Slashdot Mirror

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.

That's historical data reaching back as far as you'd like - decades or more. It covers both before and after the time when a single worker claimed he had made up data, despite all evidence that such a thing was not happening.

politifact check on the issue

Obama's list of compromises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/compromise/

About 25% of the 500 campaign promises compiled ended up in a compromise.

For the full list of 500 campaign promises and their results, see: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Obama's list of compromises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/compromise/

About 25% of the 500 campaign promises compiled ended up in a compromise.

For the full list of 500 campaign promises and their results, see: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Nope, it seems to be that you weren't the one paying attention. He was making campaign promises in 2008 to end the warrantless wiretaps. One of his spokesmen in 2007 even claimed he would filibuster any act that would provide the telecoms with immunity.

In October 2007, Obama spokesman Bill Burton issued this unequivocal statement to the liberal blog TPM Election Central: "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

That is until he got into office and signed the law himself.

Which has already proven to be less harmful to the USA than when the DNC rammed Obamacare (is that "racist") through, without even reading it ("must vote for it, to see what is in it"). So far, Oregon spend 300 million to enroll 44 people, good FUCKING use of tax dollars.

And, just to remind you, Hillary, and Company supported the wars. And saying she didn't know GWB was lying, that is just remember, her Husband was President and knew all about Saddam and OBL, so she SHOULD have known. But then again "What difference does it make!!!!!"

Okay. Time for some fact checking. First, the full quote from Nancy Pelosi (not just the part that Michele Bachmann used and made famous) was: ”We’ll have to pass it so you can find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.” Nancy Pelosi claims that she was saying that the American people wouldn’t see all the advantages of HCR until after it was passed, not that Congress had no idea what it said. I personally read it as her saying that during the debate in congress there were so many people saying false things about the healthcare law that not all of the benefits (or drawbacks) would be recognized by the public until they were enacted in law.

Second, Oregon has roughly 30,000 paper health care applications waiting for approval. Additionally at least 70,000 more people have signed up for Medicaid in response to informational letters the government sent out to eligible citizens. Given that the uninsured population of Oregon is roughly 500,000, I'd say those numbers are a pretty good indication that the program is both wanted and needed.The fact that the website is broken is a travesty, particularly given the amount of money (more like $150 million, according to the paper) paid to Oracle to get it to work.

However, the fact that a private contractor failed to construct a website does not mean the law is bad. It means we need better private contractors. Hopefully Oregon will figure out how to deal with Oracle and either get their money back, a working website, or both (the same could be said for the federal health exchange website).

Finally, as to your last point. You're saying that former President Bill Clinton was up to date on the most recently collected highly classified intelligence about Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and WMDs. And that he told his wife all about it. You do remember that the war in afghanistan started a year after he left office, and the war in Iraq started two years after he left office? Things can change a lot in a year, especially when an event like 9/11 shifts the focus of the intelligence community. I think you're overestimating the power and knowledge of former presidents.

Some sources: http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2013/12/oregons_health_exchange_woes_s_1.html http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-healthcare-exchange-website-never-worked-no-subscribers-130601969--sector.html http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/12/30000_cover_oregon_enrollment.html http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/15/republican-party-texas/texas-gop-says-speaker-nancy-pelosi-said-people-wi/

Maybe you are right. But it probably depends on where you live. If you live out in the country or an unstable neighborhood, the odds of "good gun use" are probably favorable. But I think those odds might turn against you if you live in a good neighborhood in an urbanized area, where the chances of break-ins are very low to begin with.

Interesting post on politfact on the topic

I hope you are mentally stable. :)

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." -- Barack Obama, June 15, 2009

http://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/

What is it with the livestock, that would do nothing to solve the problem, doctors give out antibiotics like there f'in candy to anyone and everyone.

