Slashdot Mirror

What color is the sky on your planet?

US Senator calls for RICO investigations into global warming "deniers"

Wisconsin Democrats conducted secret "John Doe" criminal investigations of Republicans

Dare to criticize Hillary! and get criminally charged with "campaign finance" law violations

You forgot Loretta Lynch (a fitting last name if there ever was one) threatening to prosecute people for "hate speech" against the religion of her boss. Speech that is either religious, or political (or both) in nature and protected by the 1st Amendment.

Corrupt at it's core, no reason to follow the rules anymore.

Some day the crime will be 'inciting a riot' through writing an insightful article, or annoying a politician, or being a member of an opposition party.

No it won't.

You are suing the slippery slope fallacy. I expect you to provide a plausible turn of events that leads to this slippery slope.

What color is the sky on your planet?

US Senator calls for RICO investigations into global warming "deniers"

Wisconsin Democrats conducted secret "John Doe" criminal investigations of Republicans

Dare to criticize Hillary! and get criminally charged with "campaign finance" law violations

Shooting tracker is provided by a openly biased anti 2ndA sub-reddit, not a factual news source. Their list also does not meet the FBI criteria for "mass shootings".

Consider the following:
"As for the Washington Post’s citing the 350+ mass-shooting statistic, it’s pure unadulterated nonsense. Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon reported that only 21 of the 355 shootings on this sub-Reddit thread met the standards for the FBI classification of a mass shooting. Second, some of the incidents on the list aren’t even shootings, as indicated by Mediaite’s Alex Griswold. Here’s one that he found:

        A pair of township boys are accused of shooting four others with a pellet gun, police said.
        Nobody was seriously hurt by the 11- and 12-year-old boys who shot the pellet gun at them on April 25 in the Twinbrook Village apartment complex, Detective Lt. Kevin Faller said in a statement.

Of course, many publications omitted the fact that they’re citing Reddit."
source: http://hotair.com/archives/201...

11 and 12 year-olds with a pellet gun is a "mass shooting" ?!?

Continuously re-posting grossly inaccurate information does not make it fact. Even politifact agrees: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Until that time most of the rest of us will continue to point out how you ARE the problem, not part of the solution.

Illiberal quoting of bad data to claim wrong-think while providing non-factual data, snark remarks, and moral superiority name calling as a rebuttal is the actual problem.

(not intended to be redundant with this: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... )

While we're on the subject of Reddits, here is one for defensive firearm use: DGU https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu (where they allow and encourage debate, unlike the owners of "shootings tracker":GRC)

[Citation Needed]

Illegal immigration is pretty damn high, but I guess you have numbers to show this significant reduction.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

The numbers are about half of what Trump says the numbers are though:

http://www.politifact.com/flor...

>> last hundred pages of this book could be an endorsement of dog raping and only ten people would notice

Our current president endorsed dog eating and I'll bet fewer than ten people cared.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...
"I was introduced to dog meat (tough)..." - Barack Obama

Insightful? Good grief! Let's unpack this tight little knot of hate.

In the US we already have less than 90% of the crime being perpetrated by less than 10% of the population.

Nope. In fact the maybe 70% of americans have broken some law that could land them in jail.

I can see why they might be upset with a 1% bump

I see what you did there, implying that the 1% would be added to the 10% of criminals, and not to the general, law-abiding population. Kinda cheap.

nearly made entirely of Muslim males from shit holes and failed states in the Middle East, in their teens and twenties,

Nope. 51% of the Syrian refugees are women, which is pretty much what you'd expect.

who are particularly notorious for their bad behavior.

Not sure if this refers to muslims, people from the Middle East, or males in their teens and twenties. Which makes this statement either islamophobic, racist, or just plain bigotted. Take your pick.

You do realize that the banks repaid the bailouts right?

https://projects.propublica.or...

Also, it was "only" $600B

http://www.politifact.com/new-...

It was a temporary cash influx to keep the banks from folding. I am actually surprised it wasn't handled through FDIC insurance, but I don't know much about the banking industry.

Vaccination complications cause higher mortality than there are accidents involving guns.

To be factually correct, there are probably more deaths caused by vaccine complications than gun deaths caused by toddlers. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program issues about 155 claims payouts per year (and a portion of those payouts are not death payouts). Reported deaths attributed to vaccine complications is roughly 2000 per year. - Politifact

Golly gee, anon. Are your eyes brown? Because you're full of shit.

