Slashdot Mirror

Slashdot should stop the Iran bashing already

So, when the Iranian government imposes yet another new repressive measure to build on its existing repressive measures against the Iranian people that result in death, mutilation, torture, and other atrocities, your concern is that people on Slashdot don't criticize - don't say harsh things against the Iranian government? I think there is a word for that, Mr. Liberty.

If you think the Iranian government is for peace, you aren't listening carefully.

All Iran is saying,
is give cutting people into pieces a chance.

Iranian Women Prisoners Detail Torture

Iran as continual regional menace
Iran's Menace in Azerbaijan
15,000 Elite Iranian special-ops 'head' to Syria ---- Iran confirms it has forces in Syria ...
Gulf states lash out at Iran 'interference'

The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) said in a statement that Tehran's actions were threatening regional security and stability.
The GCC said it "rejects and denounces" Iran's "continued interference" in their internal affairs and Tehran must "immediately and completely stop these actions and policies that increase regional tension and threaten security and stability".

Iranian Bomb Suspects 'Targeted' Israelis, Thai Police Say
Report: Turkey thwarts Iran weapons shipment to Hezbollah
      Why Hezbollah is sitting on 40,000 rockets and missiles ...
            Iran and Hezbollah: The Balance of Power Shifts in Lebanon
Afghanistan war logs: Iran's covert operations in Afghanistan
Iran Steps Up Threats to Rub Out Israel

Discussing the record of Iran's actions and behavior doesn't constitutes "warmongering."

They hide anything and everything that might threaten their place in power.

And this is distinctive from America how? In America, the State Secrets Doctrine has its roots in a wrongful death suit by the widows of some RCA engineers who were working for the US Air Force when they died in a plane crash in 1948. During discovery, the widows sought the accident report. The Air Force said that it contained information vital to national security and would not turn it over. Eventually, the case got to the Supreme Court, and without actually looking at the document, ruled that it could be kept secret. 40 some years later, it was declassified. It contained nothing in it beyond what was publicly known about the project, but it also revealed that the Air Force had negligently failed to install manufacturer recommended heat shields in the engines, among other issues with the plane, and that the engines caught fire leading to the crash.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/383/origin-story?act=2#play

So you tell me, is our State Secrets doctrine, the one that Obama has used to prevent people from suing for unlawful detention, unlawful torture, unlawful wiretapping, and unlawful execution, based in anything but an attempt to avoid embarrassment and liability? How is it that we are morally superior to the Chinese government on this issue?

Examples:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10torture.html?_r=0
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/10/obama-administration-invokes-state-secrets-privilegeagain/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0811/Obama_admin_asserts_state_secrets_privilege_to_dismiss_Muslims_suit.html
http://www.salon.com/2010/09/25/secrecy_7/

that fact you would state such a thinkg only proves how absoutely blind and ignorant you are.

You use a cannon or a howitzer for that projection?

Under the UCMJ he's supposed to get a trial within 120 days, AND be free of unlawful command influence. Which Obama committed when he pronounced Manning guilty.

Only if he wants one. I've never heard his lawyer demand a quick trial or even complain about the time it took, so I assume Manning and his lawyer didn't want to 120 day trial, since only an idiot would. BTW, I found where Obama said "He broke the law." and if you think answering a reporters questions at a dinner reception is command influence, you're out of touch with reality.

Looking at his bio, most of his work for FAS seems to be arguing against missile defense. He seems to be a bit of an activist. Basically, he comes across as a bit of an ostrich about Iran's nuclear program: nuclear weapons are bad, and war is bad; therefore if the Iranians are seeking nuclear weapons, it justifies ballistic missile defense (which he's against) and possibly an attack (which he's against) to stop Iran from reaching their goal; therefore Iran must not be seeking nuclear weapons. Not exactly a scientific chain of argument, but it seems to be the path he's on (based on that last link, and two of his other articles that I read through).

And Spotify.

I've been noticing that Amazon has been spreading out physical presence in a lot of states in recent years, and in the process cutting deals with those states to suspend sales taxes specifically on them (though a few states wouldn't play ball). So it makes sense to me why they might actually support this. As a big employer in a lot of states, Amazon can continue to create and extend special deals to exempt themselves at the state level, while sticking competing online retailers who don't have so much local presence with a new tax burden. Plus, it also standardizes the now chaotic process a little more at the federal level.

