Slashdot Mirror

That is patently false.

Well, the polling doesn't agree with you: http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Obviously we won't know for sure till after the election, but based on the overall trend for the last few cycles I think it's likely.

Perhaps you forget the actual idea behind free speech.

The idea that you can say whatever you want, and that no one can stop you; is not the idea behind free speech. Free Speech merely means the government cannot imprison or bring up criminal charges for speech they do not like.

That is incorrect. The idea of freedom of speech is to protect people from being unjustly persecuted for having positions which would normally lead to their persecution without specific protections. Private interests conspiring to shut down undesirable ideas, say by actively campaigning to silence those who present them through intimidation and persecution is just as much of an atrocity as a government institution doing the same. This is an acceptable usage of the term.

I for one do not wish to live in a world where Twitter hysteria can get prominent cancer researchers fired, particularly not over a fabricated moral panic.

it would be legal for any company to say "I do not like what you wrote on Twitter/Facebook/Other Social Media; they disagree with our ethics and you are being terminated.

True, but GP didn't say it's not their right to. It's entirely sensible to hold the opinion that someone shouldn't do something legal or even that something currently legal should be outlawed.

Another example is if you were shouting hate-speech in a public place. As long as you on public property, that is fine. However, the minute you step on to privately owned property; the owners are able to enforce any restrictions they want. Want to scream bigoted statements in front of my house? Make sure you're doing it on the sidewalk or street; if you're in my yard; I'll have you removed.

The problem with that analogy is that the private-public dichotomy is unreasonably restrictive in describing the circumstances. There are spaces which are entirely public (streets) and spaces which are entirely private (homes) but Twitter is a privately-held open public platform which isn't strictly analogous to either scenario. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold such venues to different expectations in comparison to your own private home, given their quasi-public nature.

If Trump is violating the usual TOS of Twitter; than he needs to be removed.

Has Twitter taken any obligations to strictly adhere to their own ToS? Considering how much you trump (forgive the pun) the rights of private institutions then surely you should be happy to afford Twitter the liberty of policing their platform according to their own agenda. Note that I'm not defending or condemning Twitter on the matter, that is a topic for another discussion.

He can't be charged with a crime for doing so; but Twitter would not be violating the constitution.

But they are still open to the consequences of their actions.

He has no chance of being elected, and he knows that.

Reality disagrees... but please, keep saying stuff about Trump. It only helps.

I am aware that polls this early are largely meaningless, but let's look at some numbers outside of context.

He's got about 40% of the Republican vote at the moment. Let's assume that figure holds across the party so that, for example, if Cruz bows out 40% of those supporters move to Trump. That gives him 40% + (40% x 60%) = 64% of the Republican vote, using back-of-the-envelope estimates.

No one bothered to check with Democratic voters until recently, but Trump has stronger support from Democrats than he does from Republicans!

Astonishing!

If *those* numbers are accurate, he could get elected right now.

And all of this is ignoring any context. For example:

a) The investigation into Hillary could conclude, bringing charges against her
b) Hillary could have a medical issue (campaigning is stressful, she's had medical problems, Trump hasn't)
c) US could have another domestic terrorist attack
d) Trump has not made campaign ads - he's spent about a million, compared to Jeb's 32 million.

And finally, Trump will get elected simply because no one opposes his position in any rational way - it's all namecalling and derision.

Don't believe me? Find a rational argument as to why a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country isn't a common-sense response to an immediate threat.

You can't do it. The only response, so far as I can find, is to cast aspersions on the person asking that question. Terms like bigot, predjudiced, racist, and extremist are used. Also outright lies such as "it's unconstitutional" (no, it's not), "it's impossible to tell who's a Muslim" (no, it's not), "that's not what America is about" (we've done it before), and so on.

Then tell me why enforcing immigration law is a bad move (instead of amnesty, which is what the administration was quietly floating), why simplifying the tax code is a bad move, why having strong treaty negotiation is a bad move, and why replacing Obamacare with something better would be a bad move.

