Slashdot Mirror

If all our senators at least gave as much thought to issues as he does, we'd be in a much, much better place.

Al Franken thinks that the "place" for America is under NSA surveillance. Is that the place you were thinking of?

Franken defends NSA surveillance

Al Franken is often wrong and not especially thoughtful or informed on the issues. He is a pretty reliable "progressive" vote and hence the confusion.

Al Franken is one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate.

Really? Then you'll be interested in the items below. I assume you'll agree with him since you describe him as " one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate."

The NSA Has at Least 1 Liberal Friend Left: Sen. Al Franken

It's pretty lonely to be the National Security Agency right now. The revelation of a massive data-collection program has left many progressive senators criticizing the agency, from Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., to Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. But one of the other most liberal senators in Congress is so far speaking out in NSA's support: Al Franken.

Franken, the Minnesota Democrat who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, knew about the data-mining. Or at least that's what he told Minnesota's WCCO on Tuesday. "I can assure you, this is not about spying on the American people," Franken said. The senator also believes the data collection has saved American lives:

I have a high level of confidence that this is used to protect us, and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism. There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that is not appropriate for the bad guys to know.

Franken defends NSA surveillance

The Minnesota lawmaker told the St. Paul CBS affiliate that he "was very well aware of" the classified government programs that gathered personal data on telephone and Internet users.

“I have a high level of confidence that this is used to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism,” Franken said, adding that "this is not about spying on the American people." Franken also defended the program as striking the right balance between national security and the right to privacy, echoing recent assurances from the White House.

“There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that is not appropriate for the bad guys to know,” Franken said.

The senator also said it was appropriate for the Justice Department to investigate Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old defense contractor who has claimed responsibility for the leak.

Well, who can argue with Al Franken since he is "...one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate"?

Unfortunately Al Franken owes his election to vote fraud.

Felons for Franken - Illegal felon voters may have handed Democrats 60-vote majority.

Did illegal felon voters determine the outcome of the critical 2008 Minnesota Senate election? The day after the election, GOP Senator Norm Coleman had a 725 vote lead, but a series of recounts over the next six months reversed that result and gave Democrat Al Franken a 312 vote victory.

The outcome wound up having a significant impact, giving Democrats the critical 60th Senate vote they needed to block GOP filibusters. Mr. Franken's vote proved crucial in the passage of ObamaCare last December in the Senate. The next month Democrats lost their 60-vote Senate majority with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

Ever since Mr. Franken was declared the victor, the conservative watchdog group Minnesota Majority has combed through records comparing lists of those who voted with criminal rap sheets. It found that at least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's

You missed the part where the House Republicans voted to end net neutrality years ago, only to be stopped by the Senate Democrats.

You also missed the part where Obama implemented a limited net neutrality via executive order, only to have that struck down by the courts, following a lawsuit by Verizon.

You also missed the part where Republicans cheered the court's ruling, declaring that net neutrality is "socialism".

Look here, or just google "obama net neutrality court" for a dozen other sources.

Here's the lede, in case you're too lazy to click:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down regulations that require Internet providers to treat all traffic the same, dealing a potentially fatal blow to President Obama’s push for “net neutrality.”

Opponents of the rules, led by plaintiff Verizon, hailed the decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals as a victory over government meddling in the marketplace.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), one of the biggest opponents of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules in Congress, applauded the court for striking down “socialistic regulations.”

Do you get it yet? The Democrats have been fighting for years to try to keep net neutrality around. The Republicans have fought to destroy it. The Republicans won, because the courts were on their side. And now you blame ...the Democrats.

This is why things will never get better. This is why you will lose everything, bit by bit. Because you don't pay attention, and you lash out at the same people who tried to fight for you. Really, you deserve to lose.

I mostly agree with you but given the explosion of laws and regulations in the last few years, and the spying, data aggregation, and just general surveillance, many things that were assumed to be private are not.
http://www.threefeloniesaday.c...
http://thehill.com/regulation/...

