Slashdot Mirror
Third 2012 US Presidential Debate Tonight: Discuss Here
Tonight marks the third and final U.S. Presidential debate in the lead-up to the election on November 6th. It starts at 9PM ET (6PM PT, 0100 UTC), and it's taking place at Lynn University in Florida. The topic this time around is foreign policy, including discussions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, America's role in the world, "The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism," and China's rise as a superpower. You can livestream it from the usual suspects: (C-SPAN, ABC, PBS, CNN). Politifact has posted an article fact-checking statements the candidates have made about foreign policy. Both they and Factcheck.org will be using Twitter to verify statements in real time. This presidential debate again excludes the smaller U.S. political parties. If you're interested in hearing other voices, you'll be able to see candidates from the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Justice parties in a debate tomorrow with Larry King moderating. As before, we're doing a separate post for the debate in the hopes that political talk won't clutter other stories tonight. Tell us what you think as the debate unfolds. For live conversation, remember: context helps. And, as reader Ryanator2209 keeps pointing out, you can entertain yourself by playing Logical Fallacy Bingo while you watch.
Our current president has an agenda to redistribute the wealth from the smart, capable, entrepeneurs to the fat, slobby, freeloading welfare moms.
Unfortunately, the bottom rungs of our society have figured out that this guy is their gravy train, and will be turning out in massive numbers to keep Socialist dream alive.
Did you think capitalism won with the fall of the Soviet Union? Think again. His blatant attempt to inject government control into all facets of our lives (not just health care - where it has no business anyway) is the culmination of decades of left wing planning and if we don't stop this power grab now, we may never be able to.
If you are a true patriot and love this country that we call home, you must vote for Mitt Romney next month and preserve the dream that anyone can come from the most humble of beginnings and succeed in this melting pot we call the United States of America.
a long time ago, Mitt Romney was chair of the audit committee at Marriott.
And Marriott filed tax returns using a very lucrative tax shelter known as "son of BOSS"
I contend that at the time, son of boss was illegal - it was patently a sham transaction.
I don't know if legal liability attached to Gov Romney then, or now, what with staute of limitations, but this incident tells us that MR is quite comfortable filing fraudulent tax retrns.
Which means, maybe all of these things in MR's taxes are real
magic beanstalk IRA with undervalued capital contributions
Rafalca as business that should have been a hobby
sham transactions in cayman island accounts
listing himself as passive instead of active investor...
and the beat goes on....
http://heritageaction.com/2012/07/can-president-obama-name-one-clean-energy-success/
"For those who only hear about these failing companies one by one, the following is a list of all the clean energy companies supported by President Obama’s stimulus that are now failing or have filed for bankruptcy. The liberal media hopes you’ve forgotten about all of them except Solyndra, but we haven’t.
* Evergreen Solar
* SpectraWatt
* Solyndra (received $535 million)
* Beacon Power (received $43 million)
* AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
* Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
* SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
* First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
* Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
* Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
* Amonix (received 5.9 million)
* The National Renewable Energy Lab
* Fisker Automotive
* Abound Solar (received $400 million, only borrowed $70 million of that)
* Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
* Solar Trust of America
* A123 Systems (received $279 million)
* Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
* Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
* Schneider Electric (received $86 million)
* Brightsource (received $1.6 billion)
* ECOtality (received $126.2 million)
* Raser Technologies (received $33 million)
* Energy Conversion Devices
* Mountain Plaza, Inc.
* Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsens Mills Acquisition Co.
* Range Fuels
* Thompson River Power LLC
That’s 27 (that we know of so far). We also know that loans went to foreign clean energy companies (Fisker sent money to their overseas plant to develop an electric car), and that 80% of these loans went to President Obama’s campaign donors.
The President is trying to claim in his first official campaign ad that he’s created 2.7 million clean energy jobs. When you look at all the companies going bankrupt, some of those jobs might have been paid for by the stimulus, but they are gone now. You can’t claim we’re up 2.7 million jobs if so many of those jobs have been subsequently lost."
READ IT ALL DRONES YOU ARE BEING LIED TO PAY UP SUCKAHS
And welcome to your 30 hour workweek while you are waiting in line for your state mandated colonoscopies.
I've watched all the #debates so far and it's sad how little they say, tapdance around questions, avoid talking about the critical issues while spending lots of time on things that don't matter for shit.
Sad, sad field. These ain't the best, and they ain't the brightest.
"America's role in the world". We already know about this POTUS, he is a novice when it comes to foreign policy.
There is going to be a debate at 21:00 EDT on October 23, hosted by Larry King. The candidates taking part are the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson, the Green Party's Jill Stein, the Constitution Party's Virgil Goode, and the Justice Party's Rocky Anderson.