It would do something to solve the largest part of the problem

Amount of antibiotics sold by manufacturers for use by food-producing animals: 13.1 million kilograms
Sold for use by people: 3.3 million kilograms

80 percent of antibiotics sold in the US go to increasing meat production from farm animals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/opinion/antibiotics-and-the-meat-we-eat.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/15/louise-slaughter/rep-louise-slaughter-says-80-antibiotics-are-fed-l/
http://www.rodalenews.com/antibiotics

Just because you are a vegan doesn't mean you should peddle some false information.

Just because you are an Anonymous Coward doesn't mean you should peddle some false information. There, fixed it for you.

Except you're missing the fundamental point that insurance companies are for-profit businesses rather than charities.

Except I mentioned profit already, and you missed the fundamental point of your fundamental point that there should be limits to the amount of profit someone can bleed others dry over; And most insurance is mandated by law, and are strictly regulated, which as anyone knows... creates artificial monopolies. Why can't we just get 1,500 people together, and put that money in an account managed by the government, and let them manage the insurance? What benefit is served by allowing private for-profit companies to provide most forms of mandated insurance -- like car or auto, over government administration?

Afterall, we've already legislated that you have to have it... why then not take the next step and simply roll it into our taxes? I am not sold on the idea that the private sector can do a better job. Or better yet, why don't I do it and explain in gritty detail just how fucked over your "fundamental point" is here -- and how badly for-profit enterprise is screwing over all of us.

In 2010 there were 5,419,000 police-reported accidents. Source
The US population was 308,745,538 in 2010. Source
That works out to about 1 car accident per 57 people.
According to the CDC, the cost of those accidents collectively came out to "$99 billion, or nearly $500, for each licensed driver in the United States." That is about $41.67 per month.

Now how much are we paying? According to these guys, in 2010, the average expenditure $791, or about $65.92 per month. If these numbers are accurate, than that means that the administrative overhead and profit combined comes out to about 37%.

That means that over a third of what you're paying is above and beyond what's necessary. Now many have railed against medicare and numerous cases of gross incompetence, cost-overruns, and flat out fraud have come out of the program. I'm sure you've heard of it. But take a guess at the total cost of administrative overhead for that program. Okay, now here's the truth: It's about 1.5-2%.

So even the much-maligned medicaid program, routinely paraded out as an example of how our taxpayer dollars are being wasted... comes in at a fraction of the cost of private for-profit insurance.

Now, please... tell me how capitalism is saving us money. I fucking dare you.

No one can act as a trusted source because no one trusts the opposition's ideological basis for anything.

The problem isn't that it doesn't exist, the problem is that no one pays attention to it.

"PolitiFact is a project of the Tampa Bay Times to help you find the truth in American politics. Reporters and editors from the Times fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups and rate them on our Truth-O-Meter"

http://www.politifact.com/

If the issue was actually insurance like we issue for cars, then the costs would be trivial. There are really good reasons why this stuff is so expensive.

I think I'll trust an actuary to calculate the actual cost. Put in a reasonable mark-up, and you have: insurance. If the market is, well, efficient, then the mark-up will be reasonable. So let's apply those good-old liberal ideas of free markets, and let the magic happen.

Otherwise, the bill should be in the mail.

And if you can't pay, and declare bankruptcy? Who pays then? You pretending this isn't a problem?

There were issues that could have been addressed by our government that could have actually helped.

Right, like an almost-single-payer system, like what works in most of the OECD. Instead, in an attempt to compromise, we get a regulated insurance market and a mandate, just like leading conservatives supported up until 2008.

What happened in 2008? Obama was elected, adopted the GOP healthcare plan, and was promptly labelled a tyrant by an apocalyptic cult. Just the opinion of a 20+ year GOP insider who knows a hell of a lot more about what happens on the hill than you do.

Now we know the president either lied outright about what would happen to existing policies

You _can_ keep your policy if you like it, so long as you've had the policy since before the ACA was passed. The fact that insurance companies are changing the policies and then trying to up-sell clients onto more expensive planes: who would have thunk it, that businesses would act this way. I agree that Obama shouldn't have used the language he did, because it is too easy to pick apart. But it is hardly the lie you WANT it to be.

No, a fraction of the Democrat party wanted single-payer.

