Slashdot Mirror

Politifact rates it as only "half true." http://www.politifact.com/pund...

Here is another Russian source that includes some relevant facts you left out, mainly the part about Ukraine having not actually done what you accuse because you excessively focus on a "vote" when there are more steps than a single vote for a law to be enacted, or repealed. The law wasn't repealed. http://en.ria.ru/world/2014030...

Reading your description, or the RT description, it would appear that the pro-EU groups in Ukraine supported the repeal. The fact is that the Parliament took an unpopular vote, that resulted in Ukrainian speakers in Kyiv protesting(!), and none of the major pro-EU politicians supported that vote. None of the pro-EU candidates in the recent elections supported repealing the 2012 law.

So while it is "half true" that they voted to repeal the law, it is not true as stated, and certainly not true in the claimed implication that the pro-EU Ukrainians are anti-Russian-speakers.

Here is an in-depth analysis. https://www.opendemocracy.net/...

> Why are they perpetually running budget deficits then?

Because of all that federal tax money they send to the red states.

> On what basis do you judge that?

On the basis of using charges under the Espionage Act more than all other presidents combined.

I don't think the republicans would have done any better - their party's rhetoric is anti-whistleblower for anything other than "wasting" money.
But the democrats should have done better because their party's rhetoric is generally pro-whistleblower for all issues.

Depending on where you live (state taxes?), that's at best a cool $350-$365 after payroll taxes (259-270 Euros) per week for a family of two to four.

Really? And would that $10.10/hr magically become more or less money with a family of 1, or a family of 10?

And actually, with a family of 4 on $20,000/year, you probably wouldn't be paying ANYTHING in state or federal income taxes in most states, so it would be $404/week take-home.

And more relevant than abstract cash figures:

"If you have a [full-time] job in this country, (thereâ(TM)s a) 97 percent chance that you're not going to be in poverty."

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

Oh yeah, Obama is a terrible abuser of executive orders if you believe chain emails and talk radio.

The average full time non salary worker at hobby lobby makes $14 an hour. I wouldn't exactly call that not much.

Only when compared to the minimum wage which is far below poverty level, so yeah, having to fork out $300 out of pocket for an IUD is a good chunk of change. And not exactly fair when the guy working the next register over pays $300 out of pocket for a $3,000 vasectomy, which Hobby Lobby still covers.

1) Hobby Lobby was fine with covering these meds before it was mandatory

I need a cite before I will believe this.

Sure thing.

Not relevant but show me a creditable link and it needs to be one concerning the 4 contraception they took issue with.

Pointing out hypocrisy is always relevant. Ditto that for buying products from China and the total absence of the "life begins at conception" crowd at the entrance of IVF clinics, which throw thousands of embryos in the trash. And again, sure thing.

3) All their products come from China with it's mandatory abortions

Not relevant again. Or do you think you should go to prison for something your father or brother did?

Pointing out hypocrisy is always relevant. Re the brother and the father nonsense - didn't I ask you to stop being a dumbass for five seconds?

They don't seem to be telling others how to live, just objecting to others telling them to ignore their faith and provide a couple specific things.

Just the usual rationalized bullshit. They aren't a church, they are a business. And right now, businesses owned by JW's and Scientologists and Christian Scientists are objecting to having to provide for blood transfusions/psychiatric care/any medical care. And their objections are just as "valid" as Hobby Lobby's.

No one is arguing to mess around with other people's lives except for the government. They are saying you have to provide X even if it is against your religion and hobby lobby said no I don't and a court agreed with them. That is the facts that it boils down to if you remove all the spin.

By all means, remove the spin. Hobby Lobby wants to collect tax breaks from employer-provided insurance - which is part of an employees compensation - without following the rules that come with said compensation. They're still happy to cover viagra and vasectomies though - but then you seem to be a fan of hypocrisy.

You wouldn't be double paying for it.

Of course you are, as insurance is a part of your compensation, but being arbitrarily denied for unjustifiable reasons.

IT doesn't prevent those people subjected to the loss of transfusions or psychiatric medication from gaining coverage in some other way.

Yeah. It does. Under Obomneycare, you have to take your employer's insurance plan.

There is no reason why it could not be done in the hobby lobby case or a Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientologist.

So you are in favor of abject insanity. At least that's out and on the table.

You act like the sky is falling when all you did was knock you glass off the table.

You're acting like the trashing of the 1st Amendment is no big thang. Let us know how you like it when you end up shelling out thousands of dollars just to make your crazy JW boss happy.

