to pause and force herself to even read the name and she does not look happy about it.

Jeff Sessions was not liked by Coretta Scott King, you can read her letter for yourself:

https://www.documentcloud.org/...

Sean Spicer said “I can only hope that if she was still with us today, that after getting to know him and to see his record and his commitment to voting and civil rights, that she would” regret her opposition. In some right wing news this is being used as a claim that if Coretta Scott King were alive today she would support Jeff Sessions; that is another alternative fact being put out by the right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Jeff Sessions has a 20% voting record on civil-rights according to the ACLU, which are some of the major issues it is now his job to protect. He has a 7% voting record for African-American issues according to the NAACP. Jeff Sessions has called the NAACP, the ACLU, and other civil rights groups "un-American."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Dom...

Jeff Sessions allegedly told a black attorney that the Ku Klux Klan was "OK until I found out they smoked pot." Sessions used to call a black assistant U.S. attorney that worked for him, Thomas Figures, "boy." When asked about the comment "Sessions apologized and said the remark was a joke." Personally, I don't accept the excuse every time a politician is caught making a racist statement that they were just making a joke and telling an African-American that you think the KKK is OK isn't very funny.

Jeff Sessions believes government services should only be available in English even though the US has no official language.

Jeff Sessions refused to support the removal of a racist judge who said black people "don't want to work" and that affirmative action is repugnant. Sessions said that the judge was "insensitive at worst."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

http://fortune.com/2016/11/19/...

"Secure" and "Available" are related but not synonymous.

It is possible to have a system that is secure against data exfiltration, but still susceptible to intentional corruption. I'm not saying this is necessarily true in this case, but it is certainly a possibility.

Fear of data leakage is just one of many reasons why a black market will continue to exist, even with "medical" and decriminalization. There's still a social stigma against pot and THC users (stronger in certain areas and cultures than others). I still want to see Obama reschedule it, not so much because I care about the legal status of marijuana, but more because it would really piss off Mike Pence.

She's got some fairly serious congenital health issues that might someday require an abortion of a non-viable fetus to save her life.

Mike Pence has repeatedly stated, and even voted for measures, which protect the right for a mother to have an abortion when her life is at risk.

The left tends to twist this wording to be "health" risk which includes everything from serious medical problems to minor depression.

What I find completely batshit crazy is that both the President and VP Elect said this was a State issue, not a Federal issue. Both want to remove Federal funds from the process, and return the options to the State. If you really want abortions to be legal and funded you are free to petition your State to enact laws you agree with. Limiting Federal powers is a good thing.

- Nobody can be turned away due to pre-existing conditions.
- All medications must be covered (minus deductible) though some may require petitioning.
- No lifetime limits on care

In all fairness, Trump* has stated that he wants to keep some of those things:

http://www.ontheissues.org/201...

*I didn't vote for him, and it's obviously hard to take what he says at face value.

I actually like my congresscritter (D). The Senator who was up for election (also D) I tried to vote out. Voting straight along party lines is dumb, and voting out someone who 90% of the time voted for things I wanted and against things I despised just because they're the incumbent is equally dumb.

Here are some of his highlights source:
Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, and reinstate discharged gays. (Mar 2010)
End bulk data collection under USA PATRIOT Act. (Feb 2014) ...
Voted NO on protecting cyber security by sharing data with government. (Apr 2013)
Voted NO on terminating funding for National Public Radio. (Mar 2011)
Voted YES on delaying digital TV conversion by four months. (Mar 2009)
Member of House Committee on Science, Space & Technology. (Mar 2011)
Sponsored investing $1 billion in transportation projects. (Mar 2013)

For whatever reason the site does not mention one of the key votes he was against; he also voted down SOPA and its ilk.

Thanks to the Constitution, there are hard limits on authority, so even the most authoritarian President conceivable could not approach that level, and if a politician was of that same mold the first thing they would set their sites on would be the 22nd amendment. Something no American politician has done since its passing.

NSA, Gitmo, Iraq War etc are all examples of Presidents (from both sides) exceeding authority. I find it odd that in this day an age you have such faith in this safeguard.
Remember Hitler didn't start out gassing the Jews, it was merely going to make Germany great again. There was a long road of slowly wearing down the established processes until a tipping point was reached that the people could no longer return from. This is how extreme Authoritarianism works, and Donald Trump is displaying early signs of such behaviour ie I don't like it, they should be sued, punished, removed etc. inflammatory comments about entire groups of people based on sex, race and religion. No other western leader left or right has been this extreme since Hitler.

, people have called Trump's position on abortion authoritarian, yet his stated preference (recently anyhow) is that it should be a State rather than Federal matter, which means ceding, not increasing, authority.

Citation?
this sounds pretty authoritative to me.

Finally, that's the worst presentation of the spectrum I have yet to encounter. It assigns an arbitrary origin without identifying it as such, and conflates ideology and policy. Did you know that in terms of policy, between 2000 and 2008 the median Republican was center-left?

Ironic you say that yet provide no quantitative reference yourself?
Being a Non-American, the US democrats are as right than most other Western right parties. The conservatives in Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand etc are all pretty close to the Democrats (ie moderate right), and The Republicans are extreme right. Happy to see data that shows otherwise, by my experience disagrees with that claim.

Kaine supports public abortion funding. (Oct 2012) http://www.ontheissues.org/Sen..

Horseshit sophistry. Kaine has voted for the Hyde Amendment, who's purpose is to deny the use of public funds for abortion.