As near as I can tell, early November was the tipping point where you could have stopped Donald Trump. Someone could have stepped up and addressed his policies, and in that act presented as a strong leader. By now it's probably too late.

Oh, and let's not forget that the lead Democratic candidate has accomplished nothing in her career, and the democratic runner-up is a Socialist. A SOCIALIST!

Please.

Donald may not win the election, but saying he has no chance is entirely without merit.

I didn't realize that so many Republicans actively dislike him so much.

Establishment Republicans are hated by the Republican electorate. The party machine keeps nominating these Chamber and Commerce establishment RINOs (McCain then Romney) and more and more (R) voters just stay home. Romney lost millions of votes because the Republican electorate couldn't be bothered to vote for another of these machine RINOs.

It finally looks like this could change. If not Trump then Cruz. The establishment hates both. If either one gets nominated a bunch of (R)s that haven't voted for president in a decade will emerge.

The problem with those polls is that the Republican field is diluted. Most of the people who would support Trump are already polling as supporting Trump. As some of the 15+ other candidates start to drop out, most of their supports will go to support candidates other than Trump.

I think Trump can pick up nearly all of the support of Carson and Cruz, the two others who are benefiting from the ignorance and crazy talk crowd.

If you add up their numbers and Trump's what do you get? The latest national poll on this had Trump at 33%, Cruz at 13% and Carson at 15%, that adds up to 61%. And I am not cherry picking polls. The link I provided summarizes all of the polling, and you can pick any of them. Last Friday's CNN poll would put that total at 66%

The rest of the candidates are irrelevant.

You are whistling in the dark, and ignoring the numbers, because the truth is just too scary. Join the rest of us in being very afraid.

Curiously, she seems to be polling higher than the lead republican candidate (Trump).

That has more to do with Trump than Hillary.

bottom line: i'm done with her. she lies and lies even more to cover up those lies. thought she had a chance. no more.

Curiously, she seems to be polling higher than the lead republican candidate (Trump).

Every time she speaks, she mentions how "there should be a tax deduction for $x", where $x is tailored to the audience. There should be a deduction for college tuition, a deduction for caring for elderly parents, an individual deduction for health care costs, and so on.

It would appear she's "buying" votes with tax incentives.

Of course, these are just campaign promises, and she's going to pay for it by raising taxes on the rich. Go figure.

The Republican situation is hard to call - the lead has changed hands a few times now.

I've been following the republican nomination thing with great interest for several months now, mostly as an exercise in insight and analysis.

Surprisingly, the republican lead has *not* changed hands a few times, and depending on your definition of "lead" it hasn't changed hands at all. Carson pulled ahead of Trump in one poll one time, but in the overall average and in the national polls he's consistently been in the lead, for the last 6 months.

Look at the link in the last paragraph, and look at the right-hand column and count the number of times it reads "Trump".

This informative graphic from RealClearPolitics shows the overview situation.

But if this is true, then why was the MSM hyping "Carson pulls ahead of Trump" all the time?

Two reasons.

As an exercise to the readership, can you identify the two reasons?

Comparing news reports with actual data has been an eye-opening experience. There's really a lot of shenanigans going on in this election. Applying Bayesian priors of "of all reasons causing *this*, choose the most likely" paints a surprising, infuriating, and depressing picture of American politics.

The Republican situation is hard to call - the lead has changed hands a few times now.

I've been following the republican nomination thing with great interest for several months now, mostly as an exercise in insight and analysis.

Surprisingly, the republican lead has *not* changed hands a few times, and depending on your definition of "lead" it hasn't changed hands at all. Carson pulled ahead of Trump in one poll one time, but in the overall average and in the national polls he's consistently been in the lead, for the last 6 months.

Look at the link in the last paragraph, and look at the right-hand column and count the number of times it reads "Trump".

This informative graphic from RealClearPolitics shows the overview situation.

But if this is true, then why was the MSM hyping "Carson pulls ahead of Trump" all the time?