And by the way, very few people care about this shit except gun nuts like you.

Nope, nobody else cares. Not one bit.

Hey -- I like the ACLU. Lots. But the ACLU is not a "progressive" (tm) organization. For example:

ACLU chief 'disgusted' with Obama
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html

ACLU ad showing Obama morphing into Bush:
http://www.aclu.org/aclu-ad-what-will-it-be-mr-president

ACLU: Obama Has Quadrupled Warrantless Wiretaps
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/28/ACLU-Obama-Has-Quadrupled-Warrantless-Wiretaps

ACLU condemns court for keeping details of Obama's assassination program secret
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/02/aclu-condemns-court-for-keeping-details-of-obamas-assassination-program-secret/ ... this could go on for pages and pages.

The ACLU is an enemy of Obama, not a friend, and suggesting that its laudable attempts to shed light on the Can-Do-No-Wrong-Obama is some push back from Democrats, is to miss the point entirely. The Democrats are part of the disease that needs to be pushed back against, and the ACLU is doing that as much as it can. That is not however evidence that Democrats are pushing back against their own policies, which were the same policies (or even worse than) of GWB.

Here in ermer'ka, we don't have to chew the air because of the EPA.

No chewing required. For the most part we just swallow whatever industries put in the air because of what they put in politicians' piggy banks. It goes down easier when you don't have to chew... which is probably why you didn't notice.

Why is it not the fault of those who enforce the law? When it is an "unjust" law as they call it the DOJ not only doesn't enforce the law but they then sue anyone who does. However, if you do something they don't like, they then twist the law to ruin your life, like in this case.

The DOJ treats the law as their personal right to do what they want and punish those they don't like. They will either punish you for following the law, like Arizona, or they will punish you for breaking the law, as in this case. They have become a dictatorship where you either behave the way they want you to or they will destroy you. The law as it is written has nothing to do with any of it. Changing the law will only bring reprocussions to those who attempt to have it changed in a way the DOJ doesn't like. And be careful, if it benefits them to arm hundreds of ciminials with illegal guns to destroy you, the DOJ will, even if its only an attempt to turn public opinion against gun ownership, they will cause the deaths of hundreds to do so.

Or, you could have, you know.. looked it up instead of shooting from the hip, and making baseless assertions on past data.

Hawker lost a major $1bn defense contract for light attack craft. (Eg, fighters.)

Google was actively lobbying against the investigation from the moment it started.
They hired former FTC staffers and lawyers, sent lobbyists to meet with politicians, etc etc etc

That kind of full court press usually pays off, regardless of the case's merits: How Google beat the feds

There were other places where demonstrators were arrested by the police even though they were there legally. At UC Davis, they held a demonstration on their own campus lawn -- at a place that was designated for such events. It's hard to get more legal than that. The university police pepper-sprayed them. As a result, the university settled a damage suit for $1 million http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81699.html

At any rate, the First Amendment overrides a lot. Gathering to protest the government is a pretty basic right in America.

The Ryan budget passed the House in March. The Senate refused to vote on it for 2 months. Then when they saw in an off-cycle election that part of the plan (reforming medicare) could be successfully attacked, they decided to vote on it just so the could use it to attack the Republicans. The Democrat controlled Senate also voted down the Obama plan (97-0). The Democrats also voted down a budget offered by Toomey and passed by the House.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/219093-paul-ryan-budget-passes-house-with-ten-republican-defections
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163307-senate-votes-down-ryan-budget-medicare-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55721.html

If it were simply a matter of not liking the bills being offered, they could simply hold the vote and go on record as rejecting them. But they have refused to vote on budgets because they didn't want to be on record.

The Constitution, as you point, puts the power of the purse in the House (part of the deal that set up the bicameral legislature). It's not unlike the Senate having to approve Presidential appointments. And just like with Presidential appointments, the Senate is really just supposed to filter out the total crap - not try to micromanage the final product.

The last time the Senate passed a budget was April 2009. Even before the Republicans controlled the House the Democrats couldn't pass a budget. They were supposed to pass a budget before the 111th congress ended in 2010 but failed despite controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency.