With the exception of voting no on Brady, which was done more from the idealistic side of things (truth is he believed it didn't go far enough, and was too much a compromise), he's been very consistently anti on the big issues (so called assault weapons bans and so forth), but liberal (in the classic sense) on some more niche issues like checking firearms onto Amtrack.

You have to understand his mindset. He's a "Vermont sportsman", aka Elmer J. Fucking Fudd incarnate. Anything which isn't involved in durr hunting (i.e. Amtrack might garner business from hunters), he doesn't care about it; neither does he care enough about the Constitution to legitimately amend the 2A's militia clause, and would instead gleefully do any number of end runs around it to neuter it as he sees fit.

Honestly, that part is more worrisome to me than his ant-gun bent, but so it goes with the rest of the asshats in Washington. Despite the oaths they all swore, they only care about the Constitution when its somehow possible to use it as a tool to meet their ends (commerce clause).

Hell, the only reason Sanders made it to the senate in the first place is the Vermont Republican he was running against turned just as anti-gun than Sanders was at the time, causing the NRA to return the favor and cut off their nose to spite their face in retaliation: i.e. to endorse an openly anti-gun Democrat instead for the first time in like, ever. Sanders won very narrowly, probably thanks in part to that endorsement.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

http://www.politico.com/story/...

Except he didn't.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

I can assure you that the vast majority of congresspeople will retain their seats in the next election. I think the statistics are in the 90% range. Years of gerrymandering have ensured this.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

I fail to see, why you'd single-out the corporations.

That would be because I didn't single out corporations, Dutchmaan (GGP) did. Since you sought fit to respond to Dutchmaan, I thought I might challenge your response.

So, answer the question: are you challenging the assertion that corporations are in complete control and gorging themselves at the public trough? Because that was the gist of the post to which you responded.

There is no difference between a citizen voting for a candidate to get free cell-phone and a corporation helping a candidate win in exchange for government's cheap loans and other help.

As a practical matter, there is a great difference between your two scenarios. I would elaborate, but the fact that you equate the two tells me not to waste my time debating you.

But, anyway, here's a couple of clues (assuming you wish to educate yourself): 1) Obama would've gotten the vast majority of the black/poor (your cell video) vote without giving away cell phones. 2) The cost of Obamaphones doesn't even qualify as a gnat's eyelash when compared the the largesse handed out to the corporations that own the US government.

Are you going to challenge the assertion, that the IRS' very purpose is to confiscate the taxpayers' monies?

Why would I? I'm not trying to change the subject and I'm not going to argue over definitions. You say "confiscate", I say "collect". Whatever term is your preference, government needs funds to operate. If you're going to have government, it has to have a mechanism to fund itself. Got a better idea than the IRS for "confiscating your monies"? Let's hear it! (anarchy doesn't count)

Or are you challenging the assertion that corporations are in complete control and gorging themselves at the public trough?

I fail to see, why you'd single-out the corporations. There is no difference between a citizen voting for a candidate to get free cell-phone and a corporation helping a candidate win in exchange for government's cheap loans and other help.

government employees "confiscating the monies"

Are you going to challenge the assertion, that the IRS' very purpose is to confiscate the taxpayers' monies?

There's a lot of sources of embarrassment, from the ineffectiveness of the US embargo in collapsing their economy, to the demonstrably stable Communist regime, in the USA's back yard

It's not demonstrably stable. It survived solely because of Soviet financial aid. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, it's survived because of financial aid from Venezuela which makes up 7%-10% of it's GDP.

Venezuela gets that money from oil sales, mostly to the U.S. since U.S. refiners are some of the few who can process Venezuela's low-quality heavy crude oil. It's so difficult to process that Venezuela has even been importing light arabian oil to meet their domestic needs rather than attempt to process their oil themselves. So in a roundabout way, it's money that's coming from the U.S. to Cuba.

Is a Russian citizen now?

He lives in Russia now and remains very useful to Putin.

you want to bring in a discussion of personal property as it relates to liberties and suggest that is on topic

Because I estimate the correlation between people voting for "wealth-spreading" and those mongering the fear of the NSA as above 90%. All of them are either self-inconsistent fools or two-faced scumbags.

You seem to suggest the NSA's data will one day be used to confiscate wealth.

