Slashdot Mirror
IP Enforcement Treaty Still Being Kept Secret
Hugh Pickens writes "More than a thousand pages of material about Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), are still being withheld, despite the Obama administration's promises to run a more open government. The EFF and Public Knowledge filed suit in September of 2008, demanding that background documents on ACTA be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 'We are very disappointed with the USTR's decision to continue to withhold these documents. The president promised an open and transparent administration,' said EFF Senior Counsel David Sobel. Publicly available information about the treaty shows it could establish far-reaching customs regulations over Internet traffic in the guise of anti-counterfeiting measures. Additionally, multi-national IP industry companies have publicly requested that ISPs be required to engage in filtering of their customers' Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, force mandatory disclosure of personal information about alleged copyright infringers, and adopt 'Three Strikes' policies requiring ISPs to automatically terminate customers' Internet access upon a repeat allegation of copyright infringement. 'What we've seen tends to confirm that the substance of ACTA remains a grave concern,' said Public Knowledge Staff Attorney Sherwin Siy. 'The agreement increasingly looks like an attempt by Hollywood and the content industries to perform an end-run around national legislatures and public international forums to advance an aggressive, radical change in the way that copyright and trademark laws are enforced.'"
but it would be nice if the ACLU stepped in. They have vastly greater influence and funding.
If ratified, a treaty such as this could have far reaching consequences for privacy and leave ISP customers beholden to 3rd parties under the guise of 'IP enforcement'.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Seems like the quickest way to stir up some controversy here is to hack the computers of the people running these agencies and see if they're into salacious yet legal pr0n or, even better, nasty illegal stuff. Not that I'm advocating this sort of thing, of course, but there was news of this sort of thing being done to Justice Scalia. He saw no problem with privacy violations and a law professor had his class comb the interwebs for PI on Scalia. They put together a very revealing dossier with all his info. Word was that Scalia was not amused. Heh. Payback's a bitch.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
... that all internet communications needs to be done over encrypted connections or sessions
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Hopefully in the next election, the people that though Obama would bring such great 'change' won't think that their new favorite choice will be bringing great 'change'.
Mostly due to the fact that my brain is currently swiss cheese,
but I know there have been great big loopholes in things past that would be unconstitutional, slipping through because treaties are consider on equal legal footing with the constitution. If you can get the USA and another country to sign off on it, then it does not have to pass muster with the nine judges in DC...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Republicans = Less govt = Less social benefits for citizens
When was the last time that Republicans ever brought about less government? 50 years ago?
It's not really a democrat or republican thing at this point, the government seeks to serve itself and increase this or that. Both seem to be increasing government just on different sides of the spectrum which is what floors me when one side or that other tries to say otherwise. That being said its not necessarily a bad thing, a lot of the comforts that people rely and depend on come from the government which sometime does a good job and sometimes doesn't its a little hit or miss.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Obama showed what he thinks of liberty when he decided to appoint someone as an "intellectual property czar".
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Something like a layered approach of Truecrypt+One Swarm/TOR/other anonymization. That will of course also benefit people who commit actual crimes, as they can hide in the crowd.
'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted'.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I think you're a bit off.
Dems == more government [more regulation of citizens + more spending on citizens via social programs]
Reps == more government [more regulation of citizens + more spending on business via defense programs].
Please note that "defense programs" includes things like war.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
When did you type that, 1963? Big business has ruled the US for decades.. welcome to the past.
Sadly, neither party seems to be particularly true to their own ideals anymore. The Dems claim that they are the party of the workers and unions, yet they use taxpayer dollars to bailout the big corporations instead of helping the increasingly unemployed population. The GOP claims to favor less government regulation and intrusion in people's lives, yet doesn't object when the government ruins the lives of non-violent drug users, tells people they can't have sex if it's for money, or makes any other legislation of the perceived morality of someone's private life.
The two parties in this country are more alike than you think. And they both want more power and money in their pockets than anything else.
It was a reference to the dystopian societies always set in "the future" -- like 1984 (when it was written), the Shadowrun world, etc.
But you're right, the 70s and 80s really saw the rise of the corporate-controlled government. Although even Reagan bothered with lip-service to the people ("trickle-down economics") -- Bush didn't even bother with that, and it appears Obama's method will be to pretend that's what he is really doing... and the sheeple will believe it.
That's the one common factor to all the leaders we've had since time immemorial... the sheeple. There's nothing quite like the fact that most people are happy to be ignorant.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Democrats = More govt = More regulation of citizens
Republicans = Less govt = Less social benefits for citizens
This is wrong, this is how they really are:
Democrats = more socialist programs and regulations.