We are moving toward and not away from totalitarian states. Freedom is decreasing in the world, both personally and economically.

T.H. White’s totalitarian principle: “Everything not forbidden is compulsory.”
That is why stuff like this is good, even if it may be used for bad things (just like a gun, knife, rope, car, brick, rock, club, axe, or a sharp pointy stick...).

The Democrats lost their super-majority in the Senate before they could ram-through Pelosi's house bill as the "Affordable Care Act" and since they were absolutely determined that no Republican input would be tolerated they needed a scheme to solve their dilemma. Harry Reid (Nevada Democrat who runs the Senate) used a tactic of taking another bill, stripping out all its content and then injecting in whatever language he wanted; Harry inserted the ACA language we ended-up (which could not perfectly match Nancy's language for complex legal reasons) into the hollow shell of a bill that had previously worked its way partially through the senate (the bill Harry used as a shell had already cleared the 60 vote "cloture" hurdle) and then THAT mess was handed over to Nancy Pelosi in the House where it should have had to go through reconcilliation (but couldn't because the resulting "reconciled" bill would have needed another Senate vote WITH that pesky 60 vote cloture) . Nancy's team however, could not pass it properly "as-is" because the Senate version had language some of her House democrats did not want to be held accountable for..... so she worked out a scheme to pass a separate resolution in the house that would "deem" the ACA to have passed rather than actually passing it, and that whole ball of wax was what Obama ultimately signed. The "affordable care act" written by the U.S. House of Representatives never actually went anywhere (no matter what a lazy wikipage editor may claim) ..... the Senate's verson is what went through (and, incidentally, this is one of the major reasons it is such a mess - all the normal committee work to unify house and senate bills into a joint bill, which usually cleans-up conflicts between sepearate parts of complex bills written by various interests, never happened).... all those shenanigans were done just to block any Republican input that WOULD have been enabled by the election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. Scott Brown campaigned to be the vote to stop the supermajority from passing the ACA, and he won that election, but Harry and Nancy simply manipulated the process to block the new Senator from interfering in their plans for a pure-Democrat health law.

When the Supreme Court took up the ACA in that big case Republicans believed they'd win and which Democrats still crow about to this day, they ruled that the thing could NOT be implemented using the "Commerce Clause" and with "penalties" but COULD stand if it was all really just a big tax scheme - so they declared it a big tax scheme and let it stand as Constitutional (shocking conservatives, who now see John Roberts as a traitor) ........ which brings us to the lawsuit "Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services" which points out that the Constitution specifically and explicitly forbids any tax law from originating in the Senate, and given that the SCOTUS has already certified that this is exactly what Obamacare is..... the SCOTUS will be a pack of hypocrits if they let it win this suit. Oral arguments are scheduled for May 8, 2014.

Obama ran on a policy of net neutrality support and staffed the FCC board with members with the intent of establishing net neutrality.

Now the FCC (which the Obama administration controls) is doing a 180.

Is this being done because Obama and the DNC doesn't want it or because Comcast is throwing money around?

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

http://thehill.com/blogs/hilli...

Here's the problem with your "Progressive" talking point:

Every time some progressive pushes a new regulation, and somebody complains that it will cost money and freedom, you guys push-back by saying "well the last time we added a burden nothing bad happened, so shut up about this new burden" ....... but your statement is never actually true .... you are just counting on an ignorant and/or distracted public not NOTICING the costs; in each and every case, costs did indeed do up, and the regulatory burdens arose (making the "barrier to entry" hurdle higher for any new business to enter the market).