No, I'm saying, the IRS is already doing that. NSA's worst offence so far was providing other agencies (local and Federal) with information about real crimes — and freedom-loving Americans are outraged over those other police then lying to conceal the spies' involvement. Some day such lying may evolve and lead to innocent people being framed. But it is yet to happen — so far there aren't even any allegations of anybody being framed with NSA's involvement.

But the IRS is already open and brazen about confiscating your monies on mere suspicion and target opposition-supporters for audits and other prosecution.

So there is my point if you don't let the government see your stuff they don't know where there is to try and take from you. So thank you Snowden for bringing to light the domestic spying!

Had Snowden escaped from the IRS, you would've had a point.

Maybe the NSA's domestic spying isn't the 'greatest' threat to liberty but it clearly is a A threat. I for one think we should resist all threats to personal freedoms not just the biggest ones.

Well, if your house were on fire, would you concentrate on putting it out, or will you also continue thinking of the danger of an air-plane falling on it some day? The focus ought to be on the clear-and-present threats, not the hypothetical ones from the future. Moreover, significantly reducing the taxation will also reduce the threat of NSA — by lowering the amounts of money at the government's disposal, you make it less attractive for assholes, who would abuse NSA (or any other agency) to remain in power the way they already use the IRS.

Muslims are currently negotiating for sharia law in Irving TX (Google it)

OK, I googled it. You lose.
http://www.politifact.com/texa...

Last of all, don't forget that it takes more energy (coal, oil) to make a solar panel (frame, silicon, wires) than the panel will ever recoup in its operational life.

The existence of residential and utility scale PV installations, in combination with basic economics, suggests that your statement is false. Unsurprisingly, actual studies prove that is false: Pants on fire!

I challenge your claim that entitlement programs are 2/3 overhead.

(corrected due to technical problems)

Social security overhead seems lower than 2%.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/...

Medicare, 1.4%.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2013/02/1...

SNAP lower than 1%.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Maybe you didn't bother doing any checking of the claim before repeating it?

--PeterM

Why is this not a completely winning argument in favor of a safety net for the homeless? I genuinely want to know.

'lots' of safety nets actually exist. Homeless shelters are safety nets.
Citations - well, $250k was off, it's closer to $40k, around 2002. But you're still looking at housing them being half the cost. $35-150k to keep them on the street, as opposed to $13-25k to house them.

Is it because those in charge really want people they feel better than to suffer so badly that they're willing to pay MORE in order to ensure that happens?

Inertia and fear, I think.

Inertia - there's this belief that homeless people need to 'show' that they're ready for help, by doing things like drying out while still on the street.

Fear - that if they make it 'too nice' that people will be more willing to be or at least claim homelessness to get into the system and linger in it.

Don't get me wrong, I have my conservative aspects, which means that I'm all for studies and steady, measured, implimentation after things like pilot programs. But once you've developed and verified a working program, it's time for a superior program to be adopted elsewhere.

And before everyone goes "ERHMAHGHERD THE TAXPAYERS NEED TO SUPPORT A NATION OF HOMELESS JOBLESS BUMS!!!!", maybe consider the fact that you already are, except no-one's quality of life is actually improved.

One demonstration of this? A homeless person costs around $40k/year. I'd rather pay ~$12k to get them into permanent shelter and far enough up the 'hierarchy of needs' to be able to start addressing things like mental illness and drug addiction. It's actually cheaper.

There will be a vigorous discussion here on Thursday about what went on during the Republican debates (Wednesday, tomorrow).

Trump is completely against this outsourcing thing. He sees quite clearly the damage it does to our workforce, and how it's turning the country into a 3rd world nation.

Unlike the other candidates, he doesn't have to promise anything to super PACs just to get campaign donations. We're starting to see the fallout from this, as at least one supar-PAC has declared war on Donald Trump.

And for comparison, note that about 6 months before becoming president, [then] Senator Obama voted *for* telecom immunity. After he had promised to vote against it. And the measure didn't need his vote to pass - it already had enough support for that.

As a result several telecoms donated to his campaign and he ultimately won.

Keep this job-loss article in mind as you listen to the candidates on Wednesday. Most of them are career politicians, and we know how they actually voted on some of these issues.

If you want to compete with 30,000 new job hunters because your company outsourced to another country, feel free to vote for a politician.

Of course, your company will offer you 3 months of extra employment if you agree to train your replacement, so it's not all bad!