Republicans = more military and police, plus controlling people's private lives.
Both Dems and Reps want bigger government, the only thing different is what part of government is bigger. Republicans haven't been for smaller government since before Nixon. Democrats haven't been for small government maybe since Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party split.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The difference is, enforcement. For example, people have recorded mix tapes for years while technically being in violation of copyright, no one cared though. Today, the digital equivalent of mix tapes are likely to get you sued if you exchange them over a digital means. People have also copied books via handwriting or more recently with copy machines and then sent those to people, which again, was technically illegal but no one cared. Today, even the of ripping a book into a digital format can possibly be interpreted as illegal and be sued, even more so if you distributed your ripped book.
Its only in the past 20 years that big businesses have managed to make everyone a criminal and charge them with a crime. Prior to that, unless you were making money off of it, you were safe. Today, anyone is a potential target.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
No, there's definitely a difference between Dems and Reps. The Dems will openly tell you that they think a bigger government will solve our problems, and when in power, they increase the power of government. The Reps, on the other hand, will openly tell you that the government needs to be smaller and less intrusive, but when in power, they increase the power of government.
Its Obama's administration that keeps refusing though.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Frankly, I'm truly amazed that the invasion of personal freedoms in the UK and US have gone as far as they have as fast as they have. Monitoring personal communications for possible infringement of any law is frightening. What would people say if this was done on their phone lines?
...voting populations and legislative bodies.
Just sign a treaty that has many important-to-world-trade parts in the agreement, while also including what you're *really* seeking to put into law. With the other important stuff thrown in with the garbage in a take-it-or-leave-it treaty up-or-down vote, this puts a lot of pressure on legislative bodies to accept what they normally wouldn't for either ideological or re-election-fear reasons while giving them an "out" to deflect criticism from their constituents and opposition members.
It's small wonder they don't want to reveal anything about this treaty. That would simply give the various countries' legislative bodies and populations time to think about possible ramifications and ways to defeat it once they start to "get it" and realize what this may do to their freedoms and economies.
It's nearly the same game they play with domestic intelligence. It's generally illegal for a US agency to spy on US citizens without a warrant, but there's no law against the UK (for example) spying on US citizens and handing the info over to a US intelligence agency.
Basically it's using treaties and agreements with other nations as a way to get around domestic laws, controls, oversight, and the will of the citizens. It's what happens when governments get too large and powerful; they forget that they are the *servants*, NOT the masters.
I'm very afraid though that at this point, correcting this imbalance and returning the reins of the country's government and its' destiny back to the citizens will require much violence, chaos, and the blood of many patriots, as the citizenry has been asleep for far too long and allowed far too much encroachment of central government power over their lives. That powerful & greedy government will not relinquish any of its' wealth or power without a tremendous fight.
I fear we are cursed to live in "interesting times". I wonder if the guillotine of the French Revolution will make a comeback, and if it will be televised?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Frankly, I'm truly amazed that the invasion of personal freedoms in the UK and US have gone as far as they have as fast as they have.
Its only to be expected. People are wanting to sacrifice personal liberty for "safety" safety for what they don't know though. People always think its not going to happen to them. They see a few college kids get busted for using P2P to download music at college, they figure, its not going to happen to me because I'm not on a college network. They see a single mother get sued for using P2P to download new, popular music, they figure its not going to happen to me because I only download obscure '70s hits and techno. They don't see themselves in any danger at all.
Honestly, while not surprising it does draw striking parallels to the post WWI world where the desire for national greatness even if it meant putting a president in for life, letting a dictator run Germany, Italy and just about every other European country, loyalty to a "divine" emperor, even if it meant the deaths of you and the men under your command, and restricting any sort of human rights.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
You're asking the wrong people. Ask the phone companies who are still complicit in their active warrantless wiretap program. (Did anyone say it stopped or that it would be stopped?)
Where's that +i crazy mod when you need it? Really both parties know that government will only expand unless people complain, but people are too lazy and the bureaucracy too complex to do anything about.
Learn to grow up a little. These people are rightly pointing out that there is not difference between the R's and the D's. Don't like it? It doesn't mesh with your view that Obama is the best thing ever? Tough.
I'm not advocating torture or waterboarding, but when we're talking about a relative handful of people, most of whom are almost certainly guilty
On the day of his death, Dilawar had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days. A guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling. "Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying. Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned that most of the interrogators had in fact believed Mr. Dilawar to be an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.
You can't take the sky from me...
