Slashdot Mirror

Yes, hot-heads are everywhere, this is why the leaders should be very careful with words and discourage this instincts. Instead it seems that Palin caters to the worst impulses and gives these guys the idea that she would applaud violence. I do not find a similar behavior in the democratic party, do you?

I am questioning the leaders' behavior. Inciting the mobs is not ethical. Maybe they are careful with rhetorics and could claim that they never said "she/he should be dead" directly, but this is the message they pass to the followers.

Yeah their presidential candidate applauds violence by saying thing like "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun". Their House candidate incite the mobs by running a campaign ad with his opponent in a crosshair. And most horrifyingly, they make US maps marked with "targets" for their followers to shoot up.

I would have to concede that it would be difficult for me to find Democrats doing similar stuff... oh wait.

looks like he may have ties to an American Extremist Group. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47308.html

The shooter was a nut-case very much into government hatred, communism and flag burning. Not exactly the type to follow Palin or indeed any of the "America First" people. Just a crazy hater whose hatred was fueled long before Obama ever saw office.

That's what you get with jumping the gun to blame Palin; a whole lot of internet egg on your face.

The shooter you was a nut-case very much into government hatred, communism and flag burning. Not exactly the type to follow Palin or indeed any of the "America First" people. Just a crazy hater whose hatred was fueled long before Obama ever saw office, by the same people that hated Bush so much... Kind of like the IRS plane guy, a lunatic pushed over the rbink of madness by those that hate the government, period.

In principle I agree with you, but the thing is that a lot of people saw this sort of thing coming. There has been a lot of commentary and, at least in my own discussions, worry, about the winking incitement to violence that has been broadcast since Obama was elected.

Wrong, it started when Bush was elected. A lot of the strong anti-government movement started With Bush, pushed by people like you stating the government was a bunch of jackboot thugs.

So this is really reaping what you have sown, even though you wished for a different target at the time.

The shooter you see was a nut-case very much into government hatred, communism and flag burning. Not exactly the type to follow Palin or indeed any of the "America First" people. Just a crazy hater whose hatred was fueled long before Obama ever saw office.

No, you lie.

Media Matters received its first ever donation from Soros last month, after years of you Republicans lying, say he was financing it all along. Meanwhile, you Republicans have your fraud network financed by billionaires like the Koch brothers who also finance Republican campaigns, lately secretly through the Citizens United rules that dominated the election that just passed.

Of course it sounds "fair and balanced" to you, because it's an endless pile of Republican lies, just like the Fox "News" that uses that fraudulent slogan.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_timothy__071011_corporate_donations_.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/democrats-rake-record-donations-corporations/story?id=9777742

Btw, since we are on the subject of Soros: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589

As opposed to the union paymasters who donate just as much purely out of feelings of patriotism? The Democrats actually spent $270 million more on this election than the Republicans did:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44216.html

And of course, the real story is how little campaign spending actually appears to impact the outcomes of elections. The Democrats spent less on the Senate and held it. The Republicans spent less on the house and cleaned up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/us/politics/02donate.html

Brown spent a third of what Whitman did and still won as Governor:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-03/brown-beats-whitman-for-california-governor-while-outspent-3-1.html

Fiorina and McMahon spent tens of millions of their own money and lost big for the Senate. etc. etc. etc.

While they don't need to give in to their wishes, there are some motivations that could easily come up:
1. Speaking gigs
2. Donations to their spouse's organization
3. Free hunting trips

It should also be pointed out that Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts also are true believers of their ideology.

A man who doesn't know how many houses he owns? I'd say that's a first sign of dementia if I ever saw one!

Here are 3, including one which specifically cites a 27% estimate for the overall population. Thanks for playing.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/58_of_GOP_not_suredont_beleive_Obama_born_in_US.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/poll_31_percent_of_republicans.html

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/poll-27-of-americans-are-birthers----including-41-of-republicans.php

Ordinarily I would agree, but FOX News, ever since they decided to funnel money into the GOP and organize protests, is now a propaganda network.
They can't pretend to be "fair and balanced" anymore.

So how do you suppose that 'little' healthcare thing managed to get passed at all?