Kaine supports public abortion funding. (Oct 2012) http://www.ontheissues.org/Sen...

You're arguing semantics. Gore ran on, among other things, tax cuts[1] and increased military spending[2]. He supported the Afghanistan War AND the Iraq War[3,4]. He chose Joe Lieberman as VP, who is quite possibly the most right-leaning Democrat in the Senate in the past 40 years[5], who vehemently supported the Iraq War -- so much so that he endorsed John McCain in 2008, supports the death penalty, introduced a bill to strip US persons of their citizenship without due process, supports censorship in entertainment, games, and online. Joe Lieberman is basically George Bush with a stronger grasp of the English language.
Back to Gore: He was aggressively free-trade[6], he wanted to keep medical marijuana illegal and double down on the War on Drugs[7], and he supported a "tough on crime" policy that included expanding the death penalty, mandatory minimum sentencing, and segregated schools for youth offenders[8]. He supported extraordinary rendition (kidnapping)[9] and pushed heavily for backdoors to encryption[10] while VP.

So yes, the GP is exactly right when he says we can't be sure Gore would have been better, and that even if he had done better on some issues, he may have been far worse on others, and thus worse overall.

1 http://www.4president.us/issue...
2 http://cjonline.com/stories/08...
3 https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
4 http://www.science20.com/news_...
5 http://rightweb.irc-online.org...
6 http://www.ontheissues.org/Cel...
7 http://www.november.org/razorw...
8 http://www.ontheissues.org/Cel...
9 https://seekerblog.com/2007/09...
10 http://content.time.com/time/n...

You're arguing semantics. Gore ran on, among other things, tax cuts[1] and increased military spending[2]. He supported the Afghanistan War AND the Iraq War[3,4]. He chose Joe Lieberman as VP, who is quite possibly the most right-leaning Democrat in the Senate in the past 40 years[5], who vehemently supported the Iraq War -- so much so that he endorsed John McCain in 2008, supports the death penalty, introduced a bill to strip US persons of their citizenship without due process, supports censorship in entertainment, games, and online. Joe Lieberman is basically George Bush with a stronger grasp of the English language.
Back to Gore: He was aggressively free-trade[6], he wanted to keep medical marijuana illegal and double down on the War on Drugs[7], and he supported a "tough on crime" policy that included expanding the death penalty, mandatory minimum sentencing, and segregated schools for youth offenders[8]. He supported extraordinary rendition (kidnapping)[9] and pushed heavily for backdoors to encryption[10] while VP.

So yes, the GP is exactly right when he says we can't be sure Gore would have been better, and that even if he had done better on some issues, he may have been far worse on others, and thus worse overall.

1 http://www.4president.us/issue...
2 http://cjonline.com/stories/08...
3 https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
4 http://www.science20.com/news_...
5 http://rightweb.irc-online.org...
6 http://www.ontheissues.org/Cel...
7 http://www.november.org/razorw...
8 http://www.ontheissues.org/Cel...
9 https://seekerblog.com/2007/09...
10 http://content.time.com/time/n...

...can't politicians change their minds? Maybe she decided that carrying a gun was mostly ineffective or even made things worse overall. Not saying she did, but I know there is stuff I did 20 years ago that I wouldn't do today.

Naturally, I would hope that politicians are capable of assimilating new information and re-evaluating their positions accordingly. This is not one of those cases.

Here's a bit of salient history (search for the second instance of "San Francisco" on the page):

When I became mayor, I succeeded in passing a measure banning handguns in San Francisco, and we instituted a 90-day grace period for pistol owners to turn in their handguns without incurring penalties. At that time, I turned in my pistol.

She did not, however, give up her concealed carry license, and the ordinance in question included the usual exceptions for off-duty and retired police, etc., but also included the unusual exception for city office holders - she allowed herself the option of legally carrying again if she so desired, but not the ordinary civilian citizens of the city. Note that she has claimed that she also surrendered her CC license, but other sources have shown that to be false.

She claims to have a firm understanding of when firearms are useful and when they are not, and to have a full grasp of the 2nd Amendment, but her legislation and public comments indicate otherwise. I would classify most of her positions in both this area and in the area of national security to be objectively hypocritical and when not, they are most often at least damaging. Note that she was the original Democratic party sponsor of the PATRIOT Act in the Senate. I'll leave further research as an exercise for the reader, but if you're outside the US and not a citizen, then much of it may not interest you. To be fair, she's not all bad; for example, she has been a zealous advocate for victims' rights and supportive of LGBT civil rights issues.

I suspect that her attitude toward firearms legislation is rooted in finding Milk's body after Milk and Moscone had been assassinated. She was apparently so shaken by the events that she couldn't support herself. She was also the first to positively identify Moscone's body and announce the murders to the public. She actually saw the assassin in-between the murders, and had had a fleeting verbal exchange with him. That had to be horrifying, and I strongly suspect the impact of that day was formative of her view on firearms.