Increase H1B Visas (Senate) (source)

YEAs: 67 (D = 52, R = 14, I = 2)
NAYs: 32 (D = 0, R = 32, I = 0)

Or Obama referring to Isis as a jv team?

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

the rules say president and VP can't come from the same state.

False.

US law requires that all oil collected by vacuum ships be brought to a processing facility, where 100% of all oil must be removed prior to the water being discharged.

During the Deepwater Horizon disaster, there were serious delays in the US accepting offers of help from the Netherlands and other nations. Most of them came with a price tag, but the Dutch offered three sets of Koseq Rigid Sweeping Arms for free. Because they were only 98% efficient, and they were initially refused.

However, common sense (and desperation) won out in the end, and we started accepting all the offers for free equipment that came in, including the Dutch offer.

Reference article

OK then tell me which presidential candidate in the history of American politics, has ever admitted that some of his campaign promises might be for entertainment purposes only.

The president isn't the king. Anyone with basic civics knows that the president isn't really empowered to do all that much without the support of Congress; and is subject to the law and consitution, at least in theory :) and that even on something he can act on, may be challenged in court and tied up.

So an "election promise" by a presidential candidate amounts to little more than a policy statement.

That said, 45% kept, another 25% compromised isn't bad, and 7% more "in the works"...

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

And even the GOP leadership, fairs pretty well all things considered.

Really, if a politician really actually succeeded in doing everything they said they'd do, I'd be pretty worried that the entire democratic government system had collapsed. Putin maybe has the clout to do almost anything he says... not necessarily a good thing.

OK then tell me which presidential candidate in the history of American politics, has ever admitted that some of his campaign promises might be for entertainment purposes only.

The president isn't the king. Anyone with basic civics knows that the president isn't really empowered to do all that much without the support of Congress; and is subject to the law and consitution, at least in theory :) and that even on something he can act on, may be challenged in court and tied up.

So an "election promise" by a presidential candidate amounts to little more than a policy statement.

That said, 45% kept, another 25% compromised isn't bad, and 7% more "in the works"...

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

And even the GOP leadership, fairs pretty well all things considered.

Really, if a politician really actually succeeded in doing everything they said they'd do, I'd be pretty worried that the entire democratic government system had collapsed. Putin maybe has the clout to do almost anything he says... not necessarily a good thing.

because Breitbart totally isn't a 'news' source that engages in bad reporting to push an agenda, and then blames others when called on it...

because Breitbart totally isn't a 'news' source that engages in bad reporting to push an agenda, and then blames others when called on it...

But if you are trying to dispute that voter ID requirements disproportionally affect minorities the facts simply are not on your side.

Oh this should be good.

The states that have instituted voterid laws are all cases where its clear that:

a) there has never been any indication that voter fraud of the type voter id will prevent isn't actually a real problem

Except for that we lack adequate mechanisms to even detect or act on such a thing. More on that later though.

b) as a percentage more republicans have the necessary voter id documents in their wallets and purses right now than democrats; so it places a larger burden on democrats.

Even if we assume everybody has equal access to government offices, and time off to visit them, it STILL means that more voting democrats are going to be too busy or too lazy to actually get their documentation together. Yes, some busy, lazy republicans will be excluded as well. But less of them overall.

If true... which I am not prepared to accept finding no evidence to support that just yet... if that is the case, is the solution to simply not require such IDs... or to make an effort to make sure as many as people have such IDs? Things which are more often than not required in plenty of other facets in life be it flying, driving, opening a bank account or just buying a six-pack of beer.

More so, if one accepts the premise that exercising rights should not unduly burden one side more than another... is it safe to say Republicans tend to be more likely to buy/own firearms then Democrats? Is it then also discriminatory that a photo id is required to buy a gun at an FFL, further burdening Democrats? Is not a photo id requirement in this case an infringement on their second amendment rights?

The upshot is indisputable. voter id laws are biased for republicans while really having no other effect.

What about increased turnout? Is that an effect?

Since the type of voter fraud it prevents is statistically irrelevant anyway.

Can you, or anyone conclusively say exactly what the rate of voter fraud is? Sure, you can point to a low conviction rate... but that's pretty specious evidence as no one can... as there are not adequate means to detect it.