If by "fraction" you mean "over 50%", then sure. Even the Republic party members wanted a public option, when you told them what it would actually do and not that death panel bullshit.

Oh? Cite? Last I heard

Get your hearing checked.

the Heritage plan was a 15+ year old idea that went out of style long before Obama entered office.

Romneycare. Heard of it? Signed into law by a future GOP nominee for the presidency in 2006 when he was governor. The Heritage Foundation, and the rest of the GOP, had time to denounce and reject their own market-based plan with mandates years before Obama won the nomination, much less took office, much less sold out the public in favor of modeling the ACA on Romneycare. Literally.

You people and your echo chambers...

You partisan tribalists and your lack of self-awareness.

You are swallowing a line of bullshit propaganda rather uncritically.

Texas is in fact doing quite well. As Rick Perry bragged, one-third of all jobs created in the whole USA were created in Texas, which doesn't have anywhere near one-third of the population of the whole USA.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/may/09/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-texas-accounted-33-percent-nations/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carnegie-corporation-of-new-york/texas-immigrants-and-econ_b_3745379.html

So a liberal newspaper might be looking for complaints about Texas ("first in the amount of carbon emissions") but the unemployment rate is significantly below the rate of the USA. Business is doing better and individuals are doing better compared to the rest of the USA.

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2013/04/texas-lost-jobs-in-march-unemployment-rate-remains-the-same-at-6-4-percent.html/

how fucking busy could the Governor actually be, except for executing people and fund raising.

Who cares? Texas is doing well as a state. Maybe the USA would do better if the President did less stuff. Let's try it!

"I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient," Obama said in 2007, adding that "the FISA court works."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/jun/13/barack-obama-surveillance-then-and-now/

You're forgetting to add that 47% of them are millionaires. That being the case we can just assume that DC is now a large country club that exists to serve the elitist swine that vacation there for a few weeks a year just so they can maintain their comfortable standard of living.

This is why, regardless of party affiliation, all incumbents must go. Get rid of Reid, MConnell, McSame, Feinbitch, the dumb witch of the west Pelosi etc. Just vote against them and preferably for another candidate that's not a Republican or Democrat, give the other parties a chance.

Our politicians can't even agree on who our foes are so they consider everyone to be one.

Obama said that he would not allow lobbyists to server in government posts, but he put in a waiver procedure that permits it. Did this person go through that waiver procedure?
FYI: Politifact information about the lobbyist promise. There haven't been any updates there regarding this position.

I don't generally see Sisyphus as a model for good governance. :)

I'd happily help the people wiped out by Sandy relocate to safer ground. I'll help them load their belongings into trucks and give them money, too. But if they want to stay I don't think the government should force me to subsidize that decision. It's fundamentally unethical of them to take my money for such futile endeavors; especially when cheerleaders for rebuilding Hello, Governor Christie are ideologically opposed to spending tax dollars that might actually benefit actual poor people.

Love the Laplace quote, BTW, makes a good sig.

The jury is still out on whether it's going to cost more or less. Projections from various agencies put it at a net saving over time.

That's irrelevant. Yes, there's alot of "maybes" and "hopeful projections", but I'm talking facts. Medicaid was expanded: that is a fact. In addition, the "net savings over time" is horseshit since it includes the additional revenue from taxes when making that calculation (namely, if the extra taxes weren't there, it would be losing money) -- this is not a "free program" -- they aren't achieving all the savings from "streamlining the system". It's only claim of "budget neutrality" comes from the fact they're raiding our pockets as taxpayers. Believe it or not, you can make quite a few programs "net budget positive over time" with those kind of shenanigans.

Don't know about torture, though at least officially it has stopped.

So Guantanamo is shut down then?

Holy crap that's some spin.

No, it's not. You can't pretend the tax cuts are some kind of isolated Republican agenda that the Democrats compromised on when the Democrats wanted the tax cuts too. This isn't spin. Both parties wanted the tax cuts. The Dems additionally wanted a modification/repeal of the tax cuts for the rich, whereas the Republicans wanted those made permanent as well. In the end, The Dems got what they wanted when the Republicans caved to the Obama fiscal cliff threat in December.