NFL on ESPN; Game 7 of the NLCS on Fox.
Both choices suck. Obama will win just because of least resistance. Same old, same old.
Somehow, I don't suspect we'll see anything different than we saw in the first two: heated exchange of cliches and platitudes, punctuated with awkward smiles. Enjoy it while you can.
Play logical fallacy bingo! It also makes a great drinking game.
My other sig is clever.
Until the massive media conglomerates agree to put aside the "entertainment" factor of something as important as public debates between presidential candidates, I will not take such things seriously. We have more than two candidates, and only the worst 2 are being presented. If nothing else screamed corruption, this should be an obvious one.
So on the one hand, you can watch the major party candidates lie as easily as they breath. On the other hand, you can spend those 90 minutes reading about what Obama did as president and what Romney did as governor. Oh, and you can also read about the third party candidates, and what they did previously.
Why listen to lies, when you can uncover the truth?
Palm trees and 8
I was thinking, after seeing clips from the previous debates, that the debate's host should include a real-time fact-checking panel of about six people seated behind the audience, with computers so they can contact their support staff and get quicker results. Then the debators could say "I'd like a fact check on that", and the audience (local and remote) would get a near-instant "vote" from the panel as to whether the purported fact is correct.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The Chinese, The Castro Bros. Vlad Putin, Ahmadinejad, Morsi, and Hugo Chavez. With friends like these, who needs enemies!
So all you Obama supporters - why would these people endorse Obama and why is that good for the USA? Just the facts please (ps remember Godwin's law please)
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Hey drones, hows that transparency working out for you?
http://suffolkcountylibertyreport.com/sclr/?p=25837
"After its “cap and trade” legislation to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) admissions was stalled in Congress, the EPA is attempting to issue regulations to force individuals and companies to cut GHG emissions – in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. Landmark was one of several individuals, organizations and companies that filed suit to stop the agency from abusing its authority and issuing regulations that could cost individuals and companies thousands more in annual energy costs.
Because of our years of experience in combating the EPA, Landmark has become the lead amici in the case and authored the first “friend of the court” brief filed in the matter this weekend."
It's a cover up drones, wake up. FOIA is the LAW. Obama care not about the rule of law and he cares not at all about you drones except to steal your money.
Pay up suckahs!
goals I personaaly to stiVck something are about 7000/5
Sensible alternative to Obama, who is just Bush II.
Romney refuses to answer any HARD questions. Obama refuses to answer them as well. both are lying pussies that REFUSE handle real questions from voters. and the media is too lame to ask the hard questions.
What kills me is the conservative nutjobs that are foaming at the mouth thinking that their guy is any better.
News flash. They both are the same. Hooray for the new king, same as the old king!
No matter who wins, those of us that are not stinking repulsively rich will lose. that is what the Liberal nutjobs dont understand. It does NOT matter... all of them are there for their own agendas.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Riot?
They are being sent to a gulag! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/pussy-riot-prison_n_1971069.html
What are the candidates stand on this miscarriage of justice?
is where i watch the president debates. They seem to be more real.
Be seeing you...
I'm very much interested in hearing what each candidate has to say about things *other* than Libya...in particular China.
Ferretman
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
So how many candidates are being excluded this time? Is the percentage of excluded candidates still larger than the percentage of those allowed to participate?
Also, a nitpick FWIW, it's not a debate between Presidents, it's a debate between candidates.
Do I support the dark-brown-skinned right-wing hypocritical jesus freak who spent this week sucking up to a group of pedophiles, or the light-brown-skinned right-wing hypocritical jesus freak who spent this week sucking up to a group of pedophiles?
Non-Americans don't matter... unless they are Israeli. Both candidates know they can trash talk the entire world for political points... to demonstrate how "tough" they are.
And for reasons I don't understand, they will both want to curry favor with the Israelis - for what reason, I don't quite know. (I mean I do understand how a boogey man is needed to keep the Arabs in line but why is the US such a fop in front of the Israelis? I don't understand why we must take such scorn in the rest of the world for a bully regime like Israel?).
Anyhow, non-Americans don't vote here and therefore can be denigrated with impunity. We are #1, go USA! Fake bravado, jingoisms, you'll hear it from both of them. Real serious concerns about how the Chinese are rich and growing stronger, the trouble-making by the Russians, the increasingly mistrustful allies who are growing fewer everyday (in private if not in public), the drain on our economy by the huge military expenditure... I doubt these will be discussed. I hope I am wrong.
My friend from the future sent me this exclusive footage from tonight's debate.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Fuck Romney and fuck Republicans. Vote Nigger/Bidden '12 unless you want to get reamed in the ass by oil companies.