I was first introduced to the issue by Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", and pretty much accepted what he was saying... except that there was some nagging doubt due to things like unlabeled graphs and the like in his presentation.

Those nagging doubts? They're the manifestation of your political identity conflicting with the science.

It was when I started digging into the science that I started changing my mind. I found irresponsible handling of data, bizarre secrecy where there shouldn't be any, and so on. And all this has mushroomed in recent years.

And this is how you rationalize your refusal to accept the science. You use selective thinking to focus on minor issues while ignoring what should be the glaring obvious parts.

Case in point: the recent admission by NCDC that certain USHCN data had been derived and used improperly, and they had known it for a long time. They said they had "intended to fix it" at some undefined point in the future, but the question is: why was it not fixed already, and why had they not told anyone (including scientists) about it, even though they knew about it?

Are you referring to this? It seems like a rather minor bug.

And how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people?

Except that it hasn't been shown to be "nothing but statistical bullshit". I have yet to see a credible refutation of their claim that 97% of the published scientific articles that take a position on climate change support the consensus position that global warming is happening and driven by human activity. The argument that I'm assuming that you are referring to is the one made by Anthony Watts that they should not have excluded papers that do not discuss global climate change or global warming. However, it seems fair to me that when you are looking at positions taken on a issue to only look at papers which discuss the issue.

The IPCC's latest report states clearly that the science supporting their position is weaker than ever... yet they're even more certain that it's true. WTF?

That's a very interesting interpretation of the IPCC report, but one that most people do not get after reading the report. I strongly suspect it is a result of more selective thinking. You place undue emphasis on minor details of the report like a decrease in confidence of the link between severe weather and global average temperature and the lower of the top end of reasonable climate sensitivity, while ignoring the increase in the bottom end of reasonable climate sensitivity to conlcude that the "position is weaker than ever" while I think unbiased readers generally come away with the impression that uncertainty has decreased (because both the upper and lower limits have tightened).

Personally, I didn't believe in global warming when I first heard about it in the 90s, but since then I have been convinced that it is true. My experience with so called "skeptics" like yourself has played no little part in that belief. I have found that the actual scientific proponents tends to have well researched and detailed explanations for why and how it's happening, but the so-called skeptics tend to have arguments based on emotion and finger-pointing. Time and again you, in particular, have disappointed me with claims that were poorly backed up. Invariably when I investigate your claims I find them to be blown out of proportion, mistaken, or referencing some kook's incomprehensible arguments*.

I could, in theory, be falling for the same blinded b

Ku-Klux-Klan were Democrats, not Republicans.

They certainly were, until FDR and later LBJ wanted to turn the Democrats into the civil rights party, and distanced the party from the racist southern democrats, after which Nixon decided that the Republicans should appeal to those southern former-democrats in order to gain more votes, and the parties basically switched position on this issue.

More ammunition for the Republicans to claim that another group of brown people isn't human.

Ku-Klux-Klan were Democrats, not Republicans.

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

I don't think you can blame him for Guantanamo -- he's been blocked by Congress on that one: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

If you want to complain, you'll have to find some that you can actually blame on him ... luckily, you have lots to choose from : http://www.politifact.com/trut...

(and this is why when I ran for office, I only made one promise -- that I'd give fair consideration to everything put before me ... which meant I once had to abstain from a vote when I found that some complaints had been withheld, as I couldn't research if they were legitimate complaints or not)

Like fucking hell we can't. He can't wait to go "extra-Constitutional" in other matters in the face of Congressional disapproval. Hell, at least with Gitmo being a military base he could always claim he's Commander-in-Chief. But noooo, he's ignoring that for this kind of wag-the-dog crap:

Obama to take executive action on immigration

At a hastily scheduled Rose Garden appearance, Obama said House Speaker John Boehner told him last week that the chamber's GOP majority he leads will continue blocking a vote on a Senate-passed immigration bill.

In response, Obama said he was starting "a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress," adding that he directed his team to recommend steps he can take this summer and that he would then act on those steps "without delay."

"The failure of House Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our security, is bad for our economy, is bad for our future," the President said. "America cannot wait forever for them to ask."

It's all about narcissistic grandstanding with this arrogant popinjay - and he needs a distraction after getting bitch slapped in the past week by the Supreme Court 9-0 for unconstitutional executive actions such as improper "recess" appointments.

So he's going to go for MORE unilateral executive actions?

Can you say "OUT OF CONTROL"!?!?!