Prices for everything continue to creep-up year-after-year. Some of the creep is caused by a growing government that is so hungry for cash that it is printing money and deflating the currency, but some is because with every passing year there are thousands of new laws and regulations on top of the ones that were there the year before. Every one of those new rules and laws must be understood and followed by businesses subject to them (this has costs). One way business deals with incresing costs like this that they cannot avoid is by reducting costs elsewhere - like by outsourcing labor. There is simply no way to accurately gage the TOTAL costs of all this government bloat (in lost jobs, higher prices, and in products and services and jobs that never were created because of the businesses that never formed due to the regulatory hurdles) but if you simply pay attention you get clues. When I first started to drive I paid $0.45 a gallon for the gas I put in my car ... it's now often over $4.00 per gallon. This is not something unique to gasoline (and therefore to be blamed on OPEC or people in Chine now having cars) but it applies to EVERYTHING. Computer geeks often miss this because they live around computers (where Moore's law applies) so they see faster-and-better at similar price points year-after-year but the truth is that without the inflationary effects of government, our compter gear would be getting faster AND better AND cheaper year-after-year.... and with far less need to out-source good STEM jobs.

Or California could stop diverting water to protect the Delta Smelt.

According to Janet Yellen

The Federal Reserve simply does not have authority to supervise or regulate bitcoin in any way

After all, it's not a legitimate currency, is it? So no reason for the Feds to get involved! Which is also what her Japanese counterpart is saying.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor...

Not to mention the hassle of claiming those bitcoin tips as income, when it's not exactly clear yet how to do that properly.

I realize I'm probably just feeding a troll. But does what you typed, really convey the thoughts in your head? If so, you may want to seek some professional help.

Our entire government was set up so that nothing happens fast. Very little gets passed without debate, which is good for the country. How's this for gridlock? It passed unanimously in the house, and I believe so in the senate and was signed into law by the president on April 15, 2013. The Patriot act was also passed damn near unanimous, along with invading Iraq. Our founding fathers wanted there to be debate and discussion on everything. Unfortunately they gave us more credit than they should have as they thought we wold put intelligent people in charge of things. Not the retards we've had for several decades now.

When the republicans threatened in the past to pass a bill using reconciliation, which is meant for budgets, democrats screamed about how it would be the end of our way of life blah, blah. Then they used it to pass the ACA. Now it's the republicans who are screaming the same thing. Too bad there is a video record of both of them being adamantly for it when it's to their benefit, and against it when it's not.

(Don't tell me racism has nothing to do with it, because it DOES!)

I'm telling you that if you think that it's all due to racism, you are a fucking idiot. Are there some racists in congress? I'd guess so. Do I believe it's the majority? Well, perhaps the Senate Majority leader Or the current Vice President And again.. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of examples of republicans saying stupid things like this too. But do you really think it affects the way they vote? If so, then Harry Reid must vote against anything the president wants passed. OR could it be possible that he said something that was questionable and not be a racist?

If you think that's hypocrisy you should probably know about how she has a concealed carry permit despite being the most vocal anti-gun politician in the US.

One law for us, a different law for them.

There are numerous articles stating she used to have a concealed carry permit but no longer does, for instance http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273989-feinstein-doesnt-have-concealed-carry-permit-anymore. Do you have more recent information that she is again carrying?

How much Fox News do you watch a day? I just really like to gather data on that fact when I see such a polarized person.

How can you spot a liberal? They always go right to fox news.

Funny that it's at the supreme court huh? And this isn't even the first time, it's the 6th or 7th time that his use of XO's to bypass the law has gone to court.

This issue has been ignored by the media because the Treasury IG was asked by Darrell Issa "to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations" according to a spokesman for Russell George.

The problem with these kinds of comments is that they hurt your credibility, and damage your overall argument. In other words: stop, you're not helping.

• The emphasis on militarism
• The emphasis on nationalism. (Do you here that America was exceptional?)
• The emphasis on colonialism
• The emphasis on mysticism and the state
• The emphasis on warriorship
• Suppression of trade unions
• Foreign policy based on the myth of national power and greatness (covered above)
• Skepticism in democracy.

Here are some fascist traits associated with liberal politics:

• Broadened mandate for government intervention in the economy
• Anti-materialist -- but qualified that this is really not like liberal econuts -- since fascists are supposed to be sustained by their ideological commitment.

Here are some fascist traits that are identifiably both liberal and conservative (or a third rail in the two party system):

• the belief in the states role in monitoring its citizens.