As an Australian, I always find it odd that so much emphasis is placed on these debates. Perhaps it's something that only someone that follows American politics can understand. From the outside it is presented that who-ever does the best stage-show is most likely to get votes.
This strikes me as a very 'consumer friendly' way to pick a politician, but perhaps not the best way to pick the best person for the job. Unless of course normal employment hiring practice in the USA is to stand up and debate the other candidates in all job interviews?
You could support neither; we actually have other choices.
Palm trees and 8
"The 1980's are calling for their foreign policy back" -- Barack Obama :)
http://unfix.org
watch the version of the debate that includes Jill Stein, Green Party candidate, at democracynow.org at 9:30 PM EST
We as a nation always complain about our 2 party system and all the problems that come with it. We also frequently joke about how neither of the candidates are exceptional. We then proceed to completely ignore all third party candidates. Realistically no third party candidate can win, but the more votes they get, the more seriously they will be taken in the future. Parties need to get 15% to get in these debates. If you view this system a bit like a free market, that's like saying a small business needs to take 15% market share from two colluding conglomerates. The third parties have been almost entirely ignored by the major political news dialog. Part of that is the fault of the news organizations that specialize to target a major political demographic, but part of that problem is us.
Perry Metzger tweeted the following suggested political debate drinking game - if a political debate comes on, turn on the TV and go out for a drink with your friends!
(In this case I'm going out for a music jam with friends instead, but it'll do the job.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
if a political debate comes on, turn OFF the TV and go out for a drink with your friends! - Let's try this one again...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I watched the last debate, out of what I guess was a partial sense of guilt and a partial sense of duty as an American citizen ... but it sorely disappointed me.
Not that I expected better, but it just served as a reminder of what a circus the whole thing is today.
As I pointed out to some friends of mine after the debate, both candidates are primarily concerned with putting on a good show. They went over their allotted speaking time over and over again. I've seen high-school debate classes with students FAR more capable of getting their points across within their time slots! You have to ask yourself if Romney and Obama are really that unskilled at time management? I think you and I both know the answer to that one. They're only running out the clock and continuing to talk because it's a TACTIC. If a candidate really doesn't have a good, effective comment or rebuttal to make, he wanders off topic to run the clock down, and then pretends to start addressing the issue as time is running out. That way, he can appear to have simply not been given enough time to explain his position rather than do so in full and look foolish. Alternately, he can purposely exceed the time limit in an attempt to irritate his opponent and rattle him.
Beyond that? I expect more of the REAL issues will be directly addressed by those "alternative, smaller political parties" we finally get to hear debate in their own little CNN hosted program tomorrow.
If you want to really discuss where the U.S. stands in the eyes of the rest of the world, a good start would be expounding on the recent Wall Street Journal article explaining how U.S. citizens living abroad are suddenly finding foreign banks no longer want their business. The U.S. government (and IRS in particular) have become so demanding and ruthless in their quest to "know all" about each person's investments and spending habits, they've made it uneconomical for foreign banks to comply anymore. Even the Swiss bankers (once considered almost untouchable) are being given the ultimatum by the USA ... turn over all those records of who has what in your bank, or else. Some people have even tried to turn in their passports and renounce their U.S. citizenship, only to find the IRS invalidates it, because they haven't paid past taxes (or even an "exit tax" they expect to be paid first).
It's an ugly state of affairs when your country believes it literally "owns" you, despite your express intentions to leave it behind. And the rest of the world realizes how draconian the U.S. government is getting, and doesn't want to get involved in that mess.... Here's betting NONE of this is even hinted at tonight in the "debates".
Palm trees and 8
what an assclown
Mitt Romney wants to create world peace? By arming the Syrian rebels? Because that's never bit us in the ass. I'm sick and tired of this mentality that the United States needs to police the entire world and Romney keeps saying crap like "it's an honor that we didn't ask for but we have." What the hell?
Oh! But yeah, go ahead and arm Syrian rebels! Iran totally won't view that as an aggressive act! No, they'll sit by and watch that happen! And just say "Gee, I guess the people of Syria have spoken!" Try meeting with them then and using diplomacy to reduce their nuclear efforts!
My work here is dung.
It's not like Obama doesn't have trolls also, but trolls have had more than four years of practice with Obama, and they've occasionally thought of things besides the Birther schtick. But hey, feeding an occasional troll can be fun.
