Slashdot Mirror


Obama Administration Wants Your Old Email

Nemesisghost wrote to us with a story about attempts to reform the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Under the act, messages left on a server are considered abandoned after six months and are trivially subpoenaed by law enforcement. A group of ISPs is lobbying to extend the protections afforded to locally stored messages to messages stored on third party servers, but the Obama administration is urging Congress not to reform the law.

639 comments

  1. Obama acomplishments by bongey · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The only thing that Obama did good was get elected. Every single person except real left wing die hards are cursing him. What has he really accomplished? Obamacare was slim ball way to pass such a huge measure.

    1. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Come on, man. I agree with you, but we've had the same argument here a thousand times before, and will a thousand times more. There is nothing left to be said, let's spend our time arguing about the specifics of email abandonment instead.

    2. Re:Obama acomplishments by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope, completely wrong; the left wing die hards have been criticizing him for a while. It's the moderates who like him. I'm a little disappointed in how he's done, though even now he is still head and shoulders above GWB, or how McCain would have been.

    3. Re:Obama acomplishments by Giometrix · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm pretty sure real left diehards are cursing him too.

      --
      Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
    4. Re:Obama acomplishments by bongey · · Score: 1

      Don't like GWB either , their all the same. Just Obama sold me on being the same. So I am little pissed.

    5. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is probably a troll but it's funny that you say "real" left-wing die hards, as opposed to the fake left-wing die-hards. I consider myself left and am not surprised at his behavior, he was centrist/sucking up to the republicans on the campaign trail. Perhaps one day in the USA we can have a run-off voting system instead of this inevitable two-party bullshit because of senior voters.

    6. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, Obama stopped the war and thank god he closed Gitmo! He's way better than G Dub!

    7. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He's worse than Bush. Bush may have been stupid, but he wasn't such a fraud.
      If Obama had been president 10 years ago he would have gone to war as well. No doubt about it.

    8. Re:Obama acomplishments by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      he is still head and shoulders above GWB

      We're still in Iraq. We're still in Afghanistan. He's started a third war in Libya. Gitmo is still open. Unemployment is still way too high. We're still broke and spending more than we ever have. The Patriot Act is still around and the Administration continues to press on with other initiatives which erode the rights of American citizens. So, exactly how is BHO "head and shoulders above GWB"?

    9. Re:Obama acomplishments by ayvee · · Score: 1

      ... even now he is still head and shoulders above GWB, or how McCain would have been

      That's not saying a lot.

    10. Re:Obama acomplishments by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      What war in Libya? We've basically done some live bombing practice and sent in a handful of trainers and some covert troops. We expended more resources arresting Noriega.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, exactly how is BHO "head and shoulders above GWB"?

      Because...... change!

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who thought those items were even slightly possible drank waaay too deeply from the ultra-liberal kool-aide.

      Delusional...

    13. Re:Obama acomplishments by nomadic · · Score: 0

      We're not in Iran. Libya is not a war in the sense that Afghanistan and Iraq is. He's wrongfully kept too many of GWB's policies, but he hasn't instituted any new breathtaking stupid ones. That was the problem with GWB and Cheney, just when you thought they couldn't do anything worse than what they already came up with they'd come up with some new insanity.

    14. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So, exactly how is BHO "head and shoulders above GWB"?

      He didn't create any of those messes, even if he hasn't been able to make much progress with cleaning them up. OTOH, I guess we still haven't seen how Libya is going to turn out, so I do still have some reservations.

    15. Re:Obama acomplishments by nomadic · · Score: 3, Informative

      If anyone but Bush and maybe a handful of neocon politicians had been in office, we would not have gone to war in Iraq. It took active fraud and a bizarre and paranoid worldview to think that it was a good idea; 99% of Republicans and 100% of Democrats would have refrained from invading Iraq.

    16. Re:Obama acomplishments by VAElynx · · Score: 2

      Libya is a gross breach of international conventions and meddling with the affairs of a sovereign state.
      You are right, this isn't like GWB, this is like Clinton., and his whole escapade into jugoslavija

    17. Re:Obama acomplishments by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Real, in this case means "Really", as in "extreme", not "real" as in "The Real World" (which isn't really real either really).

      Come on, get real, already and really join the real brigade.

    18. Re:Obama acomplishments by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      re-al
      adjective
      1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed
      2. informal complete; utter (used for emphasis)


      Guess which definition he was using. Tip: it was #2.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    19. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're leaving Iraq

      We're using the resources that were foolishly devoted to Iraq on Afganistan. Hopefully we will be out of there soon.

      And in Libya we went in with an international coalition so that we wouldn't once again be left holding the bag. We did it right for the first time in a long time.

      What was the last internation coalition that George W Bush and John "Take 12 floors off the UN" Bolton lead?

      Oh that's right, they would rather go it alone into an unnecessary and immoral quagmire like Iraq.

      Now that George W Bush has left in disgrace revisionist historians stepped in to rewrite history. It may work with the Fox "News" / teabag crowd, but only a fool would not be able to tell the difference between George W Bush and Barack Obama

    20. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For one I would say Obama has a head above his shoulders.

    21. Re:Obama acomplishments by errandum · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You guys are delusional.

      From an international standpoint, your allies actually talk to you now.

      From an economic standpoint, your economy is actually almost getting out of the hole republicans led you to

      Yes, you're still in two wars. Two wars he did not start and he's been trying to end since he got elected

      Did he do everything he said he'd do? No. Far from it. Way too many politics in the way of ideals. Too bad, some of those were actually good.

      But can you honestly say he's been bad? I guess you'd prefer the side that says "3 is a better number for pi".

    22. Re:Obama acomplishments by cgenman · · Score: 1

      So, exactly how is BHO "head and shoulders above GWB"?

      He has only gotten us in 1 war, which is reasonably tractable, and under completely truthful pretenses. He didn't establish "free speech zones," whereby protesters outside of free speech zones can be arrested. While he hasn't closed Gitmo, he hasn't opened any new ones either.

    23. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've had enough ...
      The office of president is not graded on a curve, they will be judged based on what they have or have not done. Not compared to what you think someone else might have done had they been elected.

      It is ok to say you made a mistake or that you disagree with someone.... you don't have to rationalize or make excuses like "yeah well _______ was bad and all but at least he wasn't Attila the Hun or Winne the pooh or a drunken lemur." It does not make ______ or you look any better when you make comparisons that are silly and unverifiable.

      This isn't a sports team you don't have to still be their fan when they suck.

      O wait I forgot this is the internet where every conversation devolves to an argument and ends with "my dad can beat up your dad"

    24. Re:Obama acomplishments by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyone who thought those items were even slightly possible drank waaay too deeply from the ultra-liberal kool-aide.

      Delusional...

      Anyone who thinks them impossible has become to brainwashed by the political tendency (by both parties) to keep saying something until people believe it.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    25. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know I never really cared for GWB either but mocking the man's intelligence when he was smart enough to get elected Governor of one of the largest states in the Union and then beat the best the Democratic Party had to offer twice in a national election is pretty pathetic.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    26. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      It's the moderates who like him

      Then why did they flee his party in droves in the mid term elections and hand the vast majority of battleground congressional districts to the GOP?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    27. Re:Obama acomplishments by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not a great fan of Obama, and I'm sincerely disappointed in his performance, but I'd agree with those who say he's much better than Bush.

      Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (absolutely unjustly, in my opinion), but having done so it would cause a greater mess to disappear and leave a power vacuum. Better not to have gone in in the first place, but now the troops are there, I agree with the decision to remain. Agree with it or not, Libya's a different situation: backing up something the local population started, rather than starting something at the behest of the US government.

      As for Gauntanamo bay, I quite agree with you, he has absolutely failed in his promise to shut the place down; his administration's attempts to give the inmates fair trials have been hindered by congress (something I find absolutely astonishing), but nonetheless he made a promise he wasn't in a position to keep. Still, though - Bush actually started the place, and considered it a good idea, while Obama is having trouble in his attempts to shut it down; I'd call that a serious improvement, even if far from perfect (and, to be honest, well below even 'acceptable').

      I'll admit to not being well enough informed on the current US economic situation to comment with confidence, but I do know enough to know that the major issues with the worldwide banking organisations early in Obama's presidency make direct comparisons to Bush's terms difficult.

      As for the patriot act and general civil liberties: I basically agree with you, Obama hasn't lived up to what many of us hoped for, and that is a serious problem. Again, though, Bush was the instigator of many of these policies, and Obama's greatest crime has been not to repeal them - I know "ll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing", but there is still a difference between actively pushing for bad policies (not to say Obama hasn't done some of that too) and failing to remove the ones that already exist. On some issues (gay rights, for example) Obama has at least tried to make a stand, although he hasn't done anywhere near enough.

      On balance, though, that still puts him ahead of Bush on some issues and as bad, or almost as bad, on others. Not a shining report, certainly, but still better than Bush.

    28. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um...Gitmo is still open, and not only are we still in the two wars we started this term with, another one has been added.

      Try living in reality, it's nice this time of year.

    29. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And in Libya we went in with an international coalition

      Bullshit. The United States is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting. We went in with two allies making real contributions (France and the UK) and twenty five providing moral support (the rest of NATO). If that's a "coalition" then GWB arguably had one for Iraq.

      Oh that's right, they would rather go it alone into an unnecessary and immoral quagmire like Iraq.

      This is such an amazingly hypocritical position that it defies belief. Our stated reason for intervening in Libya is the protect the civilian population. Care to venture a guess as to how many Iraqis died at the hands of the Saddam regime? I don't recall Gaddafi ever using WMDs (gas) on his own people. I don't recall him invading two of his neighbors. I don't recall him trying to assassinate any former US Presidents.

      You could at least be consistent about it. If you oppose intervention (as I do) then you need to condemn Obama's intervention in Libya. If you support humanitarian intervention then you can't very well condemn GWB for deposing Saddam. Only an idiot could claim the Iraqi people are worse off for having him removed from power and held accountable for his crimes.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    30. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      But can you honestly say he's been bad?

      Did you not read the article? The man and his misadministration are effectively attacking the Constitution of the United States.

      I'm sorry that you don't seem to comprehend that an assault on the fourth amendment is just as evil as anything Bush or any of the Republicans may have done. I'm sorry you don't understand the meaning of the word liberty; that you have no notion of this country's founding ideals.

      I'm sorry that you're retarded.

      I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry for me. I'm sorry for all of us, because you, sadly, aren't alone. No. You and your fellow sports fans are legion, waving your pennants and cheering for the blue team while the country burns down around us.

    31. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We nearly elected a senile old man and his bimbo VP to presidency. Intelligence is not a requirement for office. And if Obama is evidence of something, it's that intelligence is not necessarily a helpful trait.

    32. Re:Obama acomplishments by areusche · · Score: 1

      What war in Libya? We've basically done some live bombing practice and sent in a handful of trainers and some covert troops. We expended more resources arresting Noriega.

      Yeah because it doesn't cost money flying those planes, shooting those missles, and running the logistical equipment needed to not only handle those troops on the ground.

    33. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      b/c congress voted on it right... oh wait.

    34. Re:Obama acomplishments by Gofyerself · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

    35. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He probably would've gone to war in Afghanistan, but in Iraq? I don't think so.

    36. Re:Obama acomplishments by Glock27 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You know I never really cared for GWB either but mocking the man's intelligence when he was smart enough to get elected Governor of one of the largest states in the Union and then beat the best the Democratic Party had to offer twice in a national election is pretty pathetic.

      Not only that GWB has a MBA from Harvard. 0 has kept his records closed, why is that do you suppose? Don't the American people deserve to see the school accomplishments of the "smartest President ever"? What was his SAT/ACT score I wonder?

      0 is an outright sham and disgrace.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    37. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leaving Afghanistan was not a pledge; it was not something most Slashdotters desired to see happen either.

    38. Re:Obama acomplishments by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 1

      So, exactly how is BHO "head and shoulders above GWB"?

      I think the GP was engaging in a bit of hyperbole - while BHO is taller than GWB, the difference is more comparable to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. (Homer voice: "Mmmmmm...PB&J...")

      Abe Lincoln vs James Madison - now that's head and shoulders. (Zombie voice: "Mmmmmmm...head and shoulders...")

      --
      A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
    39. Re:Obama acomplishments by airfoobar · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure getting elected has little to do with intelligence and a lot more with campaign funding.

    40. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who thought those items were even slightly possible drank waaay too deeply from the ultra-liberal kool-aide.

      Indeed, it is delusional to think that any El Presidente/Commandant in Chief would dare to use his office-granted powers to call up Generals Fuckwit and Dicksmooch to tell them, "Hey, wankers, you know Afghanistan and Iraq? Tits or GTFO."

      Too much money to be made in industry; too much power to be usurped from bedwetting twatwaffles who are afraid of them there 'brown' people.

    41. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you aren't familiar with the word "war", so here are definitions from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war).

      1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
      2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
      3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
      4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

      Yes, expended more resources arresting Noriega, which was another unnecessary foreign entanglement.

    42. Re:Obama acomplishments by Gofyerself · · Score: 1

      Uhhh.. Yeah. We bombed the hell out of them. An act of open war!

    43. Re:Obama acomplishments by penguinrecorder · · Score: 1
    44. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (absolutely unjustly, in my opinion)

      Afghanistan was unjust? Really? I take it you've never been to Lower Manhattan or Arlington, have you?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    45. Re:Obama acomplishments by Gofyerself · · Score: 1

      Libya is a "Humanitarian Mission". Just like our "humaitarian mission" in the Ivory Coast?

    46. Re:Obama acomplishments by Gofyerself · · Score: 1

      Truthful pretenses? No we have huge interest in the oil in Libya, not the humanitarian interest the talking heads are spewing. If we were interested in human interest we would be getting in to most of the African conflicts.

    47. Re:Obama acomplishments by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unjustly, you mean by getting the consent and approval from congress, verses Obama, we're going to send planes to bomb a sovereign country without any provocation what-so-ever?

      You may not like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is fine. The war in Lybia is pure and simply a "war for oil", more so than Iraq ever was, but you seem to like it because the bombs have (D) on them and not (R).

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    48. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      If funding is all it took we'd all be talking about the accomplishments of President Perot.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    49. Re:Obama acomplishments by Unoriginal_Nickname · · Score: 1

      VAElynx, just in case you were curious: having a high school diploma is great. I highly recommend it.

    50. Re:Obama acomplishments by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Left-wing die hards ARE the ones cursing him! Obama is not a leftist, he is a socially moderate pro-business Democrat. Look at his handouts to the media industry (appointments of industry insiders to high positions in his administration) and favorable treatment to business with tax (they practically let GE write their own tax code). Even the much derided "socialist" Obamacare was in actuality a massive government give away to insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Real socialized medicine reform wouldn't have allowed those two players to have a seat at the negotiating table, it's impossible to balance their interests (profits) with the idea of covering everyone because the people in most need of care are the least profitable to insure. He does no better on foreign policy. He hasn't closed Gitmo, has made no real progress divesting us in the Iraq or Afghanistan adventures, and has in fact added a third mid-East country to our list of active military engagements; Libya--although that is only in an air-war capacity, similar to America's involvement in the war in the Balkans under Clinton.

      I voted for him the first time. I wanted a real left-wing president to bring the US back on course after so many years of disastrous right-wing imperialist policies that nearly brought our economy to the point of utter collapse, increased inequality to points nearly as high as our nation has ever seen in its history, and squandered the good will of the world that we had just barely started to win back.

      Obama is NOT a socialist, and that's a shame, because that's what the US needed. It is what we still need.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    51. Re:Obama acomplishments by electron+sponge · · Score: 1

      What war in Libya? We've basically done some live bombing practice and sent in a handful of trainers and some covert troops. We expended more resources arresting Noriega.

      Just because we're doing it half-assed doesn't make it any better.

    52. Re:Obama acomplishments by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      You forgot about actually expanding FISA (which he criticized) and greater use of direct-kill with UAVs (we don't need no steeeenkin' trials). He wants to expand surveillance programs to give the government ever more ability to monitor communications, financial transactions, and other things that one might prefer kept private. TSA has become an even bigger clusterfuck ("hey! free porn on this here monitor thingie!). Essentially, all that stuff he said in the election? Fuck that shit

      But on the positive, he's returning to his roots and getting back to what he does best: campaigning.

    53. Re:Obama acomplishments by errandum · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the ones that were there before? Do you really want me to mention all the violations your "freedom" or "liberty" suffered during the Bush era?

      And I was not commenting the news article, I was just talking about Obama's administration as a whole.

      You talk big. But you sound like one of those guys that closes his ears, forgets his past and nitpicks at anything bad that Obama's done. Oh wait... I've had an epiphany...

      Glenn Beck! Is that you?

    54. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what the first media complaint was when the US rejected the Libyan no-fly zone proposal?

      "Oil apparently more valuable than human life."

      You have your own opinion about Libya. The problem is, it's an unpopular one this time around.

    55. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Being smart enough to be elected governor of a state full of retards(retards tend to be bigger people so they need a state big enough to accommodate them ) doesn't say much. And he still needed to use all those fancy-schmancy political connections when all he really had to do was put on Sesame Street and hand out a bunch of twinkies. I can talk shit because I used to live there. Whole lotta nothin'.

      Have you ever seen a retard stoned? I have. Two retards, actually. One is named Roberto, and he used to buy us beer when we were in high school. Once shit his pants after lifting an 18-pack from Texaco and smokes meth like a motherfucker. The other's name is Ronald. His childlike awe of everything was really heartwarming, especially when we poured Jack Daniels in his fish tank and showed him our homemade pornographic videos. He would slowly say, "Naaaah!" in disbelief while smiling with his mouth open.

      -- Ethanol-fueled reporting in from Karma Hell. Not posting anonymously for visibility, but simply because Slashdot's login is broken at this time. Fix your fuckin' code!

    56. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unjustly, you mean by getting the consent and approval from congress

      Thanks for pointing that out. I neglected to do so in my posts on the matter. What do you suppose the reaction would have been from the left if Bush had launched the Iraq War without securing the AUMF? Think the 'I' word might have come into play a few times?

      One wonders if Obama thinks the UN outranks the US Congress in these matters. He refused to launch the war without getting permission from the UN but couldn't be bothered to do the same from the US Congress. You know, the folks represent the American people, control the purse strings of the Federal Government and whom are constitutionally empowered to declare war. Why would we do something silly like involve them in the decision making process?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    57. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GWB was a disaster, Obama is NO better. In fact, I think he's worse. The way that healthcare bill was passed was sneaky at best. We got played like fiddles, and we're still getting played.

      Ron Paul went against the grain of his party in 2008 and was made out to be a lunatic. But the stuff he was talking about then is coming to pass, so I guess he wasn't such a crazy after all. In hindsight, I bet he was the only candidate serious about real change. But the established two-parties and the people that control them would never allow such an anti-establishment candidate take office.

    58. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers

      Provided travel expenses to families of fallen soldiers to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB

      Reversed the policy of barring media coverage during the return of fallen soldiers to Dover Air Force Base

      Launched recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, providing transparency and allowing the public to report fraud, waste, or abuse

      Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America's Veterans

      Signed the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, which provides health care to 11 million kids -- 4 million of whom were previously uninsured

      Issued executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research

      Signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first piece of comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis

      Developed stimulus package, which includes approx. $18 billion for nondefense scientific research and development

      Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system

      Issued executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay

      Ended Bush administration's CIA program of 'enhanced interrogation methods' by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations

      Increased minority access to capital

      Established Credit Card Bill of Rights, preventing credit card companies from imposing arbitrary rate increases on customers

      Health Care Reform Bill, preventing insurance companies from denying insurance because of a pre-existing condition

      Health Care Reform Bill, allowing children to remain covered by their parents' insurance until the age of 26

      Tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage

      Tax credits for up to 29 million individuals to help pay for health insurance

      Expansion of Medicaid to all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level

      Require health insurance plans to disclose how much of the premium actually goes to patient care

      Added 4.6 billion USD to the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professionals

      Significantly increased funding for the Violence Against Women Act

      Lifted restrictions granting Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island

      Eliminated subsidies to private lender middlemen of student loans and protect student borrowers

      Increased funding for national parks and forests by 10%

      Significantly expanded Pell grants, which help low-income students pay for college

      Expanded hate crime law in the US to include sexual orientation through the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act

      Provided stimulus funding to boost private sector spaceflight programs

      Appointed nation's first Chief Technology Officer

      Signed financial reform law establishing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to look out for the interests of everyday Americans

      Signed financial reform law requiring lenders to verify applicants' credit history, income, and employment status

      Signed financial reform law prohibiting banks from engaging in proprietary trading (trading the bank's own money to turn a profit, often in conflict with their customers' interests)

      Signed financial reform law allowing shareholders of publicly traded companies to vote on executive pay

      Cut prescription drug cost for medicare recipients by 50%

      Provided $12.2 Billion in new funding for Individuals With Disabilities Education Act

      Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees

      Appointed more openly gay officials than any other president in US history

      The Ame

    59. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BHO is better than GWB because he isn't a Rove/Cheney sock puppet.
      I'm sure Karl is still ticked that he didn't set the bias factor high enough on the voting machines. "We have the numbers" he said confidently when asked about polling that showed his guy losing; the difference between exit polls and votes cast was the same as the difference Rove needed to make up -- mayhaps Rove just mis-guessed the amount he need to cheat?

    60. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is not a fraud, he governs from the middle which is why no one likes him.

      He does not believe in the bush axiom of "better to be wrong and strong". That is what I want out of a president.

      It seems to me that most idiotic Americans want him to be more decisive regardless of the choices he makes.

      We are in this mess because of that and honestly we do not deserve to get out of it.

    61. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Entering an existing combat situation, and sending aid by way of soldiers, planes etc, to soldiers who are already fighting and asking for help, is night and day from

      1) spending years looking for evidence that someone we don't like is going to start something with us in the future
      2) not finding anything
      3) going in and starting a war anyway

      There may be problems with the way Libya is being handled, but the two situations cannot be compared.

    62. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your constitution allow him to do it?

      If not, then obviously there's a problem - a serious one.
      If it does, then what has he done wrong?

    63. Re:Obama acomplishments by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      If you support humanitarian intervention then you can't very well condemn GWB for deposing Saddam.

      But you can easily condemn him for being a dickbag about it. "We don't need a permission slip to defend ourselves," is a sentence that did an enormous amount of damage to the world.

    64. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We nearly elected a senile old man and his bimbo VP to presidency.

      Nearly? He lost with the largest margin of defeat in the electoral college since 1992. 1988 if you want to look at the popular vote. McCain didn't "nearly" win. Gore nearly won in 2000. Kerry nearly won in 2004. McCain didn't even come close.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    65. Re:Obama acomplishments by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      I don't know how you infer that I 'like' Obama's actions in Libya - I said that it's a different situation, and meant to imply that it is therefore disingenuous to compare it with the circumstances surrounding Iraq and Afghanistan. I absolutely could not care less about the headings 'republican' or 'democrat' - honestly I am undecided on Libya; I actually agree with your point on the lack of provocation, but it's balanced against the fact that the US government is choosing to support rebels who have been attacked by their own army - something which I consider to be positive, inasmuch as violence can ever be so.

    66. Re:Obama acomplishments by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Don't the American people deserve to see the school accomplishments of the "smartest President ever"?

      No.

      Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't vote for him even if I could, but I don't see why does anyone deserve to see his grades, or how is that relevant.

    67. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No we can't afford 3 for pi, tea-baggers want 1.9, but I figure we'll compromise at 2.6 or so.

      This'll be great, it'll reduce the tread size on truck tires so it'll take less fuel to make the truck go.
      Pizza's will contain fewer calories so those lazy no good welfare mommas won't get fat.
      Somehow its gotta end up making breast implants cheaper too --- that'll help with the health care bills.
      And if the projections are right, it'll kill of the baby boomers sooner -- the most effective way to solve the social security problem.

    68. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "We don't need a permission slip to defend ourselves," is a sentence that did an enormous amount of damage to the world.

      Obama did the same fucking thing! He just opted to cut the representatives of the American people out of the decision making process instead of the United Nations.

      I'd actually argue that what Obama did was worse. He denied my representatives in Washington any meaningful chance to weigh in on the decision to drag my country into it's third war. Bush never tried to do that. You can hate him for Iraq all you want but he convinced a majority of the US Congress to go along with him. Obama couldn't be bothered.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    69. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all those displaced families and unemployed-turned-insurgents are having a grand old time now that Saddam is gone?

    70. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So not being able to solve all those problems in 2 years is equivalent to creating all those problems? I'm not super thrilled with him either, but it's important to separate the problems in that list that he'd like to solve but can't just wave a wand (Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Economy) versus those that he hasn't really even tried to solve or doesn't consider a problem (e.g. Patriot Act)

    71. Re:Obama acomplishments by nomadic · · Score: 1

      smart enough to get elected Governor of one of the largest states in the Union

      Come on, it's TEXAS. Being intelligent is considered a character flaw there.

    72. Re:Obama acomplishments by airfoobar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Never said it's all it takes, just that it's more important than having an intelligent candidate. If memory serves, Perot fucked up royally by dropping out, didn't he? Besides, even he may have had less funding than the D/R campaigns. Obama's new campaign is budgeted at $1bn, for instance.

    73. Re:Obama acomplishments by nomadic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not only that GWB has a MBA from Harvard. 0 has kept his records closed, why is that do you suppose? Don't the American people deserve to see the school accomplishments of the "smartest President ever"? What was his SAT/ACT score I wonder?

      He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School.

    74. Re:Obama acomplishments by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Where do you get off calling him left wing? He's a center-right wimp.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    75. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While he hasn't closed Gitmo, he hasn't opened any new ones either.

      Except for the fact that he PROMISED once he was elected, that Gitmo would be shut down. Nevermind that he was never in a position to keep said promise, and anyone who bought into that is a sucker. He made a promise he KNEW he couldn't keep, just so it could help him get elected. So it doesn't matter that he hasn't opened any new ones when he has completely failed to do anything to even ATTEMPT to deliver on his empty promise of shutting Gitmo down.

    76. Re:Obama acomplishments by afidel · · Score: 1

      Not really any more than routine training or "wargames" that we run all the time.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    77. Re:Obama acomplishments by taucross · · Score: 1

      You could at least be consistent about it. If you oppose intervention (as I do) then you need to condemn Obama's intervention in Libya. If you support humanitarian intervention then you can't very well condemn GWB for deposing Saddam.

      Intervention is a tool in a toolbox. Would you say, "I oppose using hammers in any context. It is better to use a saw at all times."?

      --
      "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    78. Re:Obama acomplishments by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Hopefully with all the practice, he has a better golf score.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    79. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half of America supported the idiot. You're redefining nearly to mean deadlock. If it wasn't for Palin, McCain WOULD have won.

    80. Re:Obama acomplishments by Moryath · · Score: 0, Troll

      After watching the Retardicans the past few months, I'm really glad he is in office. If it were McCain right now we'd already be rounding Arabs up into concentration camps (whoops "internment camps"), the uber-rich would have had their taxes entirely removed, and they'd have made it a jailable offense to not have a job.

      As it is, we still have to deal with Paul Ryan's insane "budget plan" which consists of mainly more tax breaks to his billionaire masters paid for by switching grandma from Ramen to Alpo.

    81. Re:Obama acomplishments by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      It's much, much more complex than that. I believe it is fairly tenuous to have claimed that attacking a government for the actions of a separate group was a purely defensive action. I think that there were missed opportunities for non-violent pressure to be placed on the Taliban. I think that attacking a nation and killing tens of thousands of civilians was a poor response to a relatively simplistic and potentially isolated (but devastating) act of terrorism which could not be repeated once passengers knew not to co-operate with hijackers. I think that saying "9/11 justifies the Afghan war" fails to take into account the very nature of the group that carried out the attacks, and their connections to the Afghan government and people.

      As I said in another post, I'm still undecided on the Libya situation, although I do tend towards supporting the defence the local population from a clear and well-defined threat, but my prior post was intended to make clear that they are very different situations and that placing one against the other is, at the very best, a vast oversimplification.

    82. Re:Obama acomplishments by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 1

      This isn't a sports team you don't have to still be their fan when they suck.

      Pffft, I wish. Do you have any idea how much better this country would be if people paid as much attention to politics as they do sports?

      --
      +0 Meh
    83. Re:Obama acomplishments by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I didn't infer anything. I'm just pointing out that your "unjustly" comment seems ... a bit out of place, especially when comparing Iraq/Bush43 and Libya/Obama. If Bush's war in Iraq is "unjust", then why haven't you called Obama's war in Libya "Criminal" ?

      Look, I'm not a big fan of perpetual wars. And we just got ourselves into another one. You may not realize it yet.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    84. Re:Obama acomplishments by VAElynx · · Score: 1

      And that's why i have one?
      Still... how does my high school diploma justify the bombing of a sovereign country which is dealing with a violent uprising?
      Especially, since the military aid t o Libya has even worse base than what Russians did in Abchazia and south Ossetia, and they were criticised by the US... the difference is that those two were regions which were arbitrarily attached to Georgia and wanted to stay with Russians,.. here it is an insurgency.

    85. Re:Obama acomplishments by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but he's Obama. Whatever he does is right. Even if it's the same thing that Bush did. Get with the program here. The Glorious Leader is always right. If he seems to be wrong, it is reality that is mistaken.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    86. Re:Obama acomplishments by ukemike · · Score: 2

      The only thing that Obama did good was get elected. Every single person except real left wing die hards are cursing him.

      I am a "real left diehard", and trust me I'm cursing him too. I also agree with you that the best thing he did was get elected. The other three genuinely good things he has done is not be Bush, not be McCain, and speak in complete sentences. While he's a marked improvement over the former resident of the White House, he still sucks. I can't imagine anyone who is a "real left diehard" that hasn't been really bothered at just how much Obama has been like his predecessor.

      You see the real problem with Obama... well Bush and Clinton too, is that they all work for the same bosses. The genuinely rich, and the corporations own the white house, the congress, the courts, and most of the agencies too.

      --
      -- QED
    87. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's taller?

    88. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You talk like you think Obama dictates the entire policy of the US government without any opposition.

    89. Re:Obama acomplishments by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      Obama made a lot of crazy promises. You can't expect him to actually keep them, or even remember what they are.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    90. Re:Obama acomplishments by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      B...b...b...but credit-card reform!

    91. Re:Obama acomplishments by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 0

      'll admit to not being well enough informed on the current US economic situation to comment with confidence

      Yeah, I've noticed most fans of Obama say things like this.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    92. Re:Obama acomplishments by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait. The U.S. has a Constitution?

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    93. Re:Obama acomplishments by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Every single person except real left wing die hards are cursing him.

      No, son. The "real left wing die hards" are the ones cursing him the loudest.

      The only ones that aren't cursing him are the ones that aren't paying attention and CEOs.

      But don't worry, the curses aimed at Paul (Eddie Munster) Ryan are about to drown that out. End Medicare and give all the Medicare taxes to insurance companies? You've got to be shitting me. Once people over 40 find out that he really, truly is talking about privatizing Medicare, you will hear wails like you never heard before.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    94. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. If you should have realized something from your two previous moronic wars, it's that you morons can't be trusted to manage them. US should be utterly beholden to the UN. Now I hope you know how it feels being dragged into someone else's shit.

    95. Re:Obama acomplishments by ukemike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget that instead of universal health care he got us a universal requirement to purchase private insurance.

      --
      -- QED
    96. Re:Obama acomplishments by ukemike · · Score: 1

      Anyone who thought those items were even slightly possible drank waaay too deeply from the ultra-liberal kool-aide.

      Delusional...

      It only requires courage and a determined will. No kool-aide needed.

      --
      -- QED
    97. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or we'd soon be talking about president Trump.

      Oh wait.

    98. Re:Obama acomplishments by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      And in Libya we went in with an international coalition so that we wouldn't once again be left holding the bag. We did it right for the first time in a long time.

      The international coalition that went into Iraq with us was much larger than the one that has joined us against Libya. Of course Obama had a UN resolution against Libya, in contrast with the mere 17 UN resolutions against Sadam Hussein. And then of course there is this statement about Iraq, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." That statement was made by Obama, so we know that he would never authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual attack or imminent threat to the nation...oh wait, that is exactly what he did in Libya.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    99. Re:Obama acomplishments by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      You have got to be kidding me...

      George W Bush and Saddam Hussein have alot in common. They both fought wars for oil, and they were both friendly with Donald Rumsfeld in the 70s.

      The Iraqi people are better off for having been bombed, and conquered for oil?

      The only price Iraqis had to pay for this freedom was a civil war, mass death, and a huge reduction in their already low standard of living.

      Someone should tell the survivors how lucky they are.

    100. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that "separate group" was effectively one and the same as the Government. That "separate group" provided many of the troops used by that Government, was there at the invitation of that Government and was provided with safe harbor from that Government. I rather doubt that non-violent pressure would have worked even if the American people had been inclined to wait long enough to find out. You are talking about a Government that cared so little for global opinion as to not be concerned by the fact that they were recognized by a grand total of THREE nations (two after the Saudis dropped their recognition) out of nearly two hundred. You are talking about a society that is effectively living in the dark ages and which has no meaningful trade with the outside world aside from narcotics exports. What "non-violent pressure" do you suppose would have been effective?

      There is also the political aspect. If the Bush Administration had sat on it's hands and tried "non-violent pressure" the American people would have marched on Washington wielding torches, pitchforks and AR-15s. The AUMF against terrorists passed with similar margins (only one nay vote in the House and unanimously in the Senate) as the declaration of war against Japan (also one nay vote in the House and unanimous in the Senate) after Pearl Harbor. The American people would not have long tolerated their Government doing nothing against the organizations that murdered thousands of their countryman.

      Bush could have glassed Kabul in the months after 9/11 and the majority of the American people would have supported him. I'm glad that wasn't on the table but your notion that we should have tried non-violent pressure is equally absurd and unworkable.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    101. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      US should be utterly beholden to the UN.

      As long as we have the 2nd amendment and/or our nuclear arsenal that's never going to happen. Enjoy living in your fantasy world though.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    102. Re:Obama acomplishments by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2

      We've basically done some live bombing practice and sent in a handful of trainers and some covert troops

      Yeah, because no recent wars ever started exactly that way.

    103. Re:Obama acomplishments by SETIGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

      they'd have made it a jailable offense to not have a job.

      Nah, they'd have to feed you in jail. It's cheaper to let the jobless fend for themselves on the streets. The 1% can't see those streets from where they live.

    104. Re:Obama acomplishments by SETIGuy · · Score: 0

      Maybe if he had won either of those elections, I'd agree with you.

    105. Re:Obama acomplishments by m509272 · · Score: 1

      I see your score as Insightful. Delusional would be much more appropriate. With a 52% disapproval rating (a whopping 37% strongly disapprove) for someone who crushed the 2008 election and had a lock on Congress for two years you must be smoking some amazingly wacky weed. Maybe you're thinking about how he is so against deep water oil drilling. Oops, no wrong on that one. His admin was the one that decided to grant a special exemption for the Deepwater Horizon rig regarding a legal requirement that it produce a detailed environmental impact study. Oh yes, on a related note gas prices have increased 102% since he took office. Perhaps it's his commitment to getting out of Gitmo. Oops, seems that didn't happen either. Oh, I know government transparency. Funny how they had that closed door meeting about that and are closing off access to documents about it. Wait, wait get out of all our overseas military involvement. I guess we'll get back to that once we're done with our latest Libyan involvement. Yep, head and shoulders.