I don't think you can blame him for Guantanamo -- he's been blocked by Congress on that one: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

If you want to complain, you'll have to find some that you can actually blame on him ... luckily, you have lots to choose from : http://www.politifact.com/trut...

(and this is why when I ran for office, I only made one promise -- that I'd give fair consideration to everything put before me ... which meant I once had to abstain from a vote when I found that some complaints had been withheld, as I couldn't research if they were legitimate complaints or not)

Like fucking hell we can't. He can't wait to go "extra-Constitutional" in other matters in the face of Congressional disapproval. Hell, at least with Gitmo being a military base he could always claim he's Commander-in-Chief. But noooo, he's ignoring that for this kind of wag-the-dog crap:

Obama to take executive action on immigration

At a hastily scheduled Rose Garden appearance, Obama said House Speaker John Boehner told him last week that the chamber's GOP majority he leads will continue blocking a vote on a Senate-passed immigration bill.

In response, Obama said he was starting "a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress," adding that he directed his team to recommend steps he can take this summer and that he would then act on those steps "without delay."

"The failure of House Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our security, is bad for our economy, is bad for our future," the President said. "America cannot wait forever for them to ask."

It's all about narcissistic grandstanding with this arrogant popinjay - and he needs a distraction after getting bitch slapped in the past week by the Supreme Court 9-0 for unconstitutional executive actions such as improper "recess" appointments.

So he's going to go for MORE unilateral executive actions?

Can you say "OUT OF CONTROL"!?!?!

We’re kickstarting a Super PAC big enough to make it possible to win a Congress committed to fundamental reform by 2016.

Haven't these same people already elected a President committed to fundamental transformation of America? Has it not proven to be a disaster both inside and outside the country?

Now they ask for your money to put more of the same people into Congress — because "this time it will be different"?

And how will that help their lesser goal — that of altering the First Amendment?

I don't think you can blame him for Guantanamo -- he's been blocked by Congress on that one: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

If you want to complain, you'll have to find some that you can actually blame on him ... luckily, you have lots to choose from : http://www.politifact.com/trut...

(and this is why when I ran for office, I only made one promise -- that I'd give fair consideration to everything put before me ... which meant I once had to abstain from a vote when I found that some complaints had been withheld, as I couldn't research if they were legitimate complaints or not)

I don't think you can blame him for Guantanamo -- he's been blocked by Congress on that one: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

If you want to complain, you'll have to find some that you can actually blame on him ... luckily, you have lots to choose from : http://www.politifact.com/trut...

(and this is why when I ran for office, I only made one promise -- that I'd give fair consideration to everything put before me ... which meant I once had to abstain from a vote when I found that some complaints had been withheld, as I couldn't research if they were legitimate complaints or not)

I don't get why Republicans made up death panels

First off, they didn't "make up" the death panels - they intentionally mis-characterized a provision to make it sound more onerous than it really was. And they aren't the only major US political party that behaves in such a manner; Democrats spin just as hard when it suits them.

If you don't understand why politicians spin facts to sound better/worse depending on how it fits their agendas, you probably shouldn't vote, because you are not well-informed enough.

One convenient example: Clinton claiming that solar is cheaper than nuclear. It's not. It's about 85% more expensive.

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

> it looks very bad for people supporting amnesty right now simply because there looks to be a free for all at the border.

Is that what it looks like at the border, or what it looks like on fox news?
Because Jeb Bush says illegal immigration is "net zero."

I did not know that.

> it looks very bad for people supporting amnesty right now simply because there looks to be a free for all at the border.

Is that what it looks like at the border, or what it looks like on fox news?
Because Jeb Bush says illegal immigration is "net zero."

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]

When you start comparing crime rates, violent crime rates, gun deaths, or any other socially important data, you really need to pay careful attention to terminology. It matters little that the UK may experience only 1% of our gun deaths, if they also experience 800% of our violent crime rate. After you are mutilated or dead, is it really going to matter to you that you were killed with a gun, or a knife, or a stone, or you were choked to death? Violent crime is violent crime.

Given the choice, I think I'd rather be shot to death, than bludgeoned to death. The suffering is likely to end much, much sooner.

BOTTOM LINE: liberals, progressives, and socialists always want to disarm the public. But, disarming the public never makes the public any safer. It only makes it safer for GOVERNMENT TO OPPRESS THE PEOPLE!!

Ask any number of infamous people, starting with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao tse Tung.