The military-industrial complex likes Romney (especially with Ryan saying that cutting the Pentagon's pork barrel budget is not an option for reducing the deficit), though they haven't been too upset with Obama either (he didn't arrest them all, kept the wars going, and his "cuts" to their budget have been reductions in the rate of increase, not actual cut cuts.) China's also happy that Ryan isn't serious about cutting the deficit. Banksters like Romney's commitment to not regulating them, though they were pretty happy about Obama bailing lots of them out. Vlad Putin wants an American President who's not stupid enough to blow up the world. The Castro Bros are happy if America maintains enough isolation for them to stay in power, instead of opening up travel so they get flooded with tourists spending money the government can't control. Ahmadinejad is happy to have a US president backing Israel's hard-line saber-rattlers enough that he can keep his own country in line by rattling sabers back at them, and knows that the US can't afford to invade Iran. I haven't heard Chavez supporting Obama, but if he did he was probably drunk at the time. At least Obama hasn't sent in the Pentagon to help the oil companies overthrow him. And Morsi? He'd like to be solidly in charge, but his position is too unstable. He can't afford to get Romnesia, but he's waving his Etch-A-Sketch around every week depending on which way the wind is blowing.Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Moderator: Reasonable question with seemingly no possibility of motivating a round about answer?
Obama: I have very specific responses (mostly empty rhetoric) I will make regardless of the question asked because it will get people to vote for me.
Romney: I have audibly different responses (again rhetorical) I will make regardless of the question asked because it will get people to vote for me.
Moderator: Please actually answer the question.
Obama: I will tell you how my opponent is wrong without presenting a clear argument that will satisfy the supporters of either my opponent or myself.
Romney : I will prove that my opponent is more substantially wrong, again with a sophisticated argument that even I don't find satisfying or though provoking.
Moderator: You guys suck, I'm taking my ball and going home.
Obama: Please vote for me, I'm super cool and fun!
Romney: C'mon it's my turn! You've been on the swings all day and recess will be over soon!
Did you start drinking a little early? ;^)
I am not sure how i feel about CCN's poll-o-meter of undecided Floridians. I am one and I feel that on some level they are trying to tell me how to feel. An interesting touch...and here is to 4 years close to inevitability,
What do you all think of this Isreal talk? They both have to answer yes but still...its so fucked up...of course we are four years closer. Even if its a 1000 years from now thats true. There is no sense to that statement
Stop holding him down.
And let's see, he's promised to cut taxes for everyone, balance the budget and not cut spending anywhere. Riiight. I remember when Bush Sr. said that. Got elected and promptly raised taxes, that's what he did. What else could Romney do? Eviscerate Medicare and Social Security? Nope -- cock-blocked in the Senate. And the national Credit Card is probably pretty close to as charged up as it's going to get, so he can't just cut taxes and kick the can down the road for the next president. Romney would have to raise taxes and cut spending across the board. It's really the only thing he CAN do. Obama would have to do that too. And Romney knows that. Why do you think he's so vague when asked for specifics of his plan?
Romney says he'll fix the economy and everyone will have a job as soon as he's elected. Fact of the matter is, the job market is not going to recover to where it was for a generation. It doesn't matter WHO gets elected, unemployment is going to sit around 8 percent for years.
If Romney is elected I predict he'll be a mildly ineffective leader, probably start an unfunded war in Iran, and spent most of his time being blocked by the Democrats in the Senate. If Obama is elected I predict he'll be a mildly ineffective leader, possibly start an unfunded war in Iran and spend most of his time being blocked by the Republicans in the Senate.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I can't watch ANY of it, and quite frankly, the Libertarians are the worst. All of the politicos spout platitudes describing things they will never do, let alone even attempt, pandering to the extremes with promises that can'r possibly come true...
And the Libertarians are the absolute worst, with the exception of Lyndon LaRouche (who has in fact been dead for years - his body was preserved by the same folks who did Stalin). LaRouche and Ralph Nader, now there's a ticket I would vot for, just to be entertained for four years.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Holy shit, they didn't hold anything back. The discussion played out like the US owns the planet and everyone else is allowed to play in our sandbox on our say-so. Highlights included a reiteration that Israel is our "super-duper-mega-happy-ally" in the Middle East (conveniently avoiding mentioning Saudi Arabia) and we should do our utmost to play puppet-master in Syria with a "leadership role" because letting untrained rebels fight and die with your guns in their hands is so much more palatable as an exercise in abuse of power than sending in the military and forcibly removing the government from power. Romney chimed in stating that the only reason we're fucking with Syria so hard is because they're Iran's only friend and we should take Israel's advice on Syrian interests.
This stuff is simply horrifying.
Nice of you to log in before posting. Bonus points if you double-down.
Can I be president now?
seen the debate... i am not angry on the us, and i am not happy either... i feel pitty ive heard leader, one of the candidates mistakenly saying iraq again while iran was ment, quarreling over how to lead the world best. i am speechless now, and i am feeling sorry for you guys that you, and we as a planet have to cope with that.
