Slashdot Mirror

Really? Can you list one nation which has listed Wikileaks as a criminal enterprise? (including the US).

I certainly wouldn't rule it out, after all.... investigations take time, don't they?

WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder

Since NYT put up the paywall, I get all my news from World Net Daily!

See: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article14996.html http://viewzone2.com/fakegoldx.html http://gold-quote.net/en/articles/fake-tungsten-gold-bars.php http://news.coinupdate.com/largest-private-refinery-discovers-gold-plated-tungsten-bar-0171/ http://www.gata.org/node/8390 Some people are suggesting that the businesses offering cash for gold jewellery are doing so because there is less likelihood that they will be deceived than they would be if buying bullion. Also, in related news: http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?tid=658195 http://dailypaul.com/99841/where-is-our-gold-that-is-missing-from-fort-knox http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=45782 BTW, I couldn't find any of this referred to on any mainstream site, so I leave it to others to determine if this is rumour or not.

I love how my posts are censored on /. Not sure who deletes my comments but instead of an intelligent debate, my comments just get removed. Nice. That's intellectual honesty for ya.

Let me say this again. This is no such thing as a "Palestinian" people.

March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Arafat agreed with him. They had no trouble admitting this 35+ years ago. But then again, people are so brainwashed by politics, and their egos wouldn't allow them to even think about such an alternative idea laid out with facts such as this!

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28222

And for those of you who would like to call me a racist (seems that people who can't debate just call names and apply labels), my girlfriend of 5 years who is black just might disagree with you.

Chuck Norris is a pussy.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=101063

IANAL but IMO you are allowed to lie.

Actually, IANAL either, BUT I do know this much - if you give a false statement to the cops (whether a witness report, police report, or otherwise) you could be charged with:

- Giving a false statement to police.
- Filing a false police report.
- Impeding an official investigation.

Of course, if the cops lie about you or lie about what they saw or heard, good luck getting it overturned unless there's video evidence.

On the other hand, if you're a woman, you can rape children all you want and even have children with them and marry then when they grow up and then exploit your child-raping notoriety by hosting "Hot for Teacher" nights at local clubs alongside the guy you raped when he was a child. And instead of labeling you as a pariah and an evil villian who should rot in prison, you're called "America's hottest cougar" while you make cash signing autographs and selling merchandise.

Of course, that's only if you're at least a mildly attractive woman. If you're ugly, then we treat you like the criminal you are. Well, not like the criminal you are, but like a criminal that stole a candy bar or something and must be punished with a typically light sentence.

Startpage.com is a privacy oriented alternative to Google. It does not retain your personal data and does not record your IP address or use identifying cookies. It also does not share your personal information with third parties.

Startpage also has a proxy service. According to the article below, “With each Startpage search, the word "proxy" appears under each result. If a user clicks "proxy," they may view the result privately.”

Killer way to slay the Google beast

It is also possible to use secure encrypted connections with startpage by using the https://startpage.com/ version of their URL instead of the http://startpage.com/ version. That option would also be good for when using an open WiFi hotspot, where someone with a laptop with packet sniffing software on his laptop might be capturing your unencrypted packets. Google also offers that some option too, by typing https instead of http.

The search results for Startpage do not seem quite as good as when using Google, so perhaps it might be best to just use Startpage when you want more privacy and Google at other times.

Now that WikiLeaks has competition, it would make sense to try and stop that competition. When you have a site like OpenLeaks that is all about anonymously leaking information, trying to say that they are not trusted with that would possibly hurt them. I think it is good there are multiple sources doing this. I don't see what WikiLeaks problem is with it. If they are truly in this to spread information to the masses, then the more sites that do it, the easier it will be for the information to get released.

So far the publicly available formula for Wikileaks has been:
1. Accept stolen documents
2. Put them on the web for people to download.
3.?
4. Profit!

Maybe #3 really isn't a blank, and competition from other sites would endanger it unless they coordinated what documents to make available, and when.

WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder
One of the early members and co-founders of the tight-knit, secretive WikiLeaks operation charged today that the website and its co-founder, Julian Assange, sold intelligence information the site had obtained.

John Young, whose name was listed as the public face of WikiLeaks in the site's original domain registration, also alleged that the website is a lucrative business.

Young said he left the site in 2007 due to concerns over its finances and that WikiLeaks was engaged in the selling of documents.

