Slashdot Mirror

there is absolutely no substantive change to our policy... because there was probably no substance there to begin with.

I guess I've just watched too many politicians ignore their grand plans/claims. OTOH, a voting record rarely lies. For whoever you support, educate yourself; don't just listen to what they say when they know what you want to hear.

You got the evidence to back up your claims of crime in England dropping?[sic]

He's actually right on this matter. "Does he got the evidence?" No, but the Home Office do. I've provided instructions for finding the dox below, as well as an executive summary. All incidents of violent crime are dropping, and the only category of crime which has shown an increase is "Drug offences" which showed an 18% increase between 06/07 and 07/08.

1. Google British Crime Survey
2. Click on first result: rds british crime survey
3. Scroll down to "Key publications"
4. Click first link: Crime in England and Wales 2007/08(PDF)
5. Navigate document.

Page 19, Comparison 2006/7 to 2007/8:

• All BCS Crime down 10% to 10.1 million crimes
• Police recorded crime down 9% to 5.0 million crimes
• BCS Violent Crime down 12%
• Police recorded "Violence against the person" down 8%
• Police recorded "Most serious violence against the person" down 12%
• Police recorded robbery down 16%
• Police recorded Domestic burglary down 4%

Page 20: Graphs showing number of incidents, as measured by the British Crime Survey, lowest they've ever been since the introduction of the BCS in 1981.
Still on page 20, the percentage change in offences 1995-2007:

• Vandalism: Down 20%
• Domestic Burglary: Down 59%
• Vehicle-related theft: Down 66%
• Other household theft: Down 53%
• Bicycle theft: Down 34%
• Theft from the person: Down 15%
• Other theft of personal property: Down 53%
• All BCS violence: Down 48%
• All BCS Crime: Down 48%

Page 23:

Weapons were used in a quarter (24%) of BCS violent crimes (this figure has been stable over the past decade); hitting implements were used in 7%, knives in 6%, glasses/bottles in 4% and firearms in 1% of incidents.

As for Obama's voting record on gun-control issues, I have no interest in discussing it, but this appears to be a useful link for anyone who wants to know more: Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr. (IL)'s track record.

Wait, what does his voting on gun issues have to do with knives again? And since when is voting on gun control the same as voting to outlaw guns?

As for crime rates, there's a nice chart and some analysis here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm

Nothing, I believe the poster above was referring to Obama's documented desire to eliminate all semi-automatic guns, among others. One can only imagine that if he would be willing to do that, a total ban on any effective ownership wouldn't be out of the question. Whether Congress would pass such a law is admittedly doubtful in both cases, however it doesn't change his position. He's also on the record as being opposed to concealed carry. He, of course, also would like to reimpose the failed assault weapon ban. He is also on the record as desiring a total ban on handguns, with only the lack of it being popular enough currently to do it. (See the last link) Obama is possibly the most anti-rights candidate ever.

That's a little misleading. Most of the so called bills weren't even laws, they were senate resolutions. A lot of them were the same bills altered and resubmitted too. Take the first one considering the Juneteenth Independence Day, this is the supposed day that federal troops reached the last state saying the south lost the civil war and all slaves where free therefor it's claimed to be the day slavery ended in 1865. Anyways, it was introduced by Obama something like 2 or 3 times before passing and it wasn't a law, just a resolution.

You can just do a search and find his name come up 152 times. They aren't all on bills, you have to count resolutions to get that number but that doesn't tell the whole story either. Of those bills, all but 5 died before becoming law or accepted as a resolution.

Three of those five were simple resolutions, one was "to congratulate the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship", another for "recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day" and finally "A resolution designating July 13, 2006, as "National Summer Learning Day"". The bills that became law were about "A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo" and a bill to rename a post office building in Illinois after Katherine Dunham.

Those sure are some remarkable points of legislation that he has accomplished. You too could have see the perspective if you just read the results of the search for his name instead of just jotting down the number and running with it. But hey, you support Obama so I guess I shouldn't expect anything thorough.