What's most interesting to me with respect to her positions on gun control is that even though the Milk & Moscone assassinations were almost surely the foundation of her views, none of her legislation, not even the handgun ban in San Francisco, would have prevented those deaths. The assassin, Dan White, was a former police officer, and they are typically excluded from most firearms restrictions, including her San Francisco ban. White used a revolver, so none of her "assault weapon" legislation/votes would have covered it. It was his police service weapon, so none of her "gun show loophole" legislation/votes would have covered it. Revolvers, of course, do not have detachable magazines, and the revolver used by White had a capacity of only five rounds, so none of her "high-capacity magazine" legislation/votes would have covered it. I wonder if at some level she's trying to compensate for a traumatic event for which she somehow feels partially responsible because she didn't stop White before he killed Milk. I don't know, maybe she's still suffering from PTSD resulting from those events, but it is entirely clear to me that her positions on gun control are based on emotion rather than a dispassionate evaluation of facts. Emotions don't belong in any decision-making, especially so for those who enact policy for the populace.

- T

Oooh... all 6 issues. This source shows 24 issues for Trump, as well as for all other candidates.

Here you go, lazy fuck: http://www.ontheissues.org/Ber...

"No, Iraq fell apart and ISIS rose because Obama prematurely pulled the plug on the stabilizing presence of the US military. That was years too soon."

But...!

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
--Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002
"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months"
-- Donald Rumsfeld, February 7, 2003
"I think it will go relatively quickly. Weeks rather than months."
-- Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003
"No one is talking about occupying Iraq for five to ten years."
-- Richard Perle, March 9, 2003

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Doonesbury_Quotes_Dick_Cheney.htm

When will people realize that no corporation ever pays taxes. Not one dime of a corporations real profits are ever taxed. Taxes are included as a business expense and figured into the price of the product. Who pays the "taxes?" the consumer of said product.

Oh, this nonsense again.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes....

To summarize what the (Conservative) economist writing for Economix relates is that the people who really study actual corporate taxes like the Treasury Department and the Tax Policy Center agree that about 80% of the burden of corporate taxes fall on capital and only 20% fall on consumers/workers.

People who argue that "consumers/workers bear the entire cost of corporate taxes, capital doesn't pay a thing" so you are doing consumers/workers a favor by slashing/eliminating corporate taxes are just shilling for capital, or are simply capitalists lying to you for their own profit.

It is notable that many of the people who talk most loudly and frequently about the virtues of eliminating corporate taxes (Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, David Koch are themselves rich men who ordinarily care nothing about helping out consumers or workers.

Ya know, instead of listening to what the politicians *say*, we could look at what the politicians *do*.

The two biggies I can think of are job outsourcing and civil rights. Let's see what Hillary has been doing for the last few years:

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
Opposes illegal immigration, but doesn’t vote to follow up. (Jun 2007)
Sponsored bill funding social services for noncitizens. (May 2006)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

Overall, a mixed bag of non-caring of our jobs and rights.

Do we want yet another president that doesn't care about the people?

I also submit that Global warming / Climate Change has been ruined by the alarmists overstating there case rather than presenting clear and accurate statistics and claims.

There is enough blame to go around all sides of the political debate. But the science was always clear. The NAS showed that there was scientific consensus in 1979, and the public was on board, until Luntz, and some ex-tobacco propagandists got at it in the mid 1990s. Their actions are a matter of public record, but for some reason most people aren't interested in the actual history, except for some historians. And the political manipulation continues. Part of that is to always accuse the other guy of exactly what you are doing.

trying to put together some sort of scandal or conspiracy, or even flat out making things up ("Obama is coming for your guns!")

Whatever your views on the issue, I find it curious that of the laundry list of nasty things the Rs said/did to smear Obama's campaign, you pick the one that was, by all metrics, objectively true.

His views prior, and up to his bid for president contrasted to...four days ago The same man who in 2008 promised among other things to increase government transparency, eliminate domestic spying, and not to go after guns...did what again? Did his part to make government more opaque, tolerated if not tacitly endorsed increased domestic spying, and went after guns at every major opportunity (often impotently).

"The Internet Association represents America’s leading Internet companies and their global community of users." - Their members are companies that would hurt without Net Neutrality.

As the article originally posted points out.

Theran pointed to the role McCarthy played in advancing a key tech-industry priority: patent reform. Under McCarthy's floor leadership, the House passed the Innovation Act 325-91 in December 2013. Tech companies hope that the bill, which is designed to cut back on frivolous lawsuits from so-called "patent trolls," will soon pass the Senate.

Also, these other votes could of his have had an impact on their decision.

It is better to spend less than tax more. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on extending AMT exemptions to avoid hitting middle-income. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes. (Dec 2007)
Taxpayer Protection Pledge: no new taxes. (Aug 2010)
No European-style VAT (value-added tax). (May 2010)
Supports the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. (Jan 2012)

Legislative transparency: post bills on Internet for a week. (Sep 2010)
Voted YES on protecting cyber security by sharing data with government. (Apr 2013)
Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio. (Mar 2011)
Voted NO on delaying digital TV conversion by four months. (Mar 2009)
Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on $23B instead of $4.9B for waterway infrastructure. (Nov 2007)
Facilitate nationwide 2-1-1 phone line for human services. (Jan 2007)
Permanent ban on state & local taxation of Internet access. (Oct 2007)
Prohibit the return of the Fairness Doctrine. (Jan 2009)

Invested lottery winnings to start deli business at age 19. (Sep 2010)
Voted YES on workforce training by state block grants & industry partners. (Mar 2013)
Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009)
Voted YES on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Repeal ObamaCare reporting requirements for small business. (Jan 2011)
Rated 14% by UFCW, indicating a pro-management voting record. (May 2012)

After all, if you're a CEO, which one is more important to you? net neutrality, or tax loopholes and your overall executive compensation package?