Good debate! I honestly think Obama was able to hold his own on most of the foreign policy discussion, though his case fell apart when it came to the economy. Romney did a great job hammering how we've neglected our military and our allies and how a stronger economy would make doing this easier. Obama got prickly when he got interrupted; Romney tended to ramble. Solid debate. Not sure I could really say either man won outright, though I give Romney the edge on the closing words.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
I feel uncomfortable just watching him sweat so much. They're not that different in terms of civil liberties, Obama having passed NDAA and doing nothing to stop garbage like the Patriot Act. But Romney is just too much of a liar to trust in a position of power. He thinks it's ok to lie constantly and without conscience, and turn around and negate his opinions with a sincere face as if his previous comments aren't recorded on video and audio. That kind of audacity would be the makings of a criminal if he wasn't so wealthy. Instead he's a promoter of the economic abuses of the wealthy and the growing wealth disparity in America.
Use some sense, don't vote for Romney. BTW I'm a registered Republican.
you have a lot more power than you think
but your power is counterintuitive
in 1992, ross perot voters meant bill clinton won
in 2000, ralph nader voters meant gw bush won (well, al gore actually won, but he lost the bullshit filter we call the electoral college by a hair's sliver that nader voters greatly outnumbered)
in 2012, you guys may again decide who wins since the election is so close
third party voters come from a disillusioned left, or a disillusioned right. it seems to me that this election cycle has more disillusioned voters on the right. meaning: obama wins, as the right is fractionated to some extent by voters for someone other than romney
unfortunately, we live in a system where you have to vote strategically, not idealistically
1. for those of you who vote strategically (not the guy i like the best but the guy closest of the main parties), you get someone closer to your ideology in the white house
2. for those of you who vote idealistically (screw the guy who could win, i like THIS guy), you get someone further away from your ideology in the white house (see 1992 and 2000 above)
now, other systems where more than two parties dominate: is that really such a rosy world? ask someone in parliamentary systems where coalition governments form: you have people close to you ideologically, getting into bed with ideologies that are extremely odious to you, to stay in power. coalitions of perverse arrangement
in other words, other countries are not better than the usa if ideological purity is so important to you, they are just compromised in different ways than the american system
such that, an ugly truth for you: you will NEVER, as long as you ever live, have someone you love ideologically in power. you will ALWAYS have someone who is kinda sorta like you, as your best bet. this is true no matter what your ideology, right or left. why? because that's EXACTLY what politics is: compromise, in order to lead. that's what politics always was, what it is, and what it always will be. and only an ideologue is angrily allergic to compromise. and thank god, therefore, your man will never lead in a sane country. because the leader who champions rigid ideology over compromise is dangerous
politics is a game to appeal a lot of people weakly, than a few strongly. get used to it. the candidates who have the best chance to lead, always, FOREVER, will appeal to you ONLY weakly
you should accept this truth, and always vote strategically instead of ideologically
or help elect the guy further away from you ideologically by voting idealistically
your choice
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Romney's claim of Iran having 10000 Centrifuges seems to me to either be at least a gross exaggeration or simply a flat out lie. The only way I can figure he is telling the truth is if he is counting each enrichment cylinder as a separate centrifuge, which is kinda of like counting each grain of sand as it's own desert. If Iran is actually operating 10000 centrifuges it means roughly an area the size of Washington DC is being committed to uranium enrichment by Iran.
US politics is w-a-y more of a fake stage show than you can possibly know.:
http://youtu.be/pKaXqoC4DjE?t=3m3s
I really enjoy this crap every four years. Since I live (and am taxed) in the US but can't vote (btw, what about taxation without representation??), I sit back and enjoy the show.
Politics is sad in most countries: In democracies, the majority (not to get into the electoral college nonsense) put a person into a position of enormous power, hoping that he/she will somehow fight their instinct of self-enrichment and do good for the average population. The nice thing about US politics is that they make so many loopholes that politicians can make money hand-over-fist in clearly unethical manners, and then use media soundbites to smear the other guy while taking a holier-than-thou attitude... Corporation financing? Sure. Trading on insider information? No problems. 'Must-not-coordinate with SuperPACs'? wink-wink, no problems. And once they get in, the endless smears from every direction:
A: Your guy sued puppies...
B: Well, Puppies is an acronym for People Usurping Public Property In Every State
A: Call the press, this guy is a puppy hater
B: Oh yeah, well... You're weak on crime and trying to allow redistribution. of resources - you communist/socialist/marxist/whatever
It's almost like mutually assured destruction - do anything, and the other guy will twist your words and actions to make you seem like a crook. It is quite funny from an outsider's perspective. Our politicians lie, cheat, whore, and steal. You make it legal to steal, and they lie, cheat, and whore, and blame the other guy for stealing. At least there is some hope that if our politicians get caught, they might lose something. Politics in the US is a no-loss game for the players.