Young was speaking today to WND senior reporter Aaron Klein on Klein's radio program on New York's WABC Radio.

"I think it is a money-making operation, no doubt," Young said of WikiLeaks.

"It follows the model of a number of other business intelligence operations. Selling intelligence information is a very lucrative field, and so they are following that model, usually cloaked in some kind of public benefit," he told Klein.

"But they are far from being the only one that does that," Young added. "It's a well-known business model.

See the inside story in "Intelligence Failure: How Clinton's National Security Policy Set the Stage for 9/11"

Asked specifically whether he was charging WikiLeaks with selling classified information and documents, Young replied, "Yes."

Klein then asked, "When you were at WikiLeaks initially, was your impression they were trying to sell information?"

Young responded, "Well, it only came up in the topic of raising $5 million the first year. That was the first red flag that I heard about. I thought that they were actually a public interest group up until then, but as soon as I heard that, I know that they were a criminal organization."

Now Wikileaks suffers its own leaks
Wikileaks is facing questions over its finances as lawyers for its alleged main source, Pte Bradley Manning, said they had not seen a penny of tens of thousands of dollars raised by the site to help pay for his defence and promised to them three months ago.
The development comes as a senior WikiLeaks activist told The Sunday Telegraph that she and others had resigned from the organisation because of their deep concern about its treatment of sources and "lack of transparency with relation to large sums of money".

This newspaper has learned that one of WikiLeaks's main funding channels, the Germany-based Wau Holland Foundation, has been issued with two official warnings by charity regulators after failing to file financial records.

It has also emerged that the online payment service PayPal, which last week cut off donations to WikiLeaks, suspended the site's account twice before, once under money laundering regulations.

WikiLeaks, which says its operating costs are about $200,000 (£125,000) a year, claims to have raised more than $1 million (£625,000) in donations

Can you be specific about which ideals he's gone back on?

Here's a pretty good list: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

The ones I especially care about are:

No. 234: A five-day reading period for proposed legislation.

No. 491: Provide an annual report on "state of our energy future"

No. 517: Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN

No. 518: Create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange.

No. 525: Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year

Also, from this list: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=91286

Probably the most important to me is #10: greater government transparency.

And from John Stewart: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/08/jon-stewart-bashes-obamas-broken-campaign-promises : Closing Gitmo within a year of his campaign promise being made.

It's also interesting to note the things which I felt he'd promised, but which PolitiFact (which I generally trust) has no record of:

• An end to warrantless wiretapping by the NSA.
• Prosecution of CIA torturers.

It would seem that I confused the general image he projected with actual promises on some important issues.

> No way he is a dummy

President Obama hides his academic record, so we can only guess, but the evidence does not suggest he's any kind of genius. Consider:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=74877

Yes -- an anti-Obama editorial -- but I would ask you the same thing you asked: "Please provide evidence" that what it says isn't valid.

Oh and also, you may find this an interesting read.

Every player looks out for themself, if they are backed into a wall they attack.

Anyone who wished to tell you not to stereotype are just trying to tear down your defenses and brainwash you. Perhaps they are just spreading the brainwashing they themselves received, but that is what it is.

  Does that mean you shouldn't judge an individual on their own merits? Of course not!

  The KKK was started (as most groups) with what they believed to be good intentions. However, after learning some of the history that you will not see on T.V. or in school, from family members who have since left the organization, I am aware that poisoning the well is precisely what happened. This KKK is where I actually learned that it happens.

  I am not defending the KKK, just that they were not intending to be as evil as they in effect became or are portrayed. What is scary, is that now our government is being so brazen as to be open about what they are doing... I first read this on Slashdot but I can't seem to locate the article. This may be about a different Czar as I read it they wanted to infiltrate grassroots organizations. But anyhow - http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121884

"All you really have to know about Net Neutrality is that its biggest promoters are George Soros and Google."

To begin with, the article linked is at www.dailykos.com, which is run by Markos Moulitsas. He is American born of a Salvadoran (a country with long standing socialist influences) mother and a Greek (more socialism) father, and grew up both in El Salvador and Chicago. Now I am from Indiana, not all that far from Chicago and know that a Republican in Chicago is regarded a Liberal in Indiana. He backed, and campaigned for Liberal Democrats throughout. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markos_Moulitsas]. He is a Leftist, and his web site reflects that.