If I show up at your polling place nice & early and claim to be you and vote on your behalf, I've just committed fraud, though unless the poll worker knows you and says "no you aren't! and tackles me to the ground while calling for police... how do you detect/prevent that later in the day when you show up?

Best case, because it's impossible to find the ballot I cast at 7:01 am that morning, you get a provisional ballot and vote a similar way to me and our candidate gets 2x the votes from 'you'. Worst case, you don't get to vote, or your real vote gets canceled out by my fraudulent vote.

What if instead I drive to various polling places early in the morning with a pre-determined list of people who I am going to vote on fraudulently behalf of and who I do not think are likely to vote later in the dead (recently deceased, homebound, hasn't voted in a while)... is that going to be detected at all? Probably not, and my chances of getting away with it are just as good, even if I have a few people joining me to help sway an election for our guy.

Where you've margins of 100k sure, such fraud doesn't really matter, but when you've got close local or state elections that come down to a few dozen or a few hundred ballots out of several million cast... we are beyond the margin of error or carelessness (accidently scribbling an identifying mark, double voting, etc)... it's almost certain that we are in the margin of fraud... granted only some kinds can be red

The same Obama who was against gay marriage back in 2008? He's a career politician just like the rest of them, going wherever the wind blows and lacking personal integrity in his opinions. That's not to say his opinions lare morally wrong on an ongoing basis, just that they change whenever it suits him politically. Trump, not so much, and that resonates with a lot of people tired of seeing the same cut-outs mouthing the same trendy platitudes for years now.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history-supports-mccains-stance-on-waterboarding/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/20detain.html?_r=0

probably why they don't really report on black on black violence or white on white violence.

http://www.politifact.com/flor...

this says currently 13 percent of homicide crosses racial lines, for lots of reasons, including racial homogeneity of neighborhoods, and people typically knowing their killers. etc.

it's not really news.

See: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

About half of promises kept and a quarter partially kept; doesn't really match "broken like almost all...". Perhaps the problem is that you only vote for politicians who plan on breaking their promises? If so, then the problem is probably not with the politicians.

Yes, it's worth a citation.

No, it's not. The claim is bullshit because it computes meaningless numbers for a meaningless group of people. And even taken at face value, it doesn't tell you anything about who is responsible for keeping wages down (as I was saying, it's mainly government policy, plus some competition from abroad).

Yeah, I looked it up:

Again, you point to data about average actual direct corporate taxes paid. I told you why those numbers are irrelevant. What matters is the effective marginal rate, and that is the combination of maximum marginal corporate taxes plus maximum marginal capital gains taxes.

Here is a Politifact analysis of the US corporate tax rate that doesn't even take into account the capital gains tax:

http://www.politifact.com/pund...

We have some of the highest corporate tax rates before and after deductions.

The loopholes in the US tax code should be eliminated. But, politically, many of the people complaining about low average corporate taxes are the same people who put in those loopholes. That is, the combination of low average corporate tax with high marginal corporate tax is even worse than a uniformly high corporate tax.

Our capital gains taxes are also extremely high:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ro...

You need to add capital gains and corporate taxes if you want to know how much the US government actually gets from every dollar earned by a corporation:

http://taxfoundation.org/artic...

Furthermore, corporate taxation doesn't come from some mysterious pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, it comes from all shareholders, and a large part of those are direct or indirect retirement investments. The higher you make corporate taxes, the less people money people will have to retire on.

The US needs to sharply lower corporate taxation and capital gains taxes, otherwise both corporations and investors will increasingly go overseas, a process that obviously has already started.

The papers and news reports you point to are bogus; they compute effective corporate tax rates on worldwide earnings, which isn't relevant to anything.

People I didn't mention that could be honest so far as I know:
Scott Walker
Ben Carson
Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
John Kasich
Bobby Jindal
George Pataki
Jim Gilmore

We can take them one at a time:

Scott Walker:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

Carson:

"A lot of people who go into prison straight, and when they come out they’re gay."

Rand Paul:
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/1...

Ted Cruz:
http://www.politicususa.com/20...

John Kasich:
http://mediatrackers.org/ohio/...

After that, the list becomes too trivial to fact-check. "George Pataki'? Really?

Check the timeline. She says they were deleted "shortly after" December 5th. There was no subpoena (and thus no hold) until March 4th. Reviewing of the emails to decide which ones to delete, and which to hand over to the State Department seems to have happened in that Fall prior to December 5th.