The taxes you're talking about have been made permanent by a republican House that decided to shut down the government because it didn't get the entire budget it wanted, just a part of it.

Once again, they both wanted permanent extensions of the lower end tax cuts (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-11/obama-would-back-extending-tax-cut-for-rich-axelrod-tells-huffington-post.html). The only opposition Obama had was to permanent tax cut extensions for the rich. The permanency of the lower end taxes was a joint operation (and frankly, since it's primarily a Democrat govt, they own more of that than the Republicans).

The taxes still go on

No, Bush's tax cuts have expired, literally. That bill is dead, a new one is in it's place with completely different terms. You can't simply pretend that every subsequent tax package passed is just an "Extension" of the previous one because it shares some semblance of similarity. Otherwise, these are George Washington's tax cuts.

So how does that exactly make him a zero-cost contributor? His tax cuts lived on, and he still never paid for any of his wars.

I said "going forward". I never said he didn't spend a shit-ton of money. In fact, I said exactly that in my previous post: that both of these presidents are huge spenders. The difference is that this president is an even bigger spender when accounting for future projections. Obama is merely masking his spending behind tax hikes.

Obama finally managed to spin down the wars that Bush started and couldn't

Please, next you're going to tell me Obama invented fracking and is the reason we have cheap natural gas. Those wars were already spinning down as Bush was leaving office (the timetable was already set): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/03/barack-obama/ad-says-obama-reason-iraq-pullout/. What Obama did there was pretty much boilerplate and would largely have been done by any other president in his position. You can't pretend Obama inherited a bunch of nasty stuff from Bush and then also claim that the war drawdown timetable was some kind of crowning individual accomplishment when it was ha

How about actually getting a fair and reasonably comprehensive assessment from an unbiased source? Crazy, right?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

Politifact is "reasonably comprehensive" and "unbiased"???? Damn! What are you smoking, we'd all like to know cuz that shit must be good!

Up to 2011, they found Republicans to be lying 119 times to 13 for Democrats. Usually Politifact engages in strawman attacks where they dismiss the actual language the speaker used and instead substitute their own language (which would in-fact be false), then label the speaker's claim as false. Try looking at http://www.politifactbias.com/

Oh, well if an AC on the internet says the president is a liar, it must be true. I've got chain-emails that say so...

How about actually getting a fair and reasonably comprehensive assessment from an unbiased source? Crazy, right?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

That little clip that they belabored on Fox News was: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it," (my emphasis)

Of course, that's from Fox News so not only is it out of context, it's not even the full sentence: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

Politifact has a little write-up on it, if you'd care to educate yourself.

For a look at what the Medicare fraud rates are, please see:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/17/peter-roskam/rep-roskam-says-medicare-fraud-rate-8-10-percent/
(does not support "over 10% ... goes to fraud".)

For a comparison of public and private insurance fraud, you could start here:
http://www.renalbusiness.com/news/2009/06/fraud-prevalent-in-private-health-insurance.aspx
(private and public suffer about the same rates of fraud)

The ACA requires insurance companies to take everyone, even those with preconditions. It also requires them to pay out at least 80% of their revenue as medical payments, capping their administrative and profit margins. While 20% isn't great, it's better than some insurance companies have been doing, and it's a start.

What will it take to prove to you that the current "debacle" is not intended to make everyone hate insurance companies? What will you say when things start running smoothly in a few days or a few weeks? Do you need surveys re: public approval-ratings of the medical insurance industry, to detect a sudden shift? (I couldn't find any such survey results, sadly.)

I don't see how anyone would argue that single-payer solves the fraud issue. There's no obvious mechanism for it. I don't see how anyone would accept that argument, either. I therefore don't see how that would be the natural progression of things.

Even other socialist (nearly communist!) countries with single-payer health insurance systems, don't turn their doctors and hospitals into government employees and government institutions. (Example: France.) Maybe they should, I don't know. But we would have to seriously alter our pace of change to possibly overtake and surpass them in the way you're suggesting. And with our gridlock, I'm just not seeing it.