Here are some fascist traits that are neither liberal nor conservative:

• endorsing terror to gain political power
• the notion that the entire population should be permanently and emotionally engaged in the political process.

DrHat, you are an ideologue, so don't bother me with logical contortions about how the Dems are really the more fascist of the two parties. But if there a legitimate argument, grounded in what Karl Rove pejoratively called the reality based community, then I'm all ears, because I love actually knowing things.

As we have seen through history the only real fascists have always been liberal

This is just partisan nonsense. If you actually, you know, read about fascism, you'll learn that it doesn't fit into the current left/right political divide.

People generally think of fascism as far-right because:

• The emphasis on militarism
• The emphasis on nationalism. (Do you here that America was exceptional?)
• The emphasis on colonialism
• The emphasis on mysticism and the state
• The emphasis on warriorship
• Suppression of trade unions
• Foreign policy based on the myth of national power and greatness
• Skepticism in democracy.

These are all defining qualities of facism that you see on the political right *today*

But facism is also leftist in that:

• It broadens the mandate for government intervention in the economy
• It is anti-materialist. (I suppose people in facists states seek spiritual sustenance.)

Furthermore, both the Dems and the GOP (in practice) have an overlapping facist trait: the belief in the states role in monitoring its citizens. This is a true 3rd rail in US politics, since as many Rs/Ds are for it as against it.

Fascism has traits not seen in either the Dems or the GOP, such as endorsing terror to gain political power, and the notion that the entire population should be permanently and emotionally engaged in the political process.

Stop reading just right-wing books, and broaden your horizon a little. Just because you read it doesnt mean you have to believe it. And just because something is written down doesn't make it true. Real scholarship starts when you seek out differing views, and try to understand them.

If the law is unfair, then get the law changed.

With the current political climate: good luck with that. You have the "JOB CREATOR" defenders (sorry, I meant FREEDOM) who will do everything they can to give tax breaks to the very rich, and cry about how the media is just biased against them, and that everyone should pay less tax anyway, because tax cuts just magically pay for themselves in hughly unrealistic economic growth that is just waiting to explode when the government just shuts down the IRS.

Then you get a bunch of billionaires running "grassroots" conservative websites, encouraging alternative realities, to gum up government so they can continue to underpay and pollute, and the party faithful will tear around the country claiming to be victims of tyranny, and for some reason they think they are rebels.

As a conservative, I support tax reform, and I appreciate that most liberals want a fairer and simpler tax system. The political incentives are set for the GOP to simply cry about tyranny whilst fighting for Larry Ellison's carried interest tax break.

Continue your Cruz non-fan-dom, it looks like he only objected because he was worried that his secret donors might be revealed. As far as I can find, none of his objections actually had anything to do with unethical appointees. Quoting The Hill:

"The vote was delayed for two weeks by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who expressed concern about Wheeler's views on political disclosure rules. Cruz lifted his objection after Wheeler assured him in a private meeting Tuesday that tougher disclosure requirements for the donors behind political TV ads are "not a priority" for him."

Even worse, now we know for sure that it's not a priority for him to attempt to protect the political process.

First time I've seen the government argue that the Court doesn't have jurisdiction.
All the other cases that have been quashed were either from claiming the plaintiff had no standing to sue, or that it involved State Secrets.

The problem is that EPIC is trying to jump the line. There aren't many circumstances in which a direct filing to the US Supreme Court is appropriate without going through the process in the lower courts. What EPIC did really isn't appropriate.

Administration looks to dodge Supreme Court challenge to NSA program

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a petition directly to the Supreme Court in July, claiming that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court overstepped its authority when it granted the NSA permission to collect the phone records in bulk.

The program — the most controversial revelation from the leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden — collects phone numbers, call times and call durations, but not the contents of conversations, according to the NSA.

Other civil liberties groups have sued to end the NSA program, but those cases were filed in federal district court . EPIC is the only group to go directly to the Supreme Court.