I forget more about the computer revolution every time I sneeze than Krugman will ever know. It's just beginning. Live 10 more years and a computer will drive you anywhere in North America and hump you on the way. We're about to wipe out 'higher' education as we've known it for centuries. Piers Morgan may not get voted off the island via Whitehouse petition but the fact that were having a global debate with Internet petitions to our respective governments isn't funny. We're still puttering along with a couple megabits of capacity in most of the Western world. Gibibit+ will enable use cases we haven't even suspected yet. The second or third next atavist-stan we get ourselves mired in will be fought in-part with armed autonomous bipedal robots. Media is being fundamentally changed on a daily basis. The interval between now and when Krugman's paper goes Newsweek and becomes a glorified blog is probably a lot shorter than the remainder of Krugman's career as a columnist.

Krugman needs to stick to his welfare state statism.

The real story is that the Romney team didn't have the tiniest shred of competence. They proved themselves overly secretive (bordering on paranoid) and so arrogant that they didn't think standard practices in software development and delivery applied to their "special" campaign.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/romneys-fail-whale-orca-the-votetracker-149098.html

America really dodged a bullet not getting stuck with this kind of leadership.

Frankly, any allegedly 'small government republicans' also dodged a bullet: Not only was ORCA a total clusterfuck from an IT nerd perspective, its premise fundamentally involved replacing the traditional, decentralized, somewhat-ideosyncratic-but-built-on-local-institutions-and-people-and-pretty-resilient, get out the vote mechanism with a shiny, centralized, technocratic "Solution" run from Romney HQ. As it turned out, the system didn't even work correctly; but (even if it had) it was basically founded on the same organizational model as assorted much-beloathed federal agencies that attempt to provide centralized management of things like education and whatnot.

The real story is that the Romney team didn't have the tiniest shred of competence. They proved themselves overly secretive (bordering on paranoid) and so arrogant that they didn't think standard practices in software development and delivery applied to their "special" campaign.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/romneys-fail-whale-orca-the-votetracker-149098.html

America really dodged a bullet not getting stuck with this kind of leadership.

I remember the Republicans telling Todd Akin to withdraw from the race after his comments.

Here are a few..
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/08/list-of-senators-calling-on-akin-to-quit-keeps-growing-132703.html

Additionally, the Administration and Democrats allowed several working groups to work behind closed doors for *months* to try to come up with plans. And in the end, the Republicans on those groups could not deliver a single vote, no matter what the proposal was.

Not true. Olympia Snowe voted yea on the initial committee: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/senate-finance-committee-approves-health-care-bill/story?id=8817603
She also seemed genuinely interested in working in a bipartisan fashion to reform healthcare (to the chagrin of Republican leadership). But after jam packing it with 1000 pages of nonpartisan goodies, they couldn't even hold her support: http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1209/Sen_Olympia_Snowe_to_POTUS_Give_us_more_time_on_Health_Care.html

they stubbornly refused to accept any Republican input unless it was in line with their ideology

This simply untrue.

Then why does it look that way? Snowe alienated her base from the start -- she had no particular love for political grandstanding or walking the political line. Yet Obama (and the Dems) refused to work even with her. They were more focused on cramming as much stuff into the bill as possible and getting it passed as quickly as possible to score political points (funnily enough, the exact same way the stimulus bill went down: http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/house_final_stimulus/index.htm).

The truth is that they wasted an entire Congress that they could have been improving the bill,

I totally agree an entire Congress was wasted, but that Congress was wasted on some asinine belief by Democrats that they had some kind of "mandate" from the people to ignore Republican input at all costs. Hell, even Obama himself multiple times said "they tried it their way, and their way didn't work"/"we're driving the car now, they can sit in the back and come along for the ride". These are not the kind of remarks from a person looking for bipartisan solutions...

Let's just be clear for a minute. The tax hike is happening on January 1st, unless new legislation is passed. So your characterization is wrong. What Pres. Obama wants is to pass new legislation keeping the existing tax code for those up to 250k, and then for those over, letting the rates revert to Clinton-era levels

By definition, " letting the rates revert to Clinton-era levels" is a tax hike. Only dogmatic stubborness would keep you from agreeing with that. Or is a tax hike really a "tax refund adjustment"? Please don't try to turn this into a terminology spat. When all the dust is settled (all old legislation expired, all new legislation passed), are their taxes going up? Ifso, it's a hike.