Hmm, Kaiser. Where have I heard that name before? Oh, I remember: in the Nixon tapes when he's discussing HMO's, which in turn created the largest rise in healthcare costs in the entire history of the United States! Well now that there is sure an unbiased source, yesiree Bob!

An Anonymous Coward does an ad hominem attack without bothering to see if his nay saying has any credibility. How useful.

You could have done a simple Google search

That's a silly thing to say - most libertarians would not advocate everybody suing everybody else for everything, because that's a crummy liberty position for all

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Environment.htm

"Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, the responsible managers and employees, should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility.

Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000 "

On the other hand there are market-based approaches that could deal with situations like these, now that we've got an Internet that require neither prior restraints on liberty nor hyperlitigiousness.

I don't understand how your market-based approach works without either regulation or lawsuits to define the market (make the polluters pay). Again, another example of why I am not a Libertarian.

The conventional media has been very very cozy towards Democrats for quite a long time now and playing a downright shouting match over the heads of Republicans. You don't have to be blind to not see it, especially when you agree with them.

Only if you're Bizzaro.

But compare media coverage around Obama's Fast and Furious to Bush's Valerie Plame.

LOL. You do know that F&F started under Bush, not Obama, right? This is like wingers blaming Clinton for Waco and Ruby Ridge, when the former happened when Clinton had only been in office a month and the latter before he was even elected.

compare coverage over Bush's "vacation presidency" from term to 9/11 and coverage over Obama's vacation days

Obama didn't stay on vacation in advance of point-blank warnings that levees would fail. You're just insulting your own intelligence with this one.

compare Haliburton scandals versus Solyndra scandals

LOL x2. You're comparing pennies on the dollar, literally. Halliburton won billions in no-bid contracts, shared blame in the Deep Horizon disaster, and invented the fracking process that's poisoning ground water. Compare that to one investment in one company that went under at the cost of a few hundred million.

Oh, and was Joe Biden the immediate former CEO of Solandra? No? Then where's your equivalency, Slick?

So, now that we've seen your Concerns, see our raise:

Media obsession with Gore's "Inventing the Internet" and other media-invented nontroversies, vs letting Bush take credit for patient's rights legislation he fucking vetoed as governor of Texas.

The media spent years dogging Clinton over Vince Foster's suicide and Whitewater. Just what do you think their response would have been if Clinton had sat on his ass reading a children's book as the nation was under attack? They would have torn his balls off, before finding out that he ignored point-blank warnings from intelligence officials that Al Queda was determined to attacked the United States, that they would do so soon, and that they might use hijacked passenger planes as weapons.

Dan Rather was shitcanned over the Bush Guard memos, nevermind that he wasn't the producer, that the memos were never proven to be forgeries, and that even if the memos were fake, they forged the truth about Bush's Guard service. Contrast that to all the journalists that were decidedly not fired over the Brietbart smear of ACORN, which did feature forged video.

Media obsession with Rev. Wright vs media's total non-interest in Rev. Hagee. The John Hagee who's endorsement McCain sought after he ran around calling Catholicism an "apostate Church" that would be "devoured by the Anti-Christ" that was represented by the "whore of Babylon".

And of course, what if Obama had been the flip flopping train wreck of incompetence that was John McCain in 2008. Would the media have let Obama skate if he confused Shiites with Sunnis half a dozen times despite campaigning as the Experience Hand At Foreign Policy? Called Petraeus the Chair of the Joint Chiefs? Went on and on about the non-existent border between Iraq and Afghanistan?

Bitch please.

Either way, if you're like me and think both major parties are full of shit and can stuff it, all I've got is Alex Jones and Infowars.com

Of course both parties are full of shit, as the media. But so is Alex Jones, and so are you. The media isn't pro-Democrat. They're pro-establishment , pro-jingoism, pro-corporate, and pro-neoliberal hacks, which is why they worship Obama and Beohner. Contempt is reserved for the hippies and the gadflys, like Kucinich and Ron Paul.

The collective has decided that it does not want nuclear.

Greens decided that they are against nuclear.

It's not carbon and not nuclear. It needs to be clean. A lot of it has to do with redirecting our economy to less carbon intensive, relocalized versions of the economy.

(never mind the other obvious problems with the 'greens' being that they are in fact socialists, collectivists, central planners pushing for price controls, exchange controls, wage controls, draft, marshal law, nationalisation, all the worst parts of authoritarian, dictatorial, tyrannical, anti-individual, anti-human, anti-free market, anti-capitalist ideology)

So the collective decided that it does not want nuclear, just like the collective decided that it does not want free market competitive capitalism, but instead wants collectivism. It's all complete nonsense and it is destroying the economy as well as the environment.

Ron Paul hates Social Security but doesn't mind collecting it. Is that a flip-flop or just outright hypocrisy?

He paid into Social Security, so he deserves to collect it. He wants there to be a way for people to opt out of it. Some people may wish to put the money toward something else instead of giving it to the government.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Social_Security.htm explains his view on this in more detail.

So no, I don't think it's hypocritical or flip-flopping. If you were forced to pay money into the program, why shouldn't you collect from it later on?

Please consult any source, like this http://www.ontheissues.org/john_kerry.htm to see a huge pile of statements which Romney would never agree with. You can still say there are no good options, but it isn't correct to say that there are no differences

Of course, having passed more of his budgets through Congress than Obama has (who can't even get Congressional Democrats to vote for his ideas in bill form), Ryan has had to be the adult in the room and actually consider the effects of things on the deficit and future entitlements.