At least half the fucking country wants to see Obamacare go. Even many idiot liberals who have been Obama cheerleaders for years, are starting to change their minds after getting their (greatly increased) Obamacare quote.

Ooooo, an easily testable claim! Let's get the latest poll numbers.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/327937-poll-obamacare-gains-popularity-amid-shutdown

"The survey released Thursday found 38 percent of people believe ObamaCare is a good idea"
"A plurality of people, however, continue to have a negative view of the law. Forty-three percent think it is a bad idea, including 38 percent who feel strongly about their decision. And 17 percent have no opinion. "

43% is less than "At least half the fucking country", but it's more than the people who support, so I'll kind of give you that one, cause the real key number is next...

"Only 23 percent of people would continue a government shutdown in order to strip funding from the law."

If you're going to pretend to be doing things on behalf of the people, at least pay attention to what they're saying.

Yes indeed, this is how dirty politics works. Everyone votes for the whole pile of pork in order to keep the one program that actually benefits them personally.

The continuing resolution that reopened the government contained lots of pork, according to this. Another article talked about a spending increase of $1.2 billion. It's hard to tell, because the money is hidden in the final bill as amendments to previous legislation, saying things like "in place of the number X substitute bigger number Y."

This is a continuing resolution that is supposed to be continuing the previous budget until a new one can be worked out. And wasn't supposed to be negotiated at all. Senate Democrats balked at the first CR that contained extraneous legislation, but this one was just fine. Nobody wanted to deny the widow of Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) her $174,000 payout.

Because once you start cutting revenue you have to start cutting programs. And once you start cutting programs you run into the problem that SOMEONE thinks that that particular is not "excessive".

Don't link to generalities. Show the specifics. What to cut and by how much.

This is you spouting generalities. "Taxes" is a generality. "Someone" is a generality.

Here's a specific:

How about if we cut the free ObamaPhone program by 100%? If you want a mobile phone, buy one. If you need a charity-provided mobile phone, go get one from a charity. Don't hire your government to tax your neighbors' paychecks or your neighbors' phone bills so you can free-ride.

"Excessive taxes" include every cent used to pay for the ObamaPhone program. If this program were eliminated, taxes would be tiny bit less "excessive" because there would be less obvious waste and abuse.

(Watch now. Someone will argue that we should keep this program because someone else is getting other freebies: "the big corporate/defense/whoever people get to steal, why shouldn't the little guy get his share of the loot too?". )

You are funny, repeating the same lie over and over won't make it true. You also claim I need to read the constitution, yet claim ACA is legal?

Please show me the actual citation in the Constitution where ACA is illegal? The SCOTUS ruling that ACA wasn't unconstitutional a lie? The GOP challenged it in the courts and they lost. Period. And you seem to ignore all of that.

Politics is _supposed_ to be about compromise and working for the best interest of the Public. Obama and his cronies refusing to pass a spending bill without additional funding for ACA shows you which side he is really on, and it's not the US People's side.

Again, ignoring the fact that the Tea Party opposed the ACA BEFORE all this funding came up. THE DAY AFTER it was passed, there was an attempt at repeal. So when did this funding issue "suddenly" come up? Certainly not the day after.

Secondly, two houses of Congress passed it and the President signed it into law in 2010. The proper procedure to change a law after it has been signed to introduce another bill and get it passed. There are no changes to a signed law on the books without this process. That is not how the law works.

Propaganda media won't give the other side of the argument, so you have to do some actual work to find out who is for and against what.

The law was passed THREE years ago. It was signed. You can't alter it simply because you want. There are procedures for it. If you can't pass a repeal, you don't get to throw a tantrum like a child. Calling it propaganda because you don't agree with it shows your narrow-mindedness.

Have you refused to listen to Rand Paul and Ron Paul on the issue? My guess is that you ignore them, because you are still under the delusion that there is a Democrat and Republican party working slightly differently for the best interest of US Citizens. It's much easier to believe television propaganda.