Two reasons.

As an exercise to the readership, can you identify the two reasons?

Comparing news reports with actual data has been an eye-opening experience. There's really a lot of shenanigans going on in this election. Applying Bayesian priors of "of all reasons causing *this*, choose the most likely" paints a surprising, infuriating, and depressing picture of American politics.

She might win the nomination... there's certainly a good chance. But she's hardly a shoe-in.

Everyone just kinda assumed she win the nom 8 years ago, and that didn't really pan out for her, did it? And she hadn't even committed any felonies then.

If you're good at remembering things, let your mind wander back to the summer of 2008.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were both strong candidates with roughly equal support.

Hillary and Barack had a meeting, and soon after Hillary withdrew from the campaign. The Wikipedia article states that she won the popular vote but lost the nomination, but I seem to remember that her campaign lost a lot of steam after that meeting, and before the nomination.

The subtext that I read into that meeting was that the Dems felt that she was splitting the vote, and in return for her withdrawing gracefully and throwing support for Barack she would be the presumptive next nominee.

Then President Obama appointed her Secretary of State, which was also probably a result of that meeting. She got a high-prestige and highly visible position, and gets to practice being president for 8 years. (A good plan, really, and I don't begrudge that sort of deal making - it's how politics is done in this country.)

And now we're in the new cycle, and she's calling in that promise.

The problem is, she was a lackluster Secretary of State. If you assume that the E-mail and the Benghazi thing is unimportant, there's nothing that really stands out in her career.

She's a lukewarm candidate.

He is not in the debate because he has no support

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

He is not in the debate because he has no support

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

... and he's currently bringing in a whopping 2.4% of Republicans in the polls.

A cynical person might interpret this as suggesting that the conservative voters are motivated much less by "freedom" than by the sweet, sweet indulgence of their fear and hatred of (whichever non-majority social groups have been selected as their official scapegoats for the season).

Climate change is not a death sentence. There aren't any reputable scientists saying it is. I think you may have been listening to some sensationalist media stories, and possibly embellishing what they state. If you like, you can read some of the published effects of climate change, and "all life dying" is not one of them.

But if no reputable scientists are saying that climate change is a death sentence, why do articles like the one below keep appearing? It's about Christiana Figueres, leader of the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Figueres was trained as an anthropologist, but doesn't do anthropology professionally; she's a Costa Rican diplomat. (Being the daughter of the President of Costa Rica probably gave her a leg up here). I'm willing to add a stipulation that anthropologists who have never actually worked as scientists shouldn't be considered as "reputable scientists" on climate models.

It's titled, "The Woman Who Could Save Humanity". http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Well, if you actually read the article, it doesn't anywhere quote her as saying that climate change will be "a death sentence". In fact, it's primarily an article about how hard it is to get diplomats to agree. The closest it gets to any such statement is the title of the article (and article titles aren't written by the reporter), and a sentence in the article saying that on the well of her office is a picture of the Statue of Liberty waist-deep in water. I'm not sure if we should judge people by the satirical pictures on their walls.

Sounds like what we really need is a tool to annotate extremists on both sides. Why does this tool do that?

I absolutely agree. Accuracy is desired in both directions. We're in luck, though, the tool discussed here does annotate both sides! Here-- from the link in TFA-- is their tool applied to the Rolling Stone article "“The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here”:
http://climatefeedback.org/eva...
--along with the reply by the author, the very first point of which was "I didn't get to write the headline; the headlines are written by the editor."

But if no reputable scientists are saying that climate change is a death sentence, why do articles like the one below keep appearing? It's about Christiana Figueres, leader of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. It's titled, "The Woman Who Could Save Humanity".

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Sounds like what we really need is a tool to annotate extremists on both sides. Why does this tool do that?

Climate change is not a death sentence. There aren't any reputable scientists saying it is. I think you may have been listening to some sensationalist media stories, and possibly embellishing what they state. If you like, you can read some of the published effects of climate change, and "all life dying" is not one of them.