As for the 427 number, yea, I'm not going to do your homework so you can look for yourself. Keep in mind that people co sponsor bills and resolutions simply to get co-sponsors for their own stuff. I wouldn't take anything with a co sponsor too seriously because often the people sponsoring it don't even vote for it. It is a political ploy like what happened with senate bill S.2154 which had 38 sponsors and got referred to and died in comity. BTW, senate bill S.2154 was nothing more then a bill to get the post office to issue a commemorative stamp for Rosa Parks.

Lets take a look at these other inflated EGO stats you pointed out.

has met with and impressed the heads of state of Germany, France, the UK, and Iraq

Yes, he has met with them but he has not discussed policy. It is actually against the law for him to do so without the express approval of congress if the policy effects anything the US government has a direct interest in. You can find more by looking up the Logan Act.

has been on Senate Foreign Relations committee

Yes, and has an abysmal attendence record and has actually not voted more then he has voted. His Foreign aid and policy voting record speaks for itself. Out of 28 bills directly related to it, he failed to vote at least 16 times. In the 109th congress, he attended only 18 of the 37 meetings that the Senate Foreign Relations committee held. Yes, he was on the commitee, but does that really count?

has some idea of what the Bush Doctrine is

I'm not so sure of that. Recently, he started campaigning with a comment McCain made about the fundamentals of the economy. The comment was actually, "I believe the fundamentals of the economy are still strong but these are very very difficult time". This comment was made while discussing the Financial turmoil of the markets, the housing problems, and all. But Obama seems to not be able to grasp the context of the statement or the entire statement and he as well as Biden proceeded in going around and misrepresenting it. Now, this was either a malicious act purposely mi

Apparently you missed the part where Obama voted to strike the telecom immunity clause from the FISA bill.

With that said, I'm as pissed off as anyone about the fact that he did that then voted for the bill, and claimed it was a compromise. That is a lie, and that makes him a liar. But with that said, the Libertarian candidate this time around isn't even getting the support from his own party. And Obama's vote doesn't change the fact that the EFF case has a whole lot more likelihood of success if Obama and the Democrats are in charge of the NSA when this case moves forward. They may lose the case just as a way to censure the Bush administration. Or maybe Obama really does actually want to change things (I dunno - who does). But either way, the odds are a whole lot better than with Bush^H^H^H^HMcCain running the show.

Obama is chair of the Senate's European Affairs subcommittee.

From http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=9490

Committees:
Foreign Relations, Member
Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Member
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Member
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Member
Subcommittee on African Affairs, Member
Subcommittee on Children and Families, Member
Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Member
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, Member
Subcommittee on European Affairs, Chair
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security , Member
Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs and International Environmental Protection, Member Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration, Member
Veterans' Affairs, Member

And I'm curious what this "club" is that you have to be a member of.

As to the oil, it's very simple. Drilling for more oil is at best a stopgap measure and at worst simply increases demand as prices slightly dip. We need to invest in nuclear, solar, wind, and other alternative energy (NOT food-based ethanol).

I think that your presuming that because a school isn't doing well it's automatically the fault of the school board or teacher's union is simplifying things a bit much (as well as being a bit insulting to teachers). So is assuming that everything a school board is for is automatically self-serving status quo preservation--votes on budgeting for facilities or textbooks are the simplest counter example there.

Regardless, an elected representative who wants to improve education but is deemed hostile by the school boards is unlikely to get anywhere on reform. Now that I poke into this a bit more, it looks like support for the Kansas school board is highly correlated with party, where democrats are usually for and republicans against the issues they're interested in. Does this mean that all the democrats are, as you say, in the pocket of the school board? I think you're reading a conspiracy into what's a standard party issue.

Arlen Siegfreid looks like a standard republican here, and it sure appears any pro-education stance is lip service unsupported by his voting record. Sean Tevis doesn't have any voting record here, but he's aligned with the more educational friendly party, and he does seem to at least have a decent vision--even if (as the parent post kicking this all off points out) his actual tactics to achieve that aren't very fleshed out.

Not that I support either of these guys, mind you--as a libertarian I think the state shouldn't be involved in education at all.