    106. Re:Obama acomplishments by fred911 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We spend 100 million a week in Libya without any debate except to cut more social services and prohibit collective bargaining.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    107. Re:Obama acomplishments by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      he's not openly religious. he's not openly pushing for more 'war on drugs'. he's not pushing the republican agenda; or at least their most looniest attributes.

      in short, he sucks; but the other guy would have sucked more. republicans, these days, are the worst of the worst.

      how much damage could the R's do if they were in power (at the exec office)? probably more damage. very likely more.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    108. Re:Obama acomplishments by ukemike · · Score: 1

      So, exactly how is BHO "head and shoulders above GWB"?

      Because...... change!

      Let me count the ways:
      Complete sentences,
      Nice speeches,
      Polite,
      Plays well with all the other infantile heads of state,
      Got elected, and...
      most important, he is neither McCain nor Palin. I'm deadly serious about that last part. I have never been convinced that McCain was mentally fit, after years of torture, to carry that nuclear football. I honestly would have been more likely to vote for Bush than for McCain. Don't get me started about Palin.

      Really it comes down to this choice: iron fist fascism, or velvet glove fascism. I choose the velvet glove thank you very much.

      --
      -- QED
    109. Re:Obama acomplishments by zill · · Score: 1

      I'd actually argue that what Obama did was worse. He denied my representatives in Washington any meaningful chance to weigh in on the decision to drag my country into it's third war. Bush never tried to do that.

      See? There is change after all.

    110. Re:Obama acomplishments by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      I think what we're doing in Libya is stupid for strategic reasons, but the UN did authorize it and people on the right were demanding it. Until he did it that is. And somehow you think that Iraq and Afghanistan aren't meddling with the affairs of a sovereign state and breeches of international conventions?

    111. Re:Obama acomplishments by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Does "doing a good deed" count for nothing?

    112. Re:Obama acomplishments by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      He's worse than Bush. Bush may have been stupid, but he wasn't such a fraud. If Obama had been president 10 years ago he would have gone to war as well. No doubt about it.

      If anyone but Bush and maybe a handful of neocon politicians had been in office, we would not have gone to war in Iraq. It took active fraud and a bizarre and paranoid worldview to think that it was a good idea; 99% of Republicans and 100% of Democrats would have refrained from invading Iraq.

      Which war was started ten years ago? Do you also believe the lies about us going into Iraq because of 9/11? To be clear, I'm not talking about Bush's lies, because he never said anything about a tie between Saddam and 9/11. I'm talking about the media's lies, where they tried to make everyone think that the neocons were using 9/11 as an excuse for Iraq. Wait, which war was started ten years ago again?

    113. Re:Obama acomplishments by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      yes, it was unjust.

      what exactly has being there accomplished?

      I ask seriously. from over here, I see no different. strike that: we have gone backwards and they have not gone much either forward or backward. totally a net loss to the west for all its 'efforts'.

      the only thing history will clearly say about this era was that it was an anti-freedom grab from governments all over the world when they latched onto the 'fear card'. they gave themselves the right to invade our privacy, make travel a living hell and make people think twice about even writing their personal thoughts down in a journal and daring to have it on your phone or your laptop while you travel.

      being in iraq or afghanistan did NOTHING useful in the grand scheme of things. it did lots of harm but I don't see any real true good that came of it. I see more good from the self-created revolutions but I see no real good from our invasion.

      we were mad, we acted emotionally and we fucked ourselves for decades. we acted worse and our 'leaders' went along all the way, making little deals for themselves whenever possible.

      truly a net loss. wish we never even thought to 'fight those bad guys'. what a worthless endeavor! one that will never be 'won' either, by very definition (fighting an idea or a culture).

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    114. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not making sense. In the two stated cases, Iraq and Libya, it's more like saying "I oppose using hammers to nail down flooring when it is done by someone I dislike, but I support using hammers to nail down flooring when it is done by someone I like." GP stated that he personally opposes intervention unilaterally, and your response makes sense in that context, but then why quote the rest of the paragraph?

    115. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it's balanced against the fact that the US government is choosing to support rebels who have been attacked by their own army - something which I consider to be positive, inasmuch as violence can ever be so.

      Fighting your own country's army is pretty much the definition of "rebel". It's not the like they were planning the bring down the government through interpretive dance.

    116. Re:Obama acomplishments by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Don't forget that instead of universal health care he got us a universal requirement to purchase private insurance.

      Which was a Republican Idea (TM).

      This is how it works:

      Republicans come up with something on their own.
      Democrats come up with something on their own.
      Republicans vehemently oppose the Democrats' ideas.
      Democrats cave, and adopt a Republican idea
      Republicans vehemently oppose the Democrats' Idea (formerly republican) because there are "points to score"
      Democrats get the formerly Republican idea through and signed and call it victory.
      Republicans wail and gnash their teeth calling Obama a Communist Nazi Jew (Go back to Canada) etc. for passing a Republican idea.

      This country is fucked.

      --
      BMO

    117. Re:Obama acomplishments by zill · · Score: 1

      Does your constitution allow him to do it?

      No, it doesn't. Only congress has the power to declare war.

      However armed with witty semantic tricks, we managed to start a "no-fly zone" instead of a "war", so it does not require congressional approval.

      But then again this is nothing new. Congress never approved the Korean War or the Golf War (the first one) either. Both of those wars were started by UNSC resolutions much like the Libyan War.

    118. Re:Obama acomplishments by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      Obama had a UN resolution against Libya, in contrast with the mere 17 UN resolutions against Sadam Hussein.

      Yeah, 17 UN resolutions he wasn't violating and for which the UN didn't authorize force even after Powell lied his ass off in front of the general assembly. You know why they didn't? Because everyone with a brain (including Powell) knew he was lying. Of course, we had to have the war because starving his people was costing us some real money? Nope, we had to have Iraq because after we killed a few hundred thousand civilians and destroyed any means they had of maintaining social order, the Iraqis were going to magically forget their sectarian history and form a democracy over the course of a couple weeks. Then they would greet us as liberators and shower us with flowers and oil.

      I'm hoping that on his deathbed, W will tell the truth and we will finally know that we went into Iraq because W wanted to do something that daddy didn't. Couldn't he have settled for learning to play the guitar?

    119. Re:Obama acomplishments by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      as an outsider currently stranded(living?) in Texas, I cant say that you are wrong.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    120. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I looked back in your posting history circa 2003 I'd see comments to the effect of "we need to leave Iraq; our allies don't support us!"

      Now the world is calling, strangely reminiscent of WW2, and you want to do nothing.

      Nice to be reminded that Americans have no sense of honour.

    121. Re:Obama acomplishments by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      actually, the way i see, it, it won't happen until LONG after the second amendment is ground to dust. Just because a piece of paper says its gone, don't mean that the population is going to say 'sure, fine.'

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    122. Re:Obama acomplishments by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry that you don't seem to comprehend that an assault on the fourth amendment is just as evil as anything Bush or any of the Republicans may have done. I'm sorry you don't understand the meaning of the word liberty; that you have no notion of this country's founding ideals. I'm sorry that you're retarded.

      He's not retarded. He's foreign. He doesn't have the freedoms outlined in the fourth amendment, so doesn't understand why we prefer having them.

    123. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a country did live bombing practice on Washington D.C., would you not consider it an act of war?

    124. Re:Obama acomplishments by nomadic · · Score: 1

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

      "Wait, which war was started ten years ago again?"

      I'm sure there's a reason you keep repeating that statement. I'm sure there's a reason you think it's a particularly witty response to what I said. But for the life of me I don't know what your point is.

    125. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it were McCain right now we'd already be rounding Arabs up into concentration camps (whoops "internment camps")

      I hate to break it to you but the only President that ever did that was a Democrat.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    126. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      No, I'd thank them profusely and ask them to hit Albany on their way out ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    127. Re:Obama acomplishments by mysidia · · Score: 1

      So, exactly how is BHO "head and shoulders above GWB"?

      GWB brought us full body scans, cavity searches, and no liquids allowed on planes.
      BHO put the National Broadband Plan in the stimulus.

      GWB sent billions overseas for Iraq.
      Not to be outdone, BHO burned trillions at home

      GWB brought us a $1.3 trillion tax cut against a surplus.
      Not to be outdone, BHO brought us a stimulus with $1 Trillion/year extra in spending against a massive deficit.

      GWB increased the GDP 2.5%
      Not to be outdone, BHO decreased the GDP 3%, and is still trying as hard as possible to reduce it further.

      GWB increased funding for the NSF
      BHO ended federal loan subsidies for students, and turned GWB's checks to the education programs into NSF checks.

      GWB championed No Child Left Behind
      BHO is in the process of aborting the No child left behind (and already providing Federal funding for abortions through the Health Care Act)

      GWB brought us the Medicare drug program.
      BHO castrated Medicare, by defunding Medicare Advantage programs.

      GWB tried to save social security.
      BHO quietly tried to destroy social security and is succeeding -- through overspending, due to social security's nature of exclusively investing by buying the government's debt at low interest rates, while the treasury notes are all set to lose so much value interest rates will be at 50% or higher before end of BHO's term.

      GWB protected us from the Kyoto protocol by not signing it. GWB tried to introduce the Clear Skies act, and carbon credits to the clean air act, to help reduce emissions.
      BHO signed the START treaty, protecting us from ever proceeding with the missile defense projects. BHO will get the carbon credits act passed, it's only a matter of time; the repubs want to cut spending, and BHO can use that as a bargaining chip to get his carbon credits act, again outdoing GWB.

      GWB promised us to reduce foreign oil dependance by reducing fossil fuel usage, and promoting alternate fuels.
      BHO reduced foreign oil dependance by through economic policy assuring we will have >$10/gallon gas within a year.

      GWB committed $2 billion to an international fund for promoting clean energy.
      BHO brought us a stimulus with tens of billions for credits to support clean energy.

      GWB banned creation/destruction of embryos for use of stem cell research.
      Not to be outdone, BHO annulled GWB's ban and vowed to come up with his own rules, probably something about only using stem cells in environmentally-friendly non-profitable ways.

      GWB pushed for allowing illegal immigrants to work freely in the US and pushed for expansion of guest worker programs.
      BHO sponsored an Immigration reform act; no doubt he still has plenty of time left in his presidency to still outdo GWB and complete the full amnesty, legalization, tax forgiveness, and the provision of entitlement programs and other special perks for all the illegals (such as a stipend to compensate the illegals for all their troubles and hassles with border agents, esp. related to injuries, past attempts, time and energy, pain and suffering, etc).

      GWB saw Katrina, a horrible natural disaster, and his administration did a job with it that was perceived as horrible and became widely mocked.
      BHO saw the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill occur, and skillfully, in his efforts to outdo GWB managed to handle matters even worse than GWB, raising to an entirely new level of incompetence.

      GWB adopted policies of supporting stronger economic relationships with Latin America, and other regions of the world.
      BHO not to be outdone, visited all the countries of the world and personally apologized for "US Arrogance" and the US failing to share the wealth. Hundreds of trillions are to be authorized to 'share the wealth'.
      The US has a lot, and needs to pay its fair share, to help redistribute the wealth to those that need it, BHO did more to bring that a

    128. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Now the world is calling, strangely reminiscent of WW2, and you want to do nothing.

      Yes, because Libya has invaded several neighboring countries, conquered the better part of a continent and is on the cusp of overthrowing the established international order. It's exactly like WW2.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    129. Re:Obama acomplishments by kat_skan · · Score: 1

      Well Congress has to wipe their asses on something.

    130. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Insightful

      George W Bush and Saddam Hussein have alot in common.

      You are officially no longer worth talking to. Have a nice life.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    131. Re:Obama acomplishments by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 1

      I think he was agreeing with you; I missed the "0" the first time I read it...

    132. Re:Obama acomplishments by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      Except that "separate group" was effectively one and the same as the Government. That "separate group" provided many of the troops used by that Government, was there at the invitation of that Government and was provided with safe harbor from that Government.

      Yes, apart from the fact that it's not true. The Taliban may have had some common interests with al Qaeda, but al Qaeda (pre-9/11) was tiny compared to the Taliban. There was no reason for al Qaeda to provide troops for the Taliban because it wouldn't even be noticed.

      There's a tendency for people not to distinguish between the two, primarily because that was a deliberate ploy on the part of the Bush administration. Pre-9/11 al Qaeda main armed force was less than 500 with about 10,000 auxiliaries, most in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but some in other Islamic countries. Some of those 10,000 might have been part of the Afghan army (that's a good way to get arms), but they we provided by al Qaeda. Of course, following the invasion, a lot of former Taliban joined al Qaeda to the point where they may have merged as a fighting force. Rest assured that they are still separate entities in Pakistan for what should be obvious reasons.

      Anyway, there were better ways to handle it than an invasion of only a portion of the area the Taliban and al Qaeda occupy. Those other ways might have gotten Bin Laden as well. And they would have cost a fraction of what we're spending now in lives and dollars.

    133. Re:Obama acomplishments by MimeticLie · · Score: 1

      To be fair, it was congress congress that made it impossible to close Guantanamo. Obama's administration complained quite strongly at the time, but they're bound by the law.

      So the Democrats get the rap for that one, not Obama. He still has a lot to answer to his supporters for, though.

    134. Re:Obama acomplishments by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      You forgot that his TSA implemented the full body scanners /. is so fond of, and his ICE team has started doing IP enforcement raids.

      Woooooo....

    135. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In Boston, a Soros-funded media conference is trying to manipulate the emerging media order as well. Close to 350 left-wingers from a variety of organizations are gathering there for the National Conference for Media Reform.

      That “change the world” conference includes two commissioners from the FCC, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Bernie Sanders, four Democratic representatives, the head of Columbia University, and assorted left-wing journalist types, from Salon’s Glenn Greenwald to disgraced former MSNBC host David Shuster, who now works for a Soros-funded investigative operation.

      The rest of the list reads like a “Who’s Who” of left-wing organizations and talking heads, including the president of PBS, a senior vice president with American Public Media, an Al Jazeera English executive, the president of the Newspaper Guild — CWA and Washington Post columnist Rob Pegoraro."

    136. Re:Obama acomplishments by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      We have a law called the War Powers Act that allows the President to use military force for up to 60 days without getting Congressional approval. It's constitutionality has been argued (usually by the opposite party of the President) every since it was passed. I don't believe it has ever been before the Supreme Court.

    137. Re:Obama acomplishments by Nutria · · Score: 2

      If it were McCain right now we'd already be rounding Arabs up into concentration camps (whoops "internment camps"),

      For years, people made jokes about watching what they said because GWB would throw them in Guantanamo, yet no one ever got thrown in Gitmo no matter what vile, hateful things they said about him.

      the uber-rich would have had their taxes entirely removed,

      They already hire reams of accountants and lawyers to minimize their taxes. Why not make things simpler by eliminating their income/CapGains taxes altogether?

      we still have to deal with Paul Ryan's insane "budget plan" which consists of mainly (of) by switching grandma from Ramen to Alpo.

      As it is, China and Japan are the ones buying Ramen for Grandma. What happens when they come knocking asking for their money back?

      The US must radically cut spending.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    138. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      what exactly has being there accomplished?

      We destroyed the base of operations for the group that committed mass casualty terrorist attacks against the United States and many of her most important Allies. We liberated the bulk of the Afghan people from one of the most oppressive and backwards regimes in modern history. If you think we weren't going into Afghanistan after 9/11 you are delusional. Three thousand people were dead on our soil. The AUMF passed Congress with one dissenting vote out of 535. If Bush hadn't done what he did he would have been impeached for dereliction of duty.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    139. Re:Obama acomplishments by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not war! Kinetic military activity! And we're only providing our unique dictator-removal capabilities, not bombing!

      And didnt we have to invade a country to arrest Noriega?

    140. Re:Obama acomplishments by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      'll admit to not being well enough informed on the current US economic situation to comment with confidence

      Yeah, I've noticed most fans of Obama say things like this.

      Yeah, I've noticed how people who can't recognize when they're speaking to someone from another country say things like that.

    141. Re:Obama acomplishments by bit+trollent · · Score: 0

      Tell the Iraqi civilians killed by George W Bush's unnecessary, oil motivated, immoral war to have a nice life.

      Oh wait, you can't because that murderous oil theif of a President killed them for their oil.

    142. Re:Obama acomplishments by orangebox · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of when people said GWB handled 911 far better than Gore would have. It's just a baseless statement. We don't know how McCain would have been because he lost the election.

    143. Re:Obama acomplishments by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      TSA has become an even bigger clusterfuck ("hey! free porn on this here monitor thingie!).

      You didn't notice that Cheney and Rumsfeld own big chunks of the companies that make those scanners? I wonder which administration was in power when they were ordered.

    144. Re:Obama acomplishments by LordLimecat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pretty sure GWB didnt open Gitmo either. Pretty sure GWB wasnt the first to establish free speech zones. And im pretty sure EVERYONE was for war in Afghanistan when we first invaded.

    145. Re:Obama acomplishments by MimeticLie · · Score: 1

      The problem is that since the Republicans are far better at politics than the Democrats, Obama's attempts at compromise move him steadily to the right. Between that and the fact that the way his administration has been run with regards to transparency, openness, and accountability is exactly the same as the one before, it's no wonder his base is demoralized.

      I voted for Obama the first time. Hell, I canvassed for him. I won't be doing so again. I'll probably vote for him simply because the Republican candidate will be much worse, but I won't be contributing to his campaign either with money or by volunteering. He hasn't lived up to his promises.

    146. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No; it's reminiscent because America's supposed allies are calling, and Americans want to do nothing to help them. As usual.

      I guess Libya needs a proxy power to stage a terrorist or surprise attack on America to gather favour with the spineless cowards you call countrymen.

    147. Re:Obama acomplishments by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Agree with it or not, Libya's a different situation: backing up something the local population started,

      Yes, it is different: we weren't attacked by Libya, so it isnt "national defense", and thus not really our military's role. Defending us against an actual attack, on the other hand, IS the role of our military; and I will note that unlike Obama's Libya, GWB had congressional approval for both Afghanistan AND Iraq (and in the case of Afghanistan, given the whopping 518-1 vote for the war, its REALLY disingenuous to "blame" GWB for it; he would have been impeached if he HADNT gone to war).

    148. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't recall claiming he was the "smartest President ever". I recall saying that it's pretty pathetic to mock the intelligence of someone that was enough to navigate our political system to win the highest office in the land. I'd like to see you manage that same feat.

      You assume he did the navigating. I don't see any evidence of that. More like his dad and his dad's friends did the navigating. He just had to get up there and sound country while he smirked.

    149. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Our alliance with those Allies only comes into play if they are attacked by a third party. It says nothing about putting American blood and treasure on the line for a country that isn't even part of the alliance. Nice try though.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    150. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      You are an idiot. I get that you hate GWB, really I do, but comparing him to a madman that used chemical weapons on his own people shows that you have lost all sense of perspective. Or did I miss the part of GWB's administration where we dropped mustard gas on Vermont because they got uppity?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    151. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for him!

    152. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      but al Qaeda (pre-9/11) was tiny compared to the Taliban

      Irrelevant.

      There was no reason for al Qaeda to provide troops for the Taliban because it wouldn't even be noticed.

      Except they did provide troops. Arab Al Quada fighters were active on the front lines of the Taliban's engagements with the Northern Alliance for some time before 9/11 and our subsequent intervention.

      Anyway, there were better ways to handle it than an invasion of only a portion of the area the Taliban and al Qaeda occupy.

      Good luck selling that one to the American people.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    153. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      I wonder which administration is in power now and would have the ability to end TSA's stupidity with a stroke of a pen?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    154. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he is still head and shoulders above GWB

      We're still in Iraq. We're still in Afghanistan. He's started a third war in Libya. Gitmo is still open. Unemployment is still way too high. We're still broke and spending more than we ever have. The Patriot Act is still around and the Administration continues to press on with other initiatives which erode the rights of American citizens. So, exactly how is BHO "head and shoulders above GWB"?

      Because he's black!

    155. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      We don't know how McCain would have been because he lost the election.

      I picture him huffing it up an Afghan mountainside with a 1911 in one hand and the nuclear launch codes in the other.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    156. Re:Obama acomplishments by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      You must have missed the part where Donald Rumsfeld, George W Bush's defence secretary sold Saddam chemical weapons.

      Here is what you missed

      W didn't attack US soil, but he left a trail of blood and destruction on the world that would make Saddam Hussein proud.

    157. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Constitution does not allow him to do it, and it is a serious problem. The more serious problem is that it is the latest in a long line of unconstitutional activities undertaken by the federal government, a pattern that has been in place for nearly a hundred years. This country is a democracy in name only.

    158. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the end of days...

    159. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got it. So it is okay for GWB to bomb the ever living shit out of people without any justification.. AS LONG AS it isn't people in the US. Makes perfect sense

    160. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know too much, we must get rid of you

      --Illuminati

    161. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      Yes I fucked that one up. At least I finally deserved one of the troll mods. It'd be great irony if it was a liberal that doled out the mod because he thought I was defending GWB.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    162. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Afghanistan wasn't a problem when it was the only war. Iraq was the mistake. Had Iraq not happened, Afganistan would have been the focus and we wouldn't have gotten all the anti-americanism stemming from a bullshit war on bullshit pretenses that Iraq was.

    163. Re:Obama acomplishments by russotto · · Score: 1, Informative

      Don't forget that instead of universal health care he got us a universal requirement to purchase private insurance.

      Which was a Republican Idea (TM).

      No, sorry, that little bit of evil was brought to you by the late Ted Kennedy (D) Chappaquiddick.

    164. Re:Obama acomplishments by d0g_solitude · · Score: 1

      Feels more like a latex glove. Bend over.

    165. Re:Obama acomplishments by NewNole2001 · · Score: 1

      At least he can play golf near DC. Clearing brush took GWB all the way out to Texas for weeks at a time.

      Seriously though, come up with a better argument than "ZOMG HE'S PLAYING GOLF!!!!!111!!!1" He's the President of the United States, and you know what, when you have a high stress job like that, you might need to unwind from time to time, lest you go batshit crazy.

      I didn't vote for him. He's done enough stupid shit while in office that I will not vote for him next time. Yet, at the same time, I know that whatever dumbass corporate stooge the Republicans trot out for their mouth breathing base to vote for will not be worthy of my vote either. Democrat or Republican, they're all corrupt.. Unless they aren't corrupt, in which case they will be corrupt before they get done.

      In the end, no matter who you vote for, we all lose...

    166. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but he's Obama. Whatever he does is wrong. Even if it's the opposite that Bush did. Get with the program here. The Accursed Leader is always wrong. If he seems to be right, it is reality that is mistaken.

      You're as stupid, if not more so, than the democrats are.

    167. Re:Obama acomplishments by bmo · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it was a Mitt Romney idea.

      Wow, the doublethink in your head must be staggering.

      --
      BMO

    168. Re:Obama acomplishments by NewNole2001 · · Score: 1

      Come on down to Florida to see how much more damage the Rs could do if they were in power. This Tea Party fuckwad Rick Scott is not even trying to hide how pro corporation, anti-normal person he is.

      If he could have his way 100%, there would be 0% taxes for corporations and those making more than $150k would just be paid by the government from taxes collected from those making less than $50k. Infrastructure improvements would be defunded. Public education would go away. All state employees would be fired and all governement regulation would be removed, except the regulations that help his cronies get richer.

      It is really sickening to see the end game of the elected tea partiers. It is unabashed class warfare, and they are, so far, being quite successful at getting the very people they have declared war on to support them.

    169. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, don't forget Jersey.

    170. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And didnt we have to invade a country to arrest Noriega?"
      ---
      Sure but we didn't dilly dally over it, we went in (already had a base there) got him, got out and we're not snowed about the who what why where and how the entire time.

    171. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he says.

    172. Re:Obama acomplishments by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Oh look...an A.C, talking shit.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    173. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      The right-wing would like him just fine if he wasn't black - by and large, his policies haven't been a radical shift away from Dubya. But while they could overlook Bush being an idiot, they can't seem to get past Obama being a nigger.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    174. Re:Obama acomplishments by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      My point is that you responded to an Afghanistan war comment with an Iraq war response. And you didn't get that after I pointed it out. Twice.

    175. Re:Obama acomplishments by d0g_solitude · · Score: 1

      "We're leaving Iraq." We were leaving Iraq before Obama was elected. The exit plan was Bush's. Obama is just taking credit for something he was opposed to because he can spin it to make himself look good, and convince uneducated voters that will believe he is really responsible for the exit strategy. While I was in Iraq, I was predicting this very thing would happen. We (the troops) were doing the hard part, and the $#&%ing politicians were taking the credit in the polls.

    176. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The real problem are the voters - how can they be so stupid? Much as I think the Republicans are venal, their ability to convince the sheeple to vote against their best interests is truly astonishing.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    177. Re:Obama acomplishments by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      Trololololololol

    178. Re:Obama acomplishments by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      I thnk you meant to say: Sir, I would consider it a favor! Hufufufufufufufuf!

    179. Re:Obama acomplishments by jnials · · Score: 1

      Well, you can always leave Texas. Oh, wait, you are here because you have a JOB. Which you probably didn't have in one of those other states.

    180. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush graduated with scores among the lowest in his class. He bailed on his Air National Guard obligations- Went AWOL, and had dad bail him out. He trashed the financials of each and every company he ever ran, including the Texas Ranger ball club. He shit on the Constitution, ran a national budget surplus into record deficits, and essentially trashed the economy of this country like he did his companies. He took the country to war based entirely upon false pretenses- Costing the country literally trillions of dollars over 6 years, before Obama every got close to the presidency. He applied more signing statements, stating how he intended to interpret or ignore bills passed by congress, than any other president in history, all the easier to avoid the risks involved in outright vetoes of said bills.

      Obama pretty much sucks as a president, but I've got to tell you, personal attack or not, that you and your ilk have to be some of the stupidest mother fuckers I've ever seen to directly or indirectly praise Bush Jr. about anything. Bush was more than a sham and disgrace, and took the first concrete steps to flushing this nation down the toilett.

    181. Re:Obama acomplishments by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      Perot was also up against the corrupt two-party election system that explicitly places higher demands on third parties. All it really takes to become President is to be chosen for it by the same group of rich, old white men that chose the last president, and have spent 100 years rigging the game to keep everyone else out.

      The first time people started talking about a run by W., I think the nation as a whole thought, "Oh, so they really do just gather in a room every four years and pick someone present, at random..."

      He had nothing going for him, other than the fact that you'd expect him to be in the room they pick the next president in. Maybe he's just the World Rock-paper-scissors Champion.

    182. Re:Obama acomplishments by istartedi · · Score: 2

      Let me reduce that equation for you:

      This is how it works:

      Multinational corporations run almost everything.
      Unions run a few things.
      They sponsor a show called "Congress" which is a lot like American Idol, except that the dummies paying attention to it think they're smarter than the dummies who watch Idol.

      We can reduce this equation further to:

      Money.

      I'm not sure that we're fucked. As they say in the salvation game, "The bad news is, you're going to Hell. The good news is, you don't have to get there".

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    183. Re:Obama acomplishments by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >Don't forget that instead of universal health care he got us a universal requirement to purchase private insurance.

      Which was a Republican Idea (TM).

      This is how it works:

      Republicans come up with something on their own.
      Democrats come up with something on their own.
      Republicans vehemently oppose the Democrats' ideas.
      Democrats cave, and adopt a Republican idea[snip]

      Actually, it was more like:
      Democrats strongly push single-payer socialized medicine.
      Conservative think tanks try to come up with a more palatable solution that focuses on individual responsibility so conservatives don't look like tone-deaf morons without a plan of their own, knowing full well that their "proposal" will never see the light of day with the Democrat stranglehold on Congress.

      At any rate, that was a long time ago. Things change. The Heritage papers weren't written by Constitutional scholars, they were written by policy wonks.

      The funny thing about this whole thing is if the Democrats weren't so chickenshit about creating a new tax, they could have done an end-run around the Constitutionality argument. Nobody denies that the federal government has the right to levy taxes, and nobody denies that the federal government can provide a service. So create a new tax called the ObamaCare MegaTax of 2011, and a new service called the ObamaCare Catastrophic Health Insurance Plan. Enroll every man, woman, and child in this new plan.

      There, done. Now everybody has some sort of minimal coverage. Let the free market handle any needs beyond that like the MediGap plans do today for Medicare.

      Jesus Christ, Democrats. Is it so hard to stay true to your Tax And Spend(TM) ideals? What the hell is in that 2,000 page monstrosity of a bill, anyway?

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    184. Re:Obama acomplishments by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      So, exactly how is BHO "head and shoulders above GWB"?

      He has only gotten us in 1 war, which is reasonably tractable, and under completely truthful pretenses.

      Jumpin' Jesus H. Christ on a Pogo Stick.

      I have no idea why President Obama is bombing the shit out of Libya, but I can guarantee you that he wasn't being truthful about his reasoning (that, or he is a total moron, which I doubt to be the case).

      I mean, really. Preventing a humanitarian crisis? Since when does fomenting a civil war qualify as preventing a humanitarian crisis? That's just idiotic, and it's insulting to my intelligence to say that to me. Let's try telling the truth next time, Mr. President.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    185. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were only right about one thing in that entire post:

                "This country is fucked."

      Okay, perhaps two things. I'll assume your name is "BMO"...

    186. Re:Obama acomplishments by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      In a related thought, I think the tsunami death-toll is up around four 9/11s. I feel like long-term, declaring a War on Tsunamiism and spending one trillion dollars over ten years building ridiculously sturdy buildings in Japan would save more lives, and destroy fewer American freedoms. The south-east Asian tsunami should have been our call to invade the Pacific Ocean with excessive building coders, and investments in materials technology...

    187. Re:Obama acomplishments by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 2

      Yup. Democrats in Congress and Senate are so spineless that they should be reclassified like molluscs.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    188. Re:Obama acomplishments by dreampod · · Score: 1

      Very true. It's a shame you can't get elected in the US to represent to people.

    189. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has to be more sense here than this same old line.

      Anyone who disagrees with you is one of the "sheeple" who was led to their decision by an evil cabal? I guess we're all fools being led to slaughter, while everyone on the "good guys" side is a rational person trying to save us.

      C'mon now... you know better.

    190. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U.S. Army live combat training is a constant money sink - it's been that way the last 50 years. It was the basis for the Iraq war. It will continue until your empire is destroyed. If the support expenditure wasn't spent in Libya it would be spent somewhere else.

    191. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DId anyone really expect complete 180's on all of those fronts he walked into?

      Yes, politicians lie to get into office! This is nothing new. I expected some withdrawal and retraction in the mid-east wars, but starting a 3rd in Libya, or Iran if that's coming, is just a giant cluster-fuck wrong direction in foreign policy.

      As far as domestic cock-ups are concerned, there's enough blame for Obama, every incumbent in the legislative, and every new freshman rep. who just started.

    192. Re:Obama acomplishments by s4m7 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The concept of the individual health insurance mandate originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    193. Re:Obama acomplishments by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      we still have to deal with Paul Ryan's insane "budget plan" which consists of mainly (of) by switching grandma from Ramen to Alpo.

      As it is, China and Japan are the ones buying Ramen for Grandma. What happens when they come knocking asking for their money back?

      Grandma gets switched from eating Ramen to being Alpo?

    194. Re:Obama acomplishments by ortholattice · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't vote for him even if I could, but I don't see why does anyone deserve to see his grades, or how is that relevant.

      If I interview someone to work for me, I will often ask for his/her college record (and actually I have never been refused). Depending on and combined with other factors, of course it can be relevant. Why should it be different for the president, who is (supposedly) working for the American people in a far more important position? I did vote for him, but in retrospect it was based on nothing but what turned out to be empty promises.

    195. Re:Obama acomplishments by d0g_solitude · · Score: 1

      You must have missed the part where Bill Clinton pulled CIA operatives out of the middle east in return for a percentage from oil profits for himself and members of his administration. Or maybe you missed the coupe attempt in Iraq that would have removed Saddam from power without any US involvement, except that Clinton waffled on support for it. BTW, how are those gas prices doing for you? They've gone down a lot since we went to war for oil, haven't they? And Libya.....it's a humanitarian mission. But we're ignoring the humanitarian issues in the Ivory Coast? Of course. There's no oil in the Ivory Coast, but there is in Libya. But, of course, that's not what it's about.

    196. Re:Obama acomplishments by s4m7 · · Score: 1

      No sane intelligent person would ever want to be president. It costs a small fortune to even think about running, about a billion to put in a serious run, which is a physical endurance test that makes a marathon look like a leisurely stroll in the park. Your history, your family, your personal life, the kind of breakfast cereal you eat all get put under a microscope.

      You can make some minor policy changes but you do anything major and 2/3rds of the country freaks out. You're pretty much guaranteed to be less popular by a large amount when you leave the office than you were before you won it. You suddenly realize that since you're only 1/3rd of the government and that the other two thirds have manpower on their side, you can't really accomplish anything you promised in your campaign without sucking a bunch of congressional dick. Nevertheless about 70% of the decisions you make are life-and-death for someone. You'll age about 10 years per four year term.

      Afterwards you get a secret service detail following you around for the rest of your life and you get paid a couple million a year to go around and make speeches and promote your book. If you're lucky, you'll be able to leave the country without facing war crimes charges at the ICC. The 16.2% of the country that voted for you will remember you fondly, while the 16.1% of the country that voted for the other guy will continually blame you for everything wrong from the crabgrass in their lawns to the tax laws passed before you were born. 67.7% of the country will have no fucking clue who you are.

      The guy you dormed with at Harvard is a CEO making $200 million a year.

      civil service is for schmucks.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    197. Re:Obama acomplishments by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      The US must radically cut spending.

      Like Reagan's zombified Star Wars program, which only works under lab conditions and even that only once very other leap year?

    198. Re:Obama acomplishments by s4m7 · · Score: 1

      The neat thing about McCain is that the guy doesn't actually stand for anything, he's just against whatever the last person that screwed him is for. Seriously, probably the single most vindictive senator in US history.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    199. Re:Obama acomplishments by lennier1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who really cares? It's the same corrupt pile of shit on both sides, just with a different label attached.

    200. Re:Obama acomplishments by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      And according to the stories told by the tinfoil hat crew, nobody who graduated the year he did ever saw him on campus.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    201. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We're still broke "

      well, to his credit... he ran on the slogan: "Got Change?"

    202. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no reason this should be moderated anything other than "troll". Seriously, the only reason why people make this comment is to start a comment firestorm every other day.

    203. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he is still head and shoulders above GWB

      We're still in Iraq. We're still in Afghanistan. He's started a third war in Libya.

      Actually, no. The UN started the action in Libya. The US started the Iraqi war, directly against the wishes of the UN. You guys are participating in Libya because you are a member of the UN. You would also have to help Norway out if we got attacked through being a member of NATO. Same thing.

    204. Re:Obama acomplishments by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      That a Democrat did it before doesn't mean that a Republican president couldn't do it now, especially given that such an act would gain a President, any President, a lot of points from the far right of the political spectrum. Having followed McCain for many years, his last failed bid for the presidency really showed a side of him I didn't like. McCain is more interested in point scoring now in his twilight days than anything else, and given the stranglehold the Tea Party has over Republicans, I can easily imagine McCain openly talking up this possibility just for applause. I wouldn't suggest McCain would actually round up Arabs though. These days, it's about the dog and pony show. It's a bit like TV wrestling. The audiences want to see these politicos get in the ring and engage in absurd bravado.