Do you /really/ think that a punch in the face, a rape and a mass shooting are all the same thing? They're all violent crime...

Keep in mind that the statistics aren't derived the same way in the two countries. The UK includes a much wider array of crimes as "violent crimes", while the US doesn't - it's rate is effectively lower because there are crimes that it puts in other categories. ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/ )

Also, you're probably more likely to be bludgeoned to death in the US than in the UK. The murder rate is far higher in the US after all.

If somebody is going to commit a violent crime against me, I'd much rather it involve a fist than a bullet. You're welcome to feel otherwise.

The GP did not say murder rates. He said violent crime rates. Even the most conservative comparisons I can find, which attempt to compare like types of crimes in UK and USA (because they are classified differently), shows at least 200% more violent crime in the UK compared to the USA.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...
http://blog.skepticallibertari...
etc, etc.

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

When you start comparing crime rates, violent crime rates, gun deaths, or any other socially important data, you really need to pay careful attention to terminology. It matters little that the UK may experience only 1% of our gun deaths, if they also experience 800% of our violent crime rate. After you are mutilated or dead, is it really going to matter to you that you were killed with a gun, or a knife, or a stone, or you were choked to death? Violent crime is violent crime.

Given the choice, I think I'd rather be shot to death, than bludgeoned to death. The suffering is likely to end much, much sooner.

BOTTOM LINE: liberals, progressives, and socialists always want to disarm the public. But, disarming the public never makes the public any safer. It only makes it safer for GOVERNMENT TO OPPRESS THE PEOPLE!!

Ask any number of infamous people, starting with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao tse Tung.

Liberals don't tolerate facts.

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

When you start comparing crime rates, violent crime rates, gun deaths, or any other socially important data, you really need to pay careful attention to terminology. It matters little that the UK may experience only 1% of our gun deaths, if they also experience 800% of our violent crime rate. After you are mutilated or dead, is it really going to matter to you that you were killed with a gun, or a knife, or a stone, or you were choked to death? Violent crime is violent crime.

Given the choice, I think I'd rather be shot to death, than bludgeoned to death. The suffering is likely to end much, much sooner.

BOTTOM LINE: liberals, progressives, and socialists always want to disarm the public. But, disarming the public never makes the public any safer. It only makes it safer for GOVERNMENT TO OPPRESS THE PEOPLE!!

Ask any number of infamous people, starting with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao tse Tung.

.... Do you remember those hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers money, Obama and his team of banksters handed over to commercial privately held banks?

Not quite. Not quite.

Personally, I recall the $700 billion dollar TARP program advocated by Henry Paulson and signed into law by George W. Bush. Can you provide us with links describing the Obama bailout program you refer to? (Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath).

I also recall Obama announcing that the banks had paid back their loans with interest, such that the government made a profit on TARP.

In summary, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts!

PolitiFact has compiled more than 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the 2008 and 2012 campaigns and is tracking their progress on our Obameter.

link
But hey, I'm sure you thought it sounded like a good argument in your head.

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

According to Politifact, it's only mostly false. The candidate who spends the most money wins 80+% of the time (98% for the house in 2004), but exactly how often they win varies by election.

...It is the cornerstone of President Obama's campaign theme about limiting the influence of special interests. During the campaign, Obama said many times that lobbyists would not run his White House, and the campaign delighted in tweaking rival John McCain for the former lobbyists who worked on McCain's campaign. Obama's ethics proposals specifically spelled out that former lobbyists would not be allowed to "work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years." On his first full day in office, Obama signed an executive order to that effect. But the order has a loophole — a "waiver" clause that allows former lobbyists to serve. That waiver clause has been used at least three times, and in some cases, the administration allows former lobbyists to serve without a waiver. After examining the administration's actions for the past two months, we have concluded that Obama has broken this promise. See Promise No. 240 for the full details.

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

First off, that petition is stupid. you don't put 3 things in one petition. No one will pay attention

Secondly, Tom WHeeler is the best person to get to those goals.

" headed by Chairman and former cable lobbyist Tom Wheeler"
logical fallacy.

"announced rules that will completely destroy Net Neutrality"
speculation

"Mr. Wheeler's proposed rules "
ask your self, who they are proposed to. Those are the people you need to contact. Wheeler can not to more or less then congress wants. Going after him just makes it easier for the people actually at the heart of this decision to deflect blame. You are creating a scape goat for the very people who make this decision.

"The Obama Administration promised a free and open Internet. "
You should read this:
http://www.politifact.com/trut...

stop blaming a president for what congress does.