Neither Ron or Rand Paul nor you knows anything about me. You've just basically assumed so many things about me. I actually watch very little television, btw. You seem to be under the delusion that you can ignore the procedures of how to pass a bill in the Congress.

CIA employees have been furloughed. 70% of CIA analysts have been furloughed.

Hurricane Sandy. Even Governor Christie (GOP) complemented the Obama administration on its response. Which incurred a political cost. So I don't think he made his comments lightly.

Actually that was because the Obama administration has been known to withhold substantive emergency support to punish areas of political opposition. And not for the reason you probably think, it’s not to specifically punish right leaning population centers but if he can make local politicians look bad then it will be easier for Democrats to take the next election. That’s Chicago politics, people are just pawns to be manipulated for the next election. Governor Christie took one for the team to make sure his state got the ait they needed.

Hurricane Sandy. Even Governor Christie (GOP) complemented the Obama administration on its response. Which incurred a political cost. So I don't think he made his comments lightly.

attorney general’s statement showed. “Criminal charges are unwarranted and legally baseless,”

Of course they won't prosecure.

Professional courtesy.

From one criminal to another. The big banks were also afforded this courtesy, of arbitrary refusal to prosecute by the US AG.

Ummm... some would say US is happily in bed with such trouble makers.

I doubt it for these reasons.

The Russian government continues to cover the back of the Syrian government as it has for decades.

Ummm... yeah. Seems that I'm not alone not buying it.
* Syria strike would turn US into 'al Qaeda's air force'
* Obama's obsession with Syria

Who would benefit from US involvement?
What does the Saud house have at hand to force US into this conflict and on their side?

And either way if they're not bothering with the actual content of the call but just who called who when

Sad to see someone so far out of touch with reality.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/07/29/Greenwald-NSA-Listens-to-Your-Phone-Calls
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/305803-report-nsa-admits-listening-to-phone-calls-without-warrants
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2342579/NSA-listen-U-S-phone-calls-warrant-according-congressman.html
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/the-nsa-can-listen-to-skype-calls-thanks-to-microsoft
http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/07/microsoft-nsa-skype-outlook-skydrive-snowden/
http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/07/microsoft-nsa-skype-outlook-skydrive-snowden/

I know someone so willfully ignorant won't read any of those links, so the short answer is that the NSA can and does listen in to your calls on the phone, on skype, and with this new routing, they will be able to listen in on Facetime as well, in spite of Apple's self serving denials.
Remember that Apple is not above outright bold faced lies to the press./

The goddamn worthless lying piece of shit even campaigned on closing Gitmo (which is why I voted for him in 2008)... we see how that worked out (which is why I voted against him in 2012)!

So you curse Obama because he is not a king or dictator? You wouldn't have had a fucking vote if he was dictator or king dipshit troll.

Al Gore is the face of the climate disaster movement.

Billionaire Tom Steyer supports the fanatics with such drivel as, '"The goal here is not to win. The goal here is to destroy these people. We want a smashing victory,” Steyer said of candidates he judges to be on the wrong side of the climate change debate.'

And these 18 outstanding nonprofits have actually quite a lot of profits to be spending on their attacks.

You believe the people who support your side of the debate are some sort of snow-white doves, unable to cast a harmful puff of smoke. Too bad you're already a shill for the machine, and too much of a fanatic to realize otherwise.

I would prefer that you back up your own claims. To rely on my doing so will invariably lead to me doing independent research that is likely different than yours; likely leading to a different opinion. A quick Google search using your terms points to a number of articles - some say that natural gas could release an increased amount of methane. There are many articles on politically charged sites that I tend to discount on principle. One more promising one summarizes a Cornell study linking natural gas to increased methane, and the authors state "We do not intend for you to accept what we reported on today as the definitive scientific study with regard to this question. It is clearly not. We have pointed out as many times as we could that we are basing this study on in some cases questionable data". The study was more a commentary on policy than actual science.

Anyway, I can only assume that this is the science that you're referring to. If this is the case, your claims sound (at best) presumptive.

And Obamacare doesn't have death panels either...oh wait.