    205. Re:Obama acomplishments by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Shutting down a war isn't like flipping a switch, there are consequences, both for the coalition and also for the people over there. The government has a responsibility to its citizens and to the local people to try and get out cleanly. We made a mess and got into wars that should not have been fought, but that doesn't mean that leaving the mess for the locals to clean up is the right thing for them or for us.

      As for gitmo, gitmo will never close simply because there is literally no where to send any of the people in it. They may not have hated the west before they went in, but they sure as hell do now, they can't be released into the US, they can't go back home, and no one else will take them.

      George Bush made a whole lot of messes when he was in office, the economy, the wars, the lack of conditions on the bailouts, deregulation, tax breaks for the rich, the whole system is screwed beyond belief. I have many issues with Obama, and I won't disagree that he's largely been too much about negotiation and not enough about selling his dream to the American people, but he was also never ever going to achieve half of what was expected of him even if he'd had the votes in congress(which he didn't and definitely doesn't now). He might be a spineless jellyfish letting the tea party loonies destroy the country, but he was never going to pull those off.

    206. Re:Obama acomplishments by nomadic · · Score: 1

      No, you're missing it; see, I didn't disagree that we would be in Afghanistan, but I pointed out we certainly wouldn't be in Iraq. You apparently accepted the slight change in the topic of conversation by raising that laughable argument that the neocons did not use 9/11 as an excuse for Iraq. So you're saying now that I shouldn't have changed the topic of conversation. But, are you objecting to me changing the topic of conversation, or are you objecting to the fact that I provided a link that refutes your argument?

    207. Re:Obama acomplishments by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, and this is an area were too many people are absolutely clueless, the military incurs costs whether its engaged in a war or not. Obviously, the military doesn't sit conveniently in a cabinet until the president is ready to pop open the DVD case and load the game. Also, the assumption people make regarding Libya is that the choice we faced was either spend zero money dealign with the Libyan situation or spend a lot of money. I believe the President and his Chiefs have more and better information than any Slashdotter. The President's choice, for all any outsider knows, may have been the least expensive option. Finally, the fact that Libya is a third hot spot means nothing. You didn't bring that up, but others did. The US military is more than capable of being in three places at once. In fact, we're not just in three places. What the military cannot handle is a government shutdown that results in military families not getting the money they need to live on. Most of the military lives paycheck to paycheck in communities that have survived only because of military bases. Often these communities are part of the Republican base. A government shutdown will quickly kill local economies that rely on the military. Ironically, if Republicans give in to the desires of the Tea Party, much of the ordinary Republican base will be hurt.

    208. Re:Obama acomplishments by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Texas might be one of the largest but, in large part due to crappy educational policies like the ones Bush put in, it's also one of the stupidest, no real achievement there. As for winning the presidency, Gore had the charisma of wood in 2000, he still does, but at least he cares about something now, and Kerry was a pretty horrid candidate. Bush deserves about as much credit for any of those things as Obama will if he manages to sneak past a victory next year against the batch of mouth breathers and lunatics the Republicans look to be working with.

    209. Re:Obama acomplishments by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      He wasn't like that once upon a time, that campaign saddened me. In 2000 he had dignity, I probably would have voted for him over Gore, but in 2008 he sold it all for a shot at the whitehouse.

    210. Re:Obama acomplishments by nomadic · · Score: 1

      And so does Harvard Law School. Just give it up.

    211. Re:Obama acomplishments by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      He didn't open it, but he sure as hell was the first to start shipping people there to be tortured. The base itself has been around for decades, but it wasn't used like that at least to the best of my knowledge.

      Free speech zones are definitely pure Dubya.

      I wasn't, and I sure as hell wasn't for going in and giving a bunch of opium growers guns so we wouldn't have to get our hands too dirty.

    212. Re:Obama acomplishments by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      The US Constitution puts international treaty at the same level of importance as itself, both of which far outweigh US law or the human shaped blobs of mucous who make it. You might disagree with the UN and wish we weren't a member, you might argue we have to obligation under treaty to act on UN resolutions(I haven't read the treaty I don't know), but at least as far as any obligations spelled out in a treaty ratified by the US congress, the UN does outrank congress.

    213. Re:Obama acomplishments by erroneus · · Score: 1

      This "congress" show could make a good one but it needs a catchy intro tune like the big bang theory and some laugh tracks, summaries of topics and interesting sound bites.

      (No, seriously, it would be a much more engaging thing than C-SPAN if it were reduced into topics and hot-moments... it could be rendered into something akin to "professional wrestling" except that I might watch that show...)

    214. Re:Obama acomplishments by erroneus · · Score: 1

      How are those acts NOT acts of war? And who is this "we" you speak of? I'm a US citizen and I did not care one bit about Noriega. The US may be a "republic" but it's not "representing the public" and hasn't for a very very very long time.

    215. Re:Obama acomplishments by arivanov · · Score: 2

      It was a German idea originally from immediately after WW2 (1949 or so). USA conservatives copied it after it was adopted by all of Western Europe sans UK. In any case, that is how the medical system in all of Europe except UK works nowdays.

      I have lived in the US, in a country with a regulated mandatory medical insurance (Bulgaria - it reformed to medical insurance from "socialist health for all") and in the UK which is the last remaining developed country worldwide with "pure socialist" style health system. Trust me, mandatory regulated insurance with regulated costings is exactly what you want and what you need if you want a working health system. We have yet to invent anything better.

      The pre-Obama US system is broken - in the absense of regulatory oversight it is guaranteed to inflate costs while using doctors which are kept awake only by drugs at the end of a 30+ hour shift (I have friends who work in US A&E/ER so I know this first hand). So is the "socialist" UK one. You end up waiting 12+ months for treatment and receiving letters asking if you are still alive (I keep one of these as an example on why it is broken). What Obama did is the step in the right direction.

      In any case - on article main subject:

      1. I am not surprised.
      2. That is why I run my mail server (with my mail dating back to 1999) till this day and it physically located where 3rd parties cannot access it.
      3. That is why any data of any significance that leaves my systems (offsite backups,etc) is always encrypted AES256. I still keep a couple of Via C7s operational in my house for this exact reason - they can encrypt at up to 100Mbit/s "free of charge".

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    216. Re:Obama acomplishments by 19061969 · · Score: 1

      Maybe that means that he was actually doing some work (i.e., in the library, attending lectures etc insad of getting pissed wearing a pair of fake breasts?)

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    217. Re:Obama acomplishments by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 1

      In fact, it makes it worse.

      1. Dragging this on only increases and ingrains the overall division of the people in the country, where a clear and decisive victory for one side or the other would have allowed the fighting to stop. Instead of "that awful week when the rebels failed/succeeded in overthrowing govt", people will increasingly remember a full on civil war and the division that comes with it.

      2. The longer this takes, the more Gaddafi and supporters believe they can actually win this thing. At first he had several high-level defections once NATO became involved, probably because they didn't see how Gaddafi could possibly win this thing. Now? Probably won't happen anymore. What's more, where Gaddafi might have decided to surrender, he'll now hold on hoping NATO just loses willpower and walks off.

      3. When he wins (and he probably will at this point), his retribution will be terrible for the rebels and their supporters. Genocide? Hah. I don't think we've seen anything yet. And what is NATO going to say at that point? They already tried to overthrow him and lost, in the process losing any credibility or threat they may have had.

      As with any war, all in or all out. Half-assed is the worst possible thing you can do.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    218. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Pretty sure GWB didnt open Gitmo either.

      I didn't invent the cattle prod. ...I was just the first person to shove it up a prisoner's anus and turn it on. That means I'm A-OK!

    219. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....our unique not-our-dictator-removal capabilities..... or ....our unique not-our-dictator-any-more-removal capabilities.....

    220. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that left-wing die hards are happy with his presidency. Most people that know what is going on will tell you that Obama has been a centrist for the most part during his presidency. Die hard leftists wanted a single payer system not a mandate to buy insurance from your local insurance company. Sadly, there are a lot of parallels between his presidency and the Bush administration.

    221. Re:Obama acomplishments by delvsional · · Score: 1

      no.... I'm delusional.

      --
      Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
    222. Re:Obama acomplishments by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is different: we weren't attacked by Libya, so it isnt "national defense", and thus not really our military's role. Defending us against an actual attack, on the other hand, IS the role of our military; and I will note that unlike Obama's Libya, GWB had congressional approval for both Afghanistan AND Iraq (and in the case of Afghanistan, given the whopping 518-1 vote for the war, its REALLY disingenuous to "blame" GWB for it; he would have been impeached if he HADNT gone to war).

      I'm sorry, but could you explain again how exactly does dotting together "defending", "an actual attack" (with link to 9/11) and "Afghanistan AND Iraq" work? I'm sure they will find the WMDs in Iraq any moment now, and can justify it being "national defense"?

      --
      It is what it is.
    223. Re:Obama acomplishments by Nutria · · Score: 1

      zombified?

      But yes, big ticket pie-in-the-sky stuff has got to go.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    224. Re:Obama acomplishments by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Grandma and everyone else.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    225. Re:Obama acomplishments by mcvos · · Score: 1

      The only thing that Obama did good was get elected.

      He did some nice speeches after he got elected.

      Every single person except real left wing die hards are cursing him.

      Real left wing die hards? I think those are cursing him more than anyone. He's practically indistinguishable from a republican now.

      Both major parties need to die. Can you people please get organized and stop voting for anyone who calls themselves a democrat or republican?

    226. Re:Obama acomplishments by lennier1 · · Score: 2

      brainwashed by the political tendency (by both parties) to keep saying something until people believe it.

      Flip-flopper!!! ;)

    227. Re:Obama acomplishments by mcvos · · Score: 1

      On their request, though. The people of Libya asked for the no-fly zone.

    228. Re:Obama acomplishments by mcvos · · Score: 1

      In 2000 he had dignity,

      Yeah, but that was back when he was still against torture.

    229. Re:Obama acomplishments by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Hey, his lawyers and Diebold said so! ;)

    230. Re:Obama acomplishments by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      You know I never really cared for GWB either but mocking the man's intelligence when he was smart enough to get elected Governor of one of the largest states in the Union and then beat the best the Democratic Party had to offer twice in a national election is pretty pathetic.

      Not only that GWB has a MBA from Harvard. 0 has kept his records closed, why is that do you suppose? Don't the American people deserve to see the school accomplishments of the "smartest President ever"? What was his SAT/ACT score I wonder?

      0 is an outright sham and disgrace.

      Never mind a Harvard MBA. He piloted a Convair F-102A Delta Dagger supersonic fighter/interceptor that was designed to carry up to two GAR-11/AIM-26 Nuclear Falcon missiles or conventional air-to-air or air-to-ground missiles!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-102_Delta_Dagger

      This wasn't some computerized, automated, fly-by-wire video-game-simulation-like aircraft. I've been around aircraft all my life, worked as an avionics tech for decades, and had the opportunity to fly a number of different civilian aircraft, and I can tell you that unless you're able to perform some serious mental calculations *quickly* on the fly and be right *every single time* while you're busy guiding a ~12-ton, non-computer-assisted-stability, jet-powered, supersonic metal wedge with a seat, traveling at many hundreds of miles per hour, maintaining near-perfect three-dimensional situational awareness, all while being placed under various random high-G maneuvers, you'll turn an F-102A into a smoking crater in the landscape in short order.

      That's just to fly one enough to take off & land and actually walk away, not engage hostile targets in a coordinated military operation, possibly with a mix of friendly and hostile aircraft also sharing your airspace along with possible hostile SAM installations/mobile launchers trying to track/destroy you. (I'm aware GWB never flew any sorties in hostile airspace. He had to be trained, prepared, and demonstrate the ability to handle that to experienced fighter pilots to be certified in the aircraft, however.)

      There *are* no stupid -living- fighter pilots that ever did any actual flying, regardless of if they ever flew sorties in an active military engagement or not. The US Air Force is *not* about to allow an idiot behind the controls of a multi-million-dollar, nuclear-capable, supersonic jet fighter/interceptor no matter *who* his/her family is, or how connected they are.

      This is why, when I hear someone start in about how stupid GWB is, I know I can safely dismiss pretty much anything this person has to say due to total cluelessness in the face of the obvious.

      By the way, I hated a LOT of what GWB did. I think he did tremendous damage to the US in many, many ways. There's far too much easily-referenced factual information about the bad decisions and policies of GWB to seriously listen to someone so lazy they resort to parroting a completely and obviously false ad hominem. That's just intellectual laziness.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    231. Re:Obama acomplishments by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      WTF?... You're an idiot...

      Unless of course you don't include Scandinavia and Finland in 'Western Europe'. Those countries that are pretty much the model of the social democratic principle. UK only my ass.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    232. Re:Obama acomplishments by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can write off voting against your best interests as stupidity. It isn't just the US either, it happens all the time in the UK as well. I'd say it is a fundamental flaw in the way human beings think about risks and rewards.

      There is also a problem with language. In the UK the majority of people consider themselves middle class. Even my relatives, one a retired factory worker and the other a school dinner lady do. No one wants to be working class, a.k.a. the poor. Therefore they will vote for things which benefit the upper middle class, the £30k+ earners, when the average salary is actually around £23k, because they think they are the ones who will benefit.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    233. Re:Obama acomplishments by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Still... how does my high school diploma justify the bombing of a sovereign country which is dealing with a violent uprising?

      Not bombing the entire country, only the violent bits. What's getting bombed by the US and other nations is the parts of military and foreign mercenaries that are willing to use deadly violence against a sovereign nation, against peaceful protesters who just want a government that represents them. The no-fly zone to protect Libyan citizens from these murderers is entirely justified. It's the people of Libya that asked for this support, and if anything, it came too late.

    234. Re:Obama acomplishments by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      You know I never really cared for GWB either but mocking the man's intelligence when he was smart enough to get elected Governor of one of the largest states in the Union and then beat the best the Democratic Party had to offer twice in a national election is pretty pathetic.

      Not only that GWB has a MBA from Harvard. 0 has kept his records closed, why is that do you suppose? Don't the American people deserve to see the school accomplishments of the "smartest President ever"? What was his SAT/ACT score I wonder?

      0 is an outright sham and disgrace.

      Never mind a Harvard MBA. He piloted a Convair F-102A Delta Dagger supersonic fighter/interceptor that was designed to carry up to two GAR-11/AIM-26 Nuclear Falcon missiles or conventional air-to-air or air-to-ground missiles!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-102_Delta_Dagger

      This wasn't some computerized, automated, fly-by-wire video-game-simulation-like aircraft. I've been around aircraft all my life, worked as an avionics tech for decades, and had the opportunity to fly a number of different civilian aircraft, and I can tell you that unless you're able to perform some serious mental calculations *quickly* on the fly and be right *every single time* while you're busy guiding a ~12-ton, non-computer-assisted-stability, jet-powered, supersonic metal wedge with a seat, traveling at many hundreds of miles per hour, maintaining near-perfect three-dimensional situational awareness, all while being placed under various random high-G maneuvers, you'll turn an F-102A into a smoking crater in the landscape in short order.

      That's just to fly one enough to take off & land and actually walk away, not engage hostile targets in a coordinated military operation, possibly with a mix of friendly and hostile aircraft also sharing your airspace along with possible hostile SAM installations/mobile launchers trying to track/destroy you. (I'm aware GWB never flew any sorties in hostile airspace. He had to be trained, prepared, and demonstrate the ability to handle that to experienced fighter pilots to be certified in the aircraft, however.)

      There *are* no stupid -living- fighter pilots that ever did any actual flying, regardless of if they ever flew sorties in an active military engagement or not. The US Air Force is *not* about to allow an idiot behind the controls of a multi-million-dollar, nuclear-capable, supersonic jet fighter/interceptor no matter *who* his/her family is, or how connected they are.

      This is why, when I hear someone start in about how stupid GWB is, I know I can safely dismiss pretty much anything this person has to say due to total cluelessness in the face of the obvious.

      By the way, I hated a LOT of what GWB did. I think he did tremendous damage to the US in many, many ways. There's far too much easily-referenced factual information about the bad decisions and policies of GWB to seriously listen to someone so lazy they resort to parroting a completely and obviously false ad hominem. That's just intellectual laziness.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    235. Re:Obama acomplishments by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Well, the US voters are stuck in a Catch-22. Whilst I personally would vote 3rd party candidate anyway were I in the US as the main 2 are so contemptible, a bunch of people feel the need to vote for the lesser of the evils, given the terrible non-proportional, non-preferential US electoral system. Continuing to elect these parties guarantees that the current system will stay in place, continuing the cycle.

      Throw into that the financial requirements for running a successful campaign meaning that politicians must accept massive amounts of continuous funding from billionaires united who write the laws they want, headed up by the Koch (pronounced 'cock') brothers, and you have a recipe for something very far from a democracy.

      I'm hoping for an armed plebiscite revole ASAP, with the institution of a better electoral system, returning of states' rights from DC, and extremely strict anti-bribery measures that basically ban any politician from office if they are found to have accepted bribes (they would be 100% tax-funded). Blood will be involved, but I can't see another way to overthrow the current system.

    236. Re:Obama acomplishments by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Most African conflicts don't have a clear side that represents the people and a side that's clearly against the people. Libya does. It was the people of Libya that asked for this intervention. NATO is in contact with Libya in order to coordinate these attacks.

    237. Re:Obama acomplishments by mcvos · · Score: 1

      You're right. Obama didn't actually want to get involved at first. Most likely he just caved because he didn't want the US to stand at the sidelines while France and the UK took all the credit for preventing a humanitarian crisis.

      And if you don't think allowing civilians to be bombed and massacred is a humanitarian crisis, then you're sick in the head.

    238. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TESTIFY!

    239. Re:Obama acomplishments by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You end up waiting 12+ months for treatment

      Wrong. Before the financial meltdown there were guaranteed waiting times, usually measured in weeks. GPs are supposed to see you within 3 days tops, cancer specialists within 2 weeks.

      Now we have a right-wing government those guarantees have gone out the window, but it certainly is possible to have a fully public healthcare system that works reasonably well. It isn't as if private healthcare is problem-free either.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    240. Re:Obama acomplishments by re_organeyes · · Score: 0

      And think of the money he's saved us!

    241. Re:Obama acomplishments by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. I only hit "submit" once. :/

      Maybe the new Slashcode likes me...or not.

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    242. Re:Obama acomplishments by micheas · · Score: 2

      The only way to radically cut spending is to not have unfunded military adventures.

      A war tax of about three dollars a gallon on gasoline would do wonders for the countries fiscal condition.

      Let's see how many people want to spend a billion dollars bombing Libya if they pay for it at the pump.

      The majority of the budget is military adventures that could be greatly reduced. Many of the more expensive military programs were recommended AGAINST by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

      Pissing away billions of dollars of American technology on bombs instead of using the technology for something that would contribute to the GDP does not help the long term outlook of the country.

      Hell, diverting the defense budget to giving away free pot would probably help the agricultural industry enough to make rural America prosperous, and might even draw enough tourist traffic to pay for it.

      Conservatives aren't wrong per se. They just don't accept that the biggest funnel of corruption and waste is US military appropriations.

      Milton Friedman was right about the economics, but I would rather pay taxes and have people on welfare than seeing people selling teenagers in front of my house. Friedman seemed to think that living on the 33rd floor so you didn't have to see the desperate doing whatever it takes to survive was a good enough solution.

      </end rant>

    243. Re:Obama acomplishments by circus29 · · Score: 1

      only a faggot idiot with an asiatic name would include scandinavia and finland in western europe.

    244. Re:Obama acomplishments by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Sweden is a mandatory health insurance country. National Health Insurance act of 1946 implemented since 1955.

      It tried to do "national health care budget" in the 1980-es by adding extra funding different from insurance into the health budget. This resulted in a spectacular UK style fiasco with waiting lists, failing care and so on. It fixed some of it by going back to closer to the original system in the early 90-es only to have that axed on "we are not so far right" grounds and fail again. It is now looking to go back to where it started.

      Out of all examples that mandatory health insurance works and should not be spoiled by budgetary injections it is probably the best one because you have a system that is mandatory insurance by law and a long set of data on how it fails when it is not executed as intended.

      By the way - do some reading before calling other people idiots.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    245. Re:Obama acomplishments by m50d · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. The United States is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting. We went in with two allies making real contributions (France and the UK) and twenty five providing moral support (the rest of NATO). If that's a "coalition" then GWB arguably had one for Iraq.

      There is a UN resolution in support of it, and international support for military action; the fact that only a few countries are implementing it is beside the point Contrast with Iraq where the US/UK tried and failed to get UN support, and then went in anyway.

      Our stated reason for intervening in Libya is the protect the civilian population.

      Which is something we have a decent chance of accomplishing, unlike Iraq where our stated reason was "weapons of mass destruction" that turned out not to exist. That alone, the fact that our leaders aren't lying about the reasons, shows this is a more justified war.

      --
      I am trolling
    246. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly how is BHO "head and shoulders above GWB"?

      Platform shoes?
      Anti-gravity machine?
      Propellor hat?

    247. Re:Obama acomplishments by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      All Scandinavian countries, France, Italy, UK, and probably a host of other countries have fully public universal health-insurance. It works fine. Germany appears to have some weird hybrid system with both public and private insurers, with the vast majority in the public system. The obvious downside of such a system is that "premium care" can be reserved for the wealthy few who can afford private insurance. Health-care really isn't something that should be distributed based on income, but based on need.

    248. Re:Obama acomplishments by GCsoftware · · Score: 1

      30K+ makes you upper middle class? It makes you poor where I live :)

    249. Re:Obama acomplishments by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      Um, no. Stop talking out of your ass. The health insurance in Sweden is funded through the payroll tax and everyone gets an equal public insurance no matter what.

    250. Re:Obama acomplishments by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      Do you *really* think he never had the choice of, "For once, let's let France and the UK take care of this, and stay out of it 100%"? Exactly how is firing hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles at $1.5 million *each* less expensive than letting the frogs and the brits have a go on their own? And that's before we start adding on planes, bombs, and the personnel and logistics required to support them. Yeah, what BHO did was definitely the cheapest option. Funny how I keep hearing this excuse from BHO's supporters: "Doing *nothing* would cost more." We heard it with the trillions spent on the stimulus, and the 2,200 page healthcare turd. Yet conveniently, no one can produce any facts to prove any of these claims of impending doom tied to inaction. Meanwhile, we continue to spending more money that we don't have on defense and entitlements -- the real money, the non-descretional spending -- while Boehner and Reid put on a little "shutdown" show arguing over a paltry $30 billion in order to score a few points. It's pathetic, but the voters in this country have exactly what they deserve.

    251. Re:Obama acomplishments by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Also, the assumption people make regarding Libya is that the choice we faced was either spend zero money dealign with the Libyan situation or spend a lot of money.

      You can actually pull the data from the OMB on how much extra the various wars (or police actions, or whatever they call it these days) are costing.

      It's not free to have your military sitting at home and not shooting cruise missiles at people, but it is cheaper.

      A quick look says the number you're looking for is $162.2B/year to pay for these operations.

      Honestly, both the left wing and right wing are being stupid about the budget crisis. Amdahl's Law says they should hit the big things first (SSN, Medicare/Medicaid, Military), but all three are sacred cows to their various wings, and so they're fighting over the scraps left over.

    252. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking kidding me? Gadaffi is literally slaughtering his people in the streets, and doing air bombing runs. Burning or burying his people alive, and threatening to expand that on anyone found 'protesting', and you think it's some liberal talking point?

      What the fuck is wrong with you?

    253. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and yesterday the whitehouse referred to it as a war in a press release even though congress never authorised a war

    254. Re:Obama acomplishments by cbeaudry · · Score: 2

      I fail to see what point you are trying to make here.

      Finland has a mandatory national public health insurance system. Not a mandatory national PRIVATE health insurance system.

      There is a very big distinction. I honestly think you do no know what you are talking about.

      The only difference with Finlands system and something like the UK is that in the UK the systems funding comes from extra taxes, however in Finland its a bill that comes in every month (or something of the sort) which is mandatory. Potatos, PotAtos. But end result is, everyone pay's into the public national health care system, NOT a private insurance system.

    255. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kept telling everyone to vote for Hillary in the primaries, but you guys were all too in love with Obama...

      She would have been a much better president.

    256. Re:Obama acomplishments by RichiH · · Score: 1

      So did zu Guttenberg in Germany. He copy and pasted more than 85% of his thesis and that's a proven fact. If not for this proof, he would still be our Minister of Defense.

      A hospital he was on the Board for gave them lots of money some months after he got his PhD.

      Your point being?

    257. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way BHO could be considered "head and shoulders" above anyone outside of a grapefruit is because he's taller.

    258. Re:Obama acomplishments by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > This is such an amazingly hypocritical position that it defies belief.

      I agree, but I happen to think this about your comment.

      > Our stated reason for intervening in Libya is the protect the civilian population. Care to venture a guess as to how many Iraqis died at the hands of the Saddam regime? I don't recall Gaddafi ever using WMDs (gas) on his own people. I don't recall him invading two of his neighbors. I don't recall him trying to assassinate any former US Presidents.

      Wrong question.

      How many civilians died in Lybia as a direct or indirect result of this intervention? How many would have died if not for this intervention?

      How many civilians died in Iraq as a direct or indirect result of an attack war which was based on undeniably proven falsehoods from day one? How many would have died if not for this attack war?

      Iraquis are dying like flies. They still are. The numbers boggle the mind and make you sick. It's just that no one gives a fuck.

    259. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing that Obama did good was get elected. Every single person except real left wing die hards are cursing him.

      I am a "real left diehard", and trust me I'm cursing him too. I also agree with you that the best thing he did was get elected. The other three genuinely good things he has done is not be Bush, not be McCain, and speak in complete sentences. While he's a marked improvement over the former resident of the White House, he still sucks. I can't imagine anyone who is a "real left diehard" that hasn't been really bothered at just how much Obama has been like his predecessor.

      You see the real problem with Obama... well Bush and Clinton too, is that they all work for the same bosses. The genuinely rich, and the corporations own the white house, the congress, the courts, and most of the agencies too.

      Obama speaks in complete sentences because that's what shows up on the teleprompter. If he were left to fend for himself, he would fuck up royally. I give you the interview with George Stephenopolous titled "Obama: "My Muslim Faith"

    260. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ehmmm no. Private medical insurance is not mandated in continental europe, and it is not needed. The hospitals are free, and you do not need an insurance. You can even as a foreigner go there with no insurance and get free treatment because there is no charge, no department of debt collection, and no insurrance checkers in the hospitals.

      The idea did originate in Germany, but was created in the late 1800-hundreds by the conservative Bismarck how united Germany under imperial rule.

    261. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always feel people raging impotently against reality need sympathy rather than argument, but anyway...

      Plenty of countries with socialized medicine (e.g. France, that evil bastion of socialism) use an insurance model with private providers of health care to fill in the gaps. Most Democrats would be quite happy with the French system, so your whole federal tax thing is a strawman argument, one step removed from reality.

      It's simply not true to say that federal taxes and services would get around the Constitutionality argument. Many conservatives do indeed argue that federal taxes and services not specifically listed in the Constitution should be illegal. So your "nobody denies" comment takes you another step away from reality.

      Given the state of the current economy, creating a new tax which people currently paying health insurance might think is added on top of their current payments would be political suicide. Major parties tend to believe "getting things done" is a more important principle than "preaching in fantasy land", so your suggestion that Democrats should ignore this is yet another step away from reality.

      That's before you even add in the current conservative tendency to whine and cry about any taxes anyway; it gets in the way of their "fuck the people" approach to padding their bank accounts.

      Besides, the Tax and Spend(TM) thing isn't a Democratic ideal. A glance at other developed nations would reveal that US taxes are comparatively low, and would be even if they were raised. It's more a Republican catchphrase, providing mental comfort to those who wish they could live in an alternative reality where despite millennia of evidence to the contrary, neither taxes nor public expenditure were considered necessary.

      What you're doing is kind of like arguing that Republicans should stay true to their Moral Crusade(TM) ideals and mount a full invasion of the Middle East. The truth is they're not that crazy, they're not that stupid, and nutjobs excepted it's not what they're about anyway.

    262. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well when your choice is a kick in the butt or a cock in the butt, which do you choose?

    263. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, don't forget that Lincoln started the abomination that is the IRS in 1861. Prior to that, federal income tax was zero. It worked back then, let's make it work now! That's an excellent place to cut federal spending.

    264. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is in that 2,000 page monstrosity of a bill, anyway?

      That's what we call a "compromise". You know, like when you compromise your ideals.

    265. Re:Obama acomplishments by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      And im pretty sure EVERYONE was for war in Afghanistan when we first invaded.

      Except everyone who knew anything about how all the wars in Afghanistan have turned out in the last century. And everyone who decided to become familiar with it before making a decision.

      You know, people who like to base decisions on facts instead of emotions.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    266. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem are the voters - how can they be so stupid? Much as I think the Republicans are venal, their ability to convince the sheeple to vote against their best interests is truly astonishing.

      >>>their ability to convince the sheeple to vote against their best interests
      >>>>>ability to convince the sheeple to vote against
      >>>>>>>convince the sheeple to vote
      >>>>>>>>>Sheeple

      you fucking serious?

    267. Re:Obama acomplishments by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      Uhm... Did you miss the Cold War?

      Eastern and Western Europe is nor a strict geographic divide, it's an economic and historical one. The Nordic countries are part of Western Europe.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    268. Re:Obama acomplishments by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Since everyone in this thread distinguishes between Remocrats and Depublicans, calling doublethink on that particular factoid alone seems kind of pointless to me.

    269. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The US Constitution puts international treaty at the same level of importance as itself

      Sorry but that's not the case. Common perception though so I won't hold it against you. The Supremacy Clause makes treaties superior to state laws, i.e: South Carolina can't enforce a state law that runs contrary to a treaty ratified by the US Senate. It does not make these treaties equal or superior to the United States Constitution. A treaty that violates the Consitution is unenforceable. There is even a SCOTUS precedent to this effect.

      the UN does outrank congress.

      Incorrect.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    270. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Pointing out that certain figures in the GOP supported the notion at one point in history does not justify it or make it constitutional.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    271. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      Finland was at best neutral and at worst on the other side during that Cold War.....

      Not saying they aren't part of Western Europe in a cultural sense but pointing to the Cold War as evidence of that fact is rather foolhardy given the treaties they made with the Soviet Union and suppression of free speech that went on in that country during the Cold War in order to appease the Soviet Union.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    272. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was a war for oil, why the fuck is gas so expensive, asshat?

    273. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You mean to say that some of the people asked for it. You conveniently ignore the fact that some of the people in that country support the current regime. It's effectively a civil war that we've involved ourselves in and it will not end well for us no matter which faction comes out on top.

      Do you remember what happened in Iraq with the Sunnis after we toppled "their" man in Baghdad? I'm curious to know why you aren't worried about the same happening in Libya if we manage to topple Gaddafi? Like any politician the man does have his own base of support. Do you think they are going to just roll over and play dead if we manage to depose their leader?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    274. Re:Obama acomplishments by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but could you explain again how exactly does dotting together "defending", "an actual attack" (with link to 9/11) and "Afghanistan AND Iraq" work? I'm sure they will find the WMDs in Iraq any moment now, and can justify it being "national defense"?

      At the time we had every reason to believe Iraq had WMD's. They were intentionally taunting us with intelligence and troop/materials movements to give the impression that they did have Chem/Bio production capability and were close to a breakthrough on Nuclear capability. Turns out they were doing this to present the impression of a strong defense.

      I will likely be modded as troll for this, but it doesn't matter to me whether they had such capabilities or not. They intentionally represented themselves as having such capability and routinely threatened use it. They could have resolved it by allowing inspectors in, but they refused because they were afraid to look weak.

    275. Re:Obama acomplishments by RCGodward · · Score: 1

      Congress never approved the ... Golf War (the first one) either.

      Yeah, but the fight between Tiger and his wife really didn't cost the taxpayers all that much.

    276. Re:Obama acomplishments by s4m7 · · Score: 1

      Pointing out that certain figures in the GOP supported the notion at one point in history does not justify it or make it constitutional.

      I never said that it did. I was merely correcting the statement that Ted Kennedy somehow birthed it.

      I honestly don't care if it's constitutional. It's bad policy. Individual mandates don't work: ask the 25% of California drivers that don't carry auto insurance. Also increasing the demand for something only brings down the cost when you keep the supply fixed or decrease it relative to the demand. Since insurance industry re-regulation is long overdue, there are not substantial requirements in place that the "supply" of insurance policies won't effectively remain infinite. So it wouldn't achieve its objective even if it was realistic.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    277. Re:Obama acomplishments by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      See I am really surprised everytime I read that!

      Other than supporting Health Care Reform ( EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL POWER GRAB) I really can't tell Obama's polices from those of GWBs.

      Bush seemed to be in favor of lots of foreign wars ostensibly to spread freedom and protect us from Terrorism. Obama has continued both, increasing troop commitments, and getting into a new one in Ly.

      Bush created a surveillance state with Patriot act, Obama renewed it and has expanded state surveillance powers pushing for data retention laws and Cell phone tracking.

      Bush was opposed to most financial regulation. Obama has left Timy and Beny boy to basically do whatever they like while singing a financial reform package, that does little to regulate anything and provides commercial banks several excuses to charge customers more.

      GITMO - yup still operating... Oh and where to send these people is not a valid argument when the original issue was they were being unjustly held without trial. Just set them lose in Anytown USA, that is unless like Bush you think they are dangerous and must be held.

      Open government, HAHAHA, the administration has suppress the publication of documents and held as many closed door meetings as any prior admin.

      Other than Health Care Obama's reforms have been mostly empty.

      Frankly I think Bush was at least honest about what he was doing. I'd rather listen to an honest guy mispronounce things and say things I don't agree with than some smooth talking manikin lie to my face about what he believes and intends to do. Oh and don't say Bush lied about IRAQ, he did not he was misinformed by the CIA who misinterpreted intelligence that other intelligence agencies around the world also failed at. So no he did not lie, should he been more cautious and less cowboy, certainly but that does not mean he lied.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    278. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      There should be 0% taxes for corporations. Think about it. The only way a corporation can return it's profits to individuals is in the form of salaries, benefits or dividends. Guess what? Those are already taxed. Corporate taxes are nothing more than backdoor taxes on the individuals that work for a corporation, the individuals that own the corporation and the individuals that buy it's products.

      It would be much more intellectually honest to just raise the income or dividend tax rates than to tax corporations. Of course if we did that we'd actually have to have a public debate about the merits of said tax increases. Why bother with that when we can just tell the voters that we are going after those evil corporations? Most of them can't be bothered to understand economics deeply enough to realize that those corporate taxes will just be passed along to the consumers of that corporations products, plus it's employees and owners.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    279. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that Republicans put forth a bill that would extend the budget by one week and pay the military for the remainder of the fiscal year. Democrats are expected to block it in the Senate and Obama has promised to veto it should it reach his desk.

      (posted anonymously because I have modded this discussion... not yours though)

    280. Re:Obama acomplishments by astrodoom · · Score: 1

      The vote on Joint Resolution 114 was taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133. Yeah, you're right, no-one supported that. Especially not an overwhelming 75% of the Senate and two-thirds of the House. I believe public opinion polls hovered around 70-80% as well. Don't be daft, 20/20 hindsight isnt a particularly special gift.

    281. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perot didn't drop out. He got nearly 20% of the vote and got Clinton elected.