An actual discussion:
"I'm sick of hearing the phrase 'the failed policies of this administration'! It's a disgrace!"
"Yeah, but you only say that because you know that it was Bush's fault!"
"I tell you, it was Clinton's fault, and then it was more different Bush's fault!"
"It was Reagan's fault!"
"Carter's fault!"
"That blackguard Ford, that's whose fault it was!"
"Nixon's fault and you know it!"
"Oh yeah? It was Johnson's fault! LBJ!"
"Actually, he was kind of a bad person... he did piss on that secret service guy just for the hell of it."
"Yeah, bad example."
No, unfortunately I made the mistake of looking at Twitter, which asploded when the debate started, so I'm still here :-) Time to tune the instruments and head out the door.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Before I start on this rant, let me just say: if you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
While this Earth-shatteringly important Candidate Pissing Match/Circlejerk is all over the media, what coverage on that same media is offered the current situation at the BBC and the higher echelons of British society? I speak of the massive, massive conspiracy of silence that appears to be centered around the British Broadcasting Corporation, more specifically the dressing room of the late Sir James Saville.
The BBC knew about the paedophile activities of Sir Saville that occurred within their own hallowed halls. They did nothing. They did not report anything. As a collective they just carried on as normal, even publicly japing at the "rumours" of Sir Saville's strange sexual habits.
The Metropolitan Police knew through complaints made by victims, about the paedophile activities of Sir Saville. They said there was not enough evidence and carried it no further.
The Director of Public Prosecutions knew through criminal complaints filed by victims who had bypassed the Police because the Police had basically called them liars, yet they closed the files before they even made it to a courtroom.
It wasn't until the true scale of the abuses literally smashed its way through millions of television screens last week and throttled the British public into the realisation that something was very, very wrong at the BBC, that anybody is finally doing anything about it. What do we have? The BBC promising internal enquiries into the matter.
Great. Where does that leave survivors when they come back and say "NFA"?
The Courts still aren't going to take any notice unless by Royal mandate.
The Royals aren't going to issue that mandate because...
THEY ARE ALSO INVOLVED.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Well, since any third party will likely be excluded AGAIN from the "official" presidential debates, why not gather the third party candidates together for some sports analyst-style commentary on the debate? The debate will be streamed live into a studio where the other candidates are gathered. They will then be given a chance to comment or savage the arguments or lack thereof of the Democratic/Republican candiates. Of course, it won't have the immediacy of a real debate, but since the official debate is shaping out to be a verbal boxing match anyway, this will at least give the third party candiates a chance to have their views heard.
I haven't watched any of the unofficial debates, so I don't know if this is already being done on a time-shifted basis.
... or is the whole thing gonna become yet another "I can kick China harder than you" pissing contest?
America has a lot of problems right now.
Unemployment ... and so on ...
Gradual loss of talents
Becoming more and more uncompetitive
Sky-rocketing crime rate
Tanking of morality
Are the two men gonna deal with the real problem facing America or are they gonna participating in the "I can kick China harder than you" pissing contest ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
They are both the same? Not to me. As a cancer patient who has gone from unemployed to a semi-well paying job, I can now get insurance that I couldn't get/hope to afford before Obama.
You close your eyes and ears and say it all looks/sounds the same. Your an albatross around the neck of this country, and if you truly feel that way, brush up on your Mandarin and move to China where it really is all the same.
"I had my left buttock squeezed by Sir Jimmy Saville 42 years ago and I've been traumatized ever since" says Cheryl in her exclusive paid for interview for the Sun Newspaper.
I know you wanted to make a joke, but what's happening to the BBC is not funny. This is Murdochs revenge for investigating the bugging and phone tapping his empire is up to.
A lot of the claims come from newspaper stories in Murdochs rags, he PAYS people to make those claims. They have a financial incentive to make the FALSE claim, and since Jimmy Saville is dead, he can't fight back and there's no libel in printing it. The Newsnight editors decides not to do a piece on it, and quite rightly, the claims are baseless with a financial motive to tell lies. So Murdochs gets attack a 'culture in the BBC', when Saville did a few programs in the 70's for them, and it's all Murdoch's lot behind it.
You suffer Fox News courtesy of Murdoch, the endless history rewriting, lies and deceptions from Murdochs liebots, but we suffer his News International and Sky News.
The sooner Murdoch and his sons are in jail for their criminal acts, the better the world will be.
too bad that anglo blood of yours means you'll never join our club
If my nation is dumb enough to elect romney i think it is time to hand myself. There is only so much stupid that can contaminate my atmosphere. Romney oozes a sleezy kind of stupid like most people ooze sweat on a hot day. Maybe Bush injected him with stupid sauce or something.
