Slashdot Mirror

(OK, OK, that might have been the ATF or somebody else, I don't know.)

I'd like to know if she's given her opinion on this. I'm sure it would be insightful.

Well, from Swamp Politics:

There will be a lot of hearings "to discover the cause of the explosion and the subsequent leak," Palin writes ,and action will be taken "to increase oversight to prevent future accidents....

"Government can and must play an appropriate role here," she adds. "If a company was lax in its prevention practices, it must be held accountable. It is inexcusable for any oil company to not invest in preventative measures. They must be held accountable or the public will forever distrust the industry..."

Yet, she contends, "even with the strictest oversight in the world, accidents still happen. No human endeavor is ever without risk - whether it's sending a man to the moon or extracting the necessary resources to fuel our civilization.

"I repeat the slogan "drill here, drill now" not out of naiveté or disregard for the tragic consequences of oil spills.... I continue to believe in it because increased domestic oil production will make us a more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation."

I don't know if I'd call it insightful but it seems to be a route to maintain her initial assertions of drilling here. I'm certainly not a fan of Palin but that response is probably a lot more reasonable than you or I were hoping for. She and I just share a fundamental disagreement about where our country's focuses for energy and energy independence should lie.

Better than if we went back to the gold standard, abolished the fed, killed all free trade agreements, exacerbated our fun race to the bottom with no respect for rights or the environment, piled on isolationism and protectionism, inflamed xenophobia, and pretty much killed globalization. Oh yes.

And when has Ron Paul proposed all of these? What is so bad about a gold standard? It's bad because it prevents government from creating fiat money? Where in the USA Constitution does it give the federal government the power to create the Federal Reserve? When has he opposed free trade when it did not interfere with sovereignty? Did you know that a Canadian company sued California to permit that company to sell a known cancer causer in the state? When CA banned MTBE, Methyl tert-butyl ether, the Canadian company sued the US using NAFTA's Chapter 11 saying CA was blocking it's investments in MTBE, which is a known cancer causer. As for any race to the bottom, so called fre trade agreements many so called left wingers say they speed up the race to the bottom whereas right wingers support them. Isolationism? Ron Paul: 'Isolationism isn't what I advocate'. Protectionism? Protectionism vs. Liberty. He argues against isolationism and protectionism. Get your facts straight.

Falcon

Note that they have had a form of tort reform for medicine in Texas. and it has done nothing to curb the costs of medical care there.

Technically, the insurance companies add no value to the medical care that you receive. They act as a middleman collecting graft from both sides of the deal. Unfortunately, they are such a powerful lobby, that they have a stranglehold on congress (look at Lieberman promising to filibuster the bill - just a couple of years after he said he believed in universal coverage).

So, you have two things. A congress rife with special interests and no political will anywhere to do anything about them, and an unnecessary amoral (if not immoral) business demanding that they make ever increasing profits off the sick and healthy who they have not dropped off the roles yet.

This is why Republicans are so afraid of the public option - that it might actually work. The post office works pretty good for me, so their dire predictions seems pretty shrill. I think that it's unconscionable what they have done by sitting on their hands all these years and suddenly they come up with some pathetic plan involving tort reform that will do nothing for the millions that are uninsured. Not to mention all the Obama haters who are using numerous scare tactics to sway the uninformed. Worse yet, are those healthy people (who have a job and insurance) around who will fiercely tell you and me that there is nothing wrong with the system.

For me, they need to to do something to fix health care, and tweak the legislation down the road as it is needed.

The alternative will be Britannica.

I always tell people to check out conservapedia.com. It was started because Wikipedia is edited by YOU and YOU are too biased to provide neutral information.

Here's a section from their page on Barack Hussein Obama
(redirected from Barack Obama)

Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have stated that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols. For example, one speech declared, "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"[26]

Oh my God, this is terrible! Our president is using techniques of mind control on us! What does Wikipedia have on this subject? Not a thing. Because a light shone down on YOU, YOU experienced an epiphany, and YOU said to yourself, 'I have to censor Barack's Wikipedia page.'

Obama may be the first Muslim President
The argument that Obama is a Muslim is largely based on his Islamic background. It also includes:

• Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[28] [29]
• (more bullet points)
• Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
• Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.
• (still more bullet points)
• Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, meaning "Christian turned Muslim."[42]
• Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;[43] "Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history."[44]>
• "President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend [Sunday or Christmas] church services since winning the White House ..., a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors."[45]
• Many atheists claim that Obama is one of them, yet he displays none of the characteristics common to atheism: Obama has not expressed offense at prayer by others, he has not promoted the theory of evolution, and he has never expressed a disdain for religious belief.

Bet you didn't know he was a Muslim. But it isn't all about religion. They also get into flag pins.

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.[58] Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists.

and Day 2 he issued his first exemption to the revolving door policy.

Technically he put a halt to gitmo trials before ordering it closed. Which is confusing, because if there was no evidence why were they having trials?

The default open thing is nice, but the reality is the US torture policies will be unchanged under Obama, if not worse. Expect to see rendition drastically increase (oh wait, don't expect to see that, the media will suddenly be disinterested.)

Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then? I mean, they violated our privacy as well.

As far as is known, they have only listened on some international calls. With the vast majority of Americans never calling into the suspicious hot-spots, their privacy was never threatened. But very little is known — one side wants things to be kept secret, understandably, and the other does not care to separate known facts from the darkest what-if-suspicions...