Obama's political capital, which has dwindled with that and the Bush economy. That was a mammoth fight with plenty of compromises and quid pro quo going on, "I'm a popular president, you want to be on board." Now that's not true, that package could not be passed now, just a short while later.

Now, so close to the midterms, with blood in the water, republicans aren't going to let anything get through. Jim DeMint came right out and said he'd block anything he didn't personally approve first. That's how bad it is now.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42283.html

Ah, what a change a year and a half can make. Where they were once crucifying Bush for cutting taxes on the rich, Dems are now openly talking about extending the tax cuts because so far their experiment to spend our way out of recession has failed. They now need "rich" people to start spending again and to hire us poor slobs to build their mansions and private jets. LOL, just LOL. Anyone care to try to make the case that there's any practical difference between Democrats and Neoconservatives, besides the tone of their populist rhetoric?

It always amuses me when I hear people of extreme wealth and privilege co-opting the language of populism. As if they had any idea or even gave a shit about my problems. They can all go fuck themselves. Come November when the House is loaded up with Tea Party members, you're about to find out where all that populist bullshit got you.

This is Obama's America, not Stalin's Russia.

Not Stalin's USSR yet, but Obama definitely represents a continued worsening of the neo-con BS Bush II took to heights once thought unsurpassable.

You may think that the reason you're dissatisfied with theObama administration is because of substantive objections to their policies: ... Or because thePresident has escalated a miserable, pointless and unwinnable war that is entering its ninth year. Or because he has claimed the power to imprison people for life with no charges and to assassinate American citizens without due process, intensified the secrecy weapons and immunity instruments abused by his predecessor, and found all new ways of denying habeas corpus. Or because he granted full-scale legal immunity to those who committed serious crimes in the last administration. Or because he's failed to fulfill -- or affirmatively broken -- promises ranging from transparency to gay rights.

Source: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/10/gibbs/index.html

You may think that the reason you're dissatisfied with theObama administration is because of substantive objections to their policies:that they've done so little about crisis-level unemployment, foreclosures and widespread economic misery. Or because of the White House's apparently endless devotion to Wall Street. Or because thePresident has escalated a miserable, pointless and unwinnable war that is entering its ninth year. Or because he has claimed the power to imprison people for life with no charges and to assassinate American citizens without due process, intensified the secrecy weapons and immunity instruments abused by his predecessor, and found all new ways of denying habeas corpus. Or because he granted full-scale legal immunity to those who committed serious crimes in the last administration. Or because he's failed to fulfill -- or affirmatively broken -- promises ranging from transparency to gay rights.

Remember, a vote for a Democrat or a Republican is a vote for the status quo, no matter what BS they vomit during the campaign.

Libel has been illegal forever.

Libel is a civil matter in most (all?) of the US, not a criminal one. Your relief is to sue for damages not to have the person arrested. The burden of proof for libel with a public figure is particularly high too -- people all but accused Bill Clinton of being a murderer but I don't recall any criminal prosecutions or civil suits being filed as a result of it.

But keep in mind that she's a lawyer, and she was arguing the side she'd been hired to argue.

That's a weak rationalization and is totally contradicted by the rest of her paper trail. You don't have to limit her assault on free speech to Citizens United -- Politico had an interesting article about her involvement in the porn wars. She seems to believe that the ends justify the means regardless of whether or not they infringe on the 1st amendment.

I'm not too concerned over it.

Then you haven't been playing attention or don't value your civil liberties.

Your link doesn't work. Goes to Library of Congress and says "Thomas". Nothing else loads. But just looking at what you posted, it is clear in the title of SEC. 401. TAX on individuals... It's a tax, not jail.

In any case, a simple google search of "Obamacare" and "jail" turns up plenty of evidence that it is a myth that you'll go to jail if you don't get insurance. It's clearly documented as a right-wing blog tactic of disinformation.