There are probably others, maybe even some more recent, but here's the GAO's report on the lessons we could learn from the Canadian health system, which parts we might consider importing, including cost comparisons. This is from 1991. http://archive.gao.gov/d20t9/144039.pdf

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/27/top-5-falsehoods-about-health-care-law/

Admittedly, this is a from a year ago, don't know if much has changed.

I want legislation limiting their healthcare and other benefits to those which are available to the general public.

To what purpose?

In January, the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics' website unveiled a database detailing the minimum, average and maximum net worth of nearly every member of the current Congress.

The research shows many of them are rich. Very rich. The median estimated net worth of Congress is $966,000, according to the center. By contrast, the median net worth of the typical American household is slightly more than $66,000. Ten members had a net worth greater than $100 million on one or both sites.

Is Congress a millionaires club?

The congressman represents a district of about 710,000 people.

Not a trivial responsibility ---

and to do the job effectively requires staffing and money, quite a lot money when you get down to the truth of it.

You can of course outsource the expense to candidates, lobbyists and campaign contributors with pockets as deep as the Koch brothers --- the Tea Party solution --- but you get what you pay for.

I really doubt they have better insurance than I do. Mine is a pretty fucking good Cadillac plan.

And yes they DO have to use the plans in the exchange.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/14/ted-cruz/sen-ted-cruz-says-obama-just-granted-all-congress-/

You, are a fucking moron.

He didn't shut down the ocean.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/oct/07/tweets/did-obama-shut-down-ocean-part-shutdown/

And he didn't shut down the Amber Alert system. The Amber Alert system is a private non-profit entity at the federal level so he couldn't shut it down even if he wanted to.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/07/tweets/tweets-and-bloggers-say-obama-used-shutdown-close-/

I don't know how you could ever post something from Breitbart with a straight face.

You, are a fucking moron.

He didn't shut down the ocean.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/oct/07/tweets/did-obama-shut-down-ocean-part-shutdown/

And he didn't shut down the Amber Alert system. The Amber Alert system is a private non-profit entity at the federal level so he couldn't shut it down even if he wanted to.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/07/tweets/tweets-and-bloggers-say-obama-used-shutdown-close-/

I don't know how you could ever post something from Breitbart with a straight face.

First, before anything, let me sincerely thank you for working in the military. I know you could likely get a better job that pays more in the civilian world. I am grateful to all the people who serve or have served in the armed forces.

Now, having said that: It's not the Republicans that are fucking you over. It's the Democrats. And I personally hold President Obama as the most responsible, as "The Buck Stops Here" refers to him right now.

This is the 18th government shutdown. None of the previous 17 have been as viciously handled. Never before has the World War II monument been closed... in the past, signs were put up saying "nobody is on duty here because of shutdown" but now the government erected temporary fences around an open-air area and is paying people to keep our veterans out. Never before have privately-funded historic sites on government land been commanded to close their doors. Never before has the Amber Alert federal website been shut down (while the First Lady's "Let's Move" website is still up). People have been forced out of their homes! And, oh yes, this weekend the President was able to play golf at a golf course on Federal land... that wasn't closed (I guess it is an "essential" golf course).

This administration is determined to make this shutdown as painful as possible for the common people, in hopes that common people will be so clueless that they will blame the Republicans for the pain.

The Republicans in the House are attempting to use the power of the purse, which the Constitution gives to them. The budget situation is FUBAR anyway because the Senate hasn't passed a budget in over four years, despite that being a clear Constitutional duty of the Senate. And the Republicans keep passing bills to fix the worst of the pain: bills to immediately pay soldiers, to let the National Institute of Health look after kids with cancer, etc. And the Republican Party has offered the money to pay for staff at the memorials. All of these offers are rejected by the Democrats... in other words, the Democrats have chosen to keep the pain as high as possible, and you are personally feeling that pain.