"Further, most Slashdot readers are smart enough to see that Romney changes his rhetoric for whatever crowd he's entertaining "
A Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent walked into a bar. The bartender said, "Hi, Mitt!".
- copy-paste republican troll getting desperate,
- copy-paste democratic troll perpetuating stereotypes,
- editors pre-emptively seeding flame wars to increase hits.
Pick one.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Romney is surrounding himself with Bush neocons and you know a Romney administration would staff key cabinet positions with them. And he doesn't know anything about foreign policy, and couldn't care less about earth sciences - specifically environmental science. No, he would leave all that to neocons and big oil construction companies to deal with. Shock & awe, bombing runs, land wars, fear in the form of colorful terror warning labels, etc. More war (non-infrastructure investment) debt that does nothing good for the US economy, except grab more oil at the high cost of war. The only "good thing" for you Slashdotters are Romney's promised high bracket tax cuts. And if you're a one issue voter that'd be it. Otherwise, you know better. So the question is: get bigger tax returns and fuck-up middle easterners and the earth's biosphere, or not?
hum, shouldn't we be more concerned about who gets into the house and senate? I mean the legislative branch is the place where laws are proposed and legislated. The u.s president's powers are very limited. You want change, stop putting corporate puppet whores in house and senate. Medicare/Medicade $793 billion, SS $700 billion, Total defense spending 2012 is $1.4 trillion, Net Interest? $197 billion, Other Mandatory? $416 billion, Discretionary $660 billion. I mean it freaking adds up to $3,456 Trillion. WTF. The u.s government spending is out of control. If health insurance covered 80%-90% for $100-$150 a month I would be happy to get it, but I used to pay over $600 a month which i canceled it and by next year it's going to be higher than this. The so called obamacare(False, cant create bills) or more like the republican corporate care(democrat public option left out) is to phase out medicare in ten 10 years completely which is okay except that you will be paying freaking higher premiums than today and probably bankrupt a lot of people since everything like housing, rent, gas, electricity, water, going up while salaries are stagnant.
Trolls and turfers, $2 billion buys a *lot* of turf.
Karl Rove's leaked email on how to turf websites:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/27/1010778/-BREAKING-Leaked-Rove-email-singles-out-Daily-Kos
One of the companies he hired to do it:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110622211824/http://advantageconsultants.org/
If Obama is so "knowledgeable" about foreign relations, how is it that our foreign relations are in such dire straights?
No improvement in the middle east, and in fact things are generally worse than when he entered office. No improvement in regards to ally or "non-allies" like Iran and Pakistan, and very soon things will be worse with Iran.
Lots of promises, no deliveries and even Libya is significantly tarnished as a victory. Woo-Hoo that we managed to assassinate a key leader of Al-Quieda, but they are apparently organized enough to still do significant harm.
The one thing Obama could have done a lot earlier was to cut losses in Afghanistan and realize we really could not do more there than already has been done. But he was fully in for a surge there because it worked in Iraq, without seeing the differences.
I don't feel like the world at large is at all better place for having Obama as a steward, why would I want to escalate the train wreck that is already not in very slow motion at all? The fact is the U.S. is simply too powerful to sit out world politics but Obama is just not suited to figure out how to wield that power to positive effect.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Romney refuses to answer any HARD questions. Obama refuses to answer them as well. both are lying pussies that REFUSE handle real questions from voters. and the media is too lame to ask the hard questions.
The media is too lame because they cannot (or will not) ask questions that might make Obama look bad. It's well documented that a vast majority of journalists are registered Democrats, and they over the years have become softer and softer to Democratic candidates.
That will not happen with a Republican in office, the press will be more than eager to ask the tough questions and drill into Romney or any other Republican/Libertarian/Green candidate. No more softballs, no more pretending business has not made major inroads of control of government.
The press are supposed to be the dedicated watchdogs to help alert the populace when trouble with the elected leaders is afoot. If you elect a Democrat again, that job will continue to go undone and even greater piping of federal revenues to connected private individuals will occur (like almost all of the green energy companies the government invested in agains the advice of financial advisors).
I'm not even sure it matters which other party; I'm pretty sure the media would actually pay attention to any other candidate.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That will not happen with a Republican in office, the press will be more than eager to ask the tough questions
were you alive during the bush era?
he got more passes than your favorite football star.
tell me again how the 'liberal press' really socks it to the R's. I could use some good fantasy about now.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I found it covered most of the main points:
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2012/10221238-uranus-keck-photos.html
were you alive during the bush era?
he got more passes than your favorite football star.
Were you sleeping or what?
Bush was hammered on every small detail, every small flub in a way that Obama (and even Biden) have never been. The media attacked him constantly before and during the Iraq surge, until they realized it was working. Nary a peep against Obama's Afghanistan surge, before during or after even as it fails.