    282. Re:Obama acomplishments by TheOldFart · · Score: 1

      bedwetting twatwaffles

      That will forever be imprinted in my mind. Thanks! :)

    283. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also agree with you that the best thing he did was get elected

      The Nobel committee probably wholeheartedly agrees on this issue. ;)

    284. Re:Obama acomplishments by elrous0 · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think he's down to a handful of black people. Pretty much everyone else in his party has seen one disappointment after another, and are sick of it. His health care plan is a joke. It would have been better to pass nothing at all than to pass that weak-tea glorified handout to the insurance companies.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    285. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who repealed Glass-Steagall, which previously prevented depository banks from engaging in inventment bank risk? That was bipartisan cooperation there.

      Who rejected the Republican led initiative to more closely scrutinize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to the crash? Democrats did, en masse.

      If you use phrases like "disastrous right-wing imperialist policies" you really don't understand who pulls the strings.

      Here's the people that own Obama, his campaign contributors:

      University of California $1,591,395
      Goldman Sachs $994,795
      Harvard University $854,747
      Microsoft Corp $833,617
      Google Inc $803,436
      Citigroup Inc $701,290
      JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
      Time Warner $590,084
      Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
      Stanford University $586,557
      National Amusements Inc $551,683
      UBS AG $543,219
      Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
      Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
      IBM Corp $528,822
      Columbia University $528,302
      Morgan Stanley $514,881
      General Electric $499,130
      US Government $494,820
      Latham & Watkins $493,835

    286. Re:Obama acomplishments by Duradin · · Score: 2

      The sheeple think they might be rich someday and they don't want anyone to take their imaginary money away.

      "You too could be rich some day ! Don't let your fellow poor leech away your riches! Kick those women off the free abortion train today or you'll be ruined!"

    287. Re:Obama acomplishments by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the Democratic party has no party discipline. The Republican party, by contrast, has extremely good party discipline. So even when the Democrats win, they still lose (because they can't hold their people together to actually take advantage of their majority). You almost never see a Republican defector on any party-line vote. But there are always at least a few Democrats who vote against their own party. And when a Republican defects, the party usually forces him/her out. When a Democrat defects, the Dems seem to just shrug their shoulders and say "Well, at least he calls himself a Democrat." It's pathetic.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    288. Re:Obama acomplishments by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I didn't vote for Hillary in the primaries for two reasons:

      1) The wingnuts had a massive irrational hate for her, and at that point I had hopes for them. The birthers and teabaggers showed me I was wrong.
      2) She was projecting an attitude of "I deserve to be President". I didn't care for that at all.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    289. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, you honestly think he had anything to do with that?

      He was picked because of his daddy, and his ability to be manipulated. He was a moron.

    290. Re:Obama acomplishments by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Care to venture a guess as to how many Iraqis died at the hands of the Saddam regime?

      So why did we wait 2years after the gas attacks to go into Iraq? It clearly was not a civilian-protecting mission, it was a protect-Kuwait-and-(wait for it)-OIL mission.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    291. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For Obama being a Constitutional student (so I've heard), he does an awful lot to break and subvert the US Constitution at almost every possible chance.

    292. Re:Obama acomplishments by horigath · · Score: 1

      I guess Libya needs a proxy power to stage a terrorist or surprise attack on America to gather favour with the spineless cowards you call countrymen.

      Well, it's not like former Libyan officials have said that Ghaddafi personally ordered a terrorist attack against Americans or anything.

    293. Re:Obama acomplishments by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      It's obvious to me you're from another country, but it doesn't change my point. Far too many of the people who really like Obama don't know anything about him nor what he's doing.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    294. Re:Obama acomplishments by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      It was a joke, OK? I could write a book on why the guy is a bad President, but I wouldn't convince the people who are bedazzled by his skin color or deep voice or whatever it is that people actually see in him.

      It's the double standard that kills me. The liberals and their mouthpieces in the media never shut up about how often Bush took vacations and played golf, etc, but with Obama they are quick to rush in with "It's a tough job and he needs lot of breaks, etc."

      Besides, the President of the U.S. probably works more on vacation than most of us do at work.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    295. Re:Obama acomplishments by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      The diehard leftwingers I know are still signing praise to him. "If you don't like Obama, defriend me now", my west-coast half-uncle recently posted. (I was defriended by him a long time ago for calling him out on his bullshit.)

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    296. Re:Obama acomplishments by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      You're right. Obama didn't actually want to get involved at first. Most likely he just caved because he didn't want the US to stand at the sidelines while France and the UK took all the credit for preventing a humanitarian crisis.

      What humanitarian crisis? Gaddafi was putting down the armed rebels with force, but what the hell did you expect? If some harebrained, armed militia from Montana marched into DC to overthrow the US government, what would you want to happen? You'll probably want the US government to put down the armed rebels with force. I sure as hell would.

      And if you don't think allowing civilians to be bombed and massacred is a humanitarian crisis, then you're sick in the head.

      No, I do not think that a sovereign government putting down an armed rebellion without targeting civilians is a humanitarian crisis. I think it's pretty normal, actually.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    297. Re:Obama acomplishments by NewNole2001 · · Score: 1

      The conservatives and their mouthpieces in the media never shut up about how often Obama takes vacation and plays golf, etc, but with Bush they were quick to rush in with "It's a tough job and he needs lots of breaks, etc."

      Works both ways.

    298. Re:Obama acomplishments by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Iraq was also authorized by Congress, which is a heck of a lot more than we can say for Obama's military adventures so far.

    299. Re:Obama acomplishments by N0Man74 · · Score: 2

      The sheeple think they might be rich someday and they don't want anyone to take their imaginary money away.

      "You too could be rich some day ! Don't let your fellow poor leech away your riches! Kick those women off the free abortion train today or you'll be ruined!"

      I really do think this is phenomenon is underestimated. Of course, conservatives like to promote the idea of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps", and like to imply that people become rich by their own hard work, with no help, while diminishing the roles of luck, connections, and all the help from the government that they received in achieving this goal (such as public education, public infrastructure, and protection of law).

      In addition, I think there is a bit of influence from the Christian Right involved with this as well. It's been my observation during the last 20 or so years, that the "prosperity message" has become very popular among Protestants and is very closely tied to the Christian Right. A large number of Christians have latched that riches and blessings are promises from God by living by certain principles.

      Not only do they believe that they can become rich one day, they believe that it's god will for them to be rich one day, and they don't want the big bad government taking away their gifts from God (especially so the government can give money to "baby murderers" instead).

    300. Re:Obama acomplishments by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Except everyone who knew anything about how all the wars in Afghanistan have turned out in the last century

      ALL of congress (except for 1 nay and 16 abstentions)-- a full 518 out of 535 votes-- voted to invade Afghanistan.

      I repeat, Bush would have been impeached if he hadnt invaded; to blame him for the war is about as partisan, biased, and blindered as you can get.

    301. Re:Obama acomplishments by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they will find the WMDs in Iraq any moment now, and can justify it being "national defense"?

      When congress authorizes it, yes. And everyone believed there were WMDs-- even the UK, and the NY times, and all the journalistic outlets.

      Its really astonishing, some of the creative spins people try to put on history. There were naysayers to the war, but this wasnt something that there was much public division on. According to the very insightful Wikipedia, public opinion wavered between 50 and 75% in 2003 FOR a war in Iraq. It basically wasnt until mid 2005 that people were over 50% against it.

    302. Re:Obama acomplishments by operagost · · Score: 1
      Why should we all be punished because Obama decided to unconstitutionally attack Libya? Is Obama a conservative now, because you seem to blame conservatives for us being there?

      Milton Friedman was right about the economics, but I would rather pay taxes and have people on welfare than seeing people selling teenagers in front of my house.

      False dilemma. Are you claiming that LBJ's "great society" eliminated the slave trade and prostitution?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    303. Re:Obama acomplishments by operagost · · Score: 1

      Republicans vehemently oppose the Democrats' ideas.
      Democrats cave, and adopt a Republican idea
      Republicans vehemently oppose the Democrats' Idea (formerly republican) because there are "points to score"

      There were about 17 years between steps one and two. The GOP arguably decided that a private insurance mandate was a stupid idea-- and it is. But the Dems don't care, because either way the government gets more control.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    304. Re:Obama acomplishments by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they realized it was a stupid and unconstitutional idea. Single payer is arguably more in line with the "general welfare" clause than an insurance mandate, but it's just as much of a threat to individual liberty.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    305. Re:Obama acomplishments by mcvos · · Score: 1

      You're right. Obama didn't actually want to get involved at first. Most likely he just caved because he didn't want the US to stand at the sidelines while France and the UK took all the credit for preventing a humanitarian crisis.

      What humanitarian crisis? Gaddafi was putting down the armed rebels with force, but what the hell did you expect?

      I expect any credible leader of a nation not to use deadly force against unarmed protesters. When you do that, you need to be removed. Gadhafi used fighters to strafe peaceful (though angry) protests, and he ordered soldiers to shoot unarmed protesters. This is when he lost every last shred of credibility, when the people that worked directly for him and his regime started abandoning him. His ambassadors deserted, many soldiers deserted. He needs to hire foreign mercenaries to kill Libyans.

      If some harebrained, armed militia from Montana marched into DC to overthrow the US government, what would you want to happen? You'll probably want the US government to put down the armed rebels with force. I sure as hell would.

      And what if it's a group of unarmed protesters marching on Washington demanding that the administration resigns? I'm sure you'd help to murder them too.

      No, I do not think that a sovereign government putting down an armed rebellion without targeting civilians is a humanitarian crisis. I think it's pretty normal, actually.

      Why do you think that sovereignty lies with an unelected government that took power by force and uses deadly force and foreign mercenaries to keep the people of the country he took under control? Why would it not lie with the people who want him out?

      If it was up to you, the US would still be an English colony, and France would still be ruled by an absolute monarch. There are rebellions that are justified, and the one in Libya is a good example of one.

    306. Re:Obama acomplishments by operagost · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can become rich without government help. Really! See: "Pursuit of Happyness".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    307. Re:Obama acomplishments by mcvos · · Score: 1

      You mean to say that some of the people asked for it. You conveniently ignore the fact that some of the people in that country support the current regime.

      Some, but not many. Gadhafi is hiring foreign mercenaries because many Libyan soldiers won't fight for him anymore. His ambassadors abroad have abandoned him. Other than the people who directly profit from his regime, almost nobody who has a choice in the matter supports him. People who cheer his name do so at gunpoint.

      Do you remember what happened in Iraq with the Sunnis after we toppled "their" man in Baghdad? I'm curious to know why you aren't worried about the same happening in Libya if we manage to topple Gaddafi? Like any politician the man does have his own base of support. Do you think they are going to just roll over and play dead if we manage to depose their leader?

      He really doesn't have a lot of support. Many people who worked directly for him and his regime have abandoned him. I'm not saying it'll all be peace and quiet after he's gone, but it can't be worse than the massacre of entire cities that he was planning.

    308. Re:Obama acomplishments by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's fair to blame the current economic situation on Obama. If I could come up with any good idea that I think would have worked better, and could have gotten through Congress, I'd blame him some, but I haven't.

      However, as somebody who voted for him in the hope that he actually meant what he said about change, and that he'd push for restored civil liberties, the rule of law, and things like that, I'm seriously disappointed.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    309. Re:Obama acomplishments by operagost · · Score: 1

      What are you going to tax with your ObamaCare MegaTax? How are you going to force enrollment? That's the unconstitutional part. Forcing enrollment cannot be benign, because in order to keep the system properly funded it has to be regulated. That means-- you guessed it-- rationing and "death panels". Sure, people could be free to expand their care beyond the system, but this simply does not work with the entitlement culture. The program would be expanded more and more (like Medicare) as the left blames the death panels on the conservatives. Eventually, only the wealthy elite would be able to afford "medigap" coverage.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    310. Re:Obama acomplishments by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      I expect any credible leader of a nation not to use deadly force against unarmed protesters. When you do that, you need to be removed.

      I guess that means that the US government needs to be removed, in your opinion.

      If it was up to you, the US would still be an English colony, and France would still be ruled by an absolute monarch.

      You are putting words in my mouth. All I said is that a sovereign government putting down an armed rebellion is not a "humanitarian crisis". I never said that I hoped Gaddafi would win (or Britain, in the case of the US).

      Anyhow, since you like these armed Libyan rebels so much, I figure I'll ask. Do you have any credible information on who the hell they are? It's an honest question; I haven't been able to find any credible info, myself. Hell, one of the rebel leaders was quoted in an Italian paper as saying that they receive support from Al-Qaeda. We really know how to pick groups to arm, don't we. So, yeah, I haven't heard anything to make me think that these armed rebels want to replace Gaddafi with a Jeffersonian Democracy. I'd love to be proven wrong, though, so please do.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    311. Re:Obama acomplishments by operagost · · Score: 1

      That sucks even worse, because our "practice" is costing billions every week.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    312. Re:Obama acomplishments by operagost · · Score: 1

      And we're only providing our unique dictator-removal capabilities

      Actually, half the administration is saying that we're NOT looking to remove him. So we don't even know why we're fighting.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    313. Re:Obama acomplishments by operagost · · Score: 1

      Only for Cowboys fans.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    314. Re:Obama acomplishments by datapharmer · · Score: 1

      I would like to introduce you to this song I heard on the radios.... it goes "meet the new boss, same as the old boss.... we won't get fooled again!" Oh wait, we might actually get fooled again during the next election cycle. Oh well.

      --
      Get a web developer
    315. Re:Obama acomplishments by operagost · · Score: 1

      civil service is for schmucks.

      I don't know about that. Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    316. Re:Obama acomplishments by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear, I am against ObamaCare in its current form, as well as the modified form I alluded to in my previous post. Telling me how wrong it is is preaching to the choir. All I was trying to say is that Obama/Pelosi/Reid could have avoided the Constitutionality problem by just calling a spade a spade (or a tax a tax, in this case) and being honest with the American people about what they were doing.

      To answer your questions:

      What are you going to tax with your ObamaCare MegaTax?

      Again, I am completely opposed to this, but if it were my job to find the money to fund this, I'd end the deductibility of health insurance premiums. That would kill two birds with one stone:

      1. it would level the playing field between employer-sponsored plans and non-employer-sponsored. Personally, I think tying health insurance to employment is stupid. You lose your job so you lose your health insurance? How does that even make sense?

      2. It would raise a shitton of money because you can't really dodge it. Somebody (either the individual or the corporation) is going to have to recognize that income and pay tax on it.

      How are you going to force enrollment?

      I wouldn't force anybody to enroll in anything. I'd have the government simply purchase a policy on everyone's behalf using the money raised in step 1. You don't have to file any claims if you don't want to. You don't have to use it in any shape or form if you don't want to. Hell, if you really hate your new "free" policy so much, you can just pretend it doesn't even exist and just go on with your life.

      Look, you have federal unemployment insurance, whether or not you want it. If you don't like the terms of it, don't file a claim. This would be no different.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    317. Re:Obama acomplishments by Duradin · · Score: 2

      I have to wonder how they reconcile the whole "it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" bit.

      Although that's assuming that the teachings of Christ still have anything to do with modern Christianity. I agree with Gandhi more and more, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

      (Though I suppose with sufficient funding a miniature lap camel could be bred to fit through the eye of a comically over sized needle and god would have meant for that camel to exist eventually so as to not upset their fundy beliefs further.)

    318. Re:Obama acomplishments by McKing · · Score: 1

      And Perry is just continuing the bad practices that Bush started. 16 years of Bush + Perry is way too long. I really hope we can elect a governor next time with the ability to fix all the crap that these two have created, especially in the education area. I love how he was acting all smug about how well Texas was handling the recession a year ago, and now he's cutting education at an even more alarming rate than ever. School districts all over the state are cutting hundreds of jobs in order to overcome multi-billion dollar shortfalls each.

      Oh, and he used $11 million in TARP money (i.e. your taxes) to repair the Governor's Mansion after the fire in 2009. If we were doing so well, why did Texas use Federal money to repair the state Governor's Mansion?? And why is he STILL living in a "rental mansion" that costs taxpayers $10,000 a month and as of a year ago had cost $600,000 in taxpayer money? In 2000 as governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee lived in a triple wide trailer while his home was being renovated and he had nothing close to the the budget problems in that state: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123041&page=2

      --
      If only "common" sense was actually that common...
    319. Re:Obama acomplishments by operagost · · Score: 1
      Polite? He admitted that he didn't know the facts, but he was sure the Cambridge police acted stupidly. He calls his opponents gun-clingers. He insults the mentally disabled. He stammers horribly without a teleprompter. And what's so "nice" about his speeches? Is there a "National Organization of Niceness" rating?

      Plays well with all the other infantile heads of state

      ... but insults and rejects the dignified heads of state, like those of the UK and Israel.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    320. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Income is only part of what decides the class you're in, where you spend it and what on also is included.

    321. Re:Obama acomplishments by operagost · · Score: 1

      I believe it is fairly tenuous to have claimed that attacking a government for the actions of a separate group was a purely defensive action.

      The Taliban WAS the government of Afghanistan. You are an unqualified ignoramus.

      I think that attacking a nation and killing tens of thousands of civilians was a poor response to a relatively simplistic and potentially isolated (but devastating) act of terrorism which could not be repeated once passengers knew not to co-operate with hijackers.

      Yes, because I'm sure if we'd left those terrorist camps in place, they wouldn't have produced any new ideas for how to kill people.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    322. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      Nope, completely wrong; the left wing die hards have been criticizing him for a while. It's the moderates who like him. I'm a little disappointed in how he's done, though even now he is still head and shoulders above GWB, or how McCain would have been.

      LOL. I laugh every time I hear or read something like this. Here's the formula: "Nah, Obama is X and the Y are the ones who hate him, the X are the ones who love him!". Choose any two parties and I've heard it.

      OK, really, it depends on what issue you are focusing on on if you think Obama is more left/right/centrist. It also doesn't work to put all his views into one bucket. I personally find Obama to be the worst of the left and the right in terms of views I disagree with from both sides.

      How do you know how McCain would have been? Speculation is never really all that helpful. Comparing to GWB is a more fair assessment. Though I would say the Congress at the time is just as much to blame personally, just like any serving Congress during any presidential term.

      Tying all this in, Obama and GWB are about the same when it comes to respecting your rights and privacy: there is no respect. They are from two different parties, yet both have this awful trait that comes from whatever party you think that comes from. I don't think McCain or Hillary for that matter would have been any different, either.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    323. Re:Obama acomplishments by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Doing something wrong because 518 people told you to makes it no less wrong.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    324. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha. Those imperialist policies keep foreigners taking our funny money. It may not have been debased to the point that they didn't want it had we avoided the system of central planning we adopted in 1913 and have extended (with ups & downs) ever since.

      I wanted a real left-wing president to bring the US back on course after so many years of disastrous right-wing imperialist policies that nearly brought our economy to the point of utter collapse, increased inequality to points nearly as high as our nation has ever seen in its history, and squandered the good will of the world that we had just barely started to win back.

    325. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      Whoever it was, the fuckers still voted for it. Nobody had plans for FREE universal health care. Your opinion on if we need that or not aside, if you perceived that to be some kind of promise than shame on you for hearing only what you wanted to hear.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    326. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      First, who are you to determine someone else's best interests? Just because someone writes "Republican" on their voter registration card doesn't mean they agree with everything said. Second, idiocy is equal opportunity and is not affiliated with any party. Voters are idiots in general.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    327. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      That confounds the heck out of me - why aren't the Christians aligned with the poor? Didn't they read the Bible?
      "It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven"

      "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows"

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    328. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      You end up waiting 12+ months for treatment

      Wrong. Before the financial meltdown there were guaranteed waiting times, usually measured in weeks. GPs are supposed to see you within 3 days tops, cancer specialists within 2 weeks.

      Now we have a right-wing government those guarantees have gone out the window, but it certainly is possible to have a fully public healthcare system that works reasonably well. It isn't as if private healthcare is problem-free either.

      No, but as it stands, the federally funded clinics are packed. If you don't believe me try to make an appointment with one in any city of any decent size in the USA and say you don't have insurance. They can't turn you away, but could be waiting over 6 weeks (for a "city" still under a million people with clinics all over the place). Those with insurance? Sometimes that afternoon, if not within a few days. Emergency care is another story, but then it depends on what you define as "emergency care". Going in on a Saturday via the ER is not emergency care.

      If you can figure out the doctor shortage, the wait times might not be the same. However, people who deny the simple fact that something free gets more traffic than something not free is in denial. There's only so many doctors and clinics to go around.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    329. Re:Obama acomplishments by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      *shrug*, I don't see how it's any of our business and it seems rather hypocritical that we've chosen to intervene in a country with oil reverses over a threatened massacre that hadn't yet occurred while ignoring ongoing massacres in other parts of the world that aren't so rich in resources. BHO has now taken us into our third war and couldn't even be bothered to seek the approval of the US Congress before doing so. The same man that said a few years ago that the President lacked the authority to commit the US Military to battle without Congressional approval absent an imminent or actual attack on the United States of America.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    330. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Did you see some of these people in the town halls with their wheelchairs and oxygen tanks? I'm pretty sure the current health system is not in their best interests.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    331. Re:Obama acomplishments by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I expect any credible leader of a nation not to use deadly force against unarmed protesters. When you do that, you need to be removed.

      I guess that means that the US government needs to be removed, in your opinion.

      Soldiers shooting unarmed citizens? In any civilized nation, the government would have fallen over something like that. I would definitely expect mass protests in response to something like that.

      How about you? Do you approve of the shooting?

      If it was up to you, the US would still be an English colony, and France would still be ruled by an absolute monarch.

      You are putting words in my mouth.

      How is rebelling against Gadhafi different from rebelling against an oppressive king or colonial power?

      All I said is that a sovereign government putting down an armed rebellion is not a "humanitarian crisis". I never said that I hoped Gaddafi would win (or Britain, in the case of the US).

      But it didn't start out as an armed rebellion. It started out as peaceful protests. Gadhafi was the one who turned it into a war against the Libyan people.

      At what point is a leader massacring his people a humanitarian crisis? Was Rwanda a humanitarian crisis? Genocide in Bosnia? Genocide in nazi Germany?

      Anyhow, since you like these armed Libyan rebels so much, I figure I'll ask. Do you have any credible information on who the hell they are? It's an honest question; I haven't been able to find any credible info, myself. Hell, one of the rebel leaders was quoted in an Italian paper as saying that they receive support from Al-Qaeda. We really know how to pick groups to arm, don't we. So, yeah, I haven't heard anything to make me think that these armed rebels want to replace Gaddafi with a Jeffersonian Democracy. I'd love to be proven wrong, though, so please do.

      They're Libyan people. Ideologically, I don't think they have any unified theme. Some may want a Jeffersonian democracy, others may want a theocracy. I just think that they should decide what they want, and that they deserve not to get slaughtered for it.

    332. Re:Obama acomplishments by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I do agree that he should have gotten the approval of Congress, but on the other hand, I also think that it's better to prevent a massacre than to respond to one. And the UN decision was only barely in time to prevent the massacre in Benghazi. In other cities, lots of civilians had already been killed (though not on the scale that was expected for Benghazi).

    333. Re:Obama acomplishments by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you're correct. Texans take the whole "common man" thing to a new low. In order to have any credibility at work, I have to put on a drawl when I speak. It's absurd, but it gets the job done. Several pundits cited Rick Perry's bad grammar as part of his appeal (although I didn't realize "very unique" was bad grammar until one of the pundits pointed it out).

      Just look at our previous governor. He couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag. But we loved him. If dubya ran again, he'd win in a huge landslide.

    334. Re:Obama acomplishments by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know there was support for the war:

      Wikipedia:
      "A September 2003 poll revealed that seventy percent of Americans believed there was a link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11.[190] 80% of Fox News viewers were found to hold at least one such belief about the invasion, compared to 23% of PBS viewers."

      Then again, the support wasn't exactly unanimous pre-war positions

      Opposition "Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%."

      Wikipedia:
      "The legality of the invasion of Iraq has been challenged since its inception on a number of fronts, and several prominent supporters of the invasion in all the invading nations have publicly and privately cast doubt on its legality. It is argued that the invasion was fully legal because authorization was implied by the United Nations Security Council. International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, a group of 31 leading Canadian law professors, and the U.S.-based Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, have denounced both of these rationales."

      Moar Wikipedia:
      "Although it is popularly believed that Saddam Hussein had forced the IAEA weapons inspectors to leave Iraq, they were in fact withdrawn at the request of US Ambassador Peter Burleigh in advance of Operation Desert Fox, the 1998 American bombing campaign. After the build-up of U.S. troops in neighboring states, Hussein welcomed them back and promised complete cooperation with their demands. Experienced IAEA inspection teams were already back in Iraq and had made some interim reports on its search for various forms of WMD."

      I remember following the search for WMDs closely. The reports from IAEA indicated that there were none. I also remember the statements from USA that the WMDs exist and just have been hidden and that the IAEA people weren't up to the job.

      Do many people still order freedom fries there?

      --
      It is what it is.
    335. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that and he can spell change. GWB had trouble pronouncing his big boy words let a long spelling them.

    336. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      If they have wheel chairs and oxygen tanks, it sounds like they got what they needed. It's not like free health care would make the lame walk and cure lung cancer.

      Furthermore, someone in a wheel chair is most likely taken care of already with Federal dollars. The lung cancer guy? Don't blame the government that you wasted your lungs by smoking.

      I know, those two details are nitpicking, but that was a bad example. However, I also don't think you are necessarily entitled to receiving health care just because you were born here. Those people in the halls probably think the same thing. Your personal health doesn't necessarily affect your personal political views. For some it does, others it doesn't. Either way, you're making an awfully large assumption about those people you saw in the town halls. This kind of healthcare bill makes the big government bigger, and many people just don't want that. Or maybe they don't want the government telling them they have to purchase something by just existing. There's a million possible reasons that it serves their own interests. They believe this country would be a better place without the bill. Who are you to deny them their opinions? It doesn't make them stupid.

      Lastly, don't make the mistake of calling someone who opposes the free health care view unsympathetic, heartless, etc. That's not the issue here.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    337. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The program would be expanded more and more (like Medicare) as the left blames the death panels on the conservatives. Eventually, only the wealthy elite would be able to afford "medigap" coverage.

      The only thing expanding in Medicare or Medicaid are the costs, this has nothing to do with the availability of services. The availability of the services offered under each program has been consistently shrinking. Good luck trying to see a specialist with either (or both) of those programs and no supplemental services on top. Things are only going to get worse from a service point of view with little to no reduction in cost under the new budget proposals.

    338. Re:Obama acomplishments by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that the problem isn't an issue of socialism vs. captialism or anything like that, it is a shortage of doctors. In that case the government should do everything it can to get more of them. We did that in the UK and it worked.

      Actually there are things you can do to alleviate the problem other than simply more doctors. For example a lot of routine or more minor stuff is taken care of by trained nurses now.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    339. Re:Obama acomplishments by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What country? Did you notice the £ sign?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    340. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Those people were under the impression that Obama was going to kill Medicare. From what I'm hearing now, it seems that the Republicans are toying with that idea.
      I'm not supportive of the bill because he caved on the public option - without that, and with the requirement that everyone has to buy insurance, he gave a hell of a boost to the insurance industry. But, if there's less power to them to deny treatments agreed on by doctor and patient, I can live with it until something better comes along.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    341. Re:Obama acomplishments by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      The Taliban WAS the government of Afghanistan. You are an unqualified ignoramus.

      And Al Qaeda were the group behind the attacks on US civilians, not the Taliban. Argue about the level of collusion between the two if you want, but don't just imply that they are one and the same and then call me an idiot.

      Yes, because I'm sure if we'd left those terrorist camps in place, they wouldn't have produced any new ideas for how to kill people.

      A reasonable point, but whether they would have succeeded in carrying out those plans is very much up for debate, especially considering the greater preparedness after the attacks on in New York. More importantly, perhaps, is that it is extremely unlikely that these hypothetical attacks could have killed 20,000+ people, as the Afghanistan war has.

    342. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is such an amazingly hypocritical position that it defies belief. Our stated reason for intervening in Libya is the protect the civilian population. Care to venture a guess as to how many Iraqis died at the hands of the Saddam regime? I don't recall Gaddafi ever using WMDs (gas) on his own people. I don't recall him invading two of his neighbors. I don't recall him trying to assassinate any former US Presidents.

      If we hadn't invaded Iraq, and GWB hadn't ultimately fallen back on "Saddam was a bad man" as his excuse for invading Iraq, there would have been a lot less expectation for us to intervene in Libya. As it stood, we would have looked like the worst kind of self-serving hypocritical bullshit artists anyone could imagine if we didn't do anything. We had pretty much no choice but to intervene. I don't like it a bit, but I can't explain why we wouldn't except to admit that the Iraq invasion was based upon pure unadulterated bullshit spun out by the GWB administration. I'm not sure what the result of coming out and admitting that publicly would be, but I suspect it would be pretty bad.

    343. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone else here think Powell's bald-faced was pretty bad ass?

    344. Re:Obama acomplishments by wickedskaman · · Score: 1

      I think your definition of "living hell" needs to be updated. I'm just sayin'...

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    345. Re:Obama acomplishments by wickedskaman · · Score: 1

      The Golf War? Was that the whole Tiger Woods thing? ...

      But seriously, Congress hasn't officially declared any wars since the Second World War. Every war fought since has been some kind of Congress sanctioned "military action", "resolution" or "intervention.

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    346. Re:Obama acomplishments by arivanov · · Score: 1

      The difference is how the money is consumed. The fact that the money is collected via payroll is of little relevance.

      In an insurance based system theoretically, you can take your money and go to a different provider as long as said provider is happy to treat you for the regulated price.

      In Sweden you originally could, then you could not, then you had again "patient choice" in the early 90-es, then you could not and so on. Now you see it, now you do not depending on how "social" is the current party in power. However the option to HAVE this is present and it is an inherent part of the "insurance" style system. That is what the original law of 1946 intended to.

      Similarly, theoretically, you can set up a private clinic, pass a few regs and as long as you are happy to treat patients for the amount of money spec-ed by the insurance you can charge that to the national health insurance. AFAIK in Sweden presently, this is mostly theory (but the law actually allows it). In most other EU countries it is the practice and the norm.

      UK is a take it or leave it with no such option. NHS is state funded and the option of taking your treatment money and going elsewhere is not available even in theory. Some people tried that one by going to France during the worst years of NHS under Blair. They even sued the UK in the EU court. The end-result is that you can now apply to the NHS itself to have your treatment elsewhere which is from the realm of "yeah, right, not that this will ever happen".

      That is the fundamental difference between the rest of EU and the UK.

        Anyway, this is all hugely OT.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    347. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      Yes, socialism vs. capitalism arguments go 'round and 'round. It doesn't really accomplish anything. The real problem is the costs associated, and where that cost comes from. Yes, I realize some of the cost is from people without insurance. I'm talking more about the doctors' malpractice insurance (tort reform), equipment costs, hospital practices, etc. Doctor shortage is an issue that would plague your wait times and how much attention they can give any one individual. For that, I'm a big fan of the increasing number of PAs you see here in the US. They are well educated and highly qualified to do many tasks without the time and cash investment of full-out med school. We need more of them.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    348. Re:Obama acomplishments by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder how they reconcile the whole "it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" bit.

      That's a very good question, and unfortunately one that I know the answer to.

      Many modern Christians believe in a fairly modern and contrived myth that the "eye of a needle" is referencing a gate in Jerusalem called "The Eye of the Needle", which for enigmatic reason was made to have a fairly short entrance. This entrance was too tall for a burdened camel to pass through. Travelers with a camel would have to first "remove their burdens" to enter this gate. Some will even make reference to the camel has to "get down on it's knees" first as well.

      Of course, the problem is that it's a myth that only began appearing in the last 2 centuries. That doesn't matter though, because it's quite popular among fundamentalist Christians. They choose an interpretation that makes them feel better. Now they can ignore the poor and feel comfortable being rich because all they have to do is pray and make themselves believe that they have rid themselves of their burdens. In their defense, looking after the poor is quite a burden.

      It's kind of like how when Jesus is quoted as saying, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me" is interpreted to only refer to children. It's used to attack those who are pro-choice. However, it is never used for the poor, immigrants, criminals, Muslims, or democrats. ;-)

      http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm
      http://www.debunker.com/texts/needleye.html

    349. Re:Obama acomplishments by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      We're better at airstrikes than France and the UK. That is a fact. It's our expertise. The British and French deferred to us for that. $1.5 million per missile is small change compared to the cost of a pilot crew and their aircraft. The UK and France will be doing more, according to the President. Thus, our role will be cheaper. If you want hard numbers on the cost of doing nothing and letting Libya settle itself, you'll have to wait. You're requesting an estimation of a future cost with a lot of variables and intangibles.

      By the way, you're implying that I'm a BHO supporter, and for no reason. Should I assume you're a Tea Party anarchist who's too stupid to know that you benefit from Obama's tax policies at my expense as someone who makes a considerable amount of money? No, I shouldn't. I'm a supporter of my sitting President, whomever he is. Right now, it's BHO.

    350. Re:Obama acomplishments by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      I know that the White House has called that bill a distraction. I'd like to read it first to see what's in the language. If there are any social riders in it of any kind, that would show that the GOP only used military pay as an enticement to get the President to sign off on social measures. If there are no social riders, and the White House and Senate are just arbitrarily leaving military families to drown, then that will be a very different matter.

    351. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I might be wrong but I think Obama's biggest mistake was really trying for a bi-partisan solution. He clearly didn't understand the kind of opposition what he was up against

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    352. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      If Republicans so despise the plague of big government, they've had ample opportunity in the last hundred years to reduce its size.
      Which one of their Presidents has done so to any significant extent?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    353. Re:Obama acomplishments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Finland and don't know what you are referring in the context of health care. Most public health services are billed afterwards and collected if you don't pay. Of course, if you can't pay you are most likely eligible for social services witch will scrutinize your personal life so closely that you feel like you were in a prison. UK has until recently had completely free basic health service as I understand.

    354. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I'd heard about that revisionist reinterpretation - blows my mind. Okay, how do they spin "The love of money is the root of all evil" from the book of Timothy.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    355. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      One other point about the new healthcare bill - won't it reduce the amount of money that goes towards uninsured people showing up in emergency rooms? Isn't that the most expensive option ( although I have no idea what percentage of the total current bill that represents ). I know some hospitals deal with this by rejecting some of these people outright but I've also heard that INSURED folks often can't afford to go their own doctors. My Canadian relatives find this mind-boggling - not that their system is perfect but they've never heard of someone declaring bankruptcy over medical bills.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    356. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      You know what - fuck the public option. If the rightwingnuts are so opposed to big government, although they've done as much to expand it as the other side, then the healthcare bill should be SINGLE-PAYER and nothing less.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    357. Re:Obama acomplishments by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      The real problem are the voters - how can they be so stupid? Much as I think the Democrats are venal, their ability to convince the sheeple to vote against their best interests is truly astonishing.

      Hmm. That works, too. I guess both parties are the fucking same.

    358. Re:Obama acomplishments by nomadic · · Score: 1

      So because a German politician plagiarized his thesis, an American president can't have legitimately graduated magna cum laude from law school? Even by slashdot standards that's not a very credible argument. And that's saying something.

    359. Re:Obama acomplishments by RichiH · · Score: 1

      No, I was simply stating that people in power are not unheard of having cheated their way up.

      The argument that someone who is not able to read, write and talk on even a juvenile level is unlikely to be able to graduate Magna Cum Laude was so obvious to me, I omitted it.

      I would also like to ask you to look at his track record. He's like an inverse Midas; everything he ever touched turned to shit.