In the last 7 days, the leadership has for the first time started to float ballons that "revenue is on the table" - meaning more revenue via changes to the tax code.

This was pitched in earlier negotiations as well, in the first "grand bargain" in fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
. "Or, to put it another way, Boehner was proposing to increase the governmentâ(TM)s haul by the same amount you would get if you reversed Bushâ(TM)s tax cuts for the most affluent Americans, but he was proposing to do it by lowering rates and elim

he pizza maker could have to pay damages of $500 per text message, or US$250 million, one of the largest damage awards under the 1991 law...

That would have bought some health care for their employees.

According to Forbes magazine, it would cost Papa Johns 5 cents per pizza to provide health care to their employees.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/11/14/Forbes-Papa-Johns-ACA-cost-5-cents/UPI-54101352940627/

It never was about the nickle and it never was. Most species of apes, specifically the males, assert their sexual dominance by keeping more of the good stuff - whatever that might be- for themselves than they can possibly use. This is so they can broadcast the fact of their dominance to females .

I think it's safe to say that the owner of Papa Johns is a physically unprepossessing specimen, basically he looks like some guy on your neighborhood watch.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/papa-johns-obamacare-will-raise-pizza-prices-131331.html

Without a mindset that causes him to spend his life seeking, acquiring hording and displaying his wealth, he'd never get laid, or at least, he would not get as laid as he feels he should be.

In making a show of denying those under him healthcare, and especially by talking about how little it would cost him to provide those benefits as per the article above his primordial mind is attempting to broadcast the fact of his sexual dominance / desirability to available females. That's what's going on here.

When shit as demented as "No nickle for healthcare !!!! " becomes that public and is even paraded around by the perps themselves, you have to go to waaaaay back in evolutionary time to find the part of their brain that's being activated.

It's amusing that the conservatives who deny evolution is real seem also to be the people whose motivations are most clearly amenable to forces governing basic evolutionary processes.

Per the article (and submitter, it's politico.com not "political.com"), there more than 10,000 petitions each for Texas and Louisiana secession. Is this even close to a flood by web standards? Just because something happens on the web, does that necessarily make it "news for nerds?" Perhaps it's the inflammatory "racist" link that got the editors' attention. There are plenty of blog sites for "everybody in the South is an idiot racist", why do we have to add Slashdot to the list?

Marion Barry was first racist against Asians

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74866.html

We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops. They ought to go. Iâ(TM)m going to say that right now. But we need African-American businesspeople to be able to take their places, too.

He then fake apologized for his racism
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dcs-marion-barry-widely-rebuked-for-comments-about-asian-business-owners/2012/04/05/gIQA27SVyS_story.html

By late Thursday, Barry backed off the remarks, saying through his Twitter account that he is âoevery sorry for offending the Asian American communityâ with an âoeadmittedly bad choice of words.â But he continued to voice concern about conditions at some restaurants and other businesses in Ward 8, which he said are owned mainly by Asians.

âoeI admit, I could and should have said it differently. But the facts are still very present in our daily lives here,â he tweeted. âoeWe are tired of sub-standard treatment, tired of being kept [at] arms length distance, tired of the lack of community engagement.â

Then he slurred the Polish people while apologising to Asians

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/marion-barry-commits-new-gaffe-while-apologizing-to-asians/2012/05/24/gJQASY7nnU_story.html

At a news conference after the meeting, Barry and several Asian American leaders sought to present a united front, saying that the dialogue is an important step toward defusing long-standing tension between blacks and Asians. Asked about the underlying sources of the conflict, Barry said the United States âoehas had racial tensions since it was founded.â

âoeThe Irish caught hell, the Jews caught hell, the Polacks caught hell,â Barry said, invoking a word that Polish people have viewed as disparaging.

First off, Obama did what he could with a Republican party that wanted nothing more than for him to lose his second term. Dont believe me? They even said this.

You might want to get away from your liberal blogs from time to time: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

Secondly, the Republican party is full of nut jobs and puppets.

Totally, like this nut who thinks Guam is going to flip over and capsize: http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0410/Georgia_Dem_Guam_crowded_might_capsize.html

We have something now called the internet, and despite the large amount of false data out there, the real data (and recordings) remain.