Oh, and BTW, insurance premiums under Obamacare are skyrocketing:

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130718/BUSINESS/307180100/State-says-Obamacare-will-force-72-percent-increase-individual-insurance-plan-rates

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/313885-obamacare-premiums-lower-than-expected-in-maryland

Hell, just Google "obamacare rate increase"

Lord help you if you smoke, or happen to be overweight.

Gotta love their fucked-up rationale: "Your freedom is likely to be someone else's harm" Yea, that sounds like what a Stasi dogfucker would say.

You mean like the Medicare Part D that was passed by a Republican House, Senate, and President? You are right, that would never happen.

Medicare Part-D isn't healthcare, its a funnel for pouring cash from the federal coffers into the accounts of insurance companies - and very little more than that.

Sounds like Obamacare.

You MUST buy health insurance - from an INSURANCE COMPANY.

Oh, and BTW, insurance premiums under Obamacare are skyrocketing:

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130718/BUSINESS/307180100/State-says-Obamacare-will-force-72-percent-increase-individual-insurance-plan-rates

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/313885-obamacare-premiums-lower-than-expected-in-maryland

Hell, just Google "obamacare rate increase"

I think he's comparing learned abilities ("skills") versus natural abilities ("talent"). I don't agree with the choice of terms, but I think it's what he means. If so, I'd say "talent" is more important, because "skills" can be learned, while inherent abilities can't.

Without a proper nurture, talent is getting wasted. In other words: if you don't have an environ that can support it, the valuable "currency" will be skills not talent.
Now, the homework... go read again what Zuck's up to and consider the value of talent from this perspective.

No, they were not. At least not according to the IRS IG: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/308131-ig-liberal-groups-not-targeted-like-tea-party

The IRS scrutinizes many groups, some of which happen to be liberal-leaning AND the IRS singled out 100% of Tea-party affiliated groups. Draw a Venn diagram if you still have trouble with the logical consistency of these two statements.

weather report from 30 years ago

Remember kids; Weather Is Not Climate.

Weather is not climate when there is a big snowstorm. Weather is not climate when a hurricane develops and floods New York. Weather is not climate during a drought. 30 year old weather is also not climate.

2011 was the hottest summer in the US in 75 years. That means 75 years ago it was hotter. It also means 2012 was cooler than both, and all of these were cooler than the summer of 1895, which is 88 years older than 30 years ago.

So no, do not cherry pick old weather reports when developing your views on climate, as does the parent. Because Weather Is Not Climate.

There appear to be several commenters misreading the OP. Please be aware that the "National Historical Park" only applies to the artifacts themselves. Thus, they are only applying "American jurisdiction" to property that was ours in the first place, and not a would-be-controversial boundary on land.

Source: http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/jan2013/hr2617.pdf (page 4)

It seems most have already made up their minds about this topic. However, I was curious about what he actually said...

I RTFA and found it lacking in that detail, only quoting the single word "erroneous" from his correction attempt.

This link has more about his rational: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/308979-clapper-apologies-for-erroneous-statement-to-congress-on-us-data-collection

Did the Senate pass another bill that would discriminate against specific countries where many people desperately want to come from, particularly Mexico and China?

The "Diversity Visa Program" passed in 1990 does exactly that, as it forbids people from particular countries from qualifying for 50000 Visa's annually.

..of course when the GOP tried to end this program, the Democrats called the Republicans trying to end it racists.

Notice how nobody turned around and called the Democrats racist for supporting the obviously racist program.. but hey.. its got "diversity" in the name.. and diversity is good, even if you have to discriminate based on shit like skin color.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/298001-obama-urged-to-nominate-rep-mike-rogers-for-fbi-director You'll excuse me if I don't believe a damn word this guy has to say.