      Given all this, I think the likelihood of this, or any, degree held by him to be have been gained fairly is quite literally zero.

    360. Re:Obama acomplishments by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      The problem is that "fixing things" involves money, which essentially means either higher taxes or going broke. We've tried the whole going broke thing and it's not working, but no one has the balls to raise taxes either.

    361. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      That still comes down to a voter problem - why do they keep voting for them?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    362. Re:Obama acomplishments by circus29 · · Score: 1

      newsflash: the cold war has been over for two decades.

    363. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      The new healthcare bill merely adds a layer of bureaucracy. Yes, a huge cost to clinics and hospitals is the large number of uninsured people that they end up having to cover, thus raising the bills for everyone else. If everyone is forced to have insurance, theoretically these costs could be reduced. However, now you have umpteen billion new government branches you have to pay for. And what happens to those that can't afford to be forced to buy insurance? Their insurance bill gets paid for by the government (it's just another form of Medicaid). For every dollar reduced that you get charged at the hospital, the amount you spend on your insurance and extra taxes goes up two dollars. Insurance companies don't make a crazy amount per person. You'd scoff at the amount per year they net on the average person. The only reason they have billions of dollars is because they're serving billions of people. If you force them to cover people, you can't claim it's going to be cheaper because now you're covering millions more people with probably very costly illnesses.

      And no, that's not an argument. That's simple accounting fact. The only thing I want the healthcare reform proponents to admit is that it'll cost us all more money.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    364. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      And how would that make the government smaller? Although you might not agree with people on the "right", they still represent roughly 50% of the population. You can't ignore that. To do so is arrogant and foolish.

      You'd also be making insurance companies the bad guy when that's not necessarily the case (only a contributing factor). That paints a picture of hubris and knee-jerk reactions with no thought to the consequences.

      So, please kindly explain why if you'd run the government why it'd be so much better than all those other idiots that ran it before you. Please keep in mind that 50% of the population think you are complete bonkers.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    365. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      I'm not implying that the Republican party did anything to cut budget or size in the last hundred years. People voting for the Republican party might have different values than the actual results, but I couldn't lay that down as a blanket statement either. Hell, why does this have to be about Republicans vs. Democrats anyway? People voting in those parties don't uniformly agree on the issue. I was merely pointing out that you can't assume you know what's going on in somebody's head, and that there are more reasons other than your own personal individual gain to vote a certain way.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    366. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      You already have the bureaucracy in place in the form of Medicare & Medicaid and VA. Having lived in a country with a universal single-payer system, I can tell you that the hue and cry about additional bureaucracy is overblown - especially since you're not starting from scratch.

      And, I may not have been clear in my first few posts - I no longer support the bill in its present format nor with the public option. I want the gov't to locate their missing testicles and get the country on a SINGLE-PAYER system.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    367. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I agree with you up to a point but I think the way this current administration has gone clearly shows the Republicans have been near-unanimous in opposing legislation while the Democrats have been voting more according to their personal values or for some other reason. In that respect, the loss of some of the House seats wouldn't have fazed Obama as a significant number were those of Blue Dog Dems, who might as well have been Republicans anyway.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    368. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Then the right are as arrogant and foolish as those who disagree with them. Single-payer options have been done for decades in other countries; they're not perfect but, on average, they get a far, far, far better return on health than America. Also, as I explained in another recent post, you have most of the infrastructure in place but doing slightly separate jobs. You should be able to collapse them, in time, into a single department. It won't make gov't smaller in the short term but it won't be a huge expansion either.

      Also, based on the experience of many of my relatives, especially those who aren't so well off, your defense of insurance companies is unsupportable - for complex care, they are a huge obstacle when you're at you're most vulnerable and in need.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    369. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      I assure you that the majority of politicians are not voting "according to their personal values". If they did that, it might be a better government. That isn't the situation. The situation is how to Overrun The Other Guy or how to Get Elected Again. Bills that are drafted up have more of a potential to stem from some kind of personal values but if it does, it quickly gets retarded in order to play the politics game.

      I would otherwise disagree with your statements that separate the two dominant parties in our government, especially in terms of tactics and voting records. The numbers and history is there. It's very rare anybody works together if they can otherwise help it.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    370. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      I agree, we already have tons of layers of bureaucracy in place, but it doesn't mean it's a good reason or excuse to add more layers. You having lived in a country with a single-payer system has nothing to do with the way the US government works, it only highlights the efficiency of that government. I would say that "cry about additional bureaucracy" is definitely not overblown. Take any major program in the US for example. They're highly bureaucratic and inefficient, and they get more and more so as time goes on (no matter which party is in control).

      I'm not necessarily arguing for or against that health care bill, I'm just highlighting various good reasons that may have opposed your original post in the way of playing devil's advocate. On a more personal level, I respect your opinion that you want a single-payer system and there are many good arguments for that. I however don't think that would work well in this country, and it stands against many of my own personal beliefs on the government's role in this country and I'm unconvinced that'd it'd really benefit the masses.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    371. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      And that's a crying shame. I think the campaigning structure has a lot to do with that - halfway through your term, you're already on the campaign trail for the next election. How is anything supposed to get done?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    372. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1
      Nobody said the right weren't arrogant or foolish. Whoever gets the upper hand shows those traits blatantly.

      on average, they get a far, far, far better return on health than America

      According to who? How do you figure? If you're referencing infant mortality rates as the only reason, please keep in mind the US is also a very obese country. The fact that Americans on average still live longer than most other countries even while being fat as a fucking whale, I'd say our health care quality itself is very high. The argument here I think is accessibility. The two should not be intertwined into the same argument.

      While your ideas on collapsing various government branches into one is fine, and I agree, it's also a fantasy. It will never happen here. I'm just being realistic.

      As for your relatives, yes, insurance companies can be an obstacle with complex care. Forcing people to pay for insurance will not fix that. The part of the bill that forced insurance companies to relax restrictions would. I'm not sure how that makes them the bad guy though when a single bag of chemo can cost you $90k depending on the type of cancer you have. It also doesn't help the fact that an MRi scan costs $3,500 (c'mon, running the machine a few times with a pseudo-educated person running it). Those tubes in your arm? Frakin' ridiculous. And that's the parts I want people to focus on instead. I don't accept R&D being the sole reason for huge inflated costs, especially when that tech hasn't changed in 50 years (like needles, surgical tools, etc). While some of that is to help the hospital/clinic recoup some costs from people who are not paying, most of it is what they're paying for supplies. Do you have any idea what an MRi machine costs? It's ridiculous! It's no longer new tech, but the inflated prices have never decreased. Somebody's working one helluva scam, and in this case, insurance companies aren't the largest story.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    373. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I wasn't digging down into detailed stats merely dollars spent. But, if you compare the US to other 1st world nations, who are also packing on the pounds, though more slowly, the most reliable numbers show almost twice as much spending for approx the same outcomes. I'm not as ready as you are to give the insurance firms a pass - in earlier days, they were pretty good at keeping costs down by (en)forcing standardization - I think it started with making sure all the steam engines and boilers met the same standard or used the same parts.
      But, if someone is giving the manufacturers a blank-check, then heads should roll. We fine companies all the time for price-fixing on computer parts but not medical equipment? I think the media should stop focusing on closeted politicos and imaginary birth records and chase the stories that'll change or save lives.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    374. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      LOL about the media. While legit (??) and all before the election, after he got elected it should be left alone. Not that we shouldn't be suspicious or anything, but the media shouldn't be reporting on baseless suspicions, and the effort is wasted. Not one crazy ranting desperado going on about illegal presidency is going to change the fact that you're this president's bitch for the next few years.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    375. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder what Donald Trump is thinking, pandering to the birthers - he can't really think there's any meat to their wild speculations. I'm not a fan of his but I thought he was above this claptrap. But I can see it's a strategic move as it's put him from last place to first or second in the GOP horse race but does he really think he'll be able to sweep all this away and disassociate himself from the fringe as election day nears?
      And the batshit keeps dropping - a friend told me she saw someone post on Sarah Palin's Facebook page that claims Obama has paid 2 million to cover up his real birth certificate. Next we'll hear that Linda Lingle is a Democratic spy or related to Obama or something.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    376. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      I see Trump doing that for one reason and one reason only: attention. He's going to profit from it. He can't honestly thing he stands a chance... I mean, he's not THAT stupid.... is he?

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    377. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      He's being very convincing, this time out. The pundits who were saying just a little while ago that this was just his usual self-promotion are now thinking he's serious

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    378. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine the SNL skits? LOL

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    379. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm looking forward to those. But I see that Mitt Romney has officially joined the 2012 race. I hope he's ready to answer some questions about health care, considering his Massachutsetts bill some years back. His announcement talked up his "real world experience in the economy" but not a word about health care policy.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    380. Re:Obama acomplishments by mldi · · Score: 1

      I'm not 100% sure what his entire view on the health care reform is, but I do know he's a solid businessman and I wouldn't doubt he has a few good ideas on the economy.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    381. Re:Obama acomplishments by haruchai · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of good ideas - just not a lot of political will. There are no viable solutions that don't address cutting Defense, addressing entitlements, getting health care costs under control; raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy (incl closing loopholes), tackling the trade deficits and severely reducing oil consumption.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  2. One good reason to avoid webmail. by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well here would be one big reason to avoid webmail or outsourced mail servers in general.

    Although most people really aren't "geeky" enough to avoid having someone else handle their email server. This law is just attempting to take advantage of the average n00b's clueless and disorganized nature....

    +...calling something at the bottom of that big pile on your desk "abandoned".

    They should enforce a standard like that for out of print creative works...

    It's all just a part of the Corporate/Individual double standard that both parties heartily embrace.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    1. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by alostpacket · · Score: 1

      I think the implications go beyond email too. Imagine the RIAA not needing a subpoena to have a look at your Amazon-hosted music collection

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    2. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by Unknown+Lamer · · Score: 1

      I leave my mail on the IMAP server of the hosting cooperative I'm in (for easy access anywhere, they keep backups so I don't have to, etc), and it looks like I unknowingly abandoned the data! I trust the cooperative infinitely more than I would trust e.g. gmail, but it looks like law enforcement can just as easily request access to my old mail there.

      --

      HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
    3. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not intentionally, it is because the law is old.

    4. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I've got my own mail server, and it forwards my mail to gmail. I've been experimenting with going more cloud-based, and right now gmail is the best option for this out there. The next closest options I've found are Roundcube and Zimbra, and they're not nearly as nice.

      All my mail is safely stored on my own servers, and a copy is sent to gmail. So I'm safe if they ever go under. However, I'm in no way protected from anybody with access to Google's servers.

      What we really need are open source cloud solutions. There are very few out there now and they're generally weak.

    5. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! Yet another reason to not use web email services! This is why I'm running IMAP on a local Linux box. They'll need a warrant to get my email dammit!

      I know people who leave messages on their web based accounts for YEARS! I always felt uneasy about that. The only secure data is the stuff sitting on a box you control. (Properly secured of course!)

    6. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by niftydude · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you are worried about privacy, then you shouldn't use outsourced webmail at all.

      I was astounded to find out the other day that on yahoo mail servers, the word delete doesn't mean what you think it means. It just ticks a bit in a db field which prevents the email showing in your inbox and being counted in your quota.

      However, the yahoo coders were too incompetent to leave the emails out of the search function.

      Imagine my surprise when I performed a search recently, and emails I had deleted and emptied from my trash in 2007 showed up!!!

      Are those emails considered abandoned (since I marked them as deleted) and available under this new legislation?
      There is no privacy in the cloud.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    7. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by socrplayr813 · · Score: 1

      I'm just geeky enough that I could have my own mail server et al, but it's not worth the time to set up and maintain my entire online life on my home network. I have a real job, personal and family obligations, and all the other usual crap that people have to deal with. Even for a geek, there's a point where other people have to be involved.

      As it turns out, I just don't do anything meaningful online, with the exception of occasionally buying things, but the way things are going, that's probably going to change in the future and there's not nearly enough protection for regular shmoes or geeks with insufficient free time to fully protect themselves. It needs to change.

      --
      The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
    8. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another case where companies that were supposed to be spying on all our email have dropped the ball after the government put some rival CEOs in jail for them. Seriously, we've had "live spy" for half a decade... Why does the G need six month old email?

    9. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      If you're that worried you shouldn't use unencrypted email. It all goes through your ISP, and they can save whatever they want.

    10. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got my own mail server, and it forwards my mail to gmail. I've been experimenting with going more cloud-based, and right now gmail is the best option for this out there. The next closest options I've found are Roundcube and Zimbra, and they're not nearly as nice.

      All my mail is safely stored on my own servers, and a copy is sent to gmail. So I'm safe if they ever go under. However, I'm in no way protected from anybody with access to Google's servers.

      What we really need are open source cloud solutions. There are very few out there now and they're generally weak.

      How does open source software help if you still hand your plain text data to a third party running the service? The only way to protect data that you want an untrustworthy third party to hold for you is to encrypt it such that they do not have access. Just encrypt your messages before sending them to Google.

    11. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > it's not worth the time to set up and maintain my entire online life on my home network. I have a real job

      It is really not that big of a deal or much of a bother if you are really anything resembling a geek.

      In truth, you will likely actually SAVE TIME AND BOTHER by doing it yourself and being in full control of it.

      As "busy" as you are, you probably shouldn't be wasting time on Slashdot.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    12. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by socrplayr813 · · Score: 1

      So the minute it takes a person to sign up for Yahoo/Hotmail/Gmail/whatever is somehow as time consuming as setting up his own system? Regardless of how easy or difficult it is, it's a non-trivial investment of time and resources. No amount of ego from you can change that. Even if I accepted your position, the problem still exists for non-geeks.

      Times and technology have changed. Our laws need to catch up before it's too late.

      --
      The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
    13. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I lost a bunch of old emails a while back when I left my Yahoo account inactive for too long. If searching lets me retrieve them, I'm game.

    14. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      What we really need are open source cloud solutions. There are very few out there now and they're generally weak.

      How does open source software help if you still hand your plain text data to a third party running the service? The only way to protect data that you want an untrustworthy third party to hold for you is to encrypt it such that they do not have access. Just encrypt your messages before sending them to Google.

      If there were an open-source equivalent to Gmail I wouldn't have to send my mail to anybody - I'd run my own cloud solution on my own hardware under my own control.

      Short of that, there is no point in encrypting email and sending it to Google, unless I just want to use them as a backup solution. I couldn't read the emails via Gmail without some kind of browser plugin to decrypt them again, which defeats most of the purpose of having them in the cloud in the first place.

      For backups, encrypting before uploading makes a lot more sense - as long as you don't need easy remote access to the backups.

    15. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by niftydude · · Score: 1

      True - Unfortunately - I'm the only person I know who has a pgp signature...

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    16. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +...calling something at the bottom of that big pile on your desk "abandoned".

      I agree completely.... this means I can leave a large pile of tax returns/demands on my desk which would become the property of the government after six months. As a bonus, in 50 years when the Freedom of Information thingy takes effect future generations can better understand how the IRS is going to screw them.

    17. Re:One good reason to avoid webmail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've just made me consider setting up my own email server. But the hidden costs to doing that are buying a domain name and upgrading to a static IP for my home internet service provider (currently AT&T).

  3. Cloud Computing by denshao2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is my old data on a cloud based system considered abandoned if I continue to actively use the system but don't touch some items?

    1. Re:Cloud Computing by Master+Moose · · Score: 0

      Is their data on a cloud based system considered abandoned if I continue to actively use the system but don't touch some items?

      There, fixed that for you

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    2. Re:Cloud Computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good question - I was about to post effectively the same one myself. In my mind, if I regularly use an email account, then data in that account is NOT inactive, even if it is "antique" in internet time. I have messages in my gmail folders that are 6+ years old. They are there because a) it is convenient, and b) they still have value to me, for reference purposes if nothing else.

    3. Re:Cloud Computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you're only just now thinking about the horrible implications of using cloud computing, months or years after you started doing so?

    4. Re:Cloud Computing by SirCyn · · Score: 2

      Is my old data on a cloud based system considered abandoned if I continue to actively use the system but don't touch some items?

      This is one of the problems the ISPs want clarified; the law doesn't specify if the whole account has to be inactive, or just certain items. The law has many other problems because of changes in modern technology.

    5. Re:Cloud Computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of those comments that deserves to be above +5. If any comment in this discussion is visible, this one should be it. Replying as an anonymous coward since I moderated your comment insightful.

      Does anyone know where to find the answer to the above question: " Is my old data on a cloud based system considered abandoned if I continue to actively use the system but don't touch some items?"

      strike

  4. Thinking one move ahead... by amightywind · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Obama is indeed a pathetic joke. Let us bomb the terrorist Gaddafi so the terrorists take over the Libya! What an inspiration.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Thinking one move ahead... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      In the interest of fairness, we're also bombing the rebels.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  5. Not totally against this. by mywhitewolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So they would require an additional warrant to investigate additional email addresses for emails older than 6 months? if someone had a PO box and a residential post box, does the law require 2 warrants to search each of the post boxes? the legal requirement should match this.

    However I disagree with the consideration that emails on a web server that are 6 months old on are abandoned.. i have 6 year old emails on the web that i still refer to occasionally, with a push to the more efficient cloud computing its important to recognize this, a web based email account should be considered the same as a PO box as far as privacy is concerned.

    1. Re:Not totally against this. by smurfsurf · · Score: 2

      > So they would require an additional warrant to investigate additional email addresses for emails older than 6 months?

      Why would they need two warrants? They would need ONE warrant to access ALL emails. Currently, they need NO warrant to access old emails and ONE warrant to access new emails.

      The initiative wants to get rid of the provision for warrantless access. More power to that.

    2. Re:Not totally against this. by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      Going FTA, the point is they don't need a warrant at all for email older than 6 months that's not stored locally. Law enforcement just tell your webmail/IMAP provider to cough it up, and it's theirs. Stuff newer than 6 months is protected by probable cause - i.e. they need an existing reason to think there's evidence of a specific crime in your newer than 6 month email to get a warrant; but older than that? 'Abandoned'. Even if it's part of a current email account that you use daily online, anything older than 6 months is fair game for fishing expeditions.

      James A. Baker, associate deputy attorney general:
      "Congress should recognize the collateral consequences to criminal law enforcement and the national security of the United States if ECPA were to provide only one means — a probable cause warrant — for compelling disclosure of all stored content. For example, in order to obtain a search warrant for a particular e-mail account, law enforcement has to establish probable cause to believe that evidence will be found in that particular account. In some cases, this link can be hard to establish. In one recent case, for example, law enforcement officers knew that a child exploitation subject had used one account to send and receive child pornography, and officers discovered that he had another email account, but they lacked evidence about his use of the second account."

      So they were able to go on a fishing expedition, and then find evidence to get probable cause to go after his current email in his main account. And that is a reason to always allow law enforcement to go for a fishing expedition in your email. Sheesh.

      Moral of this story? Archive any email older than 6 months to local disk unless you don't mind law enforcement having free rein to read it at will. Or host it all outside the US; the EU has strong data protection laws, for example.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  6. Those who don't learn from history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The last time we elected a Republican house with a Democratic President the Republicans shut down the government.

    Then we tried a Republican legislature with a Republican President. They took the country from a surplus to a deficit with tax givaways to the rich. They let their industry buddies poison the air and water. They drove the economy of a cliff. They were a national disaster.

    After electing another Republican house majority we should have expected the government to be shut down.

    Unfortunately people don't learn from history and the Republican party is again shutting down the government.

    Please stop voting Republican. America deserves better.

    1. Re:Those who don't learn from history... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      After electing another Republican house majority we should have expected the government to be shut down.

      Hell yeah, that's why we did it. When either party gets rubber-stamp power, government works.. too well. They go crazy and give themselves and their cronies whatever they want with money that should be spent for the nation's benefit, or returned (not taxed next year) to the citizens. Then they vote to raise taxes to feed their evil schemes. We should want gridlock. We should praise the days when Federal government doesn't work.

    2. Re:Those who don't learn from history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, why the fuck do you lot not demand electoral reform?

      I'm safely off at a distance, living in foreignland, where the word "government" has not become a synonym for "satan", so I really can't understand why so many people in the US want to correct their problems by removing government entirely.

      You do not fix something that's broken by just throwing it away and saying you can do without it.

    3. Re:Those who don't learn from history... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I'm safely off at a distance, living in foreignland, where the word "government" has not become a synonym for "satan", so I really can't understand why so many people in the US want to correct their problems by removing government entirely. You do not fix something that's broken by just throwing it away and saying you can do without it.

      Our government has "shut down" many, many times before, and it's never synonymous with anarchy. It's usually like when a grubby restaurant gets "shut down" by the board of health for a weekend. They clean things up, get another inspection, and work slightly better for a couple years at keeping things clean. But without that jarring shutdown, they won't clean up their act. I know you don't understand the US view of "government is evil", but that's because our country was founded on the principle that power corrupts, and that checks and balances need to be used to prevent anyone (or any group) from becoming a dictator. It's sort of ilke trying to explain FOSS ideals to someone firmly entrenched in the Microsoft world. You might be made to see intellectually why we believe what we do, but you won't fully understand until you're burned badly enough by your OS software vendor to wipe your machine and start from scratch.

  7. Eerie feeling by bongey · · Score: 2

    Just watch 'V for Vendetta' the other day, and got the feeling that governments around the world are becoming scary similar to British Government protayed in the movie. They are not killing people but it is truly scary the amount of invasion of the privacy the government wants to "Protect you from the terrorist " .

    1. Re:Eerie feeling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just watch 'V for Vendetta' the other day, and got the feeling that governments around the world are becoming scary similar to British Government protayed in the movie. They are not killing people but it is truly scary the amount of invasion of the privacy the government wants to "Protect you from the terrorist " .

      They are killing people.

  8. Abandonment Term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's increase this term to Life + 95 years for e-mails sent by people, 120 years for those sent by corporations (including works for hire). For e-mails that are in the outbox, drafts, or any other unsent mail, it's life + 95 years, or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever is shorter.

    1. Re:Abandonment Term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there.

    2. Re:Abandonment Term by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

      Copyright your email. That will protect it for 70 or so years after you're dead.

    3. Re:Abandonment Term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when did a government care about copyright when it wants to snoop in your life?

    4. Re:Abandonment Term by 19061969 · · Score: 1

      Maybe there is a point here - surely the corporates won't be happy about random / unknown govt busybodies having free access to trade secrets? They would be a useful partner.

      And of course, this would also apply to politicians even those currently in office. Okay senator, let's see those emails between you and megacorp...

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    5. Re:Abandonment Term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually since these are works you create, you could claim copyright. But I doubt that would stop a criminal investigation.

    6. Re:Abandonment Term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make it the same as the length of copyright?

    7. Re:Abandonment Term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this - The government, never, ever, has the power to read your email without a warrant.

    8. Re:Abandonment Term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoooooooooosh!

    9. Re:Abandonment Term by Xarius · · Score: 2

      Aren't your personal emails already copyrighted to you by default?

      --
      C17H21NO4
  9. Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 4, Informative

    Look at this chart.

    That chart shows that Barack Obama saved the economy from the Republican engineered disaster.

    A decade of Republican policies brought us an economic disaster. Barack Obama brought us back to growth and put us on the path for prosparity.

    We may wish it was faster, but every competent software developer already has a job, and the economy is only getting better. Err.. it was until the Republican party decided to shut down the government for the second time in as many decades.

    The people who complain that our recovery isn't fast enough advocate the policies (of insane deregulation) that brought us the economic disaster in the first place. And now of course they are doing their best to kill the recovery before it reaches the rest of the country.

    Just like they want to kill health care reform before it saves to many lives.

    1. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually we to kill health care "reform" because it takes away the individual right to choose and represents a frightening expansion of Government. Few people would argue in favor of the status quo. We just don't think a 2,200 page rube goldberg piece of legislation that claims the power to regulate economic inactivity is the best way to go about fixing what is broken.

      Have you actually read the legislation that your party rammed down the throats of the American people? Did you know it makes it illegal to start up new hospitals? Did you know that it sets minimum standards of insurance that will preclude people from buying high deductible policies even if those policies make economic sense for them? Do you know they helped to pay for it by imposing excise taxes on medical devices (everything from pacemakers to breast implants) that will increase the cost of those devices and further inflate health care costs?

      This legislation stinks. Sorry that you are too busy hating the GOP and gloating over your supposed victory to see that.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bongey · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Can you please point to somewhat of unbias resource . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Monthly is left leaning and was founded by someone who started in the peace corps. So yes you link is bullshit.

    3. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      Do you have any information contradicting those numbers?

      I didn't think so.

        Liberals don't spend all day lying, unlike Fox "News". A liberal newspaper isn't automatically false, and the Peace Corps is very honorable institution.

      The linked numbers are accurate, so provide information to the contrary or kindly stfu.

    4. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama's policies reversed job losses in the space of one month?

      Clinton did not sign this?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Regulatory_changes_1995

      "By early 1995, the proposed CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process to date, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results."

      I guess by 'actual results' they mean giving as many housing loans as possible to poor people. Way to go Republicans.. oh wait

    5. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how you completely ignore the fact that Dems controlled the house and senate for two years before BHO took over, and the Fair Housing Act and associated Democrat legislation had a huge impact on the current economic instability.

      "decade of republican policies brought us this disaster" my ass. A decade of liberal policies that went uncorrected and conservatives earmarking like it was going out of style brought us to where we are.

      Look at the Obama adminstrations budget, projected deficits, and the amount of debt we've added to the national debt in two years. Republicans may have been caught red-handed about spending, but the liberals and their big-government, tax-heavy ideals combined with their equally reckless spending is the largest part of the mess our country faces.

    6. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      That's an awful long way of saying that you approve of uninsured freeloaders who get care when they get hurt, even if they can't pay. So much for personal responsibility...

      If my hospital has to care for an uninsured person who gets into a car accident, then everyone has a responsibility to carry health insurance. It's the only fair way to deal with the unexpected illnesses that people can't afford.

      Even people like you who value insurance company profits over human life should be able to see that.

    7. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 0

      The President matters. George W Bush was the worst President in recent history.

      Are you suggesting that democrats should have changed every single law in the country before George W Bush finally left the Presidency in disgrace?

      It takes time to fix disastrous Republican policies.

    8. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      No, I'm talking about an insane level of deregulation of the financial industry, which Republicans pushed for and got.

      The affordable housing act couldn't have taken down the whole economy if not for deregulation of the entire financial industry.

    9. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Liberals don't spend all day lying

      "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." -BHO, one of his first acts was to sign legislation increasing the Federal excise tax on cigarettes. The major achievement of his administration (if you can call it that) was the ACA, which contains new taxes on people that decline to purchase health insurance

      “Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it,” Obama said in a Feb. 28, 2008 appearance on Ellen DeGeneres' television show. “So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t." -BHO successfully leveraging the individual mandate against HRC, he later signed legislation containing such a mandate

      "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." -Obama for America spokesman Bill Burton. Senator Obama later voted in favor of telecom immunity in the FISA bill

      Yep, I'm glad Liberals don't spend all day lying. They are totally different from the other corporate owned party in this regard.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That same logic could be used to justify a repeal of the bankruptcy code and return to debtors prisons. Freeloaders whom can't pay their debts drive up borrowing costs for the rest of us.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      No, I'm talking about an insane level of deregulation of the financial industry, which Republicans pushed for and got.

      If only we had a Democrat in office back in the 90s when all of that deregulation happened. He could have vetoed it or something.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, god. 'rammed down the throats of the American people'. Jon Stewart did a clip of Republicans/right wing commentators repeating that phrase over and over - try having an original thought. Obama made clear he was going to seek healthcare reform when he ran for office, and the American people elected him and a majority Democratic congress. Polling suggests that if anything a plurality of Americans are annoyed that they didn't go far enough.

      Until you decide that it's not okay to let people die from illness when your society is being rich enough to heal them I personally think your human race membership card should be revoked.

    13. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Gofyerself · · Score: 1

      Insane deregulation started long before Bush

    14. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You mean the "unexpected" illnesses caused by eating McD's everyday, like heart disease and diabetes? Or smoking two packs a day for twenty years and getting lung cancer? You mean like drinking yourself silly till you need a liver?

      And how, exactly, do you "fairly" decide who gets a the one kidney that is available?

      The problem is, life isn't fair. And you can't make it any more fair with your mandates towards "fairness". Fairness that is really your sense of fairness, and not mine.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The private jobs added have absolutely nothing to do with Obama. That's the real secret, job growth, or lack thereof, typically happens regardless of who is in office. If GWB had been around for another 4 years we would be seeing these numbers now too.

      Then there are the jobs created by the census, which are mostly temporary. These will go away shortly and for the jobs that are permanent jobs? Well, let's just say that the federal government SHOULD not be in the business of creating jobs. It's the job of the government to put long term policies in place that create favorable conditions for private industry to add jobs. I don't see where Obama is doing that, but neither did GWB.

      The truth is we need someone in the office that understands the role of government in a capitalistic system, but that won't happen till the country goes bankrupt from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the interest on the national debt.

    16. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Gofyerself · · Score: 1

      Wow, aren't you an angry troll. If you think that mandating everyone carries insurance is going to magically mean everyone is insured, just look at your above example. By law, if you drive a vehicle on American roadways, it must be insured. Why is it so many drivers are uninsured?

    17. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really need to try some facts on for size

      The economy is improving DESPITE his policies because of it's inherent strength. It would REALLY improve if they would cut taxes. It also would have improved much more quickly if they had skipped health care. Employers were and are treading lightly on hiring due to the burden of the health care law, oh, except for all the corporations that Obama magically gave exemptions to, and funds to to offset the their costs, so they wouldn't gripe.

      The amount of spending this administration is burdening the country with is a serious drain on the economy, and it will be a whole lot worse if China keeps raising interest rates. You just can't spend money that our grand kids haven't even earned yet.

      And the economic disaster was brought about not by deregulation, it was brought about by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and their Community Reinvestment Act and involvement with Fannie and Freddie, all of which amounted to the goverment saying hey banks, you must go write loans whether the borrowers can afford them or not.

    18. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is someone supposed to pay their debt from Prison? Oh... wait.. that's just a strawman. nevermind.

      By the way, until the Great Republican Recession, health care costs (even for the 'insured') were the leading cause of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy, often followed by death.

      Your side is trying to keep it that way.

    19. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      Deregulation suddenly stopped when George W Bush and the 'deregulate everything' Republicans got full control of the government?

      That doesn't sound right. Didn't Republicans take their policies of deregulation to absurd levels while they controlled the government?

      Financial deregulation was taken to extreme levels by Republicans when they controlled all branches of government.

      Financial deregulation is still advocated by the Republican party.

    20. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      Funny, that chart's data ends a year ago. That's a nice touch too, how it cuts off right at March 2010, padded by ~50K temporary Census jobs, to give it a pretty upward spike at the very end. But where's today's chart showing all of the last year, so we can revel in the full extent of the Savior's impact?

      Seriously dude, your partisan hate is waaaay over the top. Anyone claiming a decade long Republican (or Democrat) conspiracy to destroy the US -- and who really believes that -- is part of the reason the fuckers in DC, on both sides, get away with what they do. They want to divide the citizenry to make us think that one side is really better or different than the other. That way, they get to take turns fucking things up and kiss ass to the special interests that got them elected in the first place, and switch back every two to six years, when the idiot citizenry gets bored or pissed at who spent more on TV commercials. And you've fallen for it, hook, line and sinker, just like all the slackjawed right wing drones watching Fox News. But guess what? In the real world, BHO is no different than GWB -- he's just a better salesman, he's black instead of white, and has a little D instead of a little R after his name. But he still doesn't give a *fuck* about you, and like all other politicians, he only cares about getting reelected. And, just like GWB, he's quite happy to trample all over the Constitution do whatever the hell he wants. Because, you know, he's *President.* Sorry to burst your bubble, but he's definitely *not* "change" -- he's the goddamned same as all the others.

    21. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by nomadic · · Score: 1

      The Fair Housing Act had no effect on the current economic instability.

    22. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Have you actually read the legislation that your party rammed down the throats of the American people? Did you know it makes it illegal to start up new hospitals? Did you know that it sets minimum standards of insurance that will preclude people from buying high deductible policies even if those policies make economic sense for them? Do you know they helped to pay for it by imposing excise taxes on medical devices (everything from pacemakers to breast implants) that will increase the cost of those devices and further inflate health care costs?"

      Answer that. And yes, I agree. We should abolish all insurance except for extrodinary circumstances. Let the market bring prices down so that a physical only costs $25. Like Lasik. But no, thanks to Ted Kennedy we have HMOs. Do you think that a 5 minute ultra sound would cost $2500 if there wasn't insurance.

    23. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHAT DRUGS ARE YOU SMOKING? Path to prosperity??? Path to disaster is more accurate.

      Name ONE single country that has prospered from over-spending and printing [money] it's way out of debt?

      Please, just name one...

    24. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Calsar · · Score: 1

      That's amazing. He was able to turn the job market around the month he took office before he enacted any policies. The reality is that the economy collapsed and a rebound was going to happen no matter who took office. Of course had it been a Republican they would have taken credit as well. The president has a limited ability affect the economy and it takes years after policies are enacted before you see the effects. One of the big causes of the crash was the real-estate market. This was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which allowed banks to shift all the mortgage risk to organizations backed by the government. Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of the Roosevelt’s New Deal. It took almost 70 years for program to implode. The funny thing is that it was created to loosen credit and make houses more affordable. It certainly loosened credit to point of ridiculousness and was also one of the factors in the constant increase in home prices over the past 70 years which actually made houses more expensive.

    25. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Look at this chart. [washingtonmonthly.com]

      That chart shows that Barack Obama saved the economy from the Republican engineered disaster.

      All I see is jobs losses reach a climax and then recede. It doesn't show me anything about why or what.

      So, please explain because you come off as a partisan shill.

    26. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 2

      Unemployment is at it's lowest rate since March of 2009. The chart only gets better from where it left off.

      Until April, when the Republican party is going to once again totally ruin the economy.

      If I seem angry, it's because I voted for a guy to clean up the mess Republican policies created. And he did clean up that mess. And now that Obama's policies are incontrovertibly working, taking us out of this mess, Republicans are back to mess everything up.

      In the real world, Barack Obama is very different from George W Bush, which is why Republicans are shutting down the government. Only a fool would believe that Republicans and Democrats are the same as they fight over a fundamentally different view of government.

    27. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That same logic could be used to justify a repeal of the bankruptcy code and return to debtors prisons. Freeloaders whom can't pay their debts drive up borrowing costs for the rest of us.

      No, that same logic is why we have no debtors prisons.

    28. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by StrahdVZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've never understood the Republicans' fear of "frightening expansion of government" while in the same breath they're happy to have the government track and monitor their every move in the interests of national security and tell them what they can and can not watch or read in the interests of morality.

      It doesn't make sense. How can you not trust them to give basic services and necessities to the poor, but you can seemingly trust them to listen in on your every move and tell you exactly what you can and can not do?

      Isn't the whole point of government to provide services to the community, as opposed to being a nanny?

    29. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The government intervened to help the economy, much to the consternation of Republicans everywhere.

      That intervention stemmed the job losses, as it was designed to. It gave money from the states that were hemmoraging teachers and other government funded jobs. Those teachers and other workers still paid their bills.

      The stimulus plan which was passed over Republican objections also created jobs in the private sector. These people also paid their bills and continued to support the rest of the economy.