The DailyKos article links to an article at thinkprogress.org, from which google tells us that Soros funds Thinkprogress and following the money, behind Net Neutrality, just as Rush alleged. And for that matter, reading the entire list of inter-networked organizations covered at http://discoverthenetworks.org/ finds George Soros deeply involved in funding a vast network of anti USA, anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-Business organizations of the progressive Left. That includes the attack on the Chamber of Commerce.
George Soros, a statist Socialist who wants to control the world, is behind “Net Neutrality” [link here]

All of these individuals and organizations are committed Socialists and Progressives. The problem with that here is the USA, is that it is the diametric opposite of the US Constitution, Liberty, Capitalism (which is just people saving their money and investing it), and all else this country stands for. It is nothing new that Socialism has been infiltrating the USA for over 100 years. And it is nothing new that Socialism has never, ever, not one time, worked for an extended period of time. It seems to work, until it runs out of other peoples money. It will then die as it has always in the past, and with a fair share of suffering and violence as the throes of death proceed.

In short, Net Neutrality, especially done by the FCC, is un-Constitutional

The problem of the FCC “regulating” the internet is that they have NO governmental right to do so.

They were denied that right previously in court.

They were denied that right by Congress regardless of how many times it was tried.

Briefy, the Executive branch (President, and *his* FCC) cannot make law. Congress makes law, which when passed must be approved by the President. And that can be revoked in the Courts. The case here is that the President through the FCC is making law.

Obama, long before he was elected President, Obama lamented that the "Constitution is a charter of negative liberties". [audio]. The problem here is that the Constitution in every point, limits government and gives it NO right to do anything TO its citizens. That was done by design of the Founders. Obama laments that because he wants to impose Socialism and wealth re-distribution. These two, Socialism and the US Constitution, are incompatible.

I also cannot understand why people here ca

The "Free Press" is not actually free to report whatever it feels like. Sorry if that's news to you.

"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager.

See http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113347

This was also true under the Bush administration. I'm sure you can find other sources that confirm this.

I'm not saying wikileaks should or shouldn't have released what it did... but if you're wanting to wait for mainstream media to release damning evidence of the likes of what we've seen recently, don't hold your breath for it. Wikileaks is filling a void left by media that is controlled by government and corporate entities.

Given the way our current surveillance society operates? It's entirely possible.

The plane won't crash: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=12798

So for the rest of it, you just have to weigh the risk of someone getting hit by a stray bullet vs. the reduction of risk of the terrorist bringing down the plane. I'm not sure which way that would go, but if this is such a problem, why don't we hear about shootings on buses?

Come off it, Norris is a wimp who's scared of Obama.

How is it ironic, that they create the perfect tld for kiddie porn by giving one to a sovereign country which has the 60 years of human rights abuses as its #1 talking point?

We are talking about a country that has a problem with cannibalism for eff's sake, kiddie porn is child's play.

"You can throw around terms like freedom, security, self-defence and so on as much as you want, but it doesn't change the cold hard fact that the US isn't really excelling in any important metric as a result of it's gun culture."

The culture is a reasonable reaction to a government that can never protect its citizens without becoming a complete police state, and to the many, many, many citizens who are violent criminals and like it that way.

The US has demographic problems it brought on itself by slavery and by immigration policies (including de-facto open borders for everyone except airline passengers!) designed to bury the place in the poor and socially toxic.

We can't get rid of the bad citizens, so we will remain under permanent internal siege.

"If you have freedom why do corporations in the US have so much control both politically and personally?"

Because we are too comfortable and too divided to change that unless things get worse. Not a gun issue.

"If you have guns as a deterrent to criminals, why is crime so high?"

Because we have a lot of very bad people who cannot be dealt with using methods compatible with a reasonably free society. Also, much of the crime is in areas where citizens are DISarmed by law.

Kennesaw, GA, requires householders to be armed, and the results are gratifying:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196

"If you feel safe, free, and secure as a result of gun ownership why do Americans report so much lower levels of personal happiness?"

I'm quite content.
I suggest that the personal happiness levels aren't connected to firearms ownership, but to economics.
The vast and perpetually increasing number of poor in the US as its job market shrinks and quality jobs vanish certainly have much to do with it.

Which, of course, completely explains why the violent crime rate is lower in the UK, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Canada, France, Germany, and a whole host of other countries where firearms are strictly regulated.