It seems even Fox News acknowledges that there is no "jail" clause in Obamacare:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004160081

Instead, Fox likes to keep posting stories about the bill(s) that WOULD have had a jail clause in them HAD they passed. It's all part of the disinformation campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/26/baucus-mandate-penalty-lead-prison-congressional-analysts-say/

And if you follow the deception further, you'll notice stories like this one:

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall ...with the same $1,900 penalty introduced in the Baucus bill that was not passed. But that's ok, leave out the fact that this story is about the Baucus bill, add a story about the Baucus bill that says you'll go to jail, then loosely tie it to the ACTUAL bill that does not have a jail clause and you get discussion forums rife with misinformation and rash leaps of logic (like this one)

In the last days of this congressional session, our elected reps faced two urgent spending requests. One was for ongoing combat in Afghanistan. The other was to keep several thousand public school teachers from being laid off in the fall. One of those got funded.

But, sure, dick around with the grading scale and pretend it'll fix things.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40137.html

http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_teach28.44ac093.html

I don't think we went to Afghanistan for mineral rights b/c we didn't know that mineral rights were worth such a tremendous amount of money until we started the war in 2001

No, actually, we did know.

How can you describe this as anything other than the government deciding what's allowed and what's not allowed on the Internet?

Well, you can start by realizing that net neutrality has nothing at all to do with "the government deciding what's allowed and what's not allowed on the Internet," and go from there.

And you can start by realizing that the FCC currently does not have the authority to regulate the internet. Once you give them this authority...think of it as giving them an inch...they will take the rest of it eventually (not just a mile.) I know some people will doubt this, so try reading this: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35450.html Or just google : fcc cant regulate internet

Republicans want to censor porn

Elena Kagan is a Republican?

Ah good old Dave Vitter. He gets busted paying for prostitutes to spank him while he's wearing a diaper, and his madam ends up committing suicide in the scandal's aftermath. Yet here he is still in congress, in a position of power.

And now another Republican, all but openly funded by big business, is gunning for Vitter's job. What you see may involve desperation.

Yes, and the Research 2000 scandal is helping Kos' reputation even more! http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39304.html

Main Point: We don't argue that climate change isn't happening, and if that's what you think the debate is about then you are completely wrong.

It's interesting that you brought that up, given the history of the climate change "debate." Because until about 10 years ago, saying global warming doesn't exist was the position of the deniers. The position was that global temperatures were not increasing. Then the position was changed to admitting that that temperatures were increasing, but no faster than historical rates, even though it's clearly exponential growth. (i.e. the hockey stick, and yes, even the "new" "refined" hockey stick) Even earlier this year you had conservatives mocking global warming because of a blizzard.

You're the one that doesn't understand the history of your own position.

As a historical parallel, I suggest you read up on cancer and the tobacco lobby. "Doctors smoke Camels," but the tobacco industry knew they caused cancer in nineteen-fifty-fucking-three , yet they denied it for 45 years. Even recently before Congress, the CEOs of the tobacco industry declared under oath, I believe that nicotine is not addictive, even though the American Heart Association (you know, doctors), have said "nicotine addiction has historically been one of the hardest addictions to break."

No you're being played, but you don't realize that, because you're too "intelligent" and "independent" to realize it.

Sorry, thanks for playing: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38433.html

In Spartanburg County, Ludwig said there are 25 precincts in which Greene received more votes than were actually cast and 50 other precincts where votes appeared to be missing from the final count. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38433.html#ixzz0qvgQEa5m

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38433.html

In Spartanburg County, Ludwig said there are 25 precincts in which Greene received more votes than were actually cast and 50 other precincts where votes appeared to be missing from the final count. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38433.html#ixzz0qvgQEa5m

This basically means we're staying in Afghanistan indefinitely.

not likely... no one has yet to figure out how to profitably remove the minerals, so this "news" is over 10 years old.

slashdot: news for nerds, stuff that matters, propaganda we don't research before posting

The president's instincts are by now obvious to all: deflect blame, point fingers, and lash out at others, most especially his predecessor. We know from press reports (see here and here) that the strategy for the Democrats in 2010, two years after Obama was elected president, is to – you guessed it – blame George W. Bush.

He also was the prime recipient of millions of dollars from BP. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html The pattern is more than a bit disturbing.

By millions you mean $71,051. Frankly, the 3.5 million dollars over 20 years BP has spend is peanuts, and only make it to 106 on the Heavy Hitters List. But it is unusual that he appears on the top of the list of recipients of BP as well as #2 of the Exxon list, when both companies favour Republicans. But then, even combined they wouldn't be among Obama's Top Contributors

He also was the prime recipient of millions of dollars from BP. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html The pattern is more than a bit disturbing.