Thus the murder rate involving firearms would go down (since you imply it is because of these problems, and not the availability of guns, that people shoot people).

FTFY. There's no way to prove that a lack of one tool will prevent anyone from committing murder; if a person has an intent to harm another, they're probably going to do it, regardless of what tool they choose for the job - proven by the fact that more American citizens are beaten to death than shot with long rifles.

The irony being, of course, that most anti-gun politicians want to ban long rifles, but keep pistols.

You trade pre-existing support now for death panels later. Have fun.

Repeating as fact something that Politifact had rated as "Lie of the Year" for 2009 does not help your credibility.

So let me get this straight, it's perfectly OK to kill people with drones as long as they're not American citizens?

Yes

And yes American citizens abroad as well.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/mar/19/kesha-rogers/four-us-citizens-killed-obama-drone-strikes-3-were/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18019-federal-court-drone-killing-of-u-s-citizens-is-constitutional

... well, as long as you are on a terror watch-list which automatically removes your rights or aren't the "intended" target.

Wow... rationalize much?

I bet you are the AC you are responding to.

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

Food for thought. Would you really want to live in Venezuela? Hitler made a lot of improvements in Nazi Germany before he became the man we love to hate. Somehow I'm not sure that making the trains run on time by making it so people no longer want to ride them is a good thing. But hey, to each their own.

Bill Clinton announces cancelation of nuclear power:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Bill Clinton says wind solar are already cheaper than nuclear:
http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Awesome!! So if the ACA is such a fucking success where is the $2500/year I am supposed to be saving vs. the actual observed increase of ~$2000/yr I see now?

Oh wait.. I must be a republicrat for even mentioning that and thus not worthy of a response.....

There are two main reasons for this: up-front costs and legal obstacles.

An obvious case of market failure. We need new laws and regulations so that the caring, omni-scient and selfless government officials help the would-be newcomers deal with the existing laws and regulations.

Better yet, let's have a single-payer ISP...

The Walton family still has control of the company, owning just more than half of its shares.
The Walton family has more wealth than the entire bottom 42% of the US population. http://www.politifact.com/trut...
They have the control and the wealth. They could pay their employees a living wage and give them decent benefits but it is cheaper to put them on food stamps and Medicaid and have the taxpayer subsidize their employees... this leaves more money for the Waltons.

You're confusing Debt/Asset and Deficit/Surplus. Debt is what we owe, Asset is what we Own free and clear. Deficit is what we are spending above what revenues are. Surplus is the amount of revenue above spending. Clinton, while raising the amount of Debt the country had, was able to get Congress to pass a budget that generated a Surplus. Over time, if the Surplus was maintained, it would have started eating up the Debt and hopefully may have eventually turned it into an Asset. Unfortunately, Bush had turned that all around in his first term and began marching up the Deficit again...thus increasing the Debt. At least Obama has reduced the Deficit, even though it is still raising the debt, just not as fast as it was when he started. You may ask, how can Obama be spending more but reduce the deficit? Simply because he didn't increase spending at a faster rate than the increase in GDP.

Sources:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/25/barack-obama/obama-says-deficit-falling-fastest-rate-60-years/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/05/obama_budget_sees_deficit_reduction_from_health_law.html

Kept more promises than broken... but there are a LOT of broken and a lot of "muddied" campaign promises. http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Wow, there is so much wrong in this post I don't even know where to begin.

Let's start with the "claimed and won whistle-blower status". That is completely false. First off, the whistleblower laws only apply to government employees. As a contractor, they did not protect him at all. Second, he is charged under the Espionage Act, which does not have any whistleblower or "public good" exception. People prosecuted under this law are forbidden from telling a jury that they were acting for the greater good, the only thing that the jury is allowed to hear is that the law was broken.

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

Second, as for "the worst thing that could happen to him", consider the prior example of Thomas Drake, who was a whistleblower years before Snowden, followed the letter of the law precisely, and as a result had his house raided by armed FBI agents. They also raided the houses of three other people who knew Drake, the FBI holding the families of these associates at gunpoint. The prosecution of Drake was in fact persecution, as Richard D. Bennett of the Federal District Court said explicitly when he called it "unconscionable".

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

He has not "kept revealing stuff" in order to "keep his value". He gave his documents to a few trusted reporters before he fled, and since he left he has not released a single thing. The continuing revelations are from his original release to the reporters, he is not providing anything new at all. He says he has none of the documents anymore, and the NSA and CIA and FBI have not shown any evidence that he does have them. The intelligence agencies have instead used weasel-words to insinuate that he does without literally accusing him of it.