I'm not saying it was wrong. I'm saying it happened then and happened not at all for Obama, even with the most dire of mistakes.
That is just one of countless examples. As I said if you care to look almost all journalists self-identify with Democrats and if you think they can overcome that group-think and partisan outlook I have a few failing major news oriented magazines to sell you!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You haven't actually met any journalists, have you? How precisely do you explain the 6 years where journalists were giving Bush a free ride without asking any particularly pointed questions about the various crimes against humanity and violations of the constitution?
The reality is that the media does a piss poor job lately of serving as a watch dog until things go way off the rails.
And trust me, if a journalist had to choose between getting the scoop on something embarrassing that Obama did, they would go for it, it's mostly just right wing nutters that seem to think that the liberals have some sort of lock on the media.
This is true in the short run. But in the long run, voting for a third party causes the major parties to move in that direction to win these voters back.
Very true, and voting third party can also have other benefits. You just have to do it smartly.
You only risk letting "the greater evil" win if you live in a swing state. If your state is solidly for one of the major parties, you can safely vote third party without risking the vote affecting the major parties. So for example, living in California, I can assume that Obama will win my state not matter how I vote, and so I can vote for whatever third party I feel like without worrying about "spoiling" anything (depending on which I would otherwise support, either victory is assured or it is impossible, either way there's no point wasting effort fighting about it).
So if you live in a swing state, yes, vote the lesser of the two evils who are most likely to win. If you don't, however, voting for your preferred third party will get you several other benefits, besides the one quoted above (major party platforms shift to try to recapture the third party vote):
- It increases the size of the third party supporter bloc (both for that party, and for the concept of third parties), which helps promote the third party (and the concept of third parties) even if they didn't win. Since they weren't going to win anyway, and your non-swing state was going the way it did anyway, this is pure win at no risk here.
But besides that obvious benefit:
- If people in your non-swing state start doing this who would otherwise vote for your state's shoe-in candidate (e.g. if California liberals start voting Green instead of Democrat), then that eventually makes your state a swing state, and suddenly your vote matters a whole lot more! This combined with parent poster's point about major parties courting the third party vote, but even better: since you're not a swing state, they care a lot about capturing your vote, giving your preferred third party's platform a major influence on them.
- That second point can however go the other way, e.g. if California conservatives start voting Libertarian, that just entrenches California more firmly as a Democrat state, with a large Democrat bloc vs smaller Republican and Libertarian blocs. However, since (for example) California is already a firmly Democrat state, you can feel free to take this all the way and eat up all the Republican votes you want, go right ahead and kill the Republican party in California, you won't be making any difference in who wins there so still no harm in letting the "greater evil" win since (for a conservative who ranks Libertarians > Republicans > Democrats) they would have anyway. So you can feel free to "spoil" the "lesser evil" all you want, and if you can manage it, go on to supplant them, e.g. turn the California election into Democrats vs Libertarians instead of Democrats vs Republicans.
Combining all these effects, voting third party in a non-swing state can have major influences. To use my own state for an example again, if we assume (perhaps questionably) that a large bloc of liberals generally prefer Greens > Democrats > Republicans, and a large bloc of conservatives generally prefer Libertarians > Republicans > Democrats, then if those people all follow this strategy instead of abstaining or voting for "the lesser evil", California could end up with a more notable Green party, Democrats eagerly adopting a lot of Green policies to try to keep the liberal vote, and at least a much larger Libertarian party if not one wholly supplanting the Republican party, and Republicans eagerly adopting a lot of Libertarian policies.
Suddenly you've got something almost resembling a healthy multi-party system, all without anyone ever risking "the greater evil" getting into office. And all this in what's now quite possibly a swing state, so very influential on national politics, and either way having an inevitable run-on effect o
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Too bad nobody mentioned that tonight Democracy Now was hosting an #ExtendTheDebate event....
"It's the Law of the Universe, and I'm the sheriff." Slash-cott 2/10-2/17
"Who the fuck are you and why should we fucking care?"
It's well documented that a vast majority of journalists are registered Democrats
And their bosses -- the people who own the big media empires -- are registered Republicans.
Who do you think has the bigger influence, the boss or the peons who work for him?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
And their bosses -- the people who own the big media empires -- are registered Republicans.
Ted Turner owns many media companies, including CNN. He's not a Republcian and has spoke out against them many times, also in favor of Obama.
Really only Fox is owned by someone you could call Republican. The fact is that a vast majority of the entertainment industry (which is what news is now) is made up of people with a heavily liberal slant.
To claim that big business is the domain of Republicans is laughable as anyone who has looked at Obama's donor list now. For a REAL eye-opener, take a peek at some