More precisely: conservative means: "do whatever the oil industry wants", and liberal means: "do whatever Hollywood wants".

The oil industry likes Democrats just fine. It's a mistake to believe otherwise.

she has to defend the administration position on this whether she wants to or not,

Bullshit. Imagine for a moment that instead of a soulless political whore, she was a decent human being with a functioning moral sense. She could have refused to protect the guilty, and it's not likely that the empty-suit-in-chief would dare to fire her for taking a stand on a principle.

This woman is Alberto Gonzalez in drag.

You have the same judicial philosophy as Liz Cheney.

The job of lawyers isn't to judge their clients, it's to represent their interests, even if those interests clash with their own moral code.

...somebody get Mitchell over here. He can shuttle back and forth between the two camps if he's not too busy

No, most Americans still rightly blame the fat cats on Wall Street for this mess.

Fat cats? It'd be easier to take you seriously if you didn't use so many talking points.

It's not as if the government was forcing banks to make bad loans

What does that have to do with assigning blame at our political leaders for bailing them out?

but obviously under Bush any kind of regulation was out of the question

That's cute, trying to place all the blame on Bush, but reality is much more complicated than that. Guess who the evil Republican was that repealed glass-stiegel?

You will also note the Democrats in congress attempting to bring reform to the financial sector, but being blocked by Republicans, who are not only filibustering any bill, they are filibuster the motion to even debate the bill.

Stop falling for political theater.

old news

Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan released their signed open letter yesterday. You may not like what have to say, but characterizing their statements, which are less than 24 hours old, as "old news" is ridiculous. Most of the criticisms they make aren't addressed by the latest administration statements, either.

"the angry tea partiers, with their brick throwing and insane murderous anger"

Cite please. I've driven by a couple "Tea Party" crowds and they tend to be fairly well behaved and orderly. A bit older as well. The DC stuff last week ("N word" and spitting) has been thoroughly debunked as a politically convenient lie by the congressmen involved.

The only brick throwing lately has been the opposite: GOP offices have had bricks through the windows (cite: Detroit Free Press) in the past couple of weeks, and one Republican Congressman's office was shot (Cantor, a Jewish GOP guy from VA had a death threat that was verified and resulted in an arrest yesterday). Also Harry Reid supporters were deliberately misdirecting people going to the Tea Party rally last week, and threatening a guy who was reporting and pelting the charter buses with eggs. If you like, search for Kenneth Gladney, a black man who was beaten by SEIU union thugs for supporting the Tea Party outside a rally.

If you go to the net, instead of the MSM or politically tilted blogs, you can see the preponderance of physical violence has primarily been on the statist or anarchist part.

Yeah, a lot of Democratic leaders are total schmucks as well. I just don't have personal experience with them directly. I met Obama briefly at one point and he seemed OK. I did vote for him, and I voted for Warner for Senate here in VA, though I voted for a Republican for Congress, because I'd met him a few times, felt him out (not up), and figured he was OK. But let us just put aside the leaders for a minute and say that I seriously doubt members of Congress are responsible for acts of domestic terrorism by the "tea party" Anarchists, on principal, would need to be against this bill as well, but they're not the ones (by and large) calling in death threats, taking shots at congressmen's district offices, etc. Although, the congress critters really aren't helping things at all with their over-the-top and, frankly, irresponsible rhetoric.

Yeah, a lot of Democratic leaders are total schmucks as well. I just don't have personal experience with them directly. I met Obama briefly at one point and he seemed OK. I did vote for him, and I voted for Warner for Senate here in VA, though I voted for a Republican for Congress, because I'd met him a few times, felt him out (not up), and figured he was OK. But let us just put aside the leaders for a minute and say that I seriously doubt members of Congress are responsible for acts of domestic terrorism by the "tea party" Anarchists, on principal, would need to be against this bill as well, but they're not the ones (by and large) calling in death threats, taking shots at congressmen's district offices, etc. Although, the congress critters really aren't helping things at all with their over-the-top and, frankly, irresponsible rhetoric.