The previous shutdowns have pretty much ended in compromise. This time around, President Obama has publicly declared that he will not compromise at all ever, and he and the other top Democrats have used the most incendiary language possible. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wallace-grills-jack-lew-your-history-is-wrong-obamas-refusal-to-negotiate-unprecedented/

So the Republicans are trying to get a one-year delay in implementing Obamacare. We have Obamacare websites that don't work, we have waivers granted to many large companies, we have a one-year delay in corporate obligations under Obamacare, This thing isn't ready to go. And yet President Obama and the other top Democrats are choosing to maximize the pain of the shutdown while at the same time proclaiming that they will not compromise at all ever.

If the Republicans back down at this point without getting anything, they are screwed several ways. As far as I can tell, this is exactly what President Obama wants. Therefore he wants the common people to feel pain, to blame the Republicans for the pain, and to demand that the Republicans cave. (You may feel that this is over the top. Ask yourself: when was the last time a President tried to talk the stock market DOWN? That's unprecedented but Mr. Obama did it.

Speaking of using your brain. Obama has shown zero restraint in using Executive Orders to modify laws he's been unhappy with. ACA comes to mind with his unilateral modification to extend employer mandates by a year. Something that is unconstitutional, I might add. He's trying to win by making as many miserable as he can and he doesn't give a damn who gets hurt. Oh, wait. That's Reid who's preventing any vote on parts of appropriations from progressing. Something that they should be doing under terms of a budget rather than continuing resolutions. Something the senate has been derelict in doing.

I would also point out you're the only one claiming congress passed a law to forbid parks operating during shutdowns. If that were actually the case, surely this administration would be actively screaming, "See see! These mean republicans are forcing me to spend more to close these things than they would to operate."

One analysis shows that family of 4 will have an increas of $7500 a year, Obama promised a cut of $2500 a year

I've never seen such a study but I would be interested in viewing it if it does indeed exist.

You think the mandate sucks but think universal is good? What is the difference? Let me answer. Mandate = corporations run it, universal = government runs it. You are required to buy it either way, one through premiums with a choice, the other through taxes with no choice.

Incorrect. A mandate has nothing to do with who actually implements health care. All it means is that the action is on you whereas universal means action is not required. Now we can quibble whether a tax is considered "buying something" but the fact remains that health care would far cheaper since there would be no shareholders or profit margins in the equation.

As for the GOP input, give me a SPECIFIC example of what they put in it.

This took me all but two seconds to find. Like I said, I watched all the proceedings:

"Republican Sen. John Ensign scored a victory in his pursuit of healthy lifestyle rewards with passage of his amendment to health care reform legislation that would offer deep discounts to those who quit smoking, lose weight or otherwise meet healthy milestones." -- source: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/oct/01/john-ensign-scores-win-health-care-amendment/

There is ONE section and Obama has decided he will ignore that, and that was the part where Congress was required to be on exchanges and pay for it themselves

From my understanding, this is a popular conservative talking point. I haven't felt the need to research it.

Not so fast:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

All you need to know is that's not true.

He hasn't been great, but he has done many of the things he said he would: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Why don't you go look?

/Summing up: The figures from our sources show two different trends. On an annual basis between 1981 and 2003, Texas almost always paid more in federal taxes than it got back from Uncle Sam. But since 2003 the reverse has been true, with Texas receiving more than it paid in five out of seven years, which is close to routine.

Emphasis mine. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/apr/22/rachel-maddow/msnbc-host-rachel-maddow-says-texas-routinely-rece/

Regarding deportations, you should actually check the numbers on that. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/10/american-principles-action/has-barack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/
"...If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents."

Obama hasn't stopped deporting undocumented immigrants; he's deporting a minimum of 50% more than Bush who deported 100% more than Clinton...Never in the history of this "melting pot" have we tried so hard to keep others out.

Not that I'm defending Obama -- in fact, this is one of many broken promises that I *despise* him for. Not the biggest -- that'd be his war of terror and police state tactics -- but definitely up there.

No borders; no nations!