      The President also propped up the banking system, allowing credit to continue flowing, even if at a slower pace.

      Over time, things got better until the private sector was able to start hiring again.

      Without government intervention, job losses would have continued unabated.

    30. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it takes away the individual right to choose

      What right do you think you have to "choose"? You've got to be kidding.

      Here you go:

      1) Coverage can not be denied to children with pre-existing conditions.
      2) Adults up to age 26 can stay on their parents' health plans.
      3) Free preventive care.
      4) Rescinding coverage is now illegal.
      5) Eliminating lifetime limits on insurance coverage.
      6) Restricting annual limits on insurance coverage.
      7) More options to appeal coverage decisions.
      8) $5 billion in immediate federal support to affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions.
      9) $10 billion investment in Community Health Centers.
      10) Create immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees.
      11) Made an $80 billion deal with the pharmaceutical industry to contribute to cut prescription drug costs for the nation's seniors reduce the size of the "donut hole" in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit.
      12) Provides a $250 rebate to 750,000 Medicare Beneficiaries who reach the Part D coverage gap in 2010. As of March 22, 2011, 3.8 million beneficiaries had received a $250 check to close the coverage gap, according to an HHS report.
      13) Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering up to 35% of employee premiums effective 2011 and a 50% tax credit effective 2013.
      14) Creates a state option to provide Medicaid coverage to childless adults with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level. By 2014, States are required to provide this coverage.
      15) Provides a 10% Medicare bonus payment for primary care services and also a 10% Medicare bonus payment to general surgeons practicing in health professional shortage areas.
      16) Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) requires that insurance companies spend at least 80 to 85 percent of the proportion of the premium dollars on clinical services. As an example, WellPoint's Anthem Blue Cross unit in California has reduced its proposed rate increase

      But you're concerned about having the "right" to choose to go to an emergency room if you get sick so the rest of us can pay for it. Fuck you.

      Obama's a disappointment for a lot of reasons. But taking away your "right" to leech off the rest of us by not having health insurance is not one of them. And the health care reform act is not one of them. I'd have preferred a single-payer system similar to the ones the rest of the world have, because it will cost less, but this one is a big improvement over what we had before.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    31. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Um you apparently are unaware that the Republicans have passed a Continuing Resolution to fund the government through the end of the current fiscal year. You are also apparently unaware that the Democrats failed to pass a budget for this fiscal year when they controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House. Finally, you apparently unaware that the Democrats have not actually proposed a spending bill to fund the government for the rest of the year.
      Additionally, it has been the Democrats who have been gleefully looking forward to a government shutdown because of the political benefit they believe they will get from it. SO, who has decided to shut down the government again?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    32. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Well, what would you call it when Congress passes a major bill by using a parliamentary trick because they could not get enough votes to pass it by the traditional method?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    33. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Nexusone1984 · · Score: 1

      How about post a chart that is back up in facts, anyone can produce a graph chart.

      While I did not agree with everything Bush or Republicans did, to blame them alone shows lack of any real thought and shows your just a blind Democratic party supporter.

      Here are some facts as to how we got to where we are today:

      Democrat's ignored Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, when Bush came into office he wanted more over site of them. Democrats block any attempt at taken any action on those Government set up Mortgage company's.

      Obama has increased spending 4X what we are taken in via Taxes. And Republicans are Evil for trying to get a handle on it.

      I not sure what planet you live on, but Obama care is not going to save any lives. More people are going to die under it, do to health care rationing. Just go back and look up Obama speaking on his idea of heath care, old people should be given a pill to make them feel better until they die. Not worth spending money to keep them alive.

      Last time I checked there are not people laying all over the streets dieing under our current health care system. But it does not mean we do not need to do something about health care cost, but Obama care does not address that.

    34. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by mike1210 · · Score: 1

      No, I'm talking about an insane level of deregulation of the financial industry

      Such "deregulation" consisted of repealing 17 pages of regulations, and replacing them with thousands of pages of more regulations, implementing Basel II.

    35. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      Why didn't the Republicans pass a clean continuing resolution like last time? Why do Republicans insist on gluing their crazy right wing agenda to the budget at every step? Why should we let the Republican party gut the EPA, so their oil company buddies can continue poisoning the air we all breathe? We can't trade away our air and health. We have to fight for those things because we need them to live. Why is the tea party chanting "shut it down" while democrats are compromising on everything other than crazy ploys to harm the sick and the environment? Why does the government get shut down every time that Republicans get the House when there is a Democratic President?

    36. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a person with two nurses and a doctor in the family do you want to know the REAL reason our system is completely broken? You do? The answer is simple: we save a penny and spend a pound it is as simple as that. Let me give an example of one my mom had to work on...

      37 year old male, working poor, couldn't get a tooth extracted. Cost of the tooth? maybe $700 if he needs an oral surgeon. But to the working poor that may as well be $700,000 because both are out of reach, since they are living hand to mouth. Neither the state nor the fed will pay for preventive care like that. So what?

      Well instead you got to pay for the new valves for his heart and a month in the hospital getting antibiotics because the infected tooth spread infection into his bloodstream and it attacked his heart. It is actually quite common, the actor Andy Hallet died from it. Cost? I'd say around $300,000 easy.

      And THAT, that right there, is the problem. Instead of adopting a sane system where the poor could get preventive medicine we instead pay outrageous prices to take care of them when they are at death's door, when it costs CRAZY money to put them back on their feet. if either the state or the fed would have paid that $700 we wouldn't have had a $300,000 bill passed on to the government. Does the current system make ANY sense?

      As for TFA, meet the new boss, yada yada. That is why we need multiple parties here, because what we have is an "El Presidente" banana republic going on, where it doesn't matter which you vote for they BOTH want more power for themselves and less rights for you, they BOTH want to stuff their pockets and pay off their cronies. The ONLY difference between the two is which asses get kissed the most and neither give a shit about the country or the people.

      The Ds prefer the taste of big media and union ass, while the Rs prefer the corporate and MIC ass. That's it. Otherwise it is the same shit, different day. And if the Rs run anybody but Caribou Barbie they'll win by a landslide because so many are sick of Obama's bullshit.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    37. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      and one more time with spacing so I dont seem crazy...

      Why didn't the Republicans pass a clean continuing resolution like last time?

      Why do Republicans insist on gluing their crazy right wing agenda to the budget at every step?

      Why should we let the Republican party gut the EPA, so their oil company buddies can continue poisoning the air we all breathe?

      We can't trade away our air and health. We have to fight for those things because we need them to live.

      Why is the tea party chanting "shut it down" while democrats are compromising on everything other than crazy ploys to harm the sick and the environment?

      Why does the government get shut down every time that Republicans get the House when there is a Democratic President?

    38. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Liberals don't spend all day lying

      Instead, they fake service records, lie about it on television, even after getting caught, then get fired. They also lie about being objective, then rip in to "Teabaggers" when they think the cameras aren't running.

    39. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [quote]But you're concerned about having the "right" to choose to go to an emergency room if you get sick so the rest of us can pay for it. Fuck you. [/quote]

      I just sent this quote to your grandparents. Fucking leeches, they should know how you really feel.

    40. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barack Obama saved the economy from the Republican engineered disaster.

      The economy was fine until Pelosi took over in 2007, after which Bush had his hands tied by congress, so if anything the blame should go on the Democrats. Your chart shows that the brakes were put on in November 2008 during the Bush administration but because the economy has substantial inertia and feedback it didn't take hold for several months.

    41. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      How about post a chart that is back up in facts, anyone can produce a graph chart.

      Uhh... the chart represents facts. Its numbers are accurate.

      While I did not agree with everything Bush or Republicans did, to blame them alone shows lack of any real thought and shows your just a blind Democratic party supporter.

      The Republicans deserve blame for what they did. Democrats are trying to fix the problem but are being savaged for their efforts by the Republicans who destroyed the economy.

      Democrat's ignored Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, when Bush came into office he wanted more over site of them. Democrats block any attempt at taken any action on those Government set up Mortgage company's.

      To look at those 2 entities alone without seeing the big picture regulatory environment and too big to fail but unregulated banks is to totally miss the point. I look at their impact, but you don't seem to notice the impact of deregulation.

      Obama has increased spending 4X what we are taken in via Taxes. And Republicans are Evil for trying to get a handle on it.

      Bush Tax-Cut + Bush Recession = Obama's fault?

      I don't think so. The 4 X increase in the DEFICIT was cause by Republican policies.

      Last time I checked there are not people laying all over the streets dieing under our current health care system.

      That's because you willfully closed your eyes to the real world.

    42. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not quite. You have a moral and ethical obligation to treat the sick and injured. There is no moral or ethical obligation to loan someone money.

    43. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Only a profoundly dishonest person would characterize a tax on cigarettes as one of the taxes Obama said wouldn't go up.

    44. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by nomadic · · Score: 1

      The affordable housing act couldn't have taken down the whole economy if not for deregulation of the entire financial industry.

      Don't fall for the lie. The Community Reinvestment Act didn't take down the economy. Anyone who tells you that is either ignorant or dishonest.

    45. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by nomadic · · Score: 1

      The economy is improving DESPITE his policies because of it's inherent strength. It would REALLY improve if they would cut taxes

      Oh lord...earth to right-wingers: cutting taxes is not the cure to every economic ill. That's been proven time and time again, yet the anti-tax fanatics refuse to learn from history.

    46. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by jackbird · · Score: 1

      The repeal of Glass-Steagall passed the house 343-86 and senate 55-44 post-Monica Lewinski. A veto would have been an empty gesture. Besides, ignoring Reagan and Bush I's deregulation (Silverado Savings and Loan, anyone?) is disingenuous.

    47. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Leech off the rest of us" Thanks. I guess not having enough money for food and health insurance makes me a leech and I'll be sure to tell my girlfriend who has health insurance but doesn't have the cash for the deductible so doesn't go, what you think as well. Must be so hard for you to look down on us peons. I wish you well and by well I mean ass cancer.

    48. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Shakrai · · Score: 0

      But you're concerned about having the "right" to choose to go to an emergency room if you get sick so the rest of us can pay for it. Fuck you.

      No, fuck you. I have the right of free association and you can't fucking compel me to associate with private enterprise no matter how hard you try to twist the commerce clause.

      Your logic about the rest of us paying for it is bullshit. The "rest of us" pay for stupidity all the time. My credit card rates go up because other jackasses spend more than they can afford. I was denied a mortgage that I applied for because of a bunch of jackasses I've never met decided it would be a good idea to get mortgages they couldn't afford while a bunch of other jackasses decided to bundle all those doomed mortgages into securities and resell them. I don't see anybody suggesting indentured servitude and/or a repeal of the bankruptcy code to help defray the costs imposed on society by jackasses that borrow more money than they can afford to repay.

      You can't use the stupidity of others as an excuse to take away my rights. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    49. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      It worked pretty well for the Wiemar Republi..... oh, shit.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    50. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Actually we to kill health care "reform" because it takes away the individual right to choose and represents a frightening expansion of Government.

      Good grief, I just don't get this. I actually AGREE that it's probably unconstitutional. But "frightening"? In the grand scheme of history "healthcare" has never been considered the kind of fundamental right that everyone on both sides says it it now. Freedom of speech, religion, conscience--those are the things that great minds have debated for millenia. Bureaucratic disputes over healthcare? THAT'S what you're trying to make our civilization's defining battle? Try to have a sense of perspective.

    51. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't about fairness at all. It is about being humane to your fellow man. Not everybody is so fortunate as to have made or been able to make good decisions throughout life. Just because I don't smoke, drink, or eat excessively doesn't give me a right to pay less in health care costs. The only thing that would give me such a right is my inability to pay the same as you. Some people grew up in a smoking household. Some were addicted before they had a choice. Some are more susceptible to addition. Some were left with little choice. Just because you were more fortunate than others doesn't mean everybody is so lucky. Just because you can survive on healthy food doesn't mean everybody is so fortunate. Yes some abuse it. That is just part of life. You were provided other basic essentials as a child so therefore you should also be obligated to do the same for others when your means allow you to. You will be rewarded for making good decisions later in life (very likely). You will probably live longer. Nobody should profit from basic essentials.

      A persons financial means to pay or make good decisions shouldn't be relevant to getting health care, a minimal of food, a place to live, or other basic essentials. Nobody is saying that those least off financially should be given free cable TV or high speed Internet access (at least until such have become a necessity where a majority have it). However water, electric (to a certain number of watts), gas (heat/cooking/etc), a certain number of square feet of living space, basic phone service, basic Internet service, basic computing equipment, basic kitchen facilities, a means of transportation (a cheap vehicle, public transport, bus, subway, etc.), education (throughout life and not just elementary), food, health care, and other essentials should be guaranteed. Once these have been provided then tax everyone's income. Those who have benefited the most from capitalism should pay more.

    52. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      It's called freedom of association. The ACA takes it away by compelling me to associate with private enterprise (for-profit insurance companies) as a condition of American citizenship.

      Your other examples are appropriate here too. Freedom of conscience. I have a moral objection to the way insurance companies do business and do not want to enrich them with the fruits of my labor. Too bad the Federal Government is taking that choice away from me. Freedom of religion comes into play too -- notice how they craved out an exemption for the Amish? Maybe I'll start my own religion. Hell, it worked for L. Ron....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    53. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by NoseSocks · · Score: 1

      "Frightening expansion of government" is the key.
      Get ready everyone. The more you let government control health care, the more they will control our lives.
      How can the left not see this as an issue? You give government more and more control of health care, the following situation is guaranteed:
      We'll have another wonderful period where we get a right-wing nutjob as president and a congress full of equally insane nutjobs that want to force everyone to follow their personal vision of morality. They will have control of health care. BOOM. Abortion becomes illegal (or not a preferred option, thus costing over 50K) . Stem cell treatments will be prevented. Heck, some of them would probably want all forms of birth control to be made illegal. Could you imagine GW Bush and his congress having control of health care? How does this NOT scare anyone?
      Please note that I am completely against how healthcare works right now. You don't know the cost of the service before you get it, making it ripe for preferential treatment and fraud. Too many people are put into bankruptcy due to health care costs. Something does need to change. The Health Care bill that was passed unfortunately is a disgrace and does nothing to fix the issue of cost. The cost of labor in the US is artificially high due to health care costs and thus makes it even harder for us to recover in a global economy, but the health care bill doesn't address this...during a time of high unemployment.
      The day the bill passed, stock prices for various corporations that sell insurance or prescription medicine went up. If you can't see that this was nothing but more corporatism, I have some promising Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers stock to sell you.

    54. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      What part of the word "any" in his statement of "not any of your taxes" are you having a hard time with?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    55. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our society - in specific our economy - is NOT rich enough to "heal" everyone at current levels going forward. Period. That is THE problem with entitlements as they currently stand, and until or unless we can have an honest discussion in this country about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (ruining probably 30+ years of politicians' reputations and book deals, the horror!) we will remain on a steady course for financial meltdown.

      Medicine, entitlements, EMTALA, et cetera - we're writing checks our economy cannot cash. Attempting and continuing to do so does not and will never solve any of these problems. Ask anyone who has actually read Obamacare about the logical outcome for insurers and you'll get the same answer: the entire private insurance industry will cease to exist. The fine for not carrying insurance is lower than the premiums that will be required for new minimum plans, so all of the healthy population will cease to carry a policy thus removing the "good" population from the actuarial table. Since they cannot be denied (nor charged extra!) for pre-existing conditions, these normal folks can buy insurance AFTER they get diagnosed, keep a year or two of the cash they would have paid into their insurance in a side account for emergency treatment, and that'll be it. Private insurers cannot operate without healthy people in their actuarial calculations, they will close or go belly-up. It's all a well-veiled scam to get a single-payer system in place under the guise of additional choice. Quite ironic.

      We have to stop spending money we don't have. We have to stop spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on people in the last months of their lives. We have to get people to stop smoking, stop overeating, and take care of themselves. Currently there is no actual or implied consequence to these actions; we treat everyone by stealing money from the healthy, the wealthy, and those that make good decisions and take care of themselves. It is interesting that across Europe where socialized medicine rules their populations are significantly healthier than ours, isn't it? Do you think that the reality where medical care may be put off, isn't guaranteed, might have something to do with that? These are the hard questions we should be grappling with as a nation, and there are no easy solutions. However, we are NOT (nor will we ever be) "rich enough" to continue along our current course. You are living in a dream world.

    56. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard stories like this before, but you leave out an important confounding variable - how likely is that infection to spread? If You need at least 1 in 400 for preventative care to really be a savings and that ignores the moral hazard that results in even fewer with insurance. At a guess, you are probably right that it would be more economical to go for preventative care here. Things like cancer screenings though can result in lots of cheaper treatments widely spread becoming more expensive than a few critical treatments.

    57. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 2

      Look at this chart.

      That chart shows that Barack Obama saved the economy from the Republican engineered disaster.

      Actually, that chart shows that Obama and Democrat policies caused the labor market to recover much more slowly than the economy did. The Great Recession ended in June, 2009. That was only a few months after President Obama took office. To claim that any Obama policy ended the Great Recession is silly. If you disagree, please tell me what Obama did between 1/20/09 and 5/31/09 to end the Great Recession.

      A decade of Republican policies brought us an economic disaster. Barack Obama brought us back to growth and put us on the path for prosparity.

      Please name the specific policies that caused an economic disaster, and those that put us on the "path to prosperity". Don't give me generalities, I want specific policies and bills. My background is in Economics, so please do no hesitate to get into the specific details.

      We may wish it was faster, but every competent software developer already has a job, and the economy is only getting better. Err.. it was until the Republican party decided to shut down the government for the second time in as many decades.

      Actually, the Republican-controlled House passed a continuing resolution to keep the government open that contained only previously-agreed-upon terms. President Obama has threatened a veto, and Reid (D-NV) won't even bring it up in the Senate. Tell me again who is shutting down the government?

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    58. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by dreampod · · Score: 1

      And wars compel me to associate with private enterprise (for-profit Military Industrial Complex) as a condition of American citizenship. And I'm compelled to associate with private for-profit road builders, and private for-profit companies of all sorts.

      Sure there is a mild difference between taxing for it and saying 'make your own arrangements under this strictly controlled set of guidelines' but it is completely disingenuous to suggest that one is an acceptable use of governmental power and the other is A CIVILISATION DESTROYING CATASTROPHE!!!! Further the people currently complaining that this violates freedom of association were the ones who insisted on this comprimise rather than establishing a single payer system and makes me rather dubious that they care even the slightest amount over the freedom of association or rather oppose this because social supports oppose their worldview that poor people deserve to suffer regardless of the financial merits of doing so.

    59. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by dreampod · · Score: 1

      The fact he was discussing Income taxes.

    60. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being proactive will save a lot more than being reactive. Absolutely. But aside from funding (basically, who directly pays the bill in the end), the biggest problem facing the medical industry is bureaucracy and little to no standardization. Having a set standards of policies and procedures that each hospital must adhere to would be a major improvement. Also, communication and proper record keeping would save time, resources, and minimize malpractice. It's as though the medical community is stuck in the 1950s with 2011 education and technology! Total disconnect.

      Unfortunately for the Feds, they'll just make it worse through corruption and over burdensome regulation that will cause more harm than good. Basically, a poison pill of a solution. However, if the initiative of a state-level healthcare system was in place. Well...that might work. Once all 50 states have proper systems in place, then, and only then, should we talk about a national healthcare system.

    61. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      And THAT, that right there, is the problem. Instead of adopting a sane system where the poor could get preventive medicine we instead pay outrageous prices to take care of them when they are at death's door, when it costs CRAZY money to put them back on their feet. if either the state or the fed would have paid that $700 we wouldn't have had a $300,000 bill passed on to the government. Does the current system make ANY sense?

      Actually, that's not necessarily true.

      I haven't looked up the actual numbers behind this particular issue, but if the chance that an infected tooth spreads and attacks the heart and requires $300,000 in emergency care is less than about 1:500, then it makes economic sense to deny the preventative care. Not that I wish an untreated infected tooth or the resulting medical emergency on any fellow human, but you made an economic claim that was incorrect.

      We run into a similar problem with socialized medicine. The UK has a whole bureaucracy set up to determine whether a given treatment is cost-effective or not. If it's not cost effective, you don't get it, sorry.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    62. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      But you're concerned about having the "right" to choose to go to an emergency room if you get sick so the rest of us can pay for it. Fuck you.

      No, fuck you. I have the right of free association and you can't fucking compel me to associate with private enterprise no matter how hard you try to twist the commerce clause.

      Your logic about the rest of us paying for it is bullshit. The "rest of us" pay for stupidity all the time. My credit card rates go up because other jackasses spend more than they can afford. I was denied a mortgage that I applied for because of a bunch of jackasses I've never met decided it would be a good idea to get mortgages they couldn't afford while a bunch of other jackasses decided to bundle all those doomed mortgages into securities and resell them. I don't see anybody suggesting indentured servitude and/or a repeal of the bankruptcy code to help defray the costs imposed on society by jackasses that borrow more money than they can afford to repay.

      You can't use the stupidity of others as an excuse to take away my rights. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

      As long as you accept that we also have to restore the rights of emergency rooms to verify you can pay before giving you life saving medical treatment, that is an ok position to hold.

      Anything short of the above (which is a horrible horrible idea, that will kill many many people, particularly those who *are* well insured but simply do not have ID / their insurance cards on their person at the time) is not sustainable, and actually causes what you so rail against.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    63. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by superdave80 · · Score: 0

      And he did clean up that mess.

      No, he wasted time passing health care reform, which nobody cared about or thought was a priority. While he was dicking around with what he thought was important, the unemployment rate continued to climb.

      Yes, that's right, things have been worse since he came into office. Under Bush, the unemployment rate never broke above 8% (it was around 5-6% through nearly his entire eight years in office). Under Obama, it has been at least 8% (with it staying between 9-10% most of his first year). http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_864063_1302240019685.gif

      (Not sure if the image link will work properly. You can generate your own 2000-2010 graph of unemployment here: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet)

      See? I have a graph also, and it shows that not only has Obama not 'cleaned up the mess', but he has made it far worse. I won't even bother to show you the scary graph of budget deficits for the next decade. It's too gruesome to look at.

      Now, in reality, I don't put much blame on a president for how well or poorly the economy does. But I just wanted to point out how easily data and stats can be used to show whatever a person wants to.

    64. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, I'd agree with you except for one thing: Your bitch ass probably isn't in the military. No, law enforcement doesn't count. So FUCK YOU since you are leeching off the suffering of servicemen/women. What we need is the system like in BRITAIN or GERMANY, where priveledged faggots like you can pay extra to have more niceties in hospital, and everyone else can get treatment.

    65. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah, look at this chart: http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_864063_1302240019685.gif

      If the link doesn't work properly, you can generate the same graph for 2000-2010 here: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

      A decade of Republican policies brought us an economic disaster

      Notice that during the Bush years, unemployment stayed around 5-6%, and never broke above 8%.

      Barack Obama brought us back to growth and put us on the path for prosparity.

      Also notice that during most of Obama's time in office, unemployment has been 9-10%, and never broke below 8%.

      Oh, woe is us. Which chart to believe...

    66. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      The party that insists on shutting down the government over spending components they do not agree with ideologically (not deficits - if it were truly about deficits, or even just spending, then you'd see tax increases on the table, or at least reduction in spending on policies they actually agree with, as it stands, it is simply about an oppertunity to remove things from the budget they disagree with) which consists of less than 3% of last years budget, while also attaching riders which include several ideological components among them seeking to take away medical choice from women and restricting regulatory bodies from creating policy based in science.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    67. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 2

      Actually, that chart shows that Obama and Democrat policies caused the labor market to recover much more slowly than the economy did. The Great Recession ended in June, 2009. That was only a few months after President Obama took office. To claim that any Obama policy ended the Great Recession is silly. If you disagree, please tell me what Obama did between 1/20/09 and 5/31/09 to end the Great Recession.

      jobs are always a lagging indicator. You claim to have an expert knowledge of economics, but you don't understand that jobs are always a lagging indicator of growth. I don't think you really understand economics.

      Please name the specific policies that caused an economic disaster, and those that put us on the "path to prosperity". Don't give me generalities, I want specific policies and bills. My background is in Economics, so please do no hesitate to get into the specific details.

      1. Stabalization of credit market, allowing credit to continue to flow. This was done by propping up the banks while dropping interest rates.

      2. Stimulus spending to help state make up shortfalls, and increase economic activity with government funded construction projects. Most of which were long over-due anyway.

      Actually, the Republican-controlled House passed a continuing resolution to keep the government open that contained only previously-agreed-upon terms. President Obama has threatened a veto, and Reid (D-NV) won't even bring it up in the Senate. Tell me again who is shutting down the government?

      Actually the Republican continuing resolution did not contain the agreed upon terms. Aside from being only one week while funding the military for a year, Republicans somehow managed to tack on abortion language.

      I guess Republicans can't help themselves from reaching up womens' dresses to take their rights. But they could prevent a government shutdown by compromising on their 'poison the air' and anti-women's health riders to the budget.

      Not that it matters. They convinced you of something that is totally false, and most of the country is just as naive as you are.

    68. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by s4m7 · · Score: 1

      but this one is a big improvement over what we had before.

      Hardly. In California, drivers are required to have insurance. Yet about 25% of them remain uninsured. The individual mandate doesn't work because it's unenforceable.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    69. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      The chart you generated still shows that a decade of Republican policies pushed the economy off a cliff.

      And of course your statistics make no mention of how the massive job losses were gradually stopped and replaced with job gains. It's on a couple pixels on your chart, but it represents our current situation.

      Your scary budget deficit graph should talk to the Republican tax cut graph. I'll bet they have alot in common.

    70. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      He brought the diving economy jet to a level, but only by burning the last of the fuel. It's only a matter of time before you start losing airspeed and altitude again, headed for a real dirt poor depression.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    71. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by s4m7 · · Score: 1

      Just curious, who is the bigger jackass: the guy who takes out the loan he can't pay, or the guy who loans out hundreds of millions of dollars to people he know can't pay him back... because it's not his money!

      I don't see anybody suggesting indentured servitude and/or a repeal of the bankruptcy code to help defray the costs imposed on society by jackasses that borrow more money than they can afford to repay.

      We bailed out banks that should have been allowed to fail, and as a result millions of poor people are going to be made homeless and hungry. I'm guessing you haven't seen the latest republican budget proposal. There's a punishment coming but it's hitting the wrong people.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    72. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      It's not dishonest. It's just gullible to expect a politician to keep his word in any way, shape, or form.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    73. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      What happened as Bush was leaving office?

      Only a total retard wouldn't notice the massive recession that Republican policies directly caused.

      Republicans were thrown out of office for the massive recession they caused.

      Unfortunately people are so damn stupid that they voted back in the same idiots that pushed the country off an economic cliff.

    74. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you're concerned about having the "right" to choose to go to an emergency room if you get sick so the rest of us can pay for it. Fuck you.

      Obama's a disappointment for a lot of reasons. But taking away your "right" to leech off the rest of us by not having health insurance is not one of them. And the health care reform act is not one of them. I'd have preferred a single-payer system similar to the ones the rest of the world have, because it will cost less, but this one is a big improvement over what we had before.

      Here's a little issue, most people that are around poverty level income cannot afford heath insurance. An he's correct. The government will not pay for crap like pre health care stuff, they will disapprove shit until it gets more serious and by then it's to late. Thus the expensive shit with surgery and staying in ICU for a few days adds up big time.

      Going to the ER for common medical issues is bs though.

      I really hope your ass is broke at some point an time so you can experience what some of us go through. Just cause people are poor doesn't mean they don't work, nor have pride.

    75. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by nomadic · · Score: 1

      You're proving my point. We've turned into such a country of petty beancounters. No sense of grandeur, no sense of the big, dramatic fights. Unless you're 90 years old or chronically ill healthcare should not be the obsessive focus of your life.

    76. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by 19061969 · · Score: 1

      That is one example of complications (a 1 in 400 chance of complications costing £300,000). You would need to sum the cost of all complications (e.g, 1 in 400 at $300,000 and a further 5% at just $5,000 makes quite a difference to the outcome).

      btw, the UK does not have socialised medicine. It has nationalised medicine with a very effective private healthcare system to augment it. The economic cost decisions that you mentioned are actually quite rare and left for very expensive treatments - generally treatment won't be withheld, rather a cheaper option will be sought. There are many patients receiving quite expensive treatments that are not cost effective.

      And anyone can go private if they wish to pay for insurance or the cost of treatment just like the US so it's not a 'it must meet the bottom line or you die' situation like you imply.

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    77. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw you.

      I'm young and healthy. Haven't seen a doctor in over 10 years, don't plan to see one anytime in the next ten either. You want to force me to buy insurance, not for myself, but to manage risk levels in the overall insurance pool. You're forcing me to buy insurance just to subsidize the medical costs of other people, NOT ME, and keep health insurance companies profitable. You are the leech.

    78. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by NoAkai · · Score: 1

      You'll probably have a hard time finding a completely unbiased source, but as parent comment mentioned, unless there are numbers that oppose the linked statistics, there is no reason to believe that aforementioned statistic is false, as long as it seems reasonable.

    79. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when you're run over by a careless driver, or mugged, or get cancer, or one of a million other things that are totally out of your control, you won't be going to hospital? You'll die quietly at home without complaining?

    80. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 0

      Elections have consequences. The reason the government gets shutdown every time that the Republicans get the House when there is a Democratic President is that people like you blame the Republicans, so the Democrats see it as being in their interest to shut the government down. Again, it was Howard Dean who said that if he was the head of the DNC, he would be eagerly anticipating a government shutdown. What evidence do you have that the Democrats are "compromising on everything"? Oh that's right, they say they are. The facts are that the Democrats have not introduced a single piece of legislation which contains their proposals for funding the government the rest of this fiscal year.

      Additionally, last year when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House, they did not pass a budget for this fiscal year. If the Democrats had done their job at that time, this situation would not exist today.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    81. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by hairyfeet · · Score: 0

      Hi MR AC, got bit by the 503 bug? But you are seeing only a small part of what it is actually costing us. My mom recently retired from nursing and the last few years the lack of preventative care has caused a new terminology to pop up amongst the doctors and nurses...TPTL...do you know what that stands for?

      It stands for "Too Poor To Live" and it is a shorthand that those in the medical field use for those they could have saved if they only had access to preventative care. We are talking people in their 30s and 40s that could have lived a long life as a useful member of our society, now gone thanks to something so basic.

      Sadly the fact that they have a name for it should show you how widespread it is, and it doesn't even cover all the other hidden costs, like the woman my mother treated whose three kids ended up wards of the state after she died of a cancer that could have been treated, or all the illness that spreads through a family and then lays up half a town when if they could have afforded medical care they wouldn't have been spreading the crap around.

      So in the end we need to be pushing for preventive care for the poor not only because it is the right thing to do, but I bet my rapidly devaluing last dollar that it would end up costing a hell of a lot less over both the short and long term. things caught early can be treated with less expensive non experimental drugs, use less drugs, and when adding in the lost wages and taxes that person would have paid in I bet it really adds up.

      Of course this is if the truth isn't what some of my friends in the medical field believe, that the conservative groups want to go "back to the 50s" alright, but the 1850s not 1950s, where the poor simply died out from disease. Seeing as how those like Cheney can afford screenings that allow them to survive cancers and other diseases that cause the poor a long slow death frankly I wouldn't be surprised, especially after seeing "RyanCare" and what it'll do to the poor.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    82. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      We bailed out banks that should have been allowed to fail, and as a result millions of poor people are going to be made homeless and hungry. I'm guessing you haven't seen the latest republican budget proposal. There's a punishment coming but it's hitting the wrong people.

      Beautifully put, friend.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    83. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      I hope you're wrong about it not being enforceable.

      My guess is that it's going to be moot because Paul Ryan's proposal to end Medicare entirely is going to hasten our move to a single-payer system.

      I know that may not make sense, but I believe that's what will happen. We just can't afford to do anything but have a single payer system. Everything else makes us go broke.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    84. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The government will not pay for crap like pre health care stuff, they will disapprove shit until it gets more serious and by then it's to late. Thus the expensive shit with surgery and staying in ICU for a few days adds up big time.

      Of course they'll "pay for crap like pre health care stuff". That's now in the law. And they're going to get a lot better care than they would from the emergency room.

      And it's not a matter of "not affording" because they'll be subsidized.

      Hey, a single-payer system would be infinitely better still. Then nobody's got to worry. Maybe some 90 year olds won't get penile implants but honestly, as a 90 year old with erectile dysfunction, I'm OK with that. Have you seen 90 year old women?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    85. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I'm not railing against it. Just pointing out that it also happens in other sectors of the economy and we don't use it as an excuse for taking away individual liberty. I don't mind that my medical costs are slightly inflated because of people who can't pay. That's the price we pay for living in society. Either way it's not a justification for taking away my right of free association and compelling me to do business with a scum-sucking for-profit insurance company as a condition of American citizenship.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    86. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. His exact quote was "not any of your taxes."

      Of course, even if you want to limit it to income taxes I could point out that he violated that pledge when he decided to increase my income taxes if I dare to decide that health insurance is not in my financial interest and opt to go without it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    87. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      I think the concern is not so much healthcare, but the precedent set by allowing the federal government it issue an individual mandate. I think people would be more willing to accept a higher tax burden in exchange for government provided healthcare, but the concept that the federal government believes it has the authority to compel me to go out and buy a product from a private company is kind of scary.

      It's not the healthcare bit that's frightening. It's the bit about our government reaching down from on high and dictating our behavior.

    88. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Instead, they fake service records, lie about it on television, even after getting caught,

      This totally makes me think of GWB.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    89. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      The government intervened to help the economy, much to the consternation of Republicans everywhere.

      ??? The first economic stimulus package in response to the financial crisis came from the Bush administration. Granted it did not get a great deal of support from congressional Republicans, but it's not at all accurate to say that all Republicans everywhere opposed it.

      Without government intervention, job losses would have continued unabated.

      Maybe (ok, probably). But that doesn't mean the intervention we got was the best possible intervention either. We now know that TARP and ARRA are probably going to work out ok, but what we don't know is how well a smaller less expensive intervention might have worked.

      Citing job creation under Obama as evidence of the genius of Obama's recovery plan fails to account for cyclic market behavior. When something crashes that hard, it inevitable has to come back up at some point. What we will never know is how the market might have recovered without government intervention.

    90. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Either way it's not a justification for taking away my right of free association and compelling me to do business with a scum-sucking for-profit insurance company as a condition of American citizenship.

      Hmmmm, looks like you should have supported single-payer when you had the chance...

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    91. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      That is one example of complications (a 1 in 400 chance of complications costing £300,000). You would need to sum the cost of all complications (e.g, 1 in 400 at $300,000 and a further 5% at just $5,000 makes quite a difference to the outcome).

      Fair enough. But I think my main point still remains: the fact that forgoing a $700 treatment might lead to a $300,000 emergency treatment does not automatically mean that it is less costly to provide the $700 treatment.

      btw, the UK does not have socialised medicine. It has nationalised medicine with a very effective private healthcare system to augment it. The economic cost decisions that you mentioned are actually quite rare and left for very expensive treatments - generally treatment won't be withheld, rather a cheaper option will be sought. There are many patients receiving quite expensive treatments that are not cost effective.

      And anyone can go private if they wish to pay for insurance or the cost of treatment just like the US so it's not a 'it must meet the bottom line or you die' situation like you imply.

      I have not studied the UK system. I will, however, relate a story.