Given coffee's historical connection to Islamic monasticism, this is obviously part of NASA's Muslim outreach effort.

Were you told this around a camp fire?

Koch Brothers, Rove among the liberal's bogeymen
Charles Koch Fights Back

The latest FCC actions were DECADES in the making.

Using a law that was first written when your telephone had a hand crank and last updated when 33.6kbit/s voiceband modems represented the "bleeding edge" of consumer internet connectivity.

This op-ed raises an interesting question: "The real issue is who pays for new Internet investment. Do big users like Netflix and Facebook bear some costs or are these left to the ISPs -- which shift them to the monthly bills of households? For example: In 2014, Netflix agreed to pay Comcast for smoother streaming of its videos. The open question is whether the FCC will permit these interconnection payments and, if so, at what level. But the FCC has weakened the ISPs' bargaining position by requiring them to accept all comers."

That number is very misleading: http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

It really doesn't help to have the head of the american catholic league going around saying things like, "It is too bad that [Charlie Hebdo publisher Stephane Charbonnie] didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death" He turns it into a binary choice between supporting free speech or supporting killers and he's on the wrong damn side of that false dichotomy to boot.

It doesn't matter if you have 100 years of data if the study is wrong.

Here is Center For American Progress President Neera Tanden explainging how she helped write one of the biggest pieces of legislation in US history, Obamacare. It seized control over 1/6th of the economy and had many far reaching effects, not all of which have been seen yet.

I don't recall that the Center for American Progress is noted as a being an advocate for "the rich." So it looks like interest groups do have some pull after all.

News flash: Romney was never elected President. (I do understand the logic, you can't 'blame" this on Bush, can you?)

I'll just leave this right here for you.

I can understand trying to weasel out from being blamed for that turkey, but it isn't going to happen. You can try to make all the excuses you want, but at the end of the day Obamacare was written by Democrats and "Progressive" lobbyists, amended with juicy pork to bribe Democrats to not bail on it, passed by Democratic votes, and signed by a Democratic president. Ownership: Democrats - lock, stock, and barrel. Blame: Democrats - start to finish.

In the US, the people in charge are still the health insurance companies. They will call the shots during this situation just as they have for decades (including during the writing of the 2010 "health care reform" bill).

Your view is popular, but just simply wrong.

Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"
Obamacare Architect: ‘Insurance Companies As We Know Them Are About To Die’

I see you have a very selective memory. Please read the original plan and then follow the idiotic path of compromises that Republicans forced onto it rendering it into the watered down ridiculous mess that it is.

Your memory isn't so good either. Obamacare was written by Democrats and "progressive" lobbyists*, voted for by Democrats, and implemented by a Democratic administration. They own it lock, stock, and barrel. The Republicans didn't vote for it, you can't blame the Obamacare debacle on them.

If you're going to create a massive new entitlement program grabbing control of 16% of the economy then you should have a broad consensus and support for doing it, and do it with care. The Democrats didn't have that but decided to force a badly written, ill conceived boondoggle on the country. We'll be paying the price for that for years, and I doubt that the Democrats will pay any real price at all.

* Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

Millions of people that had health insurance lost it due to Obamacare. Some companies that had been offering it to entry level and part time employees were forced to drop it as a result of the Obamacare mandates. At the same time many others kept their health coverage but cut the hours of many emmployees below the level needed to qualify for coverage. Now the people that had coverage and lost it due to hours being cut are having to work two jobs and still have no benefits. You can add to that jobs lost when companies cut jobs to get under the Obamacare thresholds to avoid fines and added costs. The list of FAIL from Obamacare is far longer than that. It's almost as if they didn't read it before passing it, and had lobbyists writing it. Well that's right, they didn't read it before passing it, and did have lobbyists help write it.

Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

There is plenty of major FAIL there, and it all belongs to the Democrats.