Sigh, no.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218931-house-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote

From both articles:

White House officials said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), the sponsor of the alternative, was using Obama's top-line spending and revenue numbers as a budget proposal, without any specifics. On the House floor, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) agreed that Mulvaney's amendment was not, in fact, Obama's entire budget proposal.
"This is politics at its absolute worst: presenting something as the President's budget without the policy detail, without the explanation to the American people about what's in the President's budget," he said. "And as a result, he presents a very misleading version of what the President has asked us to do."

He’s right about the rejection. After Obama submitted his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal on Feb. 13, 2012, House Republicans put it up for a floor vote.

The result: 414-0 against.

The same thing happened a year earlier in the Senate. That vote: 97-0 against. Democrats didn’t support the plan because it has been supplanted by another deficit-reduction plan Obama had later outlined. Republican leaders demanded a vote on Obama’s budget to show that Democrats don’t support any detailed budget blueprint, according to The Hill.

Such votes are taken "just as a means of embarrassing the president and his party," said Patrick Louis Knudsen, a senior fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"Usually it’s brought up by the opposition party because they generally anticipate that a president’s budget won’t get very much support especially if it has controversial elements to it," he said.

Other experts agree. Said Steve Ellis, of Taxpayers for Common Sense: "That was pure political theater and was done to score rhetorical points."

Basically the votes were taken to score gotchas against the president. The one in the house by erasing all the details and just "basing" it on his big numbers. Of course no one would vote for that.

This VP pick shows that Romney is more interested in governing well and taking on serious issues than he is interested in short-term political gain from a couple of poll points in a swing state or two. Ryan was by far the best serious candidate for the VP job.

Paul Ryan:
Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
VVoted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011) Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan. (Mar 2011
)
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

On technology and civil liberties issues, Ryan has generally voted along party lines. Ryan opposed net neutrality bills; voted to extend the Patriot Act’s roving wiretaps and to immunize telecom companies from legal liabilities for cooperating with warrantless government surveillance. He co-sponsored a ban on internet taxes. Ryan initially approved of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which WIRED editorialized would “usher in a chilling internet censorship regime,” but backed down in the face of a pressure campaign from the internet-freedom supporters. Activists on Reddit cheered Ryan’s reversal on SOPA — and appear to have reactivated the Ryan thread now that Romney has tapped him to be vice president.

Source: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/paul-ryan-vp/

Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio.
Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance.
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet).
Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting.
Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry.
Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card.
Voted YES on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access.
Ryan co-sponsored permanently banning state & local taxation of Internet access
http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Paul_Ryan_technology.htm

On technology and civil liberties issues, Ryan has generally voted along party lines. Ryan opposed net neutrality bills; voted to extend the Patriot Act’s roving wiretaps and to immunize telecom companies from legal liabilities for cooperating with warrantless government surveillance. He co-sponsored a ban on internet taxes. Ryan initially approved of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which WIRED editorialized would “usher in a chilling internet censorship regime,” but backed down in the face of a pressure campaign from the internet-freedom supporters. Activists on Reddit cheered Ryan’s reversal on SOPA — and appear to have reactivated the Ryan thread now that Romney has tapped him to be vice president.

Source: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/paul-ryan-vp/

Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio.
Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance.
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet).
Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting.
Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry.
Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card.
Voted YES on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access.
Ryan co-sponsored permanently banning state & local taxation of Internet access
http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Paul_Ryan_technology.htm

If we're going to assume conspiracy, put down the DEA, prisons, and drug cartels as behind it too

Not too far from the truth. Considering that the DEA has the power to declare drugs to be illegal, that they are employed to track down and arrest people who possess, produce, or sell illegal drugs, and have had their power expanded more than any other law enforcement agency because of the drug war, I do not think it is some crazy conspiracy theory to think that the DEA is part of the problem here. Nor is it crazy tho think that private prisoner operators are part of the problem -- they are making billions of dollars maintaining the largest prison population in the world.

Cartels, no -- because they have no real say over laws or politics in America, not because they would fail to push for the continuation of the war on drugs if they could.

I think the real reason is simply that too many people think

Already wrong -- alcohol prohibition was the result of stupid ideas about a drug, the war on drugs is a concerted, deliberate effort to achieve certain goals. People are fed plenty of propaganda, but the politicians and businessmen with the power to continue or end the drug war are not idiots. They know what they are doing, and they know why they area doing it, and they know that their approach is not based on what is best for the American people.

I think it is a more plausible explanation than blaming alcohol and tobacco companies (and I've heard pharmaceutical companies blamed too)

Oh yeah?

unless you have evidence that it is actually happening

Well, since you asked...

http://www.drugfree.org/about/our-partners/sponsors-supporters

Note the pharmaceutical companies. By the way, here are some of the people that alcohol and tobacco companies make big campaign contributions to:

• Richard Burr (received the most money from tobacco companies), http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Richard_Burr_Drugs.htm
• Mitch McConnell (received the second most donations from tobacco companies), http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Mitch_McConnell_Drugs.htm
• George Allen (third most tobacco company donations), http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/George_Allen_Drugs.htm
• John Boehner (fourth most tobacco company donactions), http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/John_Boehner_Drugs.htm

Alcohol is a bit different, with the top recipients of alcohol industry donations having mixed voting records on drugs -- still plenty of support for military tactics, but less opposition to medical marijuana initiatives (there is a lot more to worry about, though -- let's not forget the hundreds of other prohibited drugs).