It's difficult to determine. It might curb some criminal behaviour, for example dumb and inexperienced criminals would be less likely to survive. However, it seems likely that criminal behaviour would adapt to the new circumstances. For example, the criminals might shift to taking their victims by surprise more often, and shooting them more often to prevent their victims from using the weapons they are presumed to be carrying. It's quite possible that if more people were carrying concealed weapons that more people would be injured during the commission of crimes with no real impact on the underlying crime rate. It's also possible that crime rates for "crimes of passion" (where the comitter isn't thinking straight), would go up since the means to cause serious damage and/or death are always at hand.

Overall, I actually doubt that gun ownership rates and concealed carry rates have any significant impact on crime rates. I think the largest impacts come from culture, heavy metal contamination (especially lead) rates and policing strategies.

Politifact: Is the penalty less than the cost of insurance? TRUE
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/24/ron-desantis/desantis-says-obamacare-tax-cheaper-insurance/

CBO estimates that 6 million people will pay penalty rather than buy insurance in 2014; also, IRS says the cheapest insurance for a family under the ACA will be $20,000. (I think the CBO estimates will prove to be very low. $20K is more than the pre-ACA average cost of insurance for a family.)
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/03/05/six-million-to-pay-obamacare-penatly-n1526185

Columnist spells out the details on why the penalty is cheaper than insurance and says he already cancelled his insurance. (He thinks this implies that the ACA will "crash" and that the architects of the ACA are worried. I think this is an intended feature, paving the road for single payer.)
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/01/25/Politifact-Ignores-Primary-Reason-Obama-Might-Crash

Investors Business Daily asks "will only suckers buy insurance under the ACA?" and suggests insurance companies are headed for a "death spiral" (words in original).
http://news.investors.com/021913-644948-will-only-suckers-buy-obamacare-coverage.htm?p=full

He's correct about the numbers of deaths by bludgeoning vs assault rifles. The numbers are very low. Most of the killings are by handguns. You can easily google for it but here is one source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/facebook-posts/facebook-post-says-more-people-were-murdered-knive/

The studies you cite, done by a democrat professor from a less-than-stellar university over-sampled Fox news viewers and then asked them a bunch of "current events" questions which ALL Americans generally do poorly at.

Want the TRUTH? try this page which is not a Fox-related site.

Try getting some news from a place not tied to the Democrats or to Progressives (i.e. stop soaking your head in the MSNBC/HuffPo/Kos KoolAid). Some lefty academics have done studies specifically designed to trash non-lefties and then pushed them through the progressive-run media (all of whom hyped those studies and in a circular fashion passed them around) and because most of their target audience never seems to come up to the surface for air, this scheme works fairly well.... it just does not convince anybody whose not already in the tank.

Progressivism is toxic and Dangerous and always leads to bad things... Progressives count on the public being dumb enough to confuse "Progressivism" with "progress"... the two are only related if you are a hard-core evolutionist who wants to give mother nature a bit of a hand... The last time Progressivism rose in America (Early 1900's) it lead to extreme evil and it spread some nasty ideas (like genetic purity/superiority/cleanliness, supermen, euthenasia, the individual as only a cog in the great machine of society, assigning a dollar value to a human being, etc) around the world... so much so that the left abandoned the "progressive" title they'd previously been proud of and they hid behind the moniker: "liberal". Now, having soiled the term "liberal" they are hoping that everybody forgot about the bad side of progressivism and, like cattle, they are all following Hillary Clinton's call to go back to that term. There's a very good reason why nearly all the Progressive webites and think tanks have been partly funded by the world's richest and most famous NAZI collaborator.... young people need to WAKE UP and study some of that history stuff your progressive/unionized teachers did not teach you... you are being setup for a VERY DARK future just as a previous generation of young people were similarly setup.... only now the world has far better technology to oppress and kill...

Wrong president dummy, George W Bush gave them that money.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/17/david-plouffe/solyndra-loan-george-w-bush-david-plouffe/

Respect - for stating the facts. I write that not because I might support President Bush, but because my recollection is that you strongly oppose him but still stated the fact. If we can't keep the discussion centered on facts, even if they might be unpalatable to us, what do we have? Too many people here don't do that. Enjoy your weekend.