Greenwald's Finale: Naming Victims of Surveillance
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/26/greenwalds_finale_naming_victims_of_surveillance_122747.html

The source article is paywalled

You think your insurance cost in going to drop by a huge amount next year? Awwww, isn't that cute. Even more Obamacare taxes and mandates are still coming. I do like that you picked up on the anti-small business aspects of the law. They were put there by Democrats and progressive lobbyists.

The Republicans were what stopped an ever worse law from passing.

If you like your doctor you can keep your ....
If you like your policy you can keep your.....

Can't we complain that we are now (to use your phraseology) being served "moldy rat turds"? That isn't what used to be on the plate, and we were promised better. I think all the sugar in the Kool-Aid is helping you stomach things that should not be swallowed. And don't forget sugar is a factor in many diseases of our time.

except he doesn't care if a drone kills a citizen who doe not necessarily pose an imminent threat

There are no communists in American government.

Arguably, "Spreading the wealth around" is Communism...

want to deny gay folks certain rights

What are you talking about? Gay folks have the exact same rights as all of us... Including marrying one person of the opposite gender. That they can not exercise that right is their misfortune, but not our problem. For another example, a paraplegic has the right to practice karate — just not the ability...

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

NASA is working on one, called the Space Launch System, but the agency is constrained by its budget

Maybe, if the National Aeronautics and Space Administration focused on the actual Aeronautics and Space, without venturing into things like Muslim outreach (to, and I quote: "help them feel good about their historic contribution to science") and research of industrial civilizations (collapse inevitable), they could scrape a few more bucks and deliver the rocket before Russia (or China) do...

You seriously think those things even begin to dent the budget of NASA? Your rant is more about criticizing the damn liberals and their GUBMINT than it is about any serious problem with NASA. If you really want to see NASA accomplish things, get congress the hell out of their business and stop letting every new administration pull new mandates out of their asses. Or, push more support for the COTS programs, that produce far better results at far less cost, thanks to free market economics which work so well everywhere else. The only problem is they don't funnel money into the pockets of established defense contractors...

NASA is working on one, called the Space Launch System, but the agency is constrained by its budget

Maybe, if the National Aeronautics and Space Administration focused on the actual Aeronautics and Space, without venturing into things like Muslim outreach (to, and I quote: "help them feel good about their historic contribution to science") and research of industrial civilizations (collapse inevitable), they could scrape a few more bucks and deliver the rocket before Russia (or China) do...

always Republicans ... who do this shit!

It's important to note that right now in US politics one party is completely and totally against the concept of scientific inquiry putting Newspeak-like religious rhetoric above all else.

There is no 'but the Democrats...' counterpoint on this...it's ALWAYS REPUBLICANS. It doesn't make the Democrat/Liberals better in some long-term philosophical way at all, but it forces a choice in a real-world context that alot of /.'ers can't mentally make.

(SNIP)

Good grief you are full of it. If you don't see problems with the science on both sides of the isle you aren't looking. Maybe you're simply blinded by partisanship.

The Republican Party Isn't Really the Anti-Science Party

.... twice as many Democrats as Republicans believe in astrology, a pseudoscientific medieval farce. Left-wing ideologues also frequently espouse an irrational fear of nuclear power, genetic modification, and industrial and agricultural chemistry—even though all of these scientific breakthroughs have enriched lives, lengthened lifespans, and produced substantial economic growth over the last century. .....

Stewart Brand, the 1960s environmental activist, has bemoaned opposition to genetically modified organisms as “irrational, anti-scientific, and very harmful.” The anti-GMO movement, largely a product of the political left, has reached levels of delusion, paranoia and anti-intellectualism worthy of Michele Bachmann and young-earth creationists.

Matters are more nuanced—or just plain favorable to Republicans—when it comes to the business of actually governing. Comparing the two parties' proposed funding levels for the major scientific research agencies doesn't lend itself well to narratives about who's “pro” or “anti” science. For every cheap shot a Republican member of Congress like Senator Tom Coburn has taken at National Science Foundation grants (see the unfairly maligned robo-squirrel), there are areas where Obama has undercut American leadership in basic science by favoring loan guarantees and industrial subsidies to the alternative-energy industry at the expense of science elsewhere.