The laws that will have to be passed in order to comply with this treaty will be abused, just like similar laws have been before:
http://computerssuck.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/acta/
full disclosure: shamelessly promoting my own blog post
No, missing the forest for the trees would be falsely imprisoning 10 innocents to get 1 guilty person. The 10 innocent is the forest whereas the 1 guilty is the tree.
Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans,
Except the ALCU supported American NAZIs' right to protest. Like the ALCU I disagree with them but I support their right to peacefully protest. As one slashdotter's sig says, paraphrasing, "I may disagree with your speech but I will support your right to say it."
I'm also keenly aware of the irony of a 7-digit-UID'er lecturing a 6-digiter on the finer points of discussion board etiquette
My point had nothing to do with netiquette or any other etiquette but was about facts and the truth. The person I replied to expressed the opinion that it was better to torture a bunch of innocents to get intelligence, while the USA's Founding Fathers fought for a free society which I support myself.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I thought it was normal procedure to keep international negotiations secret until they think they have something that all the parties think they can get their home nations to approve. I don't recall hearing the details of other treaties involving the US until they were submitted to the Senate for debate and voting...
Why does anyone think its not done on our phone lines? Weren't the telcos just give retroactive immunity for this last year? Didn't the Feds prosecute and jail the only telco head who refused to co-operate?
They are boiling the frog slowly. At some point it will be said that "people who have nothing to hide" don't need curtains, later that they should not object to having cameras in every room in the house ( a la 1984). Then these things will be legally required and only criminals will object. Doesn't seem to matter whether its the Democri-fascists or the Republi-fascists. We've been sold out. Bye-bye, Constitution.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
ok, so we have our OWN end-runs.
you guys want an IP based battle (IP in both contexts) - you will SURELY LOSE.
we don't agree with 'your' rules and we have been doing our OWN end-run around you, fuck-heads.
so increase your 'surveillance'. we'll just up our arms race to match.
you won't win, you creepy government spooks. but if you really do need an arms race in encryption, bring it on!
(god, I hate this level of 'playing' but when they fuck with your freedom, you MUST fuck wtih them, back.)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
[citation needed] If you could point out where the parent said torture of anyone was OK I would appreciate it, thanks.
...radical change in the way that copyright and trademark laws are enforced...
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
Sounds like the answer is "whoosh"
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
if you can be arrested for almost anything, you are now living in fear and are controllable by the state.
by design!
this is no accident. when everyone is potentially a 'criminal' then the state has fear-control over its populace.
fully by plan. not by accident.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
As well as every other nation state party to the negotiations. That should make you a bit nervous. I am notably disappointed the administration, because it is the government of where I live; but it is the fact that it takes everyone to keep a secret, and the secret is being(largely) kept, is what makes me really nervous.
No informed adult believes that Republicans and Democrats are the same. The two parties agree on certain issues, which is unfortunate for those who hold a different view on those particular issues. But that does not mean that the parties are the same.
Gay marriage? They differ.
Abortion? They differ.
Gun control? They differ.
Tax rates on the wealthy? They differ.
Amount of regulation for the markets? They differ.
Torture of key terrorists? They differ.
Most foreign policy matters? They differ.
Stem cell research? They differ.
Universal health care? They differ.
Immigration reform? They differ.
Only someone completely ignorant of US politics would try to claim that they're the same.
I think this article puts a finer point on it:
The gist? Treaties don't trump the constitution. PJ summarizes thusly: "I read it as saying that nothing, not any treaty, not even the Berne Convention, can trump the US Constitution."
What do you think of that?
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
First I doubt Stallman would ever accept a post as an intellectual property czar. Whether he would or not, Obama creating it has shown he doesn't value liberty. Unless you want to deny rights you don't need any "intellectual property czar". But then again he showed that he didn't care more than a year ago when he voted to give telecos immunity for spying on Americans.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans, especially when it comes to electronic communication.
ORLY? http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/internet/index.html
I think he's just ACLU-bashing, not comeone with a point.
From the "2009 ACLU Legislative Priorities" pdf, I see
Repeal the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
Codify binding open Internet principles to discourage public and private
online censorship, to assure online privacy and to pursue equal access free
from discrimination.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit challenging the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 the same day that it was enacted into law. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work - which relies on confidential communications - could be compromised by the new law.[15] The complaint, captioned Amnesty et al v McConnell and filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, argues that the new spying law violates Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.
which look a lot like defending the freedoms of Americans, especially when it comes to electronic communication to me. They were on top of that one day one, punctuality is a virtue.