On the whole? Tobacco and pharmaceuticals are big supports of the war on drugs; alcohol companies are supportive but less so. That's just judging by a few minutes of Googling; I am sure a deeper investigation would reveal more.

If we're going to assume conspiracy, put down the DEA, prisons, and drug cartels as behind it too

Not too far from the truth. Considering that the DEA has the power to declare drugs to be illegal, that they are employed to track down and arrest people who possess, produce, or sell illegal drugs, and have had their power expanded more than any other law enforcement agency because of the drug war, I do not think it is some crazy conspiracy theory to think that the DEA is part of the problem here. Nor is it crazy tho think that private prisoner operators are part of the problem -- they are making billions of dollars maintaining the largest prison population in the world.

Cartels, no -- because they have no real say over laws or politics in America, not because they would fail to push for the continuation of the war on drugs if they could.

I think the real reason is simply that too many people think

Already wrong -- alcohol prohibition was the result of stupid ideas about a drug, the war on drugs is a concerted, deliberate effort to achieve certain goals. People are fed plenty of propaganda, but the politicians and businessmen with the power to continue or end the drug war are not idiots. They know what they are doing, and they know why they area doing it, and they know that their approach is not based on what is best for the American people.

I think it is a more plausible explanation than blaming alcohol and tobacco companies (and I've heard pharmaceutical companies blamed too)

Oh yeah?

unless you have evidence that it is actually happening

Well, since you asked...

http://www.drugfree.org/about/our-partners/sponsors-supporters

Note the pharmaceutical companies. By the way, here are some of the people that alcohol and tobacco companies make big campaign contributions to:

• Richard Burr (received the most money from tobacco companies), http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Richard_Burr_Drugs.htm
• Mitch McConnell (received the second most donations from tobacco companies), http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Mitch_McConnell_Drugs.htm
• George Allen (third most tobacco company donations), http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/George_Allen_Drugs.htm
• John Boehner (fourth most tobacco company donactions), http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/John_Boehner_Drugs.htm

Alcohol is a bit different, with the top recipients of alcohol industry donations having mixed voting records on drugs -- still plenty of support for military tactics, but less opposition to medical marijuana initiatives (there is a lot more to worry about, though -- let's not forget the hundreds of other prohibited drugs).

On the whole? Tobacco and pharmaceuticals are big supports of the war on drugs; alcohol companies are supportive but less so. That's just judging by a few minutes of Googling; I am sure a deeper investigation would reveal more.

If we're going to assume conspiracy, put down the DEA, prisons, and drug cartels as behind it too

Not too far from the truth. Considering that the DEA has the power to declare drugs to be illegal, that they are employed to track down and arrest people who possess, produce, or sell illegal drugs, and have had their power expanded more than any other law enforcement agency because of the drug war, I do not think it is some crazy conspiracy theory to think that the DEA is part of the problem here. Nor is it crazy tho think that private prisoner operators are part of the problem -- they are making billions of dollars maintaining the largest prison population in the world.

Cartels, no -- because they have no real say over laws or politics in America, not because they would fail to push for the continuation of the war on drugs if they could.

I think the real reason is simply that too many people think

Already wrong -- alcohol prohibition was the result of stupid ideas about a drug, the war on drugs is a concerted, deliberate effort to achieve certain goals. People are fed plenty of propaganda, but the politicians and businessmen with the power to continue or end the drug war are not idiots. They know what they are doing, and they know why they area doing it, and they know that their approach is not based on what is best for the American people.

I think it is a more plausible explanation than blaming alcohol and tobacco companies (and I've heard pharmaceutical companies blamed too)

Oh yeah?

unless you have evidence that it is actually happening

Well, since you asked...

http://www.drugfree.org/about/our-partners/sponsors-supporters

Note the pharmaceutical companies. By the way, here are some of the people that alcohol and tobacco companies make big campaign contributions to:

• Richard Burr (received the most money from tobacco companies), http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Richard_Burr_Drugs.htm
• Mitch McConnell (received the second most donations from tobacco companies), http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Mitch_McConnell_Drugs.htm
• George Allen (third most tobacco company donations), http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/George_Allen_Drugs.htm
• John Boehner (fourth most tobacco company donactions), http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/John_Boehner_Drugs.htm

Alcohol is a bit different, with the top recipients of alcohol industry donations having mixed voting records on drugs -- still plenty of support for military tactics, but less opposition to medical marijuana initiatives (there is a lot more to worry about, though -- let's not forget the hundreds of other prohibited drugs).

On the whole? Tobacco and pharmaceuticals are big supports of the war on drugs; alcohol companies are supportive but less so. That's just judging by a few minutes of Googling; I am sure a deeper investigation would reveal more.

Kerry wrote NONE of the PATRIOT act.
In fact, he worked hard to restrict it.
It was John ASHCROFT's team, who authored it clear back in may 2001 (i.e. BEFORE 9/11).

The real issue is that you neo-con astro-turfers are here to scream that Obama or the dems did all of the neo-cons dirty deeds.
There are PLENTY of things to find wrong with the dems and Obama.
But to keep conjuring up lies by you people does little good.
All it does is show how truly evil you neo-cons are.

BTW, I am a registered Libertarian. I vote against BOTH of your parties.
But, I really disdain you neo-cons for being some of the foulist scum on this earth.
You have more in common with Communist USSR or China, then you do with America, or the GOP.