      I recently attended a wedding and was chatting with several doctors from the UK. They each described to me instances where people came to their respective offices asking to pay them directly to either perform some type of medical imaging, or to interpret some already-performed imaging (MRI, CT, etc.) In each case, the doctor was forced to decline, much to the chagrin and protestations of the potential patient. Why were they forced to decline? They are veterinarians.

      Now you'll probably respond to me that I don't get British humor and that they were only saying such things to get a rise out of me, and you may be right for all I know. But I will tell you this: in the US, it would never occur to someone to seek human medical care at a veterinarian's office, and neither would it even occur to us to joke about it. Even if the story was a bit apocryphal (actually, I believe them. When it comes to one's own health, people will go to desperate measures out of necessity), the fact that they even were able to concoct such a story tells me a lot about the UK system--things that I would not want to import.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    92. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      Medical is the only industry I am aware of that is legally forced to provide services to all clients, I'd say that makes it signifigantly different.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    93. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Nope, single-payer comes with it's own problems of the removal of choice and individual liberty. Single-payer is only permissible if you aren't compelled to take part in it and that hasn't been the case in any country that has tried it. I understand in Canada that it's even illegal for you to try and pay a Doctor directly for his services rather than take part in the single-payer system. That sort of forced participation makes a mockery of self-determination and freedom of choice.

      What we really should be doing is figuring out why we are spending so much money on health care. Make it more affordable and the inability of most people to pay for it will take care of itself. The remaining people can be supported through medicaid and the like. Consider this: The life expectancy at birth in 1960 was 68 years. In that same year we spent 4.7% of the GDP on health care. That number includes all health care spending, public and private. In 2004 the life expectancy at birth was 74 and we were spending around 15-16% of GDP on health care.

      One might ask what exactly we are getting for our money. A lousy six years increase of life expectancy for more than three times the relative amount of spending? This isn't sustainable. All you'll accomplish with single-payer is to transfer the eventual bankruptcy from individuals to the government. Health care reform is meaningless if we can't bring these costs down.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    94. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      jobs are always a lagging indicator. You claim to have an expert knowledge of economics, but you don't understand that jobs are always a lagging indicator of growth.

      False. Jobs are not always a lagging indicator, and neither are they "always" a lagging indicator if we limit our consideration to recent recessions in the US economy. In fact, if you look at the 14 US recessions since (and including) the Great Depression, you'll note that the number of times that peak unemployment lagged the end of the recession by even 2 quarters was 3.

      I don't think you really understand economics

      Well, that is more a reflection on you than on me.

      1. Stabalization of credit market, allowing credit to continue to flow. This was done by propping up the banks while dropping interest rates.

      That's Bush policy. Glad you're a fan--I am, too. It's one of the few things that Bush got smashingly right, so let's give the poor guy some credit where it's due.

      2. Stimulus spending to help state make up shortfalls, and increase economic activity with government funded construction projects. Most of which were long over-due anyway.

      No ARRA money was spent until long after the recession had ended. It's patently absurd to claim that ARRA ended the recession.

      I guess Republicans can't help themselves from reaching up womens' dresses to take their rights.

      Wait, what? The continuing resolution passed yesterday overturned Roe v. Wade? Citation, please.

      It sounds to me like you could stand to do a little more thinking for yourself and a little less listening to Democrat press releases. My guess is you have one or two brain cells in there than haven't yet been washed. Time to start using them!

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    95. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      The party that insists on shutting down the government over spending components they do not agree with ideologically (not deficits - if it were truly about deficits, or even just spending, then you'd see tax increases on the table, or at least reduction in spending on policies they actually agree with, as it stands, it is simply about an oppertunity to remove things from the budget they disagree with) which consists of less than 3% of last years budget, while also attaching riders which include several ideological components among them seeking to take away medical choice from women and restricting regulatory bodies from creating policy based in science.

      What do you expect? Republicans to completely scrap the current FY's ratified budget? That just doesn't even make any sense, and frankly, I don't think they have any business doing that. The right to decide the FY2011 budget belonged to the previous Congress.

      This whole debate is ridiculous, anyway. Why didn't Democrats pass the funding bills when they still controlled the House? Maybe they wanted to provoke a battle like this to make Republicans look bad?

      Republicans were elected to fix the deficits from FY2012 forward. And by the way, if you don't like that Republicans are tackling only a small percentage of the 2011 spending, did you read Rep. Paul Ryan's 2012 proposal? You may not like all of the provisions, but you'll probably like that he took a serious stand against the deficits.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    96. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously suggesting that all illness is avoidable through lifestyle choices? You don't have to eat fast food every day or smoke heavily to get an unexpected illness, and I can't believe that I should even have to say that.

      Smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer, but if you really think there's no way you can get it just by not smoking you're badly misinformed. Same for heart disease and diabetes. And how about the myriad of diseases that have absolutely nothing at all to do with lifestyle choices? Breast and prostate cancer spring to mind. Or how about a nice bout with e-coli, or do you send everything you eat out to a lab for analysis before you take a bite?

      Most times, becoming ill is not some kind of punishment for making poor choices, or any choices at all. You can do all the right things and still end up in an oncologists office, and until it happens you'll never see it coming.

      You're right, life isn't fair. That doesn't mean that we have to purposely allow needless suffering while turning our heads and looking the other way. It's ironic that I have to tell this to someone who calls himself "Archangel Michael".

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    97. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And THAT, that right there, is the problem. Instead of adopting a sane system where the poor could get preventive medicine we instead pay outrageous prices to take care of them when they are at death's door, when it costs CRAZY money to put them back on their feet. if either the state or the fed would have paid that $700 we wouldn't have had a $300,000 bill passed on to the government. Does the current system make ANY sense?

      No it doesn't make any sense. The $300,000 bill should not be covered by us either. As part of my natural Rights, I have the right to the fruits of my labor (i.e. to not be a slave). Just because this poor sap was dealt some bad health cards and couldn't afford to fix his tooth doesn't mean he is entitled to the fruits of my labor.

      Perhaps he should have pursued a more profitable career, wasted less money and saved more for emergencies. $700 is a sneeze and is easy to save over time.Does he drink anything besides water? Wasteful if you're that poor. Eat meat (store bought) more than once or twice a week? Wasteful! At the end of the day it's not my problem and this fellow (or any others like him) are not entitled to the fruit of my labor.

    98. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      Good point. And indeed, it's the entire way the system is set up that lends itself to that.

      A few years ago, my brother woke up with a blood clot in his arm. They wheeled him into surgery and keep him in the hospital for a few nights. His hospital bill was something like $30,0000.

      Now, let's put aside how ridiculous that number truly is for a moment because it's tangential to the point. They handed him a bill that said "$30,000 plox!" But he did what we would consider the responsible thing and he had insurance, and there was a few little notes underneath that in essence said "but really, we have a deal with insurance companies so it's only $10,000." Insurance paid pretty much all of it.

      Now stop and think about that. People with insurance--people who will actually get their bill paid--pay less. Not out of pocket, the actual bill is less. Most Americans do have insurance, which means the vast majority of the time, the system (doctors, hospitals, etc) get the lower price -- a price they can obviously operate at and still enjoy the fairly comfortable lifestyles of people in those professions. What about that higher bill? Two possibilities. One is nobody pays. The more likely one is that the government pays--you and I pay. But not the $10,000 the insurance company has to deal with, but rather a full $30,000 fleecing (or as much of the full $30k as they can squeeze out of them anyway). Different price points for different abilities to pay... we can talk about moral or legal issues all we want, but there is at least a cool logical component to that -- but not if you're charging more for the people who can afford less!

      A $300,000 hospital stay because we wouldn't pay for a $700 tooth problem? That's exactly how the system wanted it. The insurance companies, with their cadre of lawyers and lobbyists, pay nothing. The American taxpayers, through their government, pay 430 times more than they should have on top of our own insurance premiums and our politicians tell us it is because of a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the patient.

      That sounds about right, doesn't it?

      We desperately need health care reform in this country -- but I mean real healthcare reform. Not piecemeal. Not half-assed. Not a "solution" that says "you're hereby required to have insurance, problem solved." If we can't at least work toward that, the politicians can stop talking out of their asses about how dedicated they are to solving the problem. If I'm going to get butt-fucked, it might as well be quieter in the room.

    99. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 2

      If untreated, the chances are much much higher than 1 in 500. This is the problem in a nutshell with non informed people directing policy on risk management.

      An untreated cavity (like a vast array of other common minor situations) can easily kill you within a few years, and the process isn't likely to be pleasant. Yes it seems very minor, but so do a lot of things *with proper care*.

      Remember we used to do amputations to deal with infections before the days of antibiotics, there was a reason for that, we didn't just like to cripple people.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    100. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      Business as usual from both parties for the last 15-30 years?

      Note: Since when is a majority vote "a parlimentary trick"? Do you feel the same way against those republicans which tried to force the issue in Wisconsin using far more underhanded tactics?

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    101. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by pedropolis · · Score: 1

      They couldn't get enough votes to break the filibuster, which is a parliamentary gimmick not found in the Constitution. Filibustering was abused by Republicans during the 111th session of Congress to the point of blatant, naked obstructionism. Obama ran on passing healthcare reform. The political capital he earned from his majority victory was used to propel this reform. None of this was a surprise. He even went so far as to adopt of Republican governors state-wide plan and included 100 Republican amendments to the bill. He debated them publicly. It might have been agonizing, slow-motion sausage making, but that's how bills get passed.

      Republicans in the 111th session of Congress filibustered 123 times. Between 1917 and the early 60's you saw 1 filibuster per year on average. The recent Democratic minorities averaged 65 per session. This is an outrageous, extra-Constitutional abuse of the system by 41 Senate Republicans, from smaller population centers, who only want to see Obama fail and have stated so publicly. The fact of the matter is, Democrats had enough votes in both houses to pass the legislation. Deem and pass has been used before by both Republicans and Democrats. Stop parroting the nonsense that this bill was "pushed down our throats" or that a it was passed with a slight of hand. Each is total BS.

    102. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      An untreated cavity (like a vast array of other common minor situations) can easily kill you within a few years, and the process isn't likely to be pleasant.

      I know nothing about dentistry, but nonetheless, I do not believe that you are telling me the whole story. That, or we have very different definitions of the word "easily".

      I have had 2 cavities in my lifetime, the first of which was in my teens. Are you seriously going to have me believe that I'd "easily" be dead right now if I hadn't had them filled? I mean, I have pretty decent dental hygiene. How did anybody live beyond age 20 before the days of modern dental care and dentistry?

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    103. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Only if they accept medicare/medicaid dollars. A medical practice is perfectly free to decline to participate in this system at which point the mandate no longer applies. Either way it's still not a justification for ass fucking the constitution and trying to twist the commerce clause into regulating economic inactivity.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    104. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      There were two parliamentary tricks that were undertaken. The first was to use the reconciliation process, which was intended solely for spending bills (unless you are admitting that Obamacare is primarily about spending rather than about healthcare). The second was for the House to "deem" the Senate version passed as part of the "reconciliation" bill, rather than passing the Senate bill and then passing the ammendment to it.
      The situation in Wisconsin is somewhat different, since in Wisconsin the Democrats abandoned their duties and left the legislature unable to do its job unless the majority gave in to the minority. I do not see how taking the non-financial parts out of the bill and passing them separately is any more underhanded than passing a healthcare bill as a spending bill. Of course there is another major difference, the majority of voters in Wisconsin supported the bill that the Republicans passed while the majority of voters in the entire US oppose the bill passed by the Democrats in Washington.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    105. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      He debated them publicly.

      Nancy Pelosi, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." If it was actually being publicly debated, we could have known what was in it before it was passed.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    106. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 2

      An untreated cavity (like a vast array of other common minor situations) can easily kill you within a few years, and the process isn't likely to be pleasant.

      I know nothing about dentistry, but nonetheless, I do not believe that you are telling me the whole story. That, or we have very different definitions of the word "easily".

      I have had 2 cavities in my lifetime, the first of which was in my teens. Are you seriously going to have me believe that I'd "easily" be dead right now if I hadn't had them filled? I mean, I have pretty decent dental hygiene. How did anybody live beyond age 20 before the days of modern dental care and dentistry?

      They didn't.

      But keep in mind it's not an either or, there have been degrees of improvements for thousands of years which drive up life expectancy before "modern" medicine, but yes, the real explosion in life expectancy has been in the last 200 years or so. Heck my Grandmother was one of 6 surviving children out of 13.

      There is a beautiful graph of wealth to life expectancy over just the last several hundred years for many of the world's countries that shows this far better than I could ever hope to, I really wish I could remember how to find it.

      You may not realize this, but oral infection from cavity was a very common way to die before the age of medicine. We only lived to about 20-30 for a reason, things that you don't even think about now are still very fatal, but only if ignored.

      I don't know how to say this any clearer, a cavity is a *bacterial infection* that can fairly easily (yes, i said fairly easily, that is exactly what I mean) if left untreated for a length of time cross the barrier into the blood stream and become systemic, and one of the most likely places for it to hit is heart valves.

      I understand you don't know this, or want to believe it, but that doesn't make it less true. Ask any doctor, not necessarily even a dentist.

      You can easily (yes, there is that word again) be killed within days from a simple cut on the skin, the reason this doesn't often happen is due to your immune system, modern medicine, and the odds of something opportunistic and nasty infiltrating and surviving are fairly small. Your infected tooth is a much different scenario, in which an infection is persisting for a sustained length of time which acts as a probabilistic source for constant attack, and eventually, it is going to win.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    107. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Cavities can't kill you. It's a conspiracy to put mind control chips in your teeth. So if you really love your children *NEVER* take them to the dentist.

      (You think he'll buy it? The gene pool needs a bit more ... wait, this is still on???)

    108. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      I was denied a mortgage that I applied for because...

      Your credit score sucked or you didn't have an adequate down payment or the house didn't appraise or your employment history was questionable or your ratios sucked.

      Jumping Jesus, what a hypocrite. You rant against those unqualified "jackasses you have never met" for taking advantage of easy credit, yet whine like a little bitch when denied that same easy credit which caused all those defaults in the first place. I've got a newsflash for you. All those jackasses won't stop you from getting a mortgage if you are a good credit risk. I had no trouble getting one with a very good rate during the crisis.

      I'd be willing to bet that your hypocritical tendencies will flourish and bloom if you ever get sick and find yourself with no insurance.

    109. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      There was a period in my life when I went just over a decade without once visiting a dentist. How close to death was I?

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    110. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      "Let's go pick a fight," proclaimed Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN). "If liberals in the Senate play political games, then shut down government. I say shut it down." http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/04/02/spending-fight-political-calculus

      “Listen, there’s no daylight between the tea party and me,” the Ohio Republican [John Boehner] said in an interview with ABC News conducted Wednesday. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52722.html

      the [Tea Party Rally] crowd chants: "Shut'er Down! Shut'er Down!" http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/04/shut_er_down_shut_er_down.php

      Now, who do think will get the credit for the shutdown, if it occurs?

    111. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      There was a period in my life when I went just over a decade without once visiting a dentist. How close to death was I?

      Pretty close to a falacious argument, but as far as death if you didn't actually have any issues? Probably about the same as crossing a normally deserted street without looking to see if it is actually deserted.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    112. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      No that is not true, the mandate applies to all designated emergency care facilities, regardless of funding source.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    113. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Apparently, you haven't heard all of the Democrats talking about how good a government shudown will be for them politically. The Democrats are betting that the Republicans will be blamed for a government shutdown. Of course, considering some of the recent polls I have seen, the Republicans may get credited for a government shutdown rather than blamed.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    114. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      He didn't take a serious look either, he is just gutting programs he doesn't agree with too.

      There's still even more tax cuts for "rich" even in it!

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    115. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      He didn't take a serious look either, he is just gutting programs he doesn't agree with too.

      I think the only way to get the budget under control is to quit playing favorites. Cutting the budget always polls more favorably than cutting any specific program. The powerful and well-connected will always make cuts impossible.

      Instead, cut every budget line-item by an equal percentage, and let each individual program/department/whatever figure out how to deal with it. Put whatever rules in place that enables this to happen (allow the federal government to conduct layoffs, etc.) That way, nobody can whine, lobby, bribe, blackmail, or whatever other technique they find effective. You want your least-favorite program to get cut? You'll have to accept that your most-favorite program will get the same cut.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    116. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by pedropolis · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that doesn't follow. We are not talking about Pelosi. Obama met with Republicans, and their stage prop reams of paper, at the Blair House. It was an open conversation; it was inclusive. The Republicans didn't care to debate the bill on the merits, they merely wanted the optics of astroturfed outraged to campaign on.

      As near as I can tell the bill was posted on opencongress.org in July of '09. You could have read it then.

    117. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      Only a total retard wouldn't notice the massive recession that Republican policies directly caused.

      Fine. Could you let me know what policies these were?

      Another thing to consider. You say that the Republicans caused this mess. I assume you say this because Bush was president at the time that unemployment shot up. Well, unemployment was incredibly low during Bush's first 6-7 years. Things then went to crap around 2008.

      Guess who had just taken control of congress just a year earlier? Correct, Democrats were now 'in charge'. And the unemployment rate took off like a race car while they controlled things.

      Trying to pin down what party did what to something as complicated as our economy is a silly, futile exercise. Blame whoever you want, but just know that voting in 'the other side' won't magically fix things.

    118. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      He didn't take a serious look either, he is just gutting programs he doesn't agree with too.

      I think the only way to get the budget under control is to quit playing favorites. Cutting the budget always polls more favorably than cutting any specific program. The powerful and well-connected will always make cuts impossible.

      Instead, cut every budget line-item by an equal percentage, and let each individual program/department/whatever figure out how to deal with it. Put whatever rules in place that enables this to happen (allow the federal government to conduct layoffs, etc.) That way, nobody can whine, lobby, bribe, blackmail, or whatever other technique they find effective. You want your least-favorite program to get cut? You'll have to accept that your most-favorite program will get the same cut.

      Thing is, that would require this whole discussion to actually be about fixing the deficit, which while it has been used as the main talking point, all actual evidence and actions suggests it is hardly the real motivation.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    119. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      ...a decade of Republican policies pushed the economy off a cliff.

      Care to name any of these policies? Seems that the economy was humming along pretty nicely until the Democrats took back control of both houses in 2007... right before the economy went to crap. I could easily say that a year of Democrat policies pushed the economy off a cliff.

      ... the massive job losses were gradually stopped and replaced with job gains.

      The job losses were already stopping the first month that Obama was in office. You really think his actions changed things that fast?

      Your scary budget deficit graph should talk to the Republican tax cut graph. I'll bet they have alot in common.

      It has more in common with the Democrat spending increases. Oh, and the Dems seemed to be just fine with the tax cuts, since they extended them.

    120. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      "That chart shows that Barack Obama saved the economy from the Republican engineered disaster."

      Okay, really? I see two flaws here. a) He didn't do anything in his first couple of months to "save the economy" yet the improvements start in Jan 2009. B) when the government is in the business of "creating jobs", the long-term benefits of this are very questionable (literally - that's a debate been going on for years, and we're not going to solve it here)

      My point is that you can't look at one chart that says "hey unemployment is decreasing" and claim that Obama has saved us, any more than you could say the new jobs created by the war in Iraq have saved us. It's the same government creation of jobs, just in different ways .

      I don't understand how your post got modded up so quickly, usually slashdot has plenty of folks who will call out the kind of incomplete logic you've shown. (And mod it down)

    121. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Instead, they fake service records, lie about it on television, even after getting caught,

      This totally makes me think of GWB.

      It should. It was GWB's service record that Dan Rather lied about.

    122. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      sigh...

      Fine. Could you let me know what policies these were?

      Irresponsible deregulation of the financial industry. Republicans are still pushing this disastrous policy.

      Guess who had just taken control of congress just a year earlier? Correct, Democrats were now 'in charge'. And the unemployment rate took off like a race car while they controlled things.

      Except that Democrats couldn't have possibly caused as much damage in 2 years (with a republican president) as the Republicans did in the 6 preceding years. So you could say it, but it wouldn't be true, so you better say it on Fox "News" if you want to get away with such blatant BS.

      Trying to pin down what party did what to something as complicated as our economy is a silly, futile exercise.

      those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Americans are terrible at learning from history so we managed to vote back in the same idiots who tanked our economy in the first place.

      Fighting against this depressing level of stupidity may be futile, but if like me you don't want the country to repeat the same mistakes, it's necessary.

    123. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      Sigh...

      Irresponsible deregulation of the financial industry.

      If you are specifically referring to the The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, that was signed into law by Clinton (democrat, in case you were wondering), and won the votes of nearly 200 house and senate democrats:

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/03/22/maddow-blames-financial-crisis-republican-deregulation-ignores-overwh

      Sucks to find out that they are just as responsible, doesn't it?

      Except that Democrats couldn't have possibly caused as much damage in 2 years

      And yet the original poster and his graph that I was replying to said that Obama had somehow 'saved' us within months, hell, weeks of getting into office. So, Dems can't break things in 1-2 years, but they can fix things within 1-2 months?

      ...so you better say it on Fox "News" if you want to get away with such blatant BS.

      yawn.... I'm sorry, how is this pointless jab at Fox related to anything we've been talking about? Oh, how clever. You're trying to imply that I'm somehow pro-republican and will say anything to make them look good. I'll save you the effort. Republicans suck just as badly as the Democrats at running things. I don't vote for the (R) or the (D), since neither one has shown any ability to lead, even when their party has complete control of both houses and the white house.

      I know it looks like I'm just trying to bash Democrats, but I'm just trying to show how silly it is to say that one side or the other can 'break' or 'fix' our economy, since they both tend to just muck things up equally.

      those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Americans are terrible at learning from history so we managed to vote back in the same idiots who tanked our economy in the first place.

      ..and you haven't learned that both sides are capable of screwing things up (both sides voted for the deregulation that you loath).

    124. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      No that is not true, the mandate applies to all designated emergency care facilities, regardless of funding source.

      But don't misunderstand that mandate to mean they have to provide that care for free.

      If you go into the emergency room, and you've got any assets, you can expect them to be taken.

      We've decided as a society that we're not going to let sick people die on the street because they didn't have the means to pay for health care or insurance. And now, we're in the process of deciding whether the rather minimal requirement that everyone have health care is worth it if it means we can continue to be a society that doesn't allow poor people to die on the street.

      Societies are all tradeoffs between what the individual wants and what the group needs. It's the way life is. American politics at least during my lifetime has been a struggle between what the individual wants and what everyone needs. It will probably continue to be so. We can either choose to learn from the successes and failures that other countries have had or pretend that we Americans are somehow the exception to every rule. So far, from my reading of history, the United States has some exceptional qualities, but is not an exceptional nation. We still are bound by the same wants and needs as everyone else in the world. We've done some things well and other things very poorly. But pretending that we have some quality that makes us immune to the dynamic that every society faces is not serving us well. The only societies that seem to be doing a decent job of making sure everyone gets a shot at decent health care even if they lost their job or their parent got sick are the countries with universal health care. There are no exceptions.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    125. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      One piece of legislation didn't take down the economy. A culture of deregulation did. At some point, politicians could have intervened to fix their mistake. But they didn't, because Republicans ran the show, and wrote the laws.

      Look man, the numbers don't lie.

      A decade of Democratic rule - economic success

      A decade of Republican rule - economic disaster

      A few more years of Democrats - economic recovery

      If you still don't know who to vote for, I'm afraid I can't help you.

    126. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      A culture of deregulation did.

      A culture that the democrats happily voted for in 1999.

      A decade of Democratic rule - economic success

      What decade are you talking about? the 90's? Because I hate to break it to you, but the Republicans controlled both houses since 1995. Also, that whole uptick in the economy turned out to be as fake as the housing market. Dot-com bubble, you might have heard of it?

      A decade of Republican rule - economic disaster

      And what decade are you talking about? The 2000s? Because as I've shown, the economy was great for most of the 2000s, up until the democrats took control of both houses in 2006. You can ignore this fact if you want, but I'm not sure why you think that I will.

      A few more years of Democrats - economic recovery

      The unemployment rate climbed since the democrats took control in 2006, and has grown even higher since Obama took office. What the hell is your definition of 'recovery'?

      If you still can't see that neither party knows what the hell they are doing, I'm afraid that I can't help you.

    127. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      The unemployment rate climbed since the democrats took control in 2006, and has grown even higher since Obama took office. What the hell is your definition of 'recovery'?

      Great job simply omitting the 13 straight months of private sector job growth we have had since Obama finally managed to turn the economy around.

      What recovery? The one that is occuring right now.

      Jeez...

      If your not going to get basic facts about our current economic situation right I'm not going to bother refuting your revisionist history (which seems to view the President as not particularly important).

      All I'm going to say is that if you vote Republican, you are voting for deregulation. Still. After poor regulation (over many laws and executive orders) killed the economy.

      Please don't vote Republican. At least let us recover from the Bush recession first.

    128. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      Great job simply omitting the 13 straight months of private sector job growth we have had since Obama finally managed to turn the economy around.

      Great job simply omitting the 90 or so months of sub 6.5% unemployment we had under the Republicans when talking about 'how bad things were' under them.

      If your not going to get basic facts about our current economic situation right I'm not going to bother refuting your revisionist history

      How is my history 'revisionist'? I've stated the facts of how the economy has been under different presidents/congresses. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it 'revisionist'.

      (which seems to view the President as not particularly important).

      Ahhhh... now you are starting to catch on. My point this whole time is the the economy doesn't particularly care about who is president or running congress.

      All I'm going to say is that if you vote Republican, you are voting for deregulation.

      Voting democrat got you the same thing.

      After poor regulation (over many laws and executive orders) killed the economy.

      Still waiting for you to list some law that republicans only passed that caused this mess.

      Please don't vote Republican.

      Why would I do something as stupid as voting Republican? That would be as stupid as voting Democratic.

    129. Re:Obama Brought back Jobs and Growth by twebb72 · · Score: 1

      You get fucked for driving without insurance, doubly fucked if you're in an accident.
      Trust me, its enforceable. Saying its not would be just as idiotic as saying, "lets appeal marijuana laws," because everybody is doing it already.

  10. I LOVE IT! Bring back encrypted public BBS mail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait for the day where all my mail is viewable in the public and delivered through a peer2peer network or like MeshNET so that the mail is never actually readable before arriving to me and there is no server log to maintain.

    What is mail or eMail actually? Is it a transmission like from a station or is it an enveloped (encrypted) postcard that is publicly readable yet means nothing to anyone not in The Know?

    I will be using Spam Converter (Penis Enlargement Mod) to encrypt my eMail so everyone reads nothing but a nasty-advertisement despite actually being written in such a way to conceal my message to someone.

  11. Technological equivalency by Compaqt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the people don't have the right to be secure in their papers and effects (by extension, computers and emails), what right does the government have (by extension) to
    -buy weapons systems that didn't exist when the Constitution was written?
    -set up a cyberspace command?
    -use electronic money?

    When interpreting the people's rights, it's always done to the letter. When interpreting the government's rights, it's done expansively. [/rant]

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Technological equivalency by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      That's OK, if they want our e-mails after 6 months, they only get to classify documents for 6 months. That trade would likely tip the scales to a net-benefit for liberty.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  12. Is there a problem with login into slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't login I am getting http 503. Anybody else have same problem?
           

  13. Pesident - Economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As much as I disliked Bush and I prefer Obama, things are improving because of the business cycle. Presidents really don't have that much control over an economy.

    Yeah, the Reps passed laws that greatly reduced regulation in the financial markets, but I'm not so sure they caused it - poured gasoline on the fire, but didn't start it.

  14. Seriously Dude? by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

    You've done not one good goddamn thing since you were elected. Gitmo closed? Nope. Healthcare reform? Nope (the law that was passed is NOT reform, since it addresses none of the real problems of the existing system - just forces everyone into the same broken system) Patriot Act still in force? Check. Making war on yet another Middle Eastern country (hey, at least Bush got congress to go along) Check. In bed with big business? Checkerino (see also GE / Jeffery Immelt) This is complete and utter bullshit. I use various gmail accounts and such to arvhive old client e-mails. It is certainly not "abandoned". I will be contacting my congressman about this immediately.

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    1. Re:Seriously Dude? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you heard of the Congress? The President can do little if they say NO ( Except Bomb Libyia)
      Gitmo closed - Congress says No.
      Healthcare reform Congrees wrote it, The President can not indroduce a Bill.
      Patriot Act still in force? Did Congress Present a bill, No ( Agreed the Executive branch Likes it)
      Bush Lied to get the congress to go a long. Libyia would have been over. But I am sure we will regret getting involved.
      The Government in bed with business, I am shocked, when did this start. Apparently they can submit bills to congress.

       

    2. Re:Seriously Dude? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gitmo is a military base. The President is the commander in chief of the military. A single order would shut down the base and congress would have no say in it.
      The Patriot Act is a list of powers for the executive branch. The President is the head of the executive branch. A single order would allow him to refuse to use those powers and the congress would have no say in it.
      Bush lied, therefore anything Obama does is automatically acceptable? Bush hasn't been president for 3 years now, I think its time Obama stands as his own president and not "the guy after Bush." Otherwise we can just blame George Washington for all our problems; or better yet, King George III.
      The Government isn't RUN by business. The government IS business. When you give an organization that much authority over the economy businesses come running with buckets of money to run their own candidate. Businesses love regulation because they can write it to be favorable to themselves and shut out competitors.

    3. Re:Seriously Dude? by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you almost completely, the only real disagreement is when you state the HC law deals with none of the issues of HC.

      One of the major drivers of cost actually is the fact that people were using med care without insurance and not paying for various reasons, that was addressed, somewhat in the requirement for HC coverage.

      Another goal was increasing the # of people with HC. HC Reform does not just include lowering costs to everyone, but also expanding access to it to those that cannot currently afford it, or have lost coverage through a variety of ways, which that bill also dealt with somewhat.

      Could it have been done much better? Absolutely. At least it is a small step.

      As it stands, the mantra you hear from the opponents is "Repeal and replace". Notice that they are two distinct steps, instead of a single action to replace. It makes it much easier to avoid exposing the complete lack of any plan to actually replace, and avoid having to have the two compared on merits, or even the requirement to follow up at all with said "replacement".

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    4. Re:Seriously Dude? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Another goal was increasing the # of people with HC. HC Reform does not just include lowering costs to everyone, but also expanding access to it to those that cannot currently afford it, or have lost coverage through a variety of ways, which that bill also dealt with somewhat.

      You are conflating "Health Care" with "Health Insurance" here. They are not the same thing.

      In addition, it should be pointed out that Obama's Healthcare bill (actually a Health Insurance bill) doesn't lower costs for everyone. Or even for anyone.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  15. An itch to scratch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I feel like walking naked through an airport and blatantly farting while being searched.

  16. Abandonment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My view, make email abandonment terms the same as copyright terms. Ownership is ownership.

  17. The law needs to be changed by aklinux · · Score: 1

    I had forgotten about this, assuming I actually heard about it at the time. I think that with current technology, such as imap, the definition of "abandoned mail" needs updating. I personally think that after a certain period of no access, ISPs should be allowed (maybe even required) to purge the email. I don't think the government should EVER have free access to it. I don't care how long it's been. I think 6 months is probably to short a time, but I do think there should be a time set. I would also be willing to consider some sort of provision for access in the case of concern over the welfare of the account holder, again w/ appropriate safeguards.

  18. Re:Obama acomplishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing what he has (not) accomplished, I think getting elected is one of the worst things he has done....Then again the alternative probably would have been worse....probably

    There is one good thing of note that I have seen him do. He added new written guidelines for the DEA not to interfere with medical marijuana. Contrary to what you may have heard these guidelines have not been violated a single time.

    Now, the next president can remove these guidelines, however Obama's inclusion of them has already set a precedent not only for state controlled marijuana, but also state sovereignty in similar legal issues.

  19. 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
    Yeah Obama, and Bush, and Clinton and what the first Bush?

    All Obama's fault?

  20. lost one of our grandmas today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as kind & gentle as any human could be. she's still giving us warm loving memories.

    hard to imagine even one like her could be overlooked in our haste to attain the .5 billion remaining population mandate. she would never have been able to grasp scheduled premature death by incineration etc... she was 87, & had been through quite a bit. she spent all of her last days caring for others, & happy to do it. she reported that she'd never seen anything like what we do now, since germany. progress?

    disarm. take care of the grandmas & babys, or leave, at once.

  21. IMAP is dead, POP3 resurrected! by enterix · · Score: 1

    If that is true all benefits of IMAP are gone. You have to go back to POPing your email to local storage. It is really harder and harder to run your own email server -- with all that useless SPAM blocker provider, with so many false positive blocks...

    1. Re:IMAP is dead, POP3 resurrected! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! I knew I was right not to switch, even when faced with ridicule.

    2. Re:IMAP is dead, POP3 resurrected! by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      or control your own server, perhaps?

  22. There is no reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To change the law, it's in the constitution. The fourth ammendment in fact. Challenge any evidence presented without a warrant.

    "Who received this evidence?" "Who is presenting this evidence?" "Which court authorized the collection of this evidence?"

  23. Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama is a politician. That is all he has been, and all he will be. That means that he does not have the greatest good of the people at heart. No politician does. Or rather, no successful politician does. That isn't how politics works. That isn't how politics ever worked.

    Politics is about playing to the masses while actually serving the wealthy. That is all it ever has been, and all it ever will be. No amount of voter interest or open government or anything will ever change that.

    It is just human nature. Shameful, embarrassing, base, ubiquitous human nature.

  24. Hi, I'm Left... by bmo · · Score: 1

    ... and Obama has disappointed me at nearly every turn.

    The problem is, the alternatives on the other side just suck. Look at who's got irons in the fire on the Republican side for the Presidential nomination in 2012. Sorry, but I can't go there. Completely unacceptable.

    We lefties have a choice between right of Reagan, and the Republicans. Third parties are a joke, because right now, all of them have really loopy things in their platforms, like the Greens with their anti-nuke contingent (currently inflating the Japan tragedy into something it isn't).

    It's funny how the current batch of Republicans worship the Ghost of Reagan. Reagan would be called a RINO in today's GOP.

    This Leftie thinks that the only decently left place in the US is Vermont.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Hi, I'm Left... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Ah Vermont, an interesting place of contradictions. Filled with and run by the far-left but it has the most Libertarian-esque gun laws in the United States. Perfectly legal there to buy a handgun, stick it into a holster and walk out of the store with it. No license required for the act of purchasing or carrying. If only the rest of the country was that sensible.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Hi, I'm Left... by bmo · · Score: 1

      No problem with guns.

      They did, however, pass Single Payer just the other week, which made me at least a little happy.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:Hi, I'm Left... by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 1

      [Vermont...] Filled with and run by the far-left but it has the most Libertarian-esque gun laws in the United States. Perfectly legal there to buy a handgun, stick it into a holster and walk out of the store with it. No license required for the act of purchasing or carrying.

      What, are they nuts? Who would want to live in a place where barroom brawls give way to deluges of bullets? Or where would-be minor road rage incidents end up in cars full of corpses? The violent crime rate there must be through the roof!

      I'll admit I haven't looked this up for myself, but Vermont's homicide rate surely has to dwarf that of more civilized states with sensible restrictions on deadly weapons. People may mock DC for its violence, but it wasn't that long ago that they enacted gun control legislation. With most of the rest of the country's gun laws going in the opposite direction since then, you know DC's violent crime rate is going to be well below the rising national average before long. Maybe then people will come to their senses?