Fine by me, but the public can't do that, only the Congress. And almost the entire Senate signed off on this stuff. And when given the chance to look at the NSA's open kimono, over half the Senators did not attend so they could catch early flights home for the weekend. We're on our own here.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/299875-doj-accuses-steve-jobs-of-being-ringmaster-in-price-fixing-scheme "Under the old model, Amazon controlled about 90 percent of the market, but after the publishers instituted the new pricing scheme, Amazon's share fell to 60 percent."

Its not amusing at all. Amazon dominate by competing on old fashioned things like price, Not being corrupt. I find it sick that your defending a mega corporation (again), when the illegal corrupt actions affect everyone.

It's quite... fascinating, how you can defend a monopoly and demonize the company that broke the monopoly, doing the very thing you just defended the monopoly for doing in the first place!

Apple entered the book market and competed against Amazon doing the very thing you laud Amazon for doing: they competed on price!

That's some highly potent fanboy fanaticism in action!

Apple did compete on price - they competed by demanding that every publisher raise the price of all ebooks by 50%. Publishers were happy to oblige. Amazon wasn't hurt - they still dominate the market. The only people who lost were consumers (like you!). People like you lost big time. Go cheer for the people who beat the shit out of you some more. It amuses them.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/299875-doj-accuses-steve-jobs-of-being-ringmaster-in-price-fixing-scheme "Under the old model, Amazon controlled about 90 percent of the market, but after the publishers instituted the new pricing scheme, Amazon's share fell to 60 percent."

Its not amusing at all. Amazon dominate by competing on old fashioned things like price, Not being corrupt. I find it sick that your defending a mega corporation (again), when the illegal corrupt actions affect everyone.

It's quite... fascinating, how you can defend a monopoly and demonize the company that broke the monopoly, doing the very thing you just defended the monopoly for doing in the first place!

Apple entered the book market and competed against Amazon doing the very thing you laud Amazon for doing: they competed on price!

That's some highly potent fanboy fanaticism in action!

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/299875-doj-accuses-steve-jobs-of-being-ringmaster-in-price-fixing-scheme "Under the old model, Amazon controlled about 90 percent of the market, but after the publishers instituted the new pricing scheme, Amazon's share fell to 60 percent."

Its not amusing at all. Amazon dominate by competing on old fashioned things like price, Not being corrupt. I find it sick that your defending a mega corporation (again), when the illegal corrupt actions affect everyone.

Did you read the article. "Under the old model, Amazon controlled about 90 percent of the market, but after the publishers instituted the new pricing scheme, Amazon's share fell to 60 percent." http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/299875-doj-accuses-steve-jobs-of-being-ringmaster-in-price-fixing-scheme

Amazon didn't get caught because its done nothing wrong. (well its done lots of things, just not in this instance)

...and customers get bent over; thank Apple

And the rest of us have to pay a premium for its Monopolistic abuse. Call me a hater.

What is missing from the article is this is saint Jobs corrupt to the core.

"Jobs explained to his biographer that he told the publishers, "We’ll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30 percent, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway.” http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/299875-doj-accuses-steve-jobs-of-being-ringmaster-in-price-fixing-scheme.

Thankfully Microsoft is slowly catching up so we will be back with that evil duopoly again.

Although the new technology may have an impact, it appears unlikely there will be significantly more restrictive gun control laws passed at the Federal level in the US. The public and the facts are against it overall. In various states, such as New York, Colorado, and California, there have been a number of new, highly restrictive laws passed, that at least in some cases are unpopular, are opposed by the police, and are unlikely to survive challenges in court. The brilliant governor in New York managed to get a law passed that outlawed even police weapons - New York is in the best of hands although California is a contender as well.

The idea that ordinary citizens can't protect themselves with guns is ridiculous.

Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI

What about the murder rate?

Murder by Numbers

Gun control's general effect on crime?

Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control
Crime soared with Mass. gun law
England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study

Self-Defense: An Endangered Right

The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . . .

Political support for more restrictive nation gun control measures in the US has fallen.

USA Today: Support for gun control bill falls below 50%
During a manhunt, 69 percent of voters want a gun
NRA Has 54% Favorable Image in U.S
Dems push gun control agenda in DC, but not in battleground states