Who should be demanding justice, is Joe the Plumber whose records (and not just the measly phone-calls, but serious things) were improperly accessed as a result of his sudden fame. Even if one buys the bureaucrat's line, that the searches were justified by the "what if he owes child support?" considerations, there is absolutely no justification for sharing the dirt with newspapers.

(While searching for the links, I found the following gem: "He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means he's not a plumber." Wow... I must not be a software engineer, and Picasso must not have been an artist... Absolutely not...)

Hmm, I don't believe its fair to tie the Democrats to the entertainment industry.

Uhm, with all due respect, what planet are you f-ing from?!

Both the recently deceased Jack Valenti and the current MPAA chairman Dan Glickman are loyal Democrats.

This is the point, where an honest man in your shoes either commits suicide or promises to vote for a Republican as a penance...

he changed his mind on granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms

here is his former view

here is him voting for it

and here is his responce to complaints of him voting for it

I'm totally done with the Democrats now.

I used to vote for democrats exclusively

No, I have never voted for a Republican -- and I doubt I ever will

So going back to my original statement that there is a chunk of the electorate that automatically votes Democrat (you used to be one of them), there is a chunk that automatically votes Republican, and there is a chunk that bases their votes on the issues (which you now seem to be a member of, though taking both Democrats and Republicans "off the table" suggests otherwise). That last chunk is the only group in play in the general election. Clearly during the primaries, the other two groups demand the most attention. Of course complicating things during the primaries is that middle group again, who can often instigate mischief (that is usually my approach since often there is one candidate in the "other" party that terrifies me more so than there is a candidate in the party that I plan to vote for excites me).

As to figuring out what the "50th percentile positions" would be, that's pretty easy. Just listen to what both the candidates are saying now -- their polling has told them what that position is. Stay in Iraq until the country is stable (Obama is tacking to this position as I write this), ban so-called partial birth (aka late term) abortions (Obama is also tacking "to the middle" on this one http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/obama_backs_late_abortions_on.html, do not privatize social security (McCain is moving to the center, coming out against it now), ending the off-shore drilling ban (McCain has boldly jumped to this position after being staunchly opposed http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602731.html). I didn't look up what they are saying about the mortgage crisis, the so-called Bush tax cuts or Global Warming, but rest assured, whatever they are saying is what the polls say most people *in the middle group* believe (today). And remember, that distinction (in the middle group) is crucial because, as I've said multiple times, the other two groups are basically "in the bag".

By the way, I stumbled across a really good site when looking for links for this post: http://www.pollingreport.com/index.html

It's not just FISA, there's also the death penalty for child rapists (is that "progressive"?), pulling out of public financing, and even being inflammatory on abortion despite being pro-choice in the past.

I think I agree with the Huffington Post. Is this the guy everybody got excited about?

except for the whole UFO business http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/kucinichs_ufo_and_that_questio.html

Like the fact that he's pro-life. Or the fact that he wants to withdraw from the UN and reinstate a foreign policy that borders on isolationism. Or his 19th Century economic policies.

Well there you go.

"Borders on isolationism" is nearly a direct quote from the media, and false. Going after the terrorists directly (via Marque and Reprisal) while persuing diplomacy with foreign countries and encouraging fair trade and travel does not equal isolationism or even borderline isolationism. Ron's policy is one of non-interventionism, which is dramatically different. Here are a few examples that explain the difference. You claim people know Ron's message. In my experience, this is one of the most repeated falsehoods I hear.

And for crying out loud, you dislike the war in Iraq yet want to stay in the U.N.?! The U.N. is largely responsible for our involvement in Iraq! (see Resolution 1441) How can you condemn pulling out when they are an abomination that does nothing but threaten our sovereignty for the so-called benefit of the world ... and at our expense and reputation?


And what about Ron's economic policies are 19th century? Are you saying that Steve Forbes, who has praised Ron's economic ideas, also has the same 19th century mentality?

• Stopping the declining value of the dollar by printing more money?
• Less spending by the federal government?
• Ending over-regulation?
• Stop the wasted attempts to pay of debt and its interest with more debt?
• Providing tax credits to increase competition and new ideas rather than "writing checks" to the companies with the best lobbyists?
• Getting rid of the organization largely responsible for our economic woes - the Federal Reserve?

Oh wait, I bet you're referring to the "gold standard" myth. Though it hasn't stopped the media from twisting his words, Ron has stated more than once that he's not necessarily for a gold standard. What he does want, is to restore the value of the dollar and has suggested competing currencies (he even just made a speech in congress about this in the last few weeks) as one way to achieve that.

Ron's economic plan (if you bothered reading it), is clearly far from being 19th century.

Please tell me I'm wrong and you have a solid example of what you mean.

In any case, it is NOT the president's job to manage the economy! Nor should it be. He or she should uphold the constitution and let the market take care of itself (where possible of course, there are exceptions thanks to years of government involvement).


Pro-life is his personal view, not his federal policy. His position is to get the federal government out of moral issues such as this one. While I don't agree with his personal view necessarily, moving the issue to local government (where people have more of a say) is a fair and constitutional compromise.

Regardless, the issue of abortion is nothing more than a diversion from the real problems we face. It's a talking point to make people feel good about themselves. Choosing a president based on this issue, when the federal government has no constitutional abilit