Wrong president dummy, George W Bush gave them that money.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/17/david-plouffe/solyndra-loan-george-w-bush-david-plouffe/

So you're saying she was a Republican?

Backwards. The party with a vested interest in keeping people dependent on professionals who dole things out to them is the Democrats. That's the backbone of their entire constituency and the framework within which they describe everybody: needing a handout, or needing to be used to pay for handouts. Without playing middlemen to that one-way street, there would be almost not power in that camp. And so they seek to preserve it at every turn.

No, the guy to whom you replied got it right: Republicans are the most dependent on a culture of people dependent on professionals who dole things out to them. Red States are more dependent on the Government Dole than Blue States, because Red State policies create a constituency which needs a handout just to survive. Poverty-stricken, uneducated white people vote Republican more often than middle class educated people (who tend to vote Democrat), so Republicans seek to preserve a constituency trapped in poverty, voting Republican on social issues even as Republicans pull the economic rug out from under their collective feet.

You missed the joke. Last I've read, IRS regulations are added at a rate greater than a human can read. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, even when the law is unknowable.

Maybe you were thinking about Federal regulations, not IRS. The total of the tax code and regulations appears to be readable over a period of months even if it would be immensely tedious and a challenge to sanity.

CCH's printed copy of the rules and regs, covering six volumes, is listed at 13,880 pages. So the code and regulations combined is fewer than 20,000 pages. (By extrapolation, if you downloaded both and printed them with Word, as the TAS did, it would run to about 40,000 pages, still half of what Hinckley says.) --- Our tax code is . . . 80,000 pages [Note: The title is not statement of fact.]

--------

By the time you finish reading it, you'll be dead, and have violated many of them before you managed to read them (or interpreted them differently than some random judge)

I think you've made an interesting admission against interest here. If the tax code is so enormous and complicated that it is effectively unenforceable in a fair manner, doesn't that demonstrate that it really needs to be greatly reduced and simplified so that mere mortals can grapple with it?

there should be no worries about medical records being leaked and/or used against individuals or organizations since the IRS will keep those safe for all of us.

No, the ACA does not allow the IRS to access your medical records.

They're so eager to begin, they simply walked in and seized without explanation approximately *sixty million* medical records in California

The allegation is that they exceeded the authority of a warrant and demanded copies of servers containing records for ten million people from an unnamed company. Is it true? Neither you nor I know. But the suit is unrelated to the ACA.

That's why so many "liberal" examinations of the issues have resulted to separating out "in-classroom" spending, but they are dismissed as inconvenient, and the numbers used by the school-haters are always total funding.

I see why you put the word "liberal" in quotes...

I'm curious how "rubber-room" spending is categorized? (fwiw, new york city statistically has one of the highest in-classroom spending ratios in the country)

An interesting read, if you have the time...
http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Books/Education/Where-Do-School-Funds-Go-Book-Review

Wow, did I hit a nerve or what? Look, I'm a reformed original enthusiast for the so-called war on terror. The enthusiasm lasted a few months and then changed into a feeling of what eventually became disgust. Let's just say it quickly became evident what a fraud and colossal pit it was. Anyway, I wasn't trying to draw a moral comparison; I was noting an eery parallel.

Let's look at some of those adjectives and nouns and whether they apply to the US.

Sick. Check.
Bellicose. Check.
Belligerent. Check.
Pariah. Pretty much.

Prison state. Let's look at the incarceration rates:
US: 716 per 100,000. #1 in the list. That's right, almost one out of every thousand people in the US is locked up.
Cuba: 510
Russia: 502
Iran: 333
UK: 151-154
Venezuela: 149
China: 121-170
Iraq: 115
Germany: 83
India: 30

North Korea's rate is not tabulated, but Amnesty International estimates a figure of 813 "political prisoners" specifically, which is a little higher than the total rate for the US. But it's not a statistical neighborhood the US should feel comfortable being in.