None these inefficiencies have anything to do with the size of the government, but rather has everything to do with inadequate funding of government. I'm serious. Let's say the USPTO came to congress and said, "We need $200 million to modernize our system, after two years of installation and training, we'll have a system that can cut the approval process for patents down to six months, and can also decrease the number of invalid patents." Antigovernment groups would be up in arms. "Oh no! An expansion of government! Too inefficient! Government it is axiomatically bad at everything! The horror! The horror!" But no, they don't actually want to fix the problems (because that would run counter to their belief that everything government ever does is bad, regardless of the facts).

All this "starve the beast" mentality is, as Reagan's Chief of Staff, Bruce Bartlett said, "simply unrealistic to think that tax cuts will continue to be a viable political strategy."

You lose, by the the old playground rule: your-own-guy-says-so.

After all, we all know what type of job they guy that sits around complaining about how he doesn't want to do the job does right? He does a crappy job. We all know this. We know this from childhood. We've all done it ourselves. So what type of government do you think you're going to get from people that don't like government? A crappy one of course. Only now that same malingerer turns around says, "Gee, government sure does suck now doesn't it?" No, you're intentionally doing a shitty job.

I was thinking it had something to do with the almost entirely Democratic California state representatives who refuse to cut spending, even at the point California is at now.

I don't know what California you're talking about, but the state budget has been in free fall for years now

Reagan Domestic Policy advisor Bruce Bartlett calls your thinking unrealistic. The fact is that California has more demands placed on it by the will of the voters, yet a tiny minority refuse to act like adults and make any move to pay for it.

That isn't conservatism, that's recklessness. Or as the Guardian put it, a recipe for America's first failed state.

The lab results are in. The GOP policies are unpopular and ad hearing to them as slavishly as the as the "purity pledges" that the CAL-GOP requires, has been a disaster.

The problem with the moon missions is that the big defense corporations running the US ... just can't justify such large profits with moon missions. The population (or its politicians) are much less willing to fund if there is no fear factor.

I call BS, to an extent. The thing about moon missions is that it's not a high-volume, medium-skill production, unlike, say The C-17. If space travel was well-refined, and high volume, the story might be different. Instead, Congress is pointing funding at programs that keep people in their districts employed, for better or for worse. And that's despite what the "evil" Department of Defense, and President ask for.

Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports
(Note: We are not a GOP-sters, Republicans or affiliated with any parties, and as George Washington warned against parties We do not believe in parties and, unlike most people, We evaluate every issue on a case by case basis and do not defer to the judgments of politicians who are corrupted and untrustworthy as a group.)

Obama is controlled by the same people as Bush see The Obama Deception documentary [youtube.com]

Yuan Forwards Show China May Buy Fewer Treasuries, UBS Says [bloomberg.com]
Anemic Treasury auction effects felt beyond bonds [reuters.com]
The Sherminator Kicks Some Wall Street Ass [dailybail.com]
China Angry That Fed Is Deliberately Destroying The Dollar [bloomberg.com]
China suggests switch from dollar as reserve currency [bbc.co.uk]
What are the reserve currencies? [wsj.net]
Anatomy of a taxpayer giveaway to investors [ml-implode.com]
Geithner rescue package 'robbery of the American people' [telegraph.co.uk]
Geithner just put only the rich in Titanics lifeboats [examiner.com]
Geithner Plan Will Rob US Taxpayers [cnbc.com]
A False Choice [viewfromsi...valley.com]
Bargain-hunting house buyers wearing on sellers ajc.com [ajc.com]
Time to Take the Steering Wheel out of Geithner's Hands [alternet.org]
Socialising and Privatising [freeradical.co.nz]
Fannie, Freddie to pay out bonuses [politico.com]
Fitch Raises Prime Jumbo Loan Loss Estimates Sharply [researchrecap.com]

Chinas central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund [ft.com]

- Russia on an new world reserve currency: It is necessary to work out and adopt internationally recognized standards for macroeconomic and budget policy, which are binding for the leading world economies, including the countries issuing reserve currencies - the Kremlin proposals read. [en.rian.ru]

- President Barack "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption. Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff, is radical authoritarian statist whose father was part of the murderous civilian-killing Israeli terrorist organizati

And were derided as birthers for wanting to make sure he was in compliance with the Constitution.