      I don't understand why people can't leave the shooting of criminals to the police, who are much better trained and more effective at it. Why the rush to vigilantism? We have law enforcement for a reason. The untrained masses probably shoot 100 innocent people for every criminal they stop or deter. I've heard something like that for every one citizen who stops a crime with a gun, several thousand have their guns turned against them. It's sad that people get so wrapped up in being trigger-happy that they can't stop, acquire some facts, and think things through. If they would educate themselves and make decisions based on fact instead of emotion - instead of trying to be a bunch of Rambos -- this would be a much safer country.

    4. Re:Hi, I'm Left... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      The problem is, the alternatives on the other side just suck.

      No, the problem is that there is one alternative on one other side. With a system of proportional representation you could have 5, 6, 7, or 8 significant sized parties in office like Sweden.

    5. Re:Hi, I'm Left... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Too bad the majority of the people on your side of the political fence aren't as sensible as you are regarding firearms. One of my US Senators (Charles Schumer, generally regarded as liberal/progressive) recently introduced legislation to take away the right of gun ownership from people who have been arrested for drug crimes in the last 5 years.

      You'll note I said arrested not convicted. That whole innocent until proven guilty concept is so yesterday.

      I wonder how Mr. Schumer would respond if a GOP'er introduced legislation to take the vote away from people who were arrested but never convicted? I mean obviously they must be guilty of something or they wouldn't have been arrested. We can't have criminals like that influencing our national elections. It's a travesty!

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Hi, I'm Left... by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 1

      What, are they nuts? Who would want to live in a place where barroom brawls give way to deluges of bullets? Or where would-be minor road rage incidents end up in cars full of corpses? The violent crime rate there must be through the roof!

      Except that reality doesn't match left-wing fantasy, and Vermont has one of the lowest murder rates in the country.

      I don't understand why people can't leave the shooting of criminals to the police

      Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

    7. Re:Hi, I'm Left... by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... seems every one of my guesses at the statistics was 180 degrees off. Literally, every one of them. ;) A 2005 misleading press release (called "States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death") by the Violence Prevention Center did conclude that "More guns means more gun death and injury. Fewer guns means less gun death and injury. It's a simple equation." Unfortunately, their pronouncements on the five-state statistics only prove that you can make a small subset of a dataset say the opposite of what the whole dataset says.

      I grabbed stats for gun ownership rates by state from the Washington Post, and you can get violent crime rates from a variety of sources (e.g. violent crime rates by state for `04 and `05, or gun crimes by state for 2009).

      If you merge all that together, it shows a mildly negative correlation between per-capita gun ownership and gun homicide (-0.2612653943), and similarly between gun ownership and robberies with firearms (-0.2144191759) [varies depending on the years you compare & whether you include Puerto Rico, etc.]

    8. Re:Hi, I'm Left... by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 1

      I think you seriously hit on the raw material for a new amendment there. We could keep politicians of all stripes from infringing constitutional rights for political ends with a simple rule, that stripping any of an individual's rights by due process requires that you do so for all forfeitable rights. There, mister congresscritter... you're no longer able to selectively attack rights you wish weren't rights in the first place.

      There are probably edge cases where this would be undesirable, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.

  25. Say goodbye to IMAP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess we'll all have to go back to POP3 now?

  26. when hell freezes over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the American people want to see your real birth certificate.

  27. Concerning by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

    I use IMAP for my email. I access my email every day, but the messages are stored on a server. Everyone who uses Hotmail or Gmail stores their email on a server. Is the claim in the summary that it really is trivial to access that email because it's "abandoned" citable? Cause I'd really rather not have it be that easy to skirt the fourth amendment just because some legislation didn't predict the future.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:Concerning by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      I can't tell what we've learned about this serious threat to privacy - there were 400 comments complaining about war policy ahead of you. I searched for the word email on the page and virtually nothing came up!

      Really, the gov gets all emails more than 6 months old???

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    2. Re:Concerning by Pathogen+David · · Score: 1

      Or even people who tell POP3 clients to leave messages on server as an extra backup or who have multiple clients downloading from the same POP3 server. This law's short-sightedness is unacceptable...

  28. Re:The conservatives want servitude by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

    You don't understand. Both sides want you in servitude, The republicans just don't pretend they don't. The only difference is how they get you into servitude. One side will get you there by taxes, the other side will get you there by protecting you from yourself.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  29. Lay it off, man by VAElynx · · Score: 1

    Hmm.... did I at *any* point commend what the US does, and did in Iraq and Afghanistan ?
    Me disliking Obama and his actions doesn't automatically mean i endorse GWB
    And it fits with my previous analogy - UN also authorised the bloodshed in Jugoslavija.. for no reason, too as it was found out later
    I don't know what sort of people demanded either, but i sure wouldn't like to go anywhere near them... see H. Thaci.

  30. Abandoned or Kept for a reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I still have an email from 6 months ago, It very well could be because I wanted to hold on to it.. Why should that be easier subpoena. It could be that I find that document more important than others I did not keep, right?

  31. Re:The conservatives want servitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because Obama did so much to stop that from happening in the time he had free reign to stop it. Get a clue. The man could have done anything he wanted to do to help the middle class and what did he do? He bailed out the insurance industry in the guise of health care reform.

  32. Broken link by nprz · · Score: 1

    Since when was http://http//www.digitaldueprocess.org/ a valid link?

  33. My Benevolent Dears, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they want all of my Nigerian and Viagra spams, they are welcome to them....

  34. Copyrighted content Personal data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So copyrighted content has a longer protection term (life + 70 years) than personal, private data (6 months)?

    Maybe I should copyright my emails and sue anyone who copies them to a different server or reads them without expressed written permission.

  35. Your GMail is free game by Askmum · · Score: 1

    So this basically means that the mail you leave on the server and only read with IMAP can be subpoenaed if it was sent more than six months ago? Think of all the people with a gmail account. Think of all the webservices, even businesses use. My god, America is turning into 1984.

    And I have to ask this: is there maybe also a data retention law that states that ISPs need to retain say a year's worth of data? Now I know that data is not equal to email, but laws like this make it damn easy for the government to get just about anything they want from everybody.

  36. My mail server is inside my house by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

    My mail server is inside my house, in the skeletal chassis of a stripped down laptop, ten seconds and a sledgehammer and it's destroyed. Though backups are password protected on an ftp server somewhere so I'm guess it's vulnerable to a rubber hose attack

    --
    If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    1. Re:My mail server is inside my house by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      Mine too. It's nice having control over your own data. Friends think I'm crazy. If only my phone would use ical and ldap directly for contact and calendaring, I wouldn't have to have that friggin' google account either.

    2. Re:My mail server is inside my house by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      Amen to that! I have bot IMAP and WWW mail interfaces but still waiting for CalendarServer.org to hit the LDAP milestone they've been promising for what feels like years and I can ditch google too :)

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  37. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read my email over SSH, my personal mail is handled by a server under my control and I also have a shell account on a third party server. Messages are not "abandoned" after 6 months, what is this crap?

  38. Because he ain't BUSH!!!! by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Really it seems to be what most of it turns into. Far too many were willing to take anything "but Bush"; and many true conservatives were in the camp of anyone but McCain yet we still had our senses and would never vote for Obama; that as soon as the press piled on no one else in the Democratic party had a chance. Sorry, but Hillary would have made a much better President. This guy really comes off as someone who could step outside in the rain and not decide that its raining.

    We have near record prices at the pump, we have very high unemployment, we have the Libyan issue, Gitmo, the Bush started wars, and we have deficit spending at a level I don't even think Bush would have tried. Yet what we don't have is a press willing to take Obama on. They seem to still be enamored with him. At least when we had Bush in office we could count on the press to constantly ride his ass over every little thing. While it got tiresome on some fronts it kept people informed as to what was going on and what was being done. Hell, where are all the Democrats screaming about gasoline prices now? Can you imagine the outrage if Bush had said "get used to it?"

    The last thing America needs is a President the press likes, the worst possible outcome is a President they are essentially in love with. Obama comes of as Bush Squared. Meaning, if it was bad under Bush it is just as bad under Obama if not worse. Hell, I think he managed to pick an AG worse than than Bush.

    With the Republicans in charge of Congress I was hoping that Obama would wake up and try to lead. Before the losses in 10 he was overly willing to allow Democratic leadership to run amok in Congress and lead on any idea he wanted. He would not make decisions, define the goal, or even try to compromise. As such we got abominations of bills and no clear leadership. We had a Congress which REFUSED to submit a budget for consideration simply because the Democratic leadership at the time did not want to deal with it during an election year and suddenly if you asked the press it is all the Republican's fault for not passing what should have been passed LAST YEAR under Pelosi.

    No, we need to get back to Presidents the press don't like. I know it sounds like a negative but the point is, the very people that many Americans need to provide them the truth about their government apparently need incentive to investigate it.

    This Presidency is more about Wall Street and big money than Bush ever was. There are rumors of a BILLION dollar reelection campaign. Tell me how that is representative of main street and the American people.

    As for accomplishments. I find them all neutered simply because of the deficit and the his lack of trying to fix it. We cannot tax our way out of it, we could take 100% of the earnings above 250k per year for those who earn it and still not reduce it by half. We simply spend too much and very few on either side of the aisle are even trying to do anything about it.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  39. On Socialism by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    >>Obama is NOT a socialist, and that's a shame, because that's what the US needed. It is what we still need.
    >>[Bush] increased inequality to points nearly as high as our nation has ever seen in its history

    If you're talking about income inequality, it doesn't actually matter. In fact, using the term is generally a clear sign the person doesn't know anything about anything, and is just parroting some rant he read online.

    Why doesn't it matter? Think about a country in which everyone makes 20% more (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than the year before. This is A Good Thing. Everyone's doing better off.

    But socialists like yourself would whine and complain that the guy making a million dollars is now making $1.2M, whereas the poor $10,000/year worker has been exploited by *only* getting a $2,000 raise. People like you repeat the tired line "The rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer." But it's not true, dude. The gap is larger, yes, but *everyone* has gotten richer.

    What you want to look at instead is called "median income" (either for personal income or household income). This eliminates the effect that is the basis for all the "inequality" - people that start successful businesses get to pull in corporate-level income, instead of personal-level income. That's the key point all you idiots miss. It's like comparing marshmallows with the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man. Even though all you socialists claim that it is "unfair" (whatever the hell that means) that Sergey Brin is making more than his housekeeper, the only thing unfair about the whole deal is trying to compare corporate income with personal. In fact, if you eliminate corporate income from the equations, there's much much less "income inequality" in our society.

    There's nothing dastardly about people making a percentage of their corporate profits - it is the incentive that makes it worth all the time and headache to start your own business (which it is, trust me). If you ban private percentage ownership of companies (which you do, as you're a Socialist), you'll actually destroy the economy, and actually screw the working class over. But by that point, you'll probably be painting the kulaks as class traitors, so their mass starvation and cannibalism probably won't bother you at all. Maybe after you die, your successors will slowly reintroduce private ownership of capital as it is the only way they find to promote the generation of wealth.

    The real question you should be asking is: "Have the rich have been getting richer by actually making the poor poorer (instead of growing faster than the poor)?"

    And the answer is no. If you look at the following measures:
    Median Household Income
    Median Personal Income
    Household Income by Quintile
    Per capita GDP in PPP
    Personal disposable Income

    All of these measures have risen by at least 20% from the 1960s to the current day. For the rich and poor alike. Some (such as Personal Disposable Income) have risen dramatically.

    In constant dollars, the poor (20th percentile) are making 225% more now than in 1947, and the rich (95th percentile) are making about 300% more. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg) By contrast, when your favorite country, a certain union of socialist republics destroyed private ownership of capital, the economy collapsed and the only thing that saved them from total ruin was allowing a bit of private ownership under the NEP and similar policies later in its history.

    1. Re:On Socialism by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      In constant dollars, the poor (20th percentile) are making 225% more now than in 1947, and the rich (95th percentile) are making about 300% more. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg)

      Talk about being diingenuious. Percentages mean nothing. It's about DOLLAR AMOUNTS.

      20% in 1947: $14,000
      20% in 2007: $28,000
      increase: $14,000

      95% in 1947: $66,000
      95% in 2007: $190,000
      increase: $124,000

      Meanwhile, the costs of basic necessities (food, energy to heat/cool a home, housing, transportation to get to a job) have gone through the roof. Those costs are the same for a 20%er (large portion of their income) and a 95%er (tiny portion of their income).

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    2. Re:On Socialism by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      Bringing everyone up isn't the primary goal, more equality is. I believe a rise in equality must be balanced so that it doesn't come at the cost of negative growth (you could make everyone equal by making everyone poor and that is just as undesirable as having poor and ultra-rich). A sign of success would be that the poor and middle class were growing more, and the richer are staying where they are or having their incomes reduced slightly for a time.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    3. Re:On Socialism by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Percentages mean nothing.

      Percentages mean everything. That's the problem you people have - failure to understand basic maths.

      >>Meanwhile, the costs of basic necessities (food, energy to heat/cool a home, housing, transportation to get to a job) have gone through the roof

      Remember, we're using constant 2007 dollars for those figures. So you have to use constant dollars for the costs, too. In fact, you have to look at what percentage people are spending on the necessities. These calculations are done in the "disposable personal income" category, and disposable income has risen dramatically as well, for the rich and poor alike.

      While it's trendy and everything to say how horrible things are now, we really are better off than we were in the past. (Well, maybe not as good as in 2007, but still.)

    4. Re:On Socialism by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>A sign of success would be that the poor and middle class were growing more, and the richer are staying where they are or having their incomes reduced slightly for a time.

      Again, you're not understanding why this is an apples to oranges comparison. Rich people get to pull percentage profits from corporations. As Bobco, Inc. moves into the global marketplace and doubles its profits, Founder Bob is going to go from making $100M a year to $200M. Since he's grateful to all his peons, and is a generous guy, he doubles all their wages, and drops down to making only $150M a year.

      So the middle class schlubs that are working for him are making an extra $40,000 a year, but he's still pulling in an extra $50M. People like you would claim he's being "unjust" and "unfair" to his employees, even though he just gave them a 100% raise, and gave away half his extra money to his peons. Naive economic calculations would show that "inequality is at an all time high". The news media would trumpet that "the rich got richer but the poor got poorer", even though everyone is doing much better.

      You've got to realize that corporate/shareholder income cannot be fairly compared against W-2/personal income. And if you take corporate income out of the equation, you'll see that "inequality" in our society hasn't risen at all in the last 50 years.

      So you can either nationalize all corporations and destroy our economy, or stop using brain-dead economic measures. Better measures for the success of the middle class are already out there - I listed them in the previous post - and all of them show the poor and middle class alike are doing much better than they were 50 years ago.

    5. Re:On Socialism by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      I do understand what you are saying. You think that massive and increasing inequality is acceptable as long as there is a rising standard of living (as measured in various ways) for everyone. I reject this idea. EVEN IF the poor are better off than they used to be (which I am not convinced of either), it's still not acceptable to me that so much wealth is in the hands of so few. Even if the poorest person lived like a millionaire but there were people making 1000x that I'd still find that situation unacceptable. Such massive inequality is socially toxic all by itself, regardless of relative differences and increases in wealth and standards of living.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    6. Re:On Socialism by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      I do understand what you are saying. You think that massive and increasing inequality is acceptable as long as there is a rising standard of living (as measured in various ways) for everyone. I reject this idea. EVEN IF the poor are better off than they used to be (which I am not convinced of either), it's still not acceptable to me that so much wealth is in the hands of so few. Even if the poorest person lived like a millionaire but there were people making 1000x that I'd still find that situation unacceptable. Such massive inequality is socially toxic all by itself, regardless of relative differences and increases in wealth and standards of living.

      It's obvious you don't understand what I'm saying. Which is this: income inequality *does not matter*. People use it to substitute for statistics on "the health of the middle class" or "the poor get poorer", but it literally doesn't mean anything, as it is comparing corporate income against personal income. Apples and oranges.

      Imagine if I created the 'Shaka Statistic' that compared the height of NBA players against middle schoolers over time, and used that as evidence that middle schoolers were more malnourished now than ever before (because NBA players have gotten taller). It is nonsense.

      If you were against a world where all the poor could live like millionaires, in a world that had a few billionaires... then you hate the poor. I'm sorry. But professing to care for the poor while wanting their lives to be worse off is both cruel and hypocritical.

      And there is nothing inherently "socially toxic" about some people making more than others.

    7. Re:On Socialism by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      Not just a little more, immensely more, astronomically more, and that absolutely and unequivocally IS socially toxic to society. Enormous wealth inequality is, by itself, intrinsically bad and should be reduced as much as is practically possible. And you keep defending the rich by saying it's not personal income it's corporate income. What's the difference? When one person commands the use of billions of dollars and another only a few hundred or thousand, that's inequality, and that the billions are not actually "owned" by the person spending it but by a corporation is a semantic difference of little actual consequence to the state of the world. You're close to arguing that rich people don't exist, only wealthy corporations, which would be absurd.

      Income inequality does matter, it's harmful to society, it creates a more highly stratified society which has been shown by sociologists to be linked to an increase in violence, crime, stress related diseases (just being in a lower class is bad for your health, even if all your biological needs are fully met), and lower levels of happiness--and that's independent of absolute income, and it's also controlled for countries with considerably better social safety nets and public health care.

      Some degree of wealth redistribution is necessary for society, and we are well below the point where more would be too much. Things that aren't normally thought of as wealth redistribution are good starts like a truly comprehensive national health care system (doing away with the insurance industry as we known it) and fully funding higher education for qualified students. Those two things are so uncontroversial in most of the world that they are taken for granted by most in the West with few exception. I haven't even started to name the more elaborate and powerful measures that could be taken such as negative income taxes and basic incomes. Inequality is a huge problem and it's getting worse, fortunately the solutions are well known, tested and proven in many other countries, and could be implemented tomorrow if the political will was there.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    8. Re:On Socialism by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Not just a little more, immensely more, astronomically more, and that absolutely and unequivocally IS socially toxic to society.

      No, it's not. Besides socialists like yourself, most people in America (70%, according to the Economist today) believe in the Free Market system. Free Market Capitalism intrinsically means that some people will make more money than others. My wife was thinking about become a doctor, but realized the stress of medical school would be bad for her health. So she went into pharmacy school instead, and *absolutely does not begrudge the fact that doctors make more money than her*. I went to school in the ghetto, and never once heard someone complain that doctors make too much money, or that NBA players make more than their "fair" share. In fact, it was quite the opposite. The poor are glad those opportunities exist, and know that even if they can't make it themselves (especially in the case of immigrants), they can raise their kids to the next level.

      America has higher social mobility rates than socialists can wrap their tiny brains around. There's a pretty nice interactive data browser you can view here: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/index.html

      Contrast it with social mobility in the Soviet Union some time.

      >>And you keep defending the rich by saying it's not personal income it's corporate income.

      No, I'm saying that "income inequality" is one of the stupidest statistical measures ever invented, and that anyone using it is automatically discounted from being a member of intelligent society. It's an apples to oranges comparison. As I said, it's like saying that middle schoolers are shorter now than ever before because NBA players have gotten taller.

      >>You're close to arguing that rich people don't exist, only wealthy corporations, which would be absurd.

      For one thing, rich and wealthy are two different things. Rich is generally defined these days as making $250k or over a year. Wealthy is generally defined as having over $1M in assets. (Pick whichever benchmarks you'd like, though.)

      And I am indeed arguing that very few people become rich or wealthy without drawing on corporate income, and that when you discount 1120 income and just look at W-2 income, a lot of your imagined income inequality vanishes.

      >>Inequality is a huge problem and it's getting worse, fortunately the solutions are well known, tested and proven in many other countries, and could be implemented tomorrow if the political will was there.

      Yes, it is called "becoming like France", and the cure would be worse than the problem.

    9. Re:On Socialism by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      I shouldn't have to comment why using both the former Soviet Union and France as examples of the same political system (or even similar ones) is absurd, but I guess I have to. France is still a capitalist nation. You're free to choose your own profession, where you live, go to school, you can even start a business if you like. They are a moderate Social Democratic welfare state, and consistently have ranked higher on the Human Development Index than the US does, and the difference is even more striking when the new inequality adjusted metric is used. The Soviet Union was always more of a totalitarian dictatorship than it was communist or socialist. It serves as a great example of why totalitarianism is bad and costly in terms of human lives.

      France has their problems of course, all political system will, but their (and countries like them) choices on what to emphasize seems more rational and human-centric than in the US. It's hard to argue against things like a shorter work week, more rights for workers and women--with respect to maternity leave--and more vacation time for actually enjoying life...unless of course you're a member of the class that benefits from workers being kept poor, desperate, and working harder and longer than they should have to. There is not an irrational fear of tackling problems collectively in most of the world like there is in the US. There's a lot of good things to be said about individualism and hard work, but the free market isn't going to fix some problems; it just isn't profitable for anyone to fix them. If you resign yourself to only using that one tool (a market solution), you're going to have to ignore a lot of problems (or redefine them so they're no longer considered problems like you've done with inequality) simply because you don't have any way in your limited world view of even acknowledging them.

      To say that we don't live in an age of inequality, however you want to measure it, is profoundly ignorant, especially considering your claimed background. How could you not have noticed that you had to go to school in the ghetto, while other kids, just because they were born to different families, had nicer schools and safer neighborhoods? Inequality is all around you, it's so ingrained in our society and culture that you can't even see it. Many Americans, it's a widespread phenomenon, simply don't notice or believe it's inevitable and impossible to change. They're like the fish who, spending his entire life underwater, doesn't even notice that it's all around and always has been. Worse still are the people who actually laud inequality as a triumph of our economic system. It is lifted to heights not just as the way the world is, but how the world should be. It's especially depressing and frustrating when this sentiment comes from the have-nots. Perhaps it's a form of Stockholm syndrome or they've just been conditioned to accept that they don't deserve better, but it is not, indeed it never has been, an inevitable outcome of any natural laws. Things are this way because people choose them to be, and we can choose a different way just as easily.

      Of course change would require a realignment of values, ideals, and priorities, and doubtless new problems would be created, but the ones that would be swept away would be far worse than anything we would have to grapple with under a more socialist economic system.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  40. Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just a bloody foreigner. But don't you guys have, like, you know, a political assembly, your Congress [as I understand it, your version of the Riksdag, Althing, whatever, but more like the messy, more closed door, Bundestag, but divided in two reduntat parts, like the Assemblée Nationale and Sénat of France, only even more messy and less representative of how peoples voted and without any representative protection of small minorities, and with even more things happening behind closed doors away from the prying eyes of the public or media, so that would make the US Congress like Italy's Parlamento, only with with even more decisions made behind closed doors and therefore more corruption], that is dominated by Republicans and block anything that Obama and his governemnt try to do, unless he water it down to their liking. Similar things (that the government is blocked from carrying out their policy because they don't have the majority vote in the political assembly) happens in other countries too, but in other countries we don't blame our government for not being able to make any progress in carrying out their policy when that happens, we blame our-self (we, the voters) because we caused this situation. Also in most countries, when the Parties/-y that formed the Government is faced with having the minority behind most of its policies in the political assembly, they usually dissolve the Government and form a new Government (or let some other political party do it, that can find more allies), that has a majority of representatives in the political assembly to support most of its policies; but US only have two (almost identical) parties, and a handful "independents", in the Congress, so that wouldn't work there.

  41. No biscuits for obama by zelkovamoon · · Score: 1

    NO! Bad Obama! No biscuit for you!

  42. My reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Mr Obama, have you considered this?

  43. Stay out of my email.... by realsilly · · Score: 1

    WTF! 6-months is crap and assuming that because I keep an email on a server for more than 6 months it's abandoned? Has the fool who is proposing this ever considered that life and the things we deal with doesn't always clear itself up in 6 months. And why should anyone ever just simply be allowed to look at my emails simply because of a time stamp.

    Services like Gmail and Yahoo and Hotmail etc....have made it a point to provide the average user with room to keep their emails, and so we do. This should not imply that we've abandoned an email that a provider has allowed us to keep on their server as long as we have not used up the allotted storage.

    I believe our govt is stepping way too far over the line into the citizen's personal lives and it's becoming ridiculous.

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  44. Re:Kinetic military activity by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    Exactly, that is one of the most insulting things he has said to date. They are weasel words if ever any were spoken.

    We already have words for military actions like: war, engagement, conflict, or and the original weasel term police action. There is no need to abuse the term kinetic, it adds nothing descriptive about what is happening. He simply did it because he knows his primary voting block has been trained to hate on anyone who says anything favorable about war, engagements, conflict and even police action in the same sentence with the word military. He also knows probably a full thirty percent of the people who voted for him don't know what kinetic means and are to lazy to look it up, they will just accept their messiah said it so it must be good.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  45. HairyFeet's "GREATEST HITS", PART DEUX ("NOT!") by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech", in his TECHNICAL BLUNDERS, & more (regarding HOSTS files):

    ---

    Static vs. Dynamic Adbanner addressing (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):

    (Which even BestBuy Techs know!)

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060

    ---

    DNS Client Cache turn off for HOSTS, a TECHNICAL Blunder by Hairyfeet:

    (Which even BestBuy Techs know also (just like the one above!))

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054

    ---

    Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260

    ---

    Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328

    ---

    Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740

    ---

    The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536

    ---

    They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student)...

    Worst part of ALL, here?

    Hairyfeet just clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for:

    ---

    1.) ADDED Reliability (vs. DNS going down, or being 'poisoned', & even DNSBL (DNS Block Lists))

    2.) ADDED "layered" Security online (vs. known bad sites &/or servers (botnet C&C) + maliciously scripted adbannners by BLOCKING them out)

    3.) ADDED Speed (not loading adbanners, and hardcoding your fav. sites into it)

    4.) Even more ADDED 'anonymity' online (vs. DNS request logs)

    (Even server admins might NOT mind having the load on their DNS servers lightened up also, bonus!)

    ---

    APK

    P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why?? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk

  46. HairyFeet's "GREATEST HITS", PART DEUX ("NOT!") by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech", in his TECHNICAL BLUNDERS, & more (regarding HOSTS files):

    ---

    Static vs. Dynamic Adbanner addressing (lol, "according to 'Pwuffesuh HaiwyPheet"):

    (Which even BestBuy Techs know!)

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060

    ---

    DNS Client Cache turn off for HOSTS, a TECHNICAL Blunder by Hairyfeet:

    (Which even BestBuy Techs know also (just like the one above!))

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054

    ---

    Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260

    ---

    Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328

    ---

    Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740

    ---

    The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536

    ---

    They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student)...

    Worst part of ALL, here?

    Hairyfeet just clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for:

    ---

    1.) ADDED Reliability (vs. DNS going down, or being 'poisoned', & even DNSBL (DNS Block Lists))

    2.) ADDED "layered" Security online (vs. known bad sites &/or servers (botnet C&C) + maliciously scripted adbannners by BLOCKING them out)

    3.) ADDED Speed (not loading adbanners, and hardcoding your fav. sites into it)

    4.) Even more ADDED 'anonymity' online (vs. DNS request logs)

    (Even server admins might NOT mind having the load on their DNS servers lightened up also, bonus!)

    ---

    APK

    P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why?? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk

  47. Another good reason... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

    ... to run your own servers. It's sad that even business these days is trusting the likes of google and yahoo with their corporate private communications.

  48. Full Transparency by theygoto11 · · Score: 0

    ...for the people yes, for the government, not so much.

  49. Big Brother. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama is WAY worse than Bush in protecting civil liberties. He's followed every domestic and foreign precedent that Bush was lambasted for setting with dozens of policies that continue to chip away at our privacy and our personal choices.

  50. Oh look, my little dancing bitch! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    You still writing those looong AC piled links to nowhere? Notice NOBODY responds to you anymore but me, and I ONLY do so to laugh at you? Why is that APK? Could it be like on Ars everyone is on to your bullshit and nobody gives a fuck what you think? Keep dancing for me monkey boy, while I don't bother reading anything you write it gives me a warm fuzzy inside to see you jump through my hoops and follow me like a little bitch who wants another taste, dance monkeyboy, dance! LOL! Here enjoy some copypasta, hell you aren't even interesting enough to bother responding to with anything else. Enjoy fail boy!

    And this coming from poor wittle APK, also know as "Petey, the idiot HOPES file guy"? As in you HOPES that one of the 300,000+ constantly changing array of websites that are infected doesn't happen to be the one you visit today? Or that you HOPES that nobody notices after repeatedly being asked you have FAILED to show even the tiniest shred of mathematical proof that your magical woobie can scale? That you HOPES nobody notices your only "proof" is anecdotes, often by your own sock puppets like Kingsjester?

    And I don't have to be exact, because I'm not the one making outrageous claims If someone claims they can stretch their dick into a giant slingshot and shoot themselves to Scotland it is not the readers job to prove them wrong but the posters job to back that up with real prof, not an anecdote that says "well my cousin Joey saw me do it last Halloween!".

    I have also shown repeatedly that at the absolute reported minimum number of new pieces of malweare and infections, which you are free to pick whichever reputable website you like Securina, MSFT's malware reports, AVG, which ever, that at an absolute minimum we are talking about 1.2 million sites PER DAY with that number changing by 15,000+ PER HOUR which means even if you typed at 1 IP address PER SECOND, and never slept, and had a perfect list (which doesn't exist) you would be 14 days behind by the very first day with that number growing linearly every single day, making Petey farther and farther behind.

    But if you weren't completely batshit insane Petey I wouldn't have to explain this, because this is why everyone makes fun of you. It is so obvious it is like someone arguing gravity is actually invisible pants gnomes trying to steal your underwear. It is the classic "default allow" which has NEVER EVER worked. Because if a piece of malware isn't in magical HOPES file Petey you are royally fucked, and yet again I have shown that it is simply a roll of the dice whether you get creamed or not, simply because you will always be behind.

    So it is all on you Petey and your magical HOPES woobie now. You made the extravagant claims, back them up with the math. If you can't? Well then you are full of shit, case closed. Notice how ALL YOU CAN DO PETEY is throw insults and trollbomb? Why is that? I'll tell you why, because math doesn't lie and you just can't show the math You just can't, it would be like trying to mathematically prove you are not an idiot. It just can't be done.

    So please, keep dancing to my tune like a little bitch APK, I do so enjoy pointing out the total uber fail of your magical woobie so. I also personally consider it a public service to point people to solutions that actually work instead of relying on magical woobies and anecdotes. And of course bi

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    1. Re:Oh look, my little dancing bitch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry about him. He obviously loves hairy feet.

  51. Time 2 shoot U down MORE, "Pwufessuh HaiwyPheet" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The links I post of your words quoted go RIGHT to where you "F'd up" vs. myself on various points (all of the "so-called points" you tried to make & FAIL hugely on, everytime).

    "You still writing those looong AC piled links to nowhere?" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Friday April 08, @02:22PM (#35761006)

    E.G.-> Here are "2 classics", lmao:

    ---

    Static vs. Dynamic Adbanner addressing (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):

    (Which even BestBuy Techs know!)

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060

    ---

    DNS Client Cache turn off for HOSTS, a TECHNICAL Blunder by Hairyfeet:

    (Which even BestBuy Techs know also (just like the one above!))

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054

    ---

    LOL - That stuff? Heck - "BEST BUY TECHIES" even know THAT level of material... &, YOU DON'T OBIVOUSLY! Lmao, anyone can read those above & make their OWN decisions...

    ---

    "Notice NOBODY responds to you anymore but me, and I ONLY do so to laugh at you? " - by hairyfeet (841228) on Friday April 08, @02:22PM (#35761006)

    No, somehow? Somehow I KNOW that's not your reasoning - especially from your PROFANE & "FoAMiNg @ ThE MoUTh" replies you make, lol!

    No... it's more that you cannot STAND that your "ITT Tech level of 'education'" & your DULL BRAIN got the best of you, when you tried :"taking ME on" & I am only using "reverse psychology" on your, & "re-trolling" you, but also exposing you for the CHARLATAN ITT TECH NOOB YOU ARE @ the same time, w/ YOUR OWN WORDS & SCREWUPS!

    (Easily, too... see the above 2 "classics" as just 2 examples thereof (I have more, which you have already seen in the post you replied to)).

    ---

    "Why is that APK? " - by hairyfeet (841228) on Friday April 08, @02:22PM (#35761006)

    Funny, but I can show you 100's of my posts that are modded up here +1-+5, & on topics in the computer sciences field you could NOT even BEGIN to SCRATCH on your BEST DAY, "ITT TECH BOY"... shall I post them again for your reference? I have before, so just ask & ye shall receive (proofs vs. your b.s. libel & fictions/lies you spout constantly).

    ---

    "Could it be like on Ars everyone is on to your bullshit and nobody gives a fuck what you think? " - by hairyfeet (841228) on Friday April 08, @02:22PM (#35761006)

    Arstechnica, lmao - BWAAAaaaahahahaha! They were caught email harassing me, IMPERSONATING ME (on their personal forums AND arstechnica itself), using MULTIPLE accounts to do so @ arstech (I'll NEVER FORGET when I caught "GOD" & "The Man with No Head/MWNH" (man with NO BALLS is more like it) coming out of the SAME EMAIL ACCOUNT... it was he using 2 diff. accounts, but busted by email addy... hilarious.

    Jay Little their "resident guru on Exchange" bit it too, & had his personal website removed for death threats to me, lol, just because he & Jeremy Reimer (who impersonated me & email harassed me + stalked me all over the net for years w/ Fat Jay there, lol) lost BADLY to me on Memory optimization programs (of which I wrote the 1st GUI one, MS wrote the original DOS mode/tty term/console one in clearmem.exe) & how they UNFROZE Exchange Servers (32-bit ones were notorious for it early on especially).

    They even brought a kid named Jarrett DeAngelis to do that @ Windows IT Pro & NTCompatible.com where they all "stalked me" to, for trying to troll me & lost not only on Exchange server, but also on IRQL_LESS_THAN_OR_EQUAL_TO + Ramdisks usage for performance.

    "Geek Angst" is their "motivation" & just like YOU? Easy to destroy (see the URL's abov

  52. Privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems pointless to think anyone, anywhere at anytime could be 100% assured of privacy. The real issue is what
    the motives are for being private.
    Is it just ' mind your own business' or ' if anyone finds out' kind of privacy?

  53. We're ok now (hatchet's buried & not in the ot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've agreed to let one another be on the trolling crap here:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2076148&cid=35772706

    & some of his posts' I've read on "things political or socio-economical" in nature I agree with him wholeheartedly (no, not all things, but quite a few, some I do not though)... but I stay out of those, because they're always "outta control" eventually, & nobody REALLY has the answers, or the whole show'd be fixed by now... so... there you are.

    He just didn't understand why I don't use a home DNS server setup!

    So also in the URL above, I outlined WHY in that post above also, which is more along the lines of topic I like best anyhow - as the topic's computing oriented & one he's rode me on in the past, & I think he assumed I didn't use DNS @ ALL WHATSOEVER - no, not "that good" here...

    (I use external DNS servers like OpenDNS, Google's, ScrubIT, & more in rotation... & I also cut the local DNS clientside cache for workstaiton users, because the local diskcache picks HOSTS up into RAM, & from a TRUE SSD based on DDR2 RAM here, very fast... for the ENTIRE process of Open/Read-Write/Close for the life of any file prior to caching after 1st access/use for later use/reuse/reacess, albeit @ the speed of SYSTEM RAM by that point, in the local diskcache kernel mode subsystem queues/lists/arrays/buffers etc./et al (whatever you'd like to call them))).

    APK

    P.S.=> I hope you're not disappointed, trolling me as AC & all, but again - There you are! apk