We've seen this in his proposed cuts to high-energy physics, nuclear physics, planetary science, and other areas of research. Even in the much-maligned “Tea Party-dominated” House of Representatives, the GOP budget proposals provided more funding for the NSF than those of the Senate Democrats for the current 2013 fiscal year.

Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?

A narrative has developed over the past several years that the Republican Party is anti-science. Recently, thanks to the ignorant remarks about rape made by Rep. Todd Akin, the Democrats have seized the opportunity to remind us that they are the true champions of science in America. But is it really true?

No. As we thoroughly detail in our new book, "Science Left Behind," Democrats are willing to throw science under the bus for any number of pet ideological causes – including anything from genetic modification to vaccines.

Are Republicans or Democrats More Anti-Science?
Eric Cantor and Lamar Smith: Rethinking science funding
Anti-Science Republicans Versus Anti-Science Democrats: The Comparison

The FISA court has been a whitewash since the Church Committee days. FISA rejects about one warrant per 3 year period (or 1 in 3000): .... You can't rationally call rubber stamping like that "oversight."

I suppose it is out of the question to even pretend that both the Justice Department attorneys and judges approach the job seriously and professionally since going to court is always done on a lark, no preparation needed.

The judges who preside over America's secret court

In rare public remarks 10 years ago, a former presiding FISA judge, Royce Lamberth, described the process: "I ask questions. I get into the nitty-gritty. I know exactly what is going to be done and why. And my questions are answered, in every case, before I approve an application."

Syracuse University College of Law professor William C. Banks, who follows the FISA court closely, said he suspects that warrants are "modified" when judges request more information about a warrant or decide to split a warrant with multiple suspects, phone numbers and locations into several, more specific ones.

"We can't tell the extent of modification, but clearly it suggests that the judges are taking a real look at these things and are at least modifying them in some respect," said Penn Law professor Theodore Ruger.

NSA Data Mining Is Legal, Necessary, Sec. Chertoff Says

FISA warrant applications are inches thick, he said, and "if you're trying to sift through an enormous amount of data very quickly, I think it would be impractical." He said that getting an ordinary FISA warrant is "a voluminous, time-consuming process" .

The judges who preside over America's secret court

Between 2001 and 2012, the FISA judges approved 20,909 surveillance and property search warrants - an average of 33 a week. During that 12-year period, the judges denied just 10 applications. Prosecutors withdrew another 26 applications.

From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that directed Verizon to release metadata on all phone calls inside the United States. No business record warrants were rejected.

The records also show that FISA judges ordered "substantial modifications" to 497 surveillance and property warrants and 428 of the business record warrants.

The statistics are especially intriguing for business record warrants for 2011 and 2012. Of 417 warrants authorized, the court "substantially modified" 376

It would be easy to get the impression that few people posting here have any concept of what true professionalism means.

Are you happier now?

There is no change, those are only recommendations. Obama has yet to decide what to do. Even then it will take Congress acting to change much of it, assuming Obama decides to change anything.

Snowden has offered to help Brazil investigate US intelligence. Is that the patriotism you were referring to?

As to Snowden's fate, there are some other views about him.

With the priorities I've seen in the news for NASA over the last few years, I think that is their biggest problem.
Muslim outreach
Climate Change study.

We also have the head of the EPA's Climate change division being sentenced today for outrageous lies, along will all the other lies other AGW activists have done. Why should I be forced to fund what appears to be a hoax and religious outreach? If that is NASA's mission now, just close the damn thing.

Now if you want to go back to what they USED to do, that would be a different story.

Schools today treat the kids like goats staked out for lions to kill and eat. If I want to cause mayhem and kill, where do I go? A "gun free zone"!

Hey, everyone, come here and perpetrate your crimes, no guns here to worry about!