State your reference, please. I've often seen similar statements that try to correlate firearm ownership to violence without references. As far as I can tell US crime has been falling here the UK has a higher amount of total crimes per capita than the US here and the Australia ban caused an increase in crime here.

I'm sure you can find articles that show the reverse. Crime statistics fluctuate and there is no clear correlation to gun control laws.

Chuck Norris is a pussy.

And the only way in which the vaccines are different is that about 30 years ago, they removed the junk in them that the hysterical antivaccinites were claiming causes autism, with no effect on the actual autism rates...

Well you'll have to debunk stuff like this then.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49094

Also, trying to reply to all the followups, which contradict one another:

- does the fact that they are suppressed and not gone change one bit of what I said? the point is not being effective on the disease BUT being effective and not cause bad collateral effects.
Else, a lethal dose of poison cures diseases too, more effectively than anything else. The focus must be on the well being of people, not anything else.

Since 0% collateral effects is impossible in practice, those who get vaccination should have a honest estimate of their chances to get the disease vs their chances to get collateral effects. Could be that a polio vaccination is a good idea while a flu one isn't.
Could be that blanket vaccination campaigns might be statistically more harmful than focused ones following outbursts of disease.

Could be that nobody has the incentive to cure a disease if vaccinations as they are performed now yield more profit, so there ought to be a way to put research for cures above the one for treatments and vaccinations.

I love how the only one harmed in your example is the person carrying the weapon himself. If someone carrying a concealed weapon is harming no one but himself, that's not exactly a reason to ban the practice.

Concealed or not, guns turn things into life-or-death situations, that's kind of the point of a gun. The life-saving aspect of guns, as my above post illustrated, is deterrence. That's why this town, despite requiring a gun in every home, has had 0 murders in the last 25 years. Weapons that are clearly visible apply this deterrence effect to protect you, but the presence of concealed weapons protects the entire community, even those who don't have a gun.

How far till we are 'chipped' at birth?

It is somewhat unnerving when evil things mentioned in books and old TV shows become reality.

Get with the times! First it was pets, then it was humans. For now, it's not mandatory, but rich parents can indeed chip their kids "at birth" (sometime afterwards, but close enough) - or each other, or themselves or whatever. There was a company trying to pass a law making it legal for companies to be able to require their employees to be chipped (RFID supposedly, but nearly as bad).

Search Google for human GPS chip if you don't believe me.

Here's a few to get you started:

(2003) GPS Implant Makes Debut
Chip Implants Already Here

There was an article on /. a while back, and there are links you will find in your Google search to larger publications.

The NYT is correct. I read the conservative attacks on Obama's health care plan in the WSJ, including Betsy McCaughey. I also read about the health plan in the New England Journal of Medicine.

For McCaughey, or anyone else, to claim that these were or would be anything like "death panels" to decide when to let someone die for cost-control purpose, is a lie. The conservatives lied. You can go to places like Factcheck.org to confirm that.

I guess when you close your eyes to everything that doesn't fit your own reality, your reality is only what you make it instead of anything real. I'm not going to go through the trouble of actually linking to these articles, but if you are interested in anything more then conformation bias, I suggest you copy and past these links out and read them. You should also note the dates of the articles and maybe send a copy to fact check dot org too. as you have already mentioned that you have read some of these, I have to ask why you are arguing that the death panels definition must be limited to a narrowly defined concept delivered by the democrats who are also in opposition to the republicans? I mean it's the conservatives making the charge, their attack, it's them who define what death panels are, not your biased opposition sites.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052970203863204574344900152168372.html
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=107403
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7948878/US-breast-cancer-drug-decision-marks-start-of-death-panels.html
http://www.lifenews.com/bio3084.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2224790

and before you start clamoring those are biased sites, I suggest you stop looking only at sites that you agree with and pay attention to the links as the one is from another country altogether with absolutely no vested interest in the US health care system. A few others are what most would consider a left leaning site which admits that the death panels were more then end of life counseling stating that they would ration health care which Obama already has said it's done already, why not do it in the open.

You don't think Al Franken's libel lawyers would have let him print a book like "Lies: and the Lying Liars who Tell them" if he couldn't actually prove that Republicans lied, do you? Actually, all Franken did was assign a bunch of summer interns to fact-check statements by right-wing crackpots like Limbaugh.

This is hilarious. Are you actually arguing that Al Franken's lawyers are so smart that they wouldn't let him publish a book with falsehoods in it but so stupid that they can't go after the people he claims is spouting falsehoods? I mean seriously, do you think it's anything like that at all? Did you even think that out before making your statement or is that something you saw on one of your conformational bias sites and liked it enough to repost?