But they still want to ban gay marriage and abortion, right? Just want to make sure we're talking about the same freedom-loving Libertarians, here.

You should really replace "Libertarians" with "Ron Paul" here. In particular, the libertarian candidate for president, Gary Johnson, supports both gay marriage and abortion rights: http://www.ontheissues.org/gary_johnson.htm Although I disagree with Ron Paul on abortion, and didn't vote for him in 2008 for that reason, his position is emotionally understandable considering his background as an obstetrician.

Libertarians are not monolithic on all the issues, which to me is a sign of health. Another noteworthy issue on which there's great diversity among LP politicians is immigration -- you see all kinds of positions ranging from Jan Brewer-style xenophobia to people advocating completely opening the borders and eliminating any government quotas or controls.

For fun and debate!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Political_positions
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm

...they had already ballooned the deficit by trillions of dollars.

No, that's not quite correct; they had not (yet) ballooned the deficit (I assume you mean debt) by "trillions" of dollars (defined as two trillion or more). He said that to Paul O'Neil in December 2002:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm

In the last year of the Clinton administration (FY 2000) the debt was 5.6 trillion. At the end of the last fiscal year before that statement, (FY 2003, ending October 1, 2002) the debt was 6.7 trillion, which is an increase of just over a single trillion. By the end of FY 2004, it was 7.3 trillion, which is closer to "trillions" increased from the beginning of the Bush administration, but not quite there (an increase of 1.7 trillion).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

If you did mean deficit, then the statement is even less true. The largest deficit under the Bush administration was for FY 2008 (because of the bailouts) at about 1.1 trillion.

However, from FY 2008 through the present (that is, the increase under Obama), the debt has gone up ~5.2 trillion dollars. That counts as "trillions." It also counts as almost a trillion dollars more than the increase in debt for the entire Bush presidency.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Check out http://www.ontheissues.org/Technology.htm#Headlines to see what each candidtae has said about technology and the environment. You can examine their positions on other issues too.

Since the HUD consolidated all of these bad loans in one place, it was like a bomb going off.

[...]

And now we have a bunch of protesters pissed off at Wall St. Huh? Perfect example of people being brainwashed by our government.

Duty calls.

Of all the misinformation you have in your post (ACORN? Really? Get thee to Glen Beck!) , these are the two most egregious, since they come from a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between government and investment banks.

First. The government does not create investment vehicles beyond government bonds. I 'm sorry, but it just doesn't. HUD did not create collateralized-debt-obligations / credit-default-swaps. That was the brain trusts on Wall Street. They were able to securitize and resecuritize these risky loans, due to deregulation of the banking industry. Actually, when it comes to the derivatives market, there aren't any regulations.

Second. No one forced anyone to buy the CDOs. While the first generation of CDOs probably was a good investments, the later generations weren't. They were so bad, that investment banks and hedge funds such as Magnatar Capital were knowingly creating CDOs that would fail, and were shorting them, all the while selling them to their clients as rock solid investments. That is fraud.

That is why people are pissed off. They're pissed off at Wall Street for crashing the economy while making billions on our troubles. They're pissed of at the government for putting policies in place since the 1980s and policies advocated by The Most Blessed, Saint Ronald of Hollywood, Peace Be Upon Him. Polices such as cutting the capital gains taxes. Removing regulations that stabilized the economy and set us on the path to become the preeminent economic power of the 20th century. Essentially, polices that punished work, and rewarded wealth. These are policies backed by Wall Street, and pushed by their lackys in Washington. These are the policies of the GOP. Just look at the charts. And while we're at it, I suggest you look at the national debt chart, and tell me who really cuts government spending.

And you know what I'm pissed off about? No one on Wall Street, is being prosecuted for fraud.

The French knew how to deal with our Wall Street problem.

I don't think you got the politics of that correct.

No, he got it right. Both major parities have censorial tendencies. Occasionally they overlap.

For example:

McCain (just the first major GOP politician I thought to google)

"I can take you to a video game being sold to our children where the object of the game is to kill police. I understand the importance of weapons, but to define that as being the major cause [of youth violence], there’s a whole lot of causes."

Following the Littleton school shootings, McCain was one of four lawmakers who wrote Clinton after the shootings to call for a close look at “the entertainment media and the violent images and message with which they are bombarding our children.”

Saying parents need clear, consistent information about entertainment products, McCain [proposed] a uniform labeling system on all movies, video games, and music products. The “21st Century Media Responsibility Act” amends the Cigarette Labeling Act to apply its warning label requirements to violent media products.

"...when we’re wiring every school and library with the Internet, each should have filtering software to filter out that stuff. We need to know why we’re robbing our children of the most precious treasure, and that’s their innocence."

The way I see it, the temptation of 'big data' is leading businesses to draw us closer to a transparent society. I, personally, would prefer to live in a world where every public official's voting record is on display, dating back to their first local government position, correlated with their publicly-voiced positions on the issues.

While it's not quite as comprehensive as what you suggest, see http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm

By and by, Chris Dodd was a pretty good Senator. He was good friends with Ted Kennedy but worked with both sides of the aisle. His stands on technology generally opposed mega-conglomerations and proposed net nuetrality legislation. In other words, from what I know about the guy, I'd say he's a friend of "our side".

What he's doing heading the MPAA, I have no idea. Then again, Jack Valenti worked in the Johnson administration. He established the completely asinine ratings system and fought to make video recording at home illegal. I think Dodd is way more clueful than Valenti was-- although at least Valenti was able to keep the government out of censoring films, which it was threatening to do at the time...