Funny that, and you can't even get your own facts straight.

We are smart, educated, and intelligent, something the Republican Party has feared for years.

Spoken like a teenager who "knows it all." It's a good thing you figured everything out. I was worried for a bit because we had some difficult problems out there.

Claimer: I'm glad Obama won.

District system: California give rougly 35 EVs to Obama and 20 EVs to Romney, which is roughly in line with how the electorate voted.

Obama 35/55 ~= 64%
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/CA
Voters for Obama: ~59%

I don't see a need to go by district. Hell, I'm a fan of using the popular vote nationally. We're voting for one president as a nation. My vote should not count more or less because I live in a town that leans heavily one way or the other.

Compare:

The first map on: http://what-if.xkcd.com/19/

and the real map on: http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/

How is this NOT representative?

Because the people that voted for Obama are not real Americans.

Nope. Look at the details here:

http://www.politico.com/

Click on Ohio. Look at the grey regions. You'll see multiple counties that are large populations and have significant leads for Obama. Cuyahoga County is the biggest and is ~68% Obama w/ 220,000 vote lead. That overwhelms the remaining red counties. Add Franklin County and its a lock for Obama.

Mitt's just delaying the inevitable and looking bad in the process.

Ha, just heard he's finally scheduled his concession at 1am EST.

I do consider those (although the only one I can think of that he's admitted to is gay rights). There are many areas where he hasn't practiced what he's preached but hasn't come out and said that his opinion or position has changed (transparency, war in Afghanistan, IP issues) - and I consider failure to meet a goal or hypocrisy to be worse than a (slowly or consistently) changing position.

Since you're being lazy or obtuse or looking through glasses that are rose-tinted to the point of opacity, here, have a spoon-feeding:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitt-romneys-top-contradicting-comments/story?id=14805513

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82058.html

These are the most blatant, undeniable, concrete examples, but there are plenty more where he bends sweet lady truth into a pretzel that could be considered flip-flopping, such as:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/mitt-romney-lies-newt-gingrich-super-pac-ads_n_1195119.html

I think we need some of that new quantum state measurement tech to figure out his position on abortion:

http://americablog.com/2012/10/romney-flip-flops-twice-on-abortion-in-one-day.html

DON'T LOOK:

https://www.google.com/search?q=romney+flip-flop

Jabs and accute politicking aside, the two men offer very different ideologies and views on life. Whereas Joe Biden says "privatization" like it is a bad thing, to Paul Ryan "government's control" is the worst curse.

Having grown up in the USSR with first-hand experience of government's control of economy, I would've preferred Ryan even if he did not look so persuasive and hands-on and even if Biden has not shone his uber-smile in such unsettling manner all the time.

Last, but not least, I still remember Biden's sequence of idiocies (no, not gaffes) from 4 years ago...

And make up your own mind if Romney was joking:
http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2012/09/romney-airplane-windows-not-opening-a-real-problem.html

Here's the video:
http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2012/09/romney-airplane-windows-not-opening-a-real-problem.html

Judge for yourself. My only comment is that IF he was joking, he really needs to work on his delivery.

Wow. He spent some time playing golf. Big fucking deal.

Call me when he spends 3 years on vacation like bush.

http://politic365.com/2012/05/08/obamas-vacations-of-any-president-bush-racked-up-the-most/

Here is a picture of the Ranch. Notice the caption:

George W. Bush (center) is joined by Condoleezza Rice (left) and Paul Wolfowitz, (right) as they talk with reporters before the start of an intelligence briefing from the CIA at Bush's ranch

Obama has pictures of his "working vacations" too!

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/01/obamas_working_hawaii_vacation.html

President Obama and top national security advisor Denis McDonough working in Hawaii, where the Obama family was vacationing over the holiday break. The family returned to Washington on Monday.

Obama doesn't attend CIA briefings when he's in Washington!

That's a little misleading, according to this source:

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/09/24/898081/kessler-thiessen-intel-breifing-bogus-misleading/?mobile=nc

Clearly, different presidents have structured their daily briefing from the CIA to fit their unique personal styles. Many did not have an oral briefing, while three — two of whom are named Bush — preferred to deal directly with a CIA official. Obama appears to have opted for a melding of the two approaches, in which he receives oral briefings, but not as frequently as his predecessor.