Here is a hint, Franken's lawyers said to him- if anything, it's political speech, the most protected speech by the first amendment. And no, the so called fact checkers didn't check the facts or he ignored them completely just as you are in order to impress your views right now.

All I asked for when I made that post was that there was some honesty in this discussion. You have proved to me that it is impossible to expect that from you or perhaps your side. The death panels charge was more then end of life counseling and you seem to know it. You can find more about it simply by searching for obamacare death panels. And of course, there is no shortage of people connected to Obama who reinforce this concept by public policy positions publicly held in the present or somewhat recent past.

Your CTO wants you to suggest spending a few extra hundreds of dollars on storage to avoid downtime.

A few hundred dollars gets you a few terabytes (it's around 163 dollars for a 2 terabyte drive in the first netstore I checked), not a few hundred gigabytes. Or are these "enterprise harddrives" ?-)

White folks just do it differently - often legally and out in the open. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Chase, etc.

Fannie Mae: "As WND reported, an Enron-like accounting scandal enabled Raines to earn $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004."

Is this the exception that proves the rule? Don't know, but I'm not a racist like you, Mister Whirly (964219). Did your father teach you that black people aren't smart enough to commit multi-million dollar financial fraud?

"All this means is that scientists are in fact humans and make small errors just like everyone else."

Small errors? Really?

Funny, I didn't see any small errors, only GINOURMOUS ones.

Like the glaciers are retreating off the Himalayas and will be gone very soon.

Categorically incorrect.

If they were just small errors, why did the leader (Phil Jones) of the whole kabal have to resign his post if it was just small errors?

http://www.itproportal.com/portal/news/article/2009/12/2/climate-research-chief-resigns-his-post-amidst-probe-over-leaked-emails/

Oh and then there is this LITTLE issue of dozens of researchers working together in private world wide suppressing information, threatening colleagues and individuals who do not tow the line on _man made_ _climate_ _change_ outlined in the leaked Emails under the UN report sponsored by Mr. Jones?

I guess that is a really leeeetle inconvenient truth too eh?

Yeah that is a small issue I suppose.

I suppose it is just a coincidence that Al Gore and his Peace Prize buddies that do all that touring around telling everyone they have to "buy into carbon credits" as quickly as possible using the same Madoff like ripoff assured plan modeled after CDO's and other crap that have robbed the masses of trillions, is partner in one of these scams.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=40445

I could sit here and type for hours about how F'ed up this whole climate research crapola, and that is exactly what it is, CRAPOLA.

But I can assure you all, it has _nothing_ to do with climate change. These people have no intentions of doing anything about the climate unless of course they can make a huge amount of money.

When are people going to wake up and see that the real scientists who are actually doing the foot work to understand how our planet endures climate change now, and in the past are the very ones not being listened to and are on Phil Jones and Co Sh*t List in those Emails.

-Hack

Even if we ignore the fact that the Federal Marshals use regular .357 hollow points nowadays (as that wiki article even states), as far as I am aware the idea of de-pressurising a plane with a bullet is greatly exaggerated.

I guess a simple google search was too hard for you to do before you started trolling.

But hey, everyone loves the little retard forced to sit in regular class with us now that the Special Ed budget has been depleted. It's simply amazing what he will say. (BTW, Ingore the part about god and pay attention to the oil in the lab parts as they are referenced for your enjoyment).

Police aren't walking around gas stations beating people for being there.

That is EXACTLY what they are doing.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71096

http://cops-busted.com/articles/52/1/Larry-Pugh-Jacksonville-Texas-Police-Officer-incarcerated-for-Rape-and-Retaliation/Page1.html

That is the type of person you are defending! You are a sick sick human being.

I wouldn't even wish rape and being left for dead on YOU, the very person here saying how perfectly justified it is!

The law is that police officers get to defend themselves when they find a perceivable threat. Going about your business is the opposite of that.

No it is not. In our country (The one being discussed in the article) the law allows for ANYONE to defend their life.
Our law does NOT say only police can defend their life, and you as a citizen are required to allow the criminal to kill you.
Here, we are all allowed to defend our life.

Posting anon just in case a police officer is reading, and wants to defend his life from my slashdot posting.