As for the political aspect of it, perhaps you missed the fact that this kid was a "Very Proud Of Being A Socialist"

But then, you must be too since your goals of disarming the populace are identical to those of most socialist dictators. You should pay attention to the sig.

Ah but it is a police state, just not one in which you're likely to be dragged from your bed in the middle of the night.

How about the summary IRS audits http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/cancer-patient-who-spoke-out-against-obamacare-now-being-audited/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/15/exclusive-prominent-catholic-prof-claims-irs-audited-her-after-speaking-out-against-obama-and-demanded-to-know-who-was-paying-her/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/02/dr_ben_carson_irs_targeted_me_after_i_spoke_out_against_obama.html

You can of course argue that the audits were scheduled anyways, but you will probably dismiss it. http://godfatherpolitics.com/13418/obama-orders-irs-shutdown-non-profits-speak/

Party representation in the Senate is much closer to the popular vote of the people
 
Really? Two senators from California (pop. 38 million), two from Wyoming (pop. 500K)? By the way if the fact that a party has more seats than its share of total vote is evidence of gerrymandering (it isn't) then what can be said about Democrats who except for very recent past have always had more seats than votes - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/wysiwyg_images/chart10-10.gif , By your logic Democrats are gerrymandering masters and Republicans are the apprentice who just now is starting to pick up the craft.

That is a load of bull. There is a difference between insurance and healthcare. The main problem the ACA was supposedly trying to solve was a 15% uninsured rate. There were many reasons why that 15% didn't have coverage, including no small part of it that could afford insurance, but didn't want to pay for it. So the Democratic party grabbed hold of 100% of the market, not the 15% that was the problem, and started rearranging things with a hasty, thrown together plan that was scraped up from whatever they thought they could pass in short order with very unusual parliamentary maneuvering (remember "deemed to pass"?) and written in part by a "progressive" think tank. The result still won't cover 100%, not even close, has raised rates for many people, has ended up costing many people both their insurance and income since their work hours were cut back, caused economic contraction due to businesses pulling headcounts under the limits, and plenty of other problems. And the best part is, they expect it to ultimately fail so that they can force single payer on everyone! How does that figure into your BS comment "let's do nothing unless it's perfect. If a few million people suffer or die in the meantime "? How about this - why don't we do something deliberately, in a planned fashion, that has wide support in society? How about we just don't throw crap to say we did something? Are you planning to take responsibility for the people that die without insurance now that this bad piece of law, this planned failure has passed? One of the principal precepts of medical ethics is, "first, do no harm". The idea should be to do something that is both useful and productive, not just "something" that is already expected to be destructive and fail. The cure is going to be worse than the disease in this case. But at least it will be hideously expensive. For some reason I doubt you read much in the way of criticism of the law, but your conscience will be clear because "something" was done.

Sorry, but you are confused. Progressive lobbyists helped the Democrats write that bill. Republicans had nothing to do with it. (Are you going to call the President of the Center For American Progress* (a fellow "progressive") a liar when she claims credit for her work?

Center For American Progress* President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

In any event there were substantial practical differences between the two plans. The policy from Heritage was never an unqualified mandate.

For the benefit of any other readers, here is the article he finds so objectionable: ObamaCare's Heritage . Here is the Amicus brief Heritage filed with the Appeals Court explaining its position.

I will also note you've really only disagreed with me, not "debunked" my position. That would be difficult for you to do since I'm simply relying on the facts. But please, disagree with the Center for American Progress*. They need more opposition.

* Not at all either a Republican or conservative think tank.

Sorry, but you are confused. Progressive lobbyists helped the Democrats write that bill. Republicans had nothing to do with it.

Center For American Progress* President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

* Not at all a Republican think tank.

I think you give Obama too much credit. He saw how to exploit this just like he saw how to exploit the IRS and use it against his political enemies. Obama railed against raising the debt limit when he was senator calling it unpatriotic and now he insists on no negotiations to lower the deficit as a condition to raising the debt limit. (yes, I know that is a political add, but it has Obama's own voice in it).