Took me a minute in google to find that information. I don't know if or why they don't get involved with that treaty. Maybe they just haven't gotten around to it. Maybe they're understaffed, out of their jurisdiction and over budget. Maybe they're reptilians who pretend to defend civil liberties but they really want to drain your precious bodily fluids.
He's ranting against the ACLU, against foreigners, and against opposing torture. And he's calling that "freedom-loving". If he's pointing out anything, it's his perceptions, and I'm pretty sure he's perceiving that through the lenses at Fox News.
You can't take the sky from me...
"We are very disappointed with the USTR's decision to continue to withhold these documents The president promised an open and transparent administration," said EFF Senior Counsel David Sobel.
So it looks like, if the government, even a new presidential administration in which some have hope, wants to keep the pesty people from derailing a law the administration likes, what it does is HIDE IT until it's too late for the people to be heard? Honest to God, is this America?
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
I think when people say "Republicans or Democrats, it's all the same to me" they don't literally mean they have the same platform. They mean that electing either party will bring about the same result - the same corrupt politics that dominate our country. The parties are very much the same in my eyes.
Explain it then.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Obama promised that his administration would be more transparent. They are pandering to Hollywood and the RIAA, and setting up for full monitoring of all citizens Internet communications. This much seems pretty transparent to me! So what's the problem, then?
They express different positions on many matters, but the results are the same no matter which party is in power.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
If this is solely about anti-counterfeiting, what does ISPs cancelling accounts for copyright infringement really have to do with that?
first, intellectual property is not really adequately covered by copyright.
second, stopping people from making and selling counterfeit merchandise is really more of a police effort, not a treaty effort.
What will a treaty do to stop criminals from downloading music online and burning massive quantities of discs to be sold at market?
They are most likely using an ISP which does not monitor their activities. If they're not, they're either really dumb (not smart enough to have a large operation), or already using encryption (already have a large operation). Either way, the problem isn't in downloading.
THE PROBLEM ISN'T IN DOWNLOADING!
The issue remains with manufacturing of counterfeit merchandise. That is what they intend to address with this treaty, right? Wrong.
You make a bigger bat, and they'll only make a smaller ball.
Think about it. They are writing some pretty broad-sweeping legislation (most likely penned directly by the MPAA/RIAA/IFPI). Politicians rarely write their own material these days. The only people involved are these industry pimps and politicians. Where are the consumer watch groups? Where are the organizations protecting the rights of the people?
Strangely absent?
Diamond Joe Biden is delivering in a big way for these industries. His years of shilling and pandering are about to reach their pinnacle. I wonder how many music or film publishing conglomerates called Delaware home. Well, due to the laughably lax tax rules there, probably all of them.
Here's some news though. Joe, now you have to represent the nation, not just it's corporate entities. The nation consists of the people. The people are supposed to be the government, but apparently Mussolini's Fascism has arrived.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Almost every single one of those issues you pointed out are just election year platform gimmicks.
No informed adult believes that Republicans and Democrats are the same.
It's not so much that they're identical; more like neither of them cares about anything more than expanding their power. The alleged differences you cite are distraction issues, used to deflect attention from the fact that both of the brands of the Ruling Party have steadily increased federal power since the Eisenhower administration.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
and I don't know the difference between them. Mind you, I'm not American.
Gay marriage
Abortion
Gun control
Tax rates on the wealthy
Amount of regulation for the markets
Torture of key terrorists
Most foreign policy matters
Stem cell research
Universal health care
Immigration reform
"Almost every single one of those issues you pointed out are just election year platform gimmicks."
They're used as election platforms precisely because they matter.
If you're gay, the right to marry matters.
If you or your partner gets pregnant the right to be able to have an abortion matters. Even just knowing that abortions are legal can affect the very personal decisions people make. How could something like this possibly not matter?
If you own guns and don't want them taken away that matters.
Tax rates on the wealthy matter because they effect everyones tax rates.
The amount of regulation of markets matter. For example compare and contrast the current stability of Canadian vs. American banks.
Foreign policy! Its very likely that if we hadn't had Bush as president we wouldn't have gotten into an unneeded war that has already cost us over a trillion dollars. This matters.
Torture. Sure, civil rights. Nothing important there.
Universal health care. Really. Just a gimmick. Weather or not we should have universal health care is just a gimmick. Nothing important there, not at all.
Those issues come up every election because people care about them because they're REALLY IMPORTANT.
The issues and the facts surrounding them might be distorted every elections but the issues themselves are far more than just gimmicks.