So Congress could do a Contempt of Congress investigation under the "inherent contempt" rule, and actually imprison her for the duration of the Congressional term. But that would be a political disaster due to Dubya's use of the gwb43.com domain, including deletions after an investigation into his firing of attorneys, Colin Powell's use of his own address, etc.

>> What "rapid increase of murder"??

How's life in the country? Here's some 2015/2014 stats...it's becoming a major political issue for those of us in and around cities.

Chicago: 26 percent increase - http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
Milwaukee: hit 2014's total in July! - http://www.jsonline.com/news/c...
Baltimore: deadliest month in 40 years - http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...
New York: Mayor under fire for murder jump - http://www.politifact.com/pund...

AIG claims they paid all the money back and more. Is it true? Polifact says mostly true.

Greece may or may not be small potatoes. But what's the Greek plan to pay anyone back?

Iran has enough centrifuges to make a nuclear bomb but not enough centrifuges to make nuclear fuel. Iran has also been caught making uranium purer than required for energy purposes.

Here is what I found on Wikipedia:

"White Americans are the racial majority, with a 77.7% share of the U.S. population. Hispanic and Latino Americans amount to 17.1% of the population, making up the largest minority. African Americans are the largest racial minority, amounting to 13.2% of the population."

So, African-americans are 13.2% of the population.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

Roughly 39% that go to college, graduate (and this is out of the percentage that actually go in the first place). So it makes sense that Tech companies, no matter how racially diverse, are hiring less African-Americans. Even if 100% went to college, they would still be only a fraction of the workforce, if completely represented.

We need to get to the root of the problem instead of focus on the symptoms. Symptoms have been focused on for many years (affirmative action, etc) and it doesn't seem to be working. What needs to happen is in the home and I don't think the government can really do anything about it.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

72% of African-american children are born out of wedlock.

"Estimates for the percentage of African-American children growing up in single-parent households are slightly lower, at 67 percent"

absolutely should you shop around for nonemergency care.

you don't shop around for an oncologist when you have cancer (not that you don't have the time, you lack the knowledge to make an educate choice)

Consistency, thy name isn't circletimessquare.

I'm amazed that someone who claims to live in Manhattan doesn't believe that people frequently shop doctors and hospitals (NYP, Mt. Sinai, or NYU Langone, ever heard of them?) for all but emergency care.

Also, I'm amazed that someone who claims to know a lot about healthcare thinks that nonemergency care is "orthogonal to the main fucking point of what healthcare actually is," when nonemergency care makes up about 98% of all health care spending.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Why? Americans are still paying interest on the debt accrued for the civil war.

Nope

If the other 115 million homes in the country each also got a "free" $34000 in money for the same purpose ... the government would have to borrow 3.9 TRILLION dollars (about 25% of the current federal debt) .. luckily so far out great great great grandchildren only have to pay for a few greedy selfish fucks.

You appear to have no idea precisely how large the economy is, or how such a thing would be spaced out over time. Nor do you seem aware of the other savings that would result from such an expenditure. You're simply looking at one number out of context and without any other background, and then based on that ignorance saying "no". The health savings alone from eliminating a tremendous amount of fossil fuel use would more than compensate.

So once again, you prove your ignorant and or shill nature.

Single? But there are so many instances of ignorance and lies to choose from.

http://www.politifact.com/pers...

WRT to single-payer, Obama's support has somewhat hesitant.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

In other statements, Obama has spoken favorably of single-payer in concept, but always adding qualifiers.

In February 2004, about a month before the primary election in the U.S. Senate race, the Associated Press reported the stance of all the candidates on universal health care. "Obama says he supports the idea of universal health care but does not think a single-payer government system is feasible. He says the government should be the health care provider of last resort for the uninsured." In a rundown of all the candidates' positions, the Associated Press summarized Obama's position as "Support, but 'probably not at this stage,' a single-payer government system."
In his book The Audacity of Hope , published in October 2006 when he was a U.S. senator, Obama described single-payer as the hope of the left, while those on the right wanted a market-based approach. "It's time we broke this impasse by acknowledging a few simple truths," Obama wrote, suggesting a system much like the one he supports today.
In April 2007, a few months after he declared his candidacy for presidency, the Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama has pledged that, if elected, all Americans would have health-care coverage by the end of his first term. He has said he is reluctant to switch to a 'single-payer' national health insurance system because of the difficulty in making a quick transition from the employer-based private system."
At his town halls as president, he routinely answers questions about single-payer by saying he would favor it if he were starting a system "from scratch." But he consistently adds that's not the goal of the current reform. "For us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive, and my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free-market system," Obama said in Annandale, Va., on July 1, 2009.

convicted international war criminal

CITATION NEEDED

Who would that be? It isn't GWB, because there has never been a legitimate trial. I dare you to point to Malaysia kangaroo court ruling. Because if you think that is okay, then you also should subscribe to all of their laws, including those against gays and drug users.