Irrelevant. You made a claim which essentially said his personal life was ignored. That is false.

Nobody complained about GWB's dad before election or during his time in office?

Again, irrelevant. We are talking about Obama, not Bush.

Someone chooses to associate with someone for 20 years, someone they call their spiritual adviser, and now that person is off limits too?

I never said they were off limits. I said people were examining (extensively) who his pastor was. A pastor, being a spiritual adviser, is a very personal relationship. You made a claim which essentially said Obama's personal life was ignored. That is false.

Fox News did some digging on him, they are the lone "they" from the media as far as your statements above go. Where were the other media outlets? Virtually all of them gave him a pass as far as investigating just who he was. Why else would Tom Brokaw feel the need to say that we don't really know who Obama is AFTER he was elected if he was fully vetted beforehand?

Again, bullshit.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443788&page=1
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/wright-dominated-news-coverage/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/23/barack-obama-bill-ayers-stanley-kurtz-makes-connection
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-birth-cer.html
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_birth_certificate/2009/07/22/238969.html

Even fucking Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/obamas-church-pushes-cont_n_92802.html

Anyone that did attempt to dig through his history was excoriated for it. Look at what people did to Joe the Plumber just for asking him a question that exposed more of Obama's real views than the Obama campaign really wanted the public to know. The media ran cover for him, even going so far as to completely make up stories that would make him more sympathetic (like the one about someone publicly threatening to harm/kill Obama at a McCain rally. The Secret Service investigated and found no such threat).

Again, irrelevant. You made a claim which essentially said Obama's personal life was ignored. That is false.

Regardless of the reaction or fallout from looking into his personal life, to try and say it wasn't widely scrutinized is an outright lie.

Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate? You make minimum wage? You pay X%. You're lower middle class? You pay the same X%. You're upper class? You pay the sam X%. You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company? You pay the same X%.

Easy. A flat tax is regressive. Money, like most things in this world, is subject to diminishing returns. Taking 15% of income from someone that doesn't have much money effects them disprotionately more than someone that's rich. The wealthy can simply absorb more of a hit and remain effectively unscathed than those with less money. If you have to pay for a war, or to raise revenue to get out of debt, why should you take food off the plates of the poor, or make granny have to chose between food and medicine, when Uncle Moneybags tips his hookers half the amount you need?

The flat tax is a canard used for those that want to cut taxes to dismantel government, because both taxes and government are axiomatically bad. (Reagan domestic policy advisor, and supply-side economics proponent, Bruce Bartlett recently called these ideas "not realistic." ) The "confusion" is also a canard, because quite simply, the vast majority of wage earners in this country file a 1040-EZ and take the standard deduction. It's add and subtract. There's nothing to it.

When you see someone arguing for this, you have to ask yourself what is they have to gain from it? In the case of "flat tax" proponents, it's an across the board tax cut. It's a complete restructuring of the tax base in order to benefit them. It's a decrease in government revenues, and thus the leading of more deficit spendings. (Witness California.)

everybody gets a basic 'level' of insurance

1) No. Everyone is FORCED to get a basic level of insurance, or pay extra taxes or fines or whatnot if they don't. It is also likely that many employers will need to change their existing plans to be compliant and will pass that cost to the employees. http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/227310

Here's what I know from personal experience in dealing with the VA, the SSA, and Medicare. I know that finding someone to talk to is extremely difficult. I know that if a claim is denied there is almost zero recourse in appealing. I DO NOT want to have to deal with a similar bureaucracy for my family's health care.

When you come up with a stinker of a health care plan that causes your 60th vote in the Senate to wind up 31 points behind the opposition, you call your fuck-up a hard pivot.

Dismantling the American way of life? Give me a break with the melodrama. The American way of life is chugging along as usual, donut in hand.

44% actually want Bush back after seeing how the Democrats have handled things.

Thanks for the explanation, President Obama! By the way, I think you forgot you killed Pontiac. It's an easy mistake to make, you're all busy with health care "reform", shirking your responsibilities as commander-in-chief, golfing, et cetera.