Cheers,
Greg
There's some drafts over at wikileaks Classified US, Japan and EU ACTA trade agreement drafts, 2009
They would say, "I'm not saying or doing anything illegal, so why should I care if they listen in on me? They can probably capture more terrorists and criminals by doing this. I have nothing to hide." Most people don't understand our civil rights and why they are important.
Clovis
^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
The last Republican presidents that didn't attempt to take all the power for themselves were Ford (but he doesn't count) and Eisenhower.
If passed, I still won't buy their crap.
"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
I had ZERO hope that the Obama administration would do anything positive with regard to civil liberties, but I thought we might at least get a short breather. Instead, the all-out assault continues, and is even accelerating. Remember that a treaty only needs ratification by the U.S. Senate. The government is trying to do an end-run around The Constitution with this "ACTA" treaty. They're trying to do the exact same thing to get back door gun control established with "CIFTA"(some Spanish acronym about weapons trafficking). We have a Democratic Representative and a dozen co-sponsors suggesting that we criminalize blog postings. The DOHS is calling anyone who is (correctly) concerned about gun control or Federal power grabs a "rightwing extremist racist terrorist". The FTC wants to step in and impose restrictions on peer to peer networks, etc. etc.
Sheesh! I'm very politically active compared to my friends and colleagues, but I can only focus on one or two issues at a time!
It's obvious that the government is trying to make so many laws and treaties so fast that the Constitution dies from suffocation, and all U.S. citizens are instant criminals of one sort or another. If you actually care about individual freedom, you WON'T be voting for Republicans or Democrats in the next election.
Gay marriage? Abortion? Gun control? They differ. Agreed. Don't forget flag burning.
>>Tax rates on the wealthy? They differ.
Red herring. The "wealthy" earn much more on capital gains than on wages. Raising the "INCOME" tax rates of top earners is hardly a major policy shift.
>>Amount of regulation for the markets? They differ.
HA! Don't confuse what they SAY with what they DO. They're working hand in hand to sell out the U.S. citizens to wealthy corporate interests.
>>Torture of key terrorists? They differ.
TBD. One credit to Obama is that he actually released some documentation about torture. He's still pleading "state secrets" all too frequently however. And what does it matter if they "differ" when justice isn't being served?
>>Most foreign policy matters? They differ.
Bullshit. They both supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and with a few exceptions have consistently voted to continue funding them. Then there's NATO expansion, military interventionism/imperialism, middle east policy" and trade policy.
>>Stem cell research? They differ.
Big friggin deal. #1734 on the list of important issues facing the U.S. citizenry
>>Universal health care? They differ.
Yeah, Republicans want private inductry to handle health care, Democrats want private industry to handle health care with the American people picking up the bill.
>>Immigration reform? They differ.
Sure. Republicans want open borders so that the corporations can hire cheap labor. Democrats want open borders because they see a flood of poor laborers as a potential voting block to support them.
And BOTH parties are hell bent on eroding our civil liberties at every possible opportunity, and seem intent on spending our nation into insurmountable debt.
Almost every single one of those issues you pointed out are just election year platform gimmicks.
Yes, but unfortunately they act on them.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I recommend you put something similar up there, or the message will be so drowned out that no one will see it. I do not expect Obama to read it, but I do hope to reach a few of our fellow citizens.
I don't think anyone involved in this thread was arguing that torture is ok if it means that the majority is kept safe, but rather that there are other issues that do not "score points" that they are missing, that are actually quite serious and effect pretty much everyone directly.
I see the issue of whether torture is effective wasn't replied to, neither was what the USA's Founding Fathers said of it. Is torture even effective? No Who gets to decide who is tortured? Saying it's okay to torture one person because it may save a lot more people turns "us" into "them", those who torture are no better than who they fight.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Gay marriage? They differ.
Bill Clinton (D): Signed into law the "Defense of Marriage Act - 9/21/96
George W. Bush (R): "Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife. " - 2/24/04
Barack Obama (D): "And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
Tax rates on the wealthy? They differ.
Bill Clinton (D): 39.6% tax rate
George W. Bush (R): 35% tax rate
Barack Obama (D): plans to reset back to 39.6%
Wow, 4.6% difference.
Most foreign policy matters? They differ.
George Bush Sr. (R): Attacked Iraq
Bill Clinton (D): Bombed Iraq repeatedly, also bombed Yugoslavia
George W. Bush (R): Invaded Iraq and Afghanistan
Barack Obama (D): Is sending even more troops into Afghanistan
I could go on and on, but the point is that they create a perception of difference, but the results are always the same no mater who gets into office.
Only someone completely ignorant of US politics would try to claim that they're the same.
Only someone completely ignorant of US politics would try to claim that they're different.