The collection efforts directed at our allies need to be revealed, because they are part of a larger pattern of flagrant disrespect and veiled acts of war the intelligence agencies are perpetuating universally across the globe. Do you even realize we are talking about universal surveillance of every man, woman, and child on Earth? The reality is far worse than any dystopian science fiction you can find. The NSA is worse than the Stasi, as said by a former Stasi official.

https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

As for our political and military allies also being economic competitors, how the hell do you justify spending more on our intelligence budget than the rest of the First World nations combined? In what possible way is that an economic advantage?

The worst part of all this is that I cannot ever know for sure if you are simply grossly misinformed, or you are a government shill paid to deliberately post false information in an organized propaganda attempt.

https://firstlook.org/theinter...

You, sir, terrify me almost as much as the totalitarian government intelligence agencies.

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

Large parts of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not part of the annual budget. The spending was approved as "supplemental budgets" which was dishonest because it's not like people didn't know that additional money would need to be provided for those efforts.

Here's a more complete picture of what was going on. The process for Solyndra started well before the Obama office came into power. It was fast tracked once he got there, but mostly as one of the many projects related to the stimulus. And as a side note, the main reason that Solyndra failed was due to China price-fixing the market for solar panels to the point US companies couldn't compete.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/nov/15/americans-prosperity/solyndra-ad-president-barack-obama-taxpayer-money/

..because "corporate backing" rules out "liberal," right?

Yes, pretty much. "Liberal" is supposed to imply at least a bit of leftism, and leftism mean policies that benefit ordinary working people instead of the aristocrats who control capital. Anything that benefits well-to-do stockholders at the expense of working people is a right-wing policy.

Things like the ACA aka "Obamacare" is exactly what the NOT CONSERVATIVES do when they have an iron grip on Capital Hill.

The ACA is modeled on "RomneyCare" and the idea of exchanges was pushed by the Heritage Foundation for years -- as early as 1989, in fact. It's fundamentally a right-wing plan that continues to fatten the wallets of insurance company stockholders and executives, does little to restrain corporations so massive that their profits -- not revenue, but profits -- are larger than some state budgets, maintains the fiction that a market approach is appropriate for health care, and does fskc-all to reign in the medical industry's practice of grossly overcharging people.

According to the latest Census data, 9 of the 10 states with the lowest per-person income levels were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Utah, Alabama, South Carolina and Oklahoma.

The Census data also show that 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median household income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma.

And 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median family income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana and South Carolina.

The only Blue state on each list: New Mexico.

By the way, 9 of the 10 states with the highest per-person income voted Blue in the 2012 presidential race: Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia and Washington. The only Red state on the list: Alaska.

Our ruling

Occupy Democrats said "Nine out of the 10 poorest states are Red states."

Whether you look at per-person, household, or family income, nine out of the ten poorest states voted Republican in the last four presidential elections.

The judges rule the statement is True.

Pro-Democrat group says 9 of the 10 poorest states are Republican [Jan 12]

That's a nice false equivalence you've got there. Too bad you miss the point. Almost half of all of the nominee filibusters in the entire history of this country have been by this Republican party during this president's time in office.

The Democrats have never even done close to the same thing.

They're not deporting illegals.

Actually, more illegal immigrants are being deported now than ever before.

It ain't just about the victim's family, asshole - it's so that he can never do the same crime again, and we don't have to bear the cost of his remaining days.

Life imprisonment is generally cheaper than executions, unless you live in a state that kills a lot of its citizens:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/29/gary-johnson/gary-johnson-says-executions-cost-more-life-impris/

Indeed, that's why all of the top 10 hottest years on record have happened since 1997. Because it's getting colder.

Not insightful, a flat out lie.

What is funny about that is if you take the 3 cities with the strongest anti Gun laws (Washington DC, New York City, and Chicago) and made them their own country, they would be #4 on the list and the rest of the US would drop down to something like #20 or lower on the list.

I don't know about these exact figures, but Mike Huckabee said something remarkably similar and PolitiFact took him to task for being full of it. So I for one would be interested to see the actual numbers behind your claims.

Wikipedia Gun Deaths By State The last column in the list says it all. Vermont, for example, has the most lenient gun laws on record in the United States, yet California has more than three times the number of gun-related murders per capita, and DC has more than sixteen times the number of gun-related murders per capita.