Here is a quote from Polifact ..

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Arrest warrants and the International Criminal Court

Interpol, the international police organization, does not list any outstanding arrest warrants for Bush or Cheney in their searchable database. Meanwhile, experts in international law said they were not aware of pending warrants, particularly from the most obvious entity that might issue one -- the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

The right doesn't "want stuff" taken from other people. They want to earn it.

Right. That's why most "red" states take more money from the federal government than they contribute and the top 10 states receiving federal assistance are "red" and the bottom 10 are "blue":
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/...

I think your analysis is off. I believe democrats see government is a moderation of society, where people come together to create a better society and life for EVERYONE, not just the few wealthiest fucktards that will buy them into office (as the republicans believe), or that only-the-strongest-and fuck-everyone-else as conservative libertarians do.

As for the big government democrats, maybe you need to do just a little smattering of research before continuing to use a stupid talking point that is basically propagandized projectionism utilized by con men preying on the willfully ignorant conservative base.

The largest state governments by percentage of population are red states: http://247wallst.com/special-r...

.... red states that siphon more money from the federal coffers (takers) than blue states (makers) who have to subsidize them so they're not even worse shitholes than they already are: http://wallethub.com/edu/state...

... perhaps following the path republicans in the white house that have increased government jobs more than democrats in the white house have, while failing to come close to the private sector jobs that are created under democrats: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

http://politicsthatwork.com/de...

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Maybe the biggest reason for the hatred is, libertarians and republicans continue to push policies that simply DO NOT WORK, and actually harm this country, all the while lying through their teeth about the disasters they've created. Clinton had to work to clean up after Reagan (Bush Sr. started that cleanup, and the GOP threw him out), and Obama has had to work to clean up from Bush Jr. Red states are leeches off the federal coffers, while blue states have to dole out money to help the sad sack red states who apparently don't have bootstraps of their own. All the while republican politicians lie like bitches so they can HAVE POWER.... instead of actually govern the country for the betterment of everyone.

From the article I linked to. Did you bother reading it?

Yeah, their only source for this particular claim is the guy's own words: "He told the Times: “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”

That's both flimsy evidence (hearsay and not under oath) and evasive. For example, if he is ever confronted with evidence of having been told by Clinton, how to vote, he'll be able to claim, that it was not "interference", but direct instructions from his official boss at the time.

And yet, you took his flimsy statement about lack of "interference" and turned it into a far wider-reaching "had no contact with her about it". Am I being picky? The other Clinton once claimed, "oral sex is not sex", for crying out loud — you can not be too picky with these weasels...

Yes. That's exactly what they did. *eyeroll*

Eye-rolling does not prove anything. I'll take it as another concession.

Yeah, no. This is about the vote to give a Russian country control of 20% of US uranium production and Sec. Clinton's (non)involvement in it.

You defended the Secretary here with two arguments:

1. That a FactCheck-article concludes, there is no evidence of her wrong-doing — only "speculations"
2. That any money (bribe) were given not to any of the Clintons, but to the Clinton Foundation

The first claim makes my "rant" — about the need to use a reverse of the usual burden-of-proof principle for Executive government officials — on-topic and otherwise appropriate. The second (false) claim likewise legitimizes my counter-argument about the Foundation being a slush-fund and a power-brokerage vehicle, even if it does not enrich the Clintons directly.

Legitimacy of my counter-arguments now established, absence of any other rebuttals from you evident, the only conclusion is that your original arguments in defense of Madame Secretary are null and void. Have a nice day.

his job at Bain was to save companies, not jobs

Tell that to the folks that used to work for Kay Bee toys. http://www.politifact.com/trut... While he had left by the time Bain did their damage there, they were using the system that he had set up: Run up a large debt to purchase a company, assign the debt to that company, sell off much of its assets, and watch it burn.