Wow. He spent some time playing golf. Big fucking deal.

Call me when he spends 3 years on vacation like bush.

http://politic365.com/2012/05/08/obamas-vacations-of-any-president-bush-racked-up-the-most/

Here is a picture of the Ranch. Notice the caption:

George W. Bush (center) is joined by Condoleezza Rice (left) and Paul Wolfowitz, (right) as they talk with reporters before the start of an intelligence briefing from the CIA at Bush's ranch

Obama doesn't attend CIA briefings when he's in Washington!

Not sure exactly where political parties fit in the maze of U.S. corporate entity classification. But the network of state and local parties that calls itself "The Republican Party" is affiliated with the Republican National Committee, which owns all the IP relating to the GOP "brand". If you start calling your organization "The Republican Party", expect to Hear from their lawyers.

The GOP doesn't, to my knowledge, have a Sturmabteilung. If they did, it would presumably wear Red, not Brown.

Uh, you mean like Ampad

The only case I know of where Bain actually grew the company was Staples. And that was more venture capitalism than equity capitalism. The took a small but successful office supply chain, give them a bucket of cash, then cashed out when the investment produced massive growth. Venture capitalism is great and I have no problem with Bain getting rich by taking investment risks. But it's hardly evidence of their management skills.

The claim that they save dying companies seems to be so much bunk. There may be a case of Bain actually turning a company around, but none have actually come to my attention. Mostly the companies are even worse off than before, while Bain has made big bucks by raiding assets and charging management fees.

It seems that Romney would like to streamline the TSA. There was also a republican bill introduced last year to reduce the TSA. Not that Romney, or any politician is without faults, but making assumptions about positions leads to uneducated voting, which I think is why we're in the position we're in.

Yep, the Democrats want us to go back to the days of racism, no rights for women, husbands beating their wives and getting away with it, no clean running water, healthcare and education for only the rich and whites, hatred towards gays and lesbians, and total deregulation for the banking system.

What has Obama done about the racist drug war?
http://www.newjimcrow.com/

Where is the Democratic outcry over Obama's due process free assassination program? Even when it targets Americans?

Where is the Democratic outcry over Obama's signature on the due process free detention law?

What has Obama done about toruturers and murderers?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer

And why was it such a personal struggle for Obama to finally come to the Dick Cheney level of morality with respect to gay rights?
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/gay-gop-group-obama-took-the-cheney-position-122968.html

You claim the GOP is evil and Democrats are not. You are fucking liar.

“There’s a lot of great work being done,” said Seabrook. “I think the problem is the Congress itself. And we’re all in the same positions, scrambling to figure out how the hell to cover these a*sholes.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79998.html

Besides the way Obama's dealt with this Wikileaks issue I otherwise like him

So this bothers you, but his treatment of Thomas Drake doesn't? Or the fact that he considers legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California to be a higher priority target than the investment bankers who crashed the economy in 2008? Or his continued use of unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps? Or that he signed the blatantly unconstitutional 2012 NDAA? Or his unilateral assassination of American citizens abroad?

The chief of the ACLU is "disgusted" with Obama. You should be too.

Fuck the ACLU, but these points you make don't make me happy but aren't deal-breakers. The treatment of Assange is nearly the breaking point as I mentioned. Killing Americans that have clearly called for the destruction of the US and have means to carry it out are fair-game -- Assange has done NOTHING remotely like that. All the rest of your points are the normal collateral from the American military-industrial complex. That doesn't mean it's right but it's entrenched, and don't try to tell me a Republican would be more sympathetic. As I admitted, this is the (FAR) lesser of two evils in my estimate.

Besides the way Obama's dealt with this Wikileaks issue I otherwise like him

So this bothers you, but his treatment of Thomas Drake doesn't? Or the fact that he considers legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California to be a higher priority target than the investment bankers who crashed the economy in 2008? Or his continued use of unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps? Or that he signed the blatantly unconstitutional 2012 NDAA? Or his unilateral assassination of American citizens abroad?

The chief of the ACLU is "disgusted" with Obama. You should be too.

Your post makes no sense.