Despite amending or doing away with it, Obama could also through legitimate power as the head of the executive, ensure that US agencies used the power the Patriot Act gave the government in ways that we would not be concerned with today. Instead, he used that same power to expand the surveillance and even justify that expansion through the Patriot act.

He and the democrats did nothing because they saw it as a way to increase their power and objectives. They took the ball and ran because they wanted to. If you look at how Obama was elected to senator, you would see that It has nothing to do with being beholden to anything other then their ideology. The entire Obamacare debacle proves this. Harry Reid himself called the medical device tax a stupid tax yet he refuses to consider anything to repeal it or any changes to the Affordable Care Act out of ideological persistence.

Yet, I have no problems with believing either side will attempt to be against the other side when they are in power. It's all ideology if you ask me.

"This is the most transparent administration in history." --Barack Obama http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/14/obama_this_is_the_most_transparent_administration_in_history.html

The difference is one of those parties makes a lot of speeches about wanting a free market.

Which party is that?

Not that Russia was ever a major ally to the US

Not that the history of WW2 was ever taught where you came from. Ummm... America, possibly?

Nevermind US allies turning their backs on "them". Most of the American people have turned their backs too. The question for the world, Americans included, is how to replace "them". It is an eternal question, and no nation is immune from the disease known as "them". That was the big take-away from the infamous Milgram experiment. Some people thought it might reveal when some people (like the Germans) were susceptible to such societal dysfunction. Turned out, we're all susceptible. It looks like it's America's turn to be infected. I just hope our problem gets solved by somebody reasonable. I for one, will welcome our Canadian overlords when the time comes.

I am happy to inform you that your entire post is based on rubbish.

Southern Whites' Shift to the GOP Predates the '60s

Debunking the Myth of the Nixon "Southern Strategy"

The Myth of the Racist Republicans

Desegregation, before Brown

After earthquake control where do you go as an agency? Remote viewing? Mind control lasers? That's so 1970s. Let's face it, in this harsh world you're only as good as your latest doomsday weapon.

On topic: The path of least regret would have been single payer system, but we somehow ended up with a Republican profit-utopia called "Obamacare".

Infinity Imaginary mod points to you sir.

Infinity irony points to you, fellow poster.

It is often claimed that Obamacare is a Republican creation by way of the Heritage Foundation. In fact the Heritage plan was substantially different, and they figured out quite some time ago that plan was not a good idea, and they disowned it.

In fact, Obamacare was written by Democrats in Congress with help from a progressive think tank.

Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

Obamacare was passed in Congress on a straight party line vote.

House passes health-care reform bill without Republican votes

Obamacare was signed into law by President Obama.

So how is a law written by Democrats assisted by progressive think tanks, passed solely by Democrats, and signed into law by a Democrat President a "Republican" plan?

PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’
Democrats' New Argument: It's A Good Thing That Obamacare Doubles Individual Health Insurance Premiums
Analysis: Obamacare to cost $2.6 trillion over first full decade

President Barack Obama promised his health-care law would cost approximately $900 billion over ten years when he first proposed it. Since then, the price tag has continued to climb. Total spending under the Affordable Care Act will reach $2.6 trillion over its first full decade, according to a Senate Budget Committee analysis, which was based on Congressional Budget Office estimates and growth rates.

It is said that success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. Trying to leave the Obamacare baby in a basket on the Republican's doorstep won't work. The bastard stepchild of Obamacare belongs to the Democrats.

Yes, but by the same token you don't need to have corruption for idiocy to occur either. People make mistakes, but due consideration can help reduce them. That is why the current trend of the US Congress passing 2,000 page bills without giving members of Congress a chance to read and digest them before a vote is such an appallingly bad idea. These bills are often being changed up until the last moment and written with the help of outsiders. There is no way that anybody can read them, there is no way that anybody can understand them and consider the consequences. I think it is exceedingly dangerous to democracy, liberty, transparency, and good government.