It's coming to all other countries around the world too. The United Nations have been pushed to accept a Resolution to Combat Defamation of Religion that would bar worldwide all criticism of religions.

These are dangerous times, just like all other times before. If democracy and freedom of speech isn't practiced it will erode away before our eyes.

grandparents or the young or pregnant woman seek a legal remedy

Don't forget the people with broken backs who are unable to move.

Some people are going to be very unhappy about this. Unless it's an early April Fools.

Nothing new here move along.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=7640

Maybe not as directly or forcefully..but in a more subliminal way to silent opposition in the US. Efforts are on to try to put a lid on talk radio.

I'm still trying to figure out the position that Mark Lloyd holds.."Chief Diversity Officer"? Is this analagous to the Ministry of Truth?

Hell, Mark seems to actually appreciate what Hugo Chavez has done . And this guy is high up at the FCC??

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=121034 Cites a Federal Reserve Report for last November.

For the year 2008, the Federal Reserve estimates that the value of U.S. manufacturing output was about $3.7 trillion (in 2008 dollars). If the U.S. manufacturing sector were a separate economy, with its own GDP, it would be tied with Germany as the world's fourth-richest economy. The GDPs are: U.S. ($14.2 trillion), Japan ($4.9 trillion), China ($4.3 trillion), U.S. manufacturing ($3.7 trillion), Germany ($3.7 trillion), France ($2.9 trillion) and the United Kingdom ($2.7 trillion).

More data from the same Federal Reserve report from last November:

http://blog.american.com/?p=8593

Manufacturing has seen the same changes over the last forty years that agriculture saw over the previous two hundred: Productivity per worker rose so much that fewer and fewer workers were needed to produce just as much stuff. This freed those workers to do other things, increasing the wealth of society. So manufacturing jobs have fallen--but we produce more than we ever have, and more than anyone else, including China. This is a GOOD thing, because it frees those workers to do other things, producing more goods and services for society as a whole.

Some of us could not. The reality is the healthcare problems in this country lead to these issues.

Our health insurance problems are caused by: tax laws, mandated coverage, lack of competition across state lines (what the interstate commerce clause is in the Constitution to prevent, not to let Washington micromanage everything), and corporatism/crony capitalism.

Here are two good article by Harry Browne (Libertarian presidential candidate in 96 and 00): Let's Make Health Care Inexpensive Again and Why not real health-care reform?.

Yet, if you dare mention another method the teabaggers go nuts.

Prick.

"The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance (of Western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (Feb 11) in a way that will leave them stunned," Khamenei declared Monday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8508813.stm

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124681

Empty threat or glass parking lot in Tel Aviv? What are they up to?

Mark me troll ALL you want, but don't be surprised when those in favor of AGW get run out of congress on a rail in 2010. Mark my words, after AIG and TARP folks are sick of "enlightened self interests" making policies that take money out of their pockets, and with Goldman Sachs setting themselves up to make so much money off the "carbon credits" scam that robber barons would blush,

And with Al Gore paying himself carbon offsets from the company he is profiting from so he can blow whatever he wants? Well you might as well hand the republicans the keys to congress and the White House now. Don't forget to turn off the lights on your way out, wouldn't want to waste energy now.

I'm sorry, but no discussion of the merits of World Net Daily is complete without mentioning their six-part series on how soy is making your kids gay.

Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors'

That WND article links to, err, umm, the paper in question. If you download the paper by clicking the "Download" link and opening the PDF, the precise quote is

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.

which doesn't directly speak of "banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors'", although it does speak of "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" as something that "will have a place under imaginable conditions" without bothering to speak of the imaginable conditions under which "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" would "have a place" - or, for that matter, explaining what "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" means.

There's no direct reference to "right-wing rumors" in the paper; the authors speak of various conspiracy theories, at least some of which have supporters some of whom one might consider "left-wing", such as "the view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy", "[the view] that Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed by federal agents", and "[the view] that the plane crash that killed Democrat Paul Wellstone was engineered by Republican politicians", as well as those that have supporters some of whom one might consider "right-wing", such as "[the view] that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud" and the "complex of conspiratorial beliefs about the federal government" held by "the perpetrators" of "the Oklahoma City bombing". (And, yes, each of those sets of theories might have other supporters who would be considered to be on the other side of the political spectrum from the side I mentioned.)