Romney would be much more likely to sign a Ryan Budget or a Ryan-like Budget than Obama would and Romney has endorsed the Ryan plan.

How long until the Democrats have something similarly ridiculous as a contact farming tool?

Probably not needed.

It's a shining, heartfelt example of amoral power, a pristine jewel of fucking the public when they're not looking. I'm not surprised the Romney campaign came up with it.

Why is that? Because you were familiar with what the Obama campaign was doing?

Obama's 2012 campaign is watching you

He said he wanted the US to be more like Europe. He's getting his wish. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73138.html

while the link shows only a quote from gas I'm just to tired this Monday morning to get the other quotes that prove that he wants to make the US into what is happening in Europe.

He's already been doing that since he's been in office with no results.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42715

Sorry, the CBO disagrees with you.

"The CBO figures released Tuesday estimate that the stimulus package raised the gross domestic product this past quarter by 0.3 percent-1.9 percent.

The CBO report provided a broad range of the estimated number of full-time jobs created because of the stimulus â" from a low of 500,000 to a high of 3.3 million jobs."

from: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68965.html

khipu put plenty of facts forward, and 2 minutes on google would confirm everything he says.

Here you go, some facts with references:

Cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while campaigning on its behalf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

Granted waivers for 30 companies, including McDonald's, exempting them from health care reform
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Continued renditions of alleged terrorists to countries where they could be tortured
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html

Blocked the release of photos documenting the torture and abuse of detainees by the US military
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/president-oba-5.html

Continued the practice of indefinite detentions for alleged terrorists
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html

Extended the Patriot Act without making any reforms
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms

Pushed for mandatory DNA testing of those arrested for crimes, regardless of whether they have been convicted
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34097.html

Dramatically increased government secrecy, blocking more FOIA requests in 2009 than Bush did in 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/obamas-broken-promise-fed_n_500526.html

Cut a deal to exempt abortion services from health care reform
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/21/deal-struck-on-abortion-clears-path-for-health-care-passage/

Announced a $60 billion sale of arms to the Saudi Arabian dictatorship, the largest arms deal in history
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20016181-503543.html

About 6 minute's worth

Some real facts would've been nice, rather than a baseless implication.

Google spent over $5 million in lobbying in Q1 2012 alone. Microsoft spent $1.72M, Facebook $0.65M.

Where is Apple? They spent a mere $0.5M, one-tenth what Google did. Dell, Intel, Amazon, Oracle, IBM, HP all outspent Apple. And unlike Facebook, Google and Microsoft, Apple has no political action committee.

It's true that Google lobbied for some worthwhile things like campaigning against SOPA, but if the amount of lobbying dollars are the measure by which you're predicting Apple wins in the court, you are way off base.

In fact it's exactly the opposite:

"I never once had a meeting with anybody representing Apple," said Jeff Miller, who served as a senior aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Subcommittee for eight years. "There have been other tech companies who chose not to engage in Washington, and for the most part that strategy did not benefit them."

Then on page 2 of article:

“There’s a difference between being quiet and uncooperative,” said a congressional aide who has dealt with Apple. “Part of the problem being behind the scenes is they have no identity. They have no corporate identity in this town because nobody knows them.”
[...]
And in the corridors of Congress, Apple has become a punching bag for lawmakers who understand the power of using a marquee name to reinforce their arguments about American companies dodging taxes, hiring overseas and mistreating foreign workers.

If lobbying dollars make the courts see things their way, as you imply, Apple should be losing every court case on home soil.

My thoughts exactly.

96% of the black vote, constituting 13% of the electorate. I'd say he's being helped more by blind racial ignorance than hurt.

Every single survey, poll, etc that was on the news at the time had between 96 and 98% of american black voters voting for him. That means they ignored all policy, all politics, all financial plans, all qualifications, all personal history, all things in general he said he'd do, and just for him based on the color of his skin.

What you mean is "96 and 98% of american black voters" voted for the Democrat - the 96% Obama got is consistent with the 90% that Gore got, the 88% Kerry got, the 90% Mondale and Dukakis got, the 94% Johnson got etc.

If blacks were voting overwhelmingly based on race, than you should see overwhelming support for Hermain Cain, Alan Keyes, Ward Connerly, etc. That's not the case.