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.
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.
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.
I'm pretty sure real left diehards are cursing him too.
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
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.
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?
Yeah, Obama stopped the war and thank god he closed Gitmo! He's way better than G Dub!
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.
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 " .
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
For one I would say Obama has a head above his shoulders.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Wait. The U.S. has a Constitution?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Don't forget that instead of universal health care he got us a universal requirement to purchase private insurance.
-- QED
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.
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.
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.
Support SETI@home
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
>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
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.
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.
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....
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, it was a Mitt Romney idea.
Wow, the doublethink in your head must be staggering.
--
BMO
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
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"?
>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
Yup. Democrats in Congress and Senate are so spineless that they should be reclassified like molluscs.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
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.
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?
Who really cares? It's the same corrupt pile of shit on both sides, just with a different label attached.
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.
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/
Flip-flopper!!! ;)
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>
Work bio at MMWD
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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).
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.
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.)