Note also that, in the paper, they don't dismiss all conspiracy theories:

Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials (though the plan never went into effect).13 In 1947, space aliens did, in fact, land in Roswell, New Mexico, and the government covered it all up. (Well, maybe not.) Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones. Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine such theories, and as a general rule, true accounts should not be undermined.

Also, note that when they speak of "cognitive infiltration", they explicitly acknowledge programs such as COINTELPRO, and say that's not what they have in mind:

By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions. Rather, we mean that government efforts might succeed in weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that constitute these networks and groups.

Read the paper and draw your own conclusions.

World Net Daily is a few fries short of a happy meal. This is the same news organization that claims that Obama worked to fund terrorists, that 9/11 was caused by the New Yorkers who had it coming, and that the Russian spy poisoned by the KGB using polonium was actually a muslim terrorist trying to sneak radioactive materials into the US. They are basically a forum for conspiracy theories wrapped up in nice packaging.

World Net Daily is a few fries short of a happy meal. This is the same news organization that claims that Obama worked to fund terrorists, that 9/11 was caused by the New Yorkers who had it coming, and that the Russian spy poisoned by the KGB using polonium was actually a muslim terrorist trying to sneak radioactive materials into the US. They are basically a forum for conspiracy theories wrapped up in nice packaging.

they are not our enemies, they do the job we give them.

Really... You give them the job of tazering a 16 year old boy 19 times, for not standing up when ordered by police, because he is too busy screaming that his back is broken... source

And you give them the job of dumping a quadriplegic man out of his wheelchair when he comes to the police station to ask for help... source

And you give them the job of murdering tens of thousands of innocent people whos only crime was living in the same apartment complex as as drug user or dealer. source

And you give them the job of destroying peoples laptops for having the audacity of knowing what the law says.. source, hell just scroll up to the TSA article on slashdot...

You sir are a bad horrible person, and represent a major problem in our country.

I don't have a long-form birth certificate, so by your reasoning, I must not be a natural born U.S. citizen. Nevermind the fact that there are photographs from my birth showing I was born in a Florida hospital. Nevermind the fact my parents last left the country two years before I was born. Nevermind any other facts or evidence I can find. It's long-form birth certificate or nothing, isn't it?

I think you need to find a new battle to fight, because this one is dead. You can pull whatever reasoning you want out, but in the end, it's all just bloggers and "reporters" pulling out the same arguments over and over with their own opinion. Your basis of argument is a fallacy, please let it go.

This is the same pro-Israel disinformation that claims Palestinians are just Jordanians/Syrians/Lebanese (choose as per your particular prejudice), and therefore not worth a damn. This is despite them having a longstanding cultural identity that is different to their neighbours.

Well, that's debatable. After the fall of the Turks, the British Mandate of Palestine included what is today called Israel, Jordan, Gaza & West Bank. The Brits split of the vast majority of the territory and created Jordan. At the time, there was no difference between the Arab population of what became Jordan and their neighbors a few miles west, even if today you call one group "Jordanians" and one group "Palestinians".

A Palestinian state does exist today, it's called Jordan.

In fact, lets look at what Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein had to say on the topic:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Note that he isn't saying that Palestinians don't exist, he is saying that a Palestinian People doesn't exist. A "people" has greater rights under international law than a bunch of individuals.

Al Gore at least says he purchases carbon offsets to balance out his own consumption.
But then the top article that turned up about it was this. Doesn't seem particularly sinister to me. So he believes in carbon offsets so much that he bought the company. The article doesn't claim the carbon offsets he buys are in any way bogus.

I googled it and it looks legit... here is a more specific attribution:

Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403

No, only the first sentence is legit. The rest is from a fictional letter from Hitler by Rabbi Daniel Lapin. He quotes (in "quotes") that first sentence with a footnote with exactly the attribution you gave - the rest he makes up.

If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested.

Sounds like you will be in for a big surprise when you get arrested for doing nothing illegal.
Happens all the time.

Additionally, no where is it stated you must be breaking a law to be arrested.
You only need to be breaking a law and have proof you did so to be *convicted*

Cops arrest people and hold them for the max allowed time before having to press charges, then releasing you on the side of the street, all the time as a harassment tool.

These days you can be tasered without cause as well!
All you have to do is commit the crime of falling down and breaking your back, and then while paralyzed not standing up when ordered to by the cop and shouting your back is broken. citation

Or the worse crime of not wanting to take a shower will also get you assaulted with a taser. citation