Sorry, I don't think so.

It's nice to have someone _as good as_ Feingold from a shitty place like Wisconsin...

What's your beef with Wisconsin? I mean I know a Kevin Smith movie called it worse than Hell, but what else you got?

but he's no Ron Paul.

Yeah, no shit. It's not his job to be Ron Paul. As a Democrat Feingold supports all sorts of economic policies that Republicans and Libertarians think violate individual liberty due to their naively constructed notions thereof, and he puts his money where his mouth is when it comes to keeping government from forcing religion down our throats.

For example:

http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Russell_Feingold.htm#Gun_Control

That's a total non-starter. I own guns, but I consider my right to convenience in buying more guns to be less important than my right not to be shot by a convicted felon who's been allowed to buy guns without a background check. Also, last I read the 2nd Amendment, it doesn't say anything about right to avoid inconvenience in acquiring arms.

Sorry, I don't think so.

It's nice to have someone _as good as_ Feingold from a shitty place like Wisconsin, but he's no Ron Paul.

For example:

http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Russell_Feingold.htm#Gun_Control

One example, from http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=weather/hurricane&id=6428478:

"...but US Representative Ron Paul voted "no" to a disaster recovery aid package that would help his devastated district."

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm says two contradictory(*) things:
Put 65 projects into 2006 bills, worth $4B to his district. (Dec 2007)
No on all earmarks, even those he proposes for his district. (Dec 2007)

(*) Arguably contradictory. I think that is hypocritical, but can see why he does it. Also, the 'projects' aren't necessarily earmarks... they could be statewide projects that are partially in his district.

With a straight face, yes Al Gore would have gone to war with Iraq in his first term.

The Clinton/Gore administration were hawkish on Iraq from 1993 on. The escalation of bombing radar, C2 and C3 nodes in the Northern and Southern No-fly zones were all Clinton policies. Desert Fox was a Clinton administration operation, and the Democrats were fired up in 1999 to start a war with Serbia and invaded Haiti in 1995.

Al Gore ran in 2000 as being more interventionist abroad than George W. Bush did

http://www.ontheissues.org/al_gore.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Foreign_Policy.htm#Internationalism

Following the loss in 2000, Gore went to an oppose Bush policy mode from the spring of 2002 which continues.

With a straight face, yes Al Gore would have gone to war with Iraq in his first term.

The Clinton/Gore administration were hawkish on Iraq from 1993 on. The escalation of bombing radar, C2 and C3 nodes in the Northern and Southern No-fly zones were all Clinton policies. Desert Fox was a Clinton administration operation, and the Democrats were fired up in 1999 to start a war with Serbia and invaded Haiti in 1995.

Al Gore ran in 2000 as being more interventionist abroad than George W. Bush did

http://www.ontheissues.org/al_gore.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Foreign_Policy.htm#Internationalism

Following the loss in 2000, Gore went to an oppose Bush policy mode from the spring of 2002 which continues.

He had some wonky social policies which more matched the Republican mold than the Libertarian one, such as his views on the place of religion in Government.

Really? On The Issues has Ron Paul saying "Bush's faith-based initiative is 'a neocon project'". Going further it says:
"In a 2003 statement, Paul derisively labeled Pres. Bush's faith-based initiative 'a neocon project' that 'repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare.' In 2001, he proposed legislation to 'amend' the faith-based initiative by offering a tax credit for private donations to faith-based organizations that provide social services. 'Churches should not become entangled with government subsidies and programs because truly independent religious institutions are critical to a free society,' he said". Ron Paul opposed Republican attempts to entangle churches and the government. That page has other positions of similar issues, with no mixing government and religion.

Falcon

He also ignores the biggest increase in government spending over the past 10 years--entitlement programs such as social security and Medicare. Those costs are going up due to baby boomers retiring and because health care costs have been climbing much faster than inflation.

His solution? Volunteer work by doctors to treat older people. Also, more market-oriented health care because it's 'cheaper'. Proof of this assertion? Umm...

There's plenty of proof that socialized health care is cheaper by simply looking at how much less other countries spend on their health care while still having better health statistics than us.

He puts all of the blame of higher costs on the government, ignoring the obvious increase in technology over the years that has greatly increased the costs of care due to more expensive tests and treatments that simply weren't available in the past (like MRIs and CAT scans).

See: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Health_Care.htm

"I will cut taxes--cut taxes--for 95% of all working families. In an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raising taxes on the middle-class." From here
"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." From here

Just admit that he lied to us and all will be forgiven.

No, Bush doesn't share responsibility for that incident.

"Befehl ist Befehl" is not a legal defense, this was established by the Allies at the end of World War Two at Nuremberg.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Everyone in the US military volunteered, furthermore the guys sitting in those helicopters volunteered for the Army and flight school and then tried their darnedest to get into an AH-64 because they wanted to shoot at things with that beast.

Don't blame Bush, Gore was, if anything, more hawkish in the 2000 election than Bush was and Congress voted over and over and over again from 2002-now for the war in Iraq.

Supported force in Mideast, Balkans, Haiti, not Somalia. (Oct 2000)
Gore supports vigorous intervention abroad; Bush less so. (Oct 2000)
Nation-building: preferable to WWIII, and a stunning success. (Oct 2000)

http://www.ontheissues.org/al_gore.htm