Well, look at his opponent's issues page and you'll find even less than that. According to vote smart, the incumbent has voted in line with the Kansas Association of School Boards only 10% of the time in 2006, despite his claims of supporting "Quality Education". It's hard to imagine Sean doing worse.

So, let's see if I understand your thinking. Our schools stink. This politician says he is for Quality Education, but he disagrees with the people who run our schools (which stink), therefor he must not really be for Quality Education.
As a general rule, if you think the schools need fixing, it is probably a good idea to vote for a politician who is not in the pocket of the School Boards. If you want to improve the schools, then, most of the time, you want to vote against the guy who is endorsed by the Association of School Boards or the Teachers' Unions. Both of these organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, neither organization has a particular interest in actually improving the schools.

Well, look at his opponent's issues page and you'll find even less than that. According to vote smart, the incumbent has voted in line with the Kansas Association of School Boards only 10% of the time in 2006, despite his claims of supporting "Quality Education". It's hard to imagine Sean doing worse.

Because a grand total of 0 Republican senators and 1 Republican representative voted against it?

Because it was sponsored by a "Democrat" from Texas and two Republicans?

Because 28 out of 51 senate Democrats voted against it and 128 out of 233 house Democrats voted against it?

Because the proposed amendment to remove Telco immunity was sponsored by Democrats?

You know who created this mess? The individual congressmen who voted for the amendment.

Because a grand total of 0 Republican senators and 1 Republican representative voted against it?

Because it was sponsored by a "Democrat" from Texas and two Republicans?

Because 28 out of 51 senate Democrats voted against it and 128 out of 233 house Democrats voted against it?

Because the proposed amendment to remove Telco immunity was sponsored by Democrats?

You know who created this mess? The individual congressmen who voted for the amendment.

"I foresee him conveniently missing the vote on this one"

Good call - Vote Smart says his record on FISA, Guantanamo and Real ID is to be "out of the loop".

I just called mine and told them to fund the rover.

Get their info here.

I don't know where it came from, but this idea that Clinton is socialist is hilarious. By any sane standard, she's a far-right conservative except on one or two points.

I don't know where you are getting your information but she votes like a liberal.

Perhaps you care to clarify / qualify your statement? I'd love to learn how you came to this conclusion.

Thanks

You can find Chris Dodd's voting record on this site. I live in CT, by thw way.

Ok, I grant you that often what politicians say and do is unrelated. But Obama doesn't take money from lobbyists. He was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, so he knows and respects the principles of the document. His voting record turns up no instances wherein he voted against civil liberties. He sponsored the bipartisan Coburn-Obama Transparency Bill, which requires that the federal government put all of its earmarks and pork into a searchable website. He recognized what was happening in Iraq from the beginning, and is ensuring that we don't escalate things with Iran. Specifically, what actions has he taken to make you believe that he is one of "those people?"

http://www.votesmart.org/. This actually already is what you're looking for.

Obama though did vote FOR the Patriot act. Also, coming out against the war in 2004 isn't exactly ahead of the curve. The war was already going badly at that point. (Obama Voting Record)

Compare this to Ron Paul, who has been against the war from day 1. He also voted against the Patriot act from Day 1. ( Ron Paul Voting record)

Obama on the other hand has said "I don't oppose all wars." He would even has said that he would consider a missile strike on Iran.

Obama is young and charismatic, and he may seem like a breath of fresh air. But, in the end he's just another poitician. He changes his positions based on whatever suits his needs at the time. For a real change, Ron Paul is your man.

Obama though did vote FOR the Patriot act. Also, coming out against the war in 2004 isn't exactly ahead of the curve. The war was already going badly at that point. (Obama Voting Record)

Compare this to Ron Paul, who has been against the war from day 1. He also voted against the Patriot act from Day 1. ( Ron Paul Voting record)

Obama on the other hand has said "I don't oppose all wars." He would even has said that he would consider a missile strike on Iran.

Obama is young and charismatic, and he may seem like a breath of fresh air. But, in the end he's just another poitician. He changes his positions based on whatever suits his needs at the time. For a real change, Ron Paul is your man.

I do agree with most of what you're saying (you're right on with the current filtering effectiveness bit), but I think there are some sources of media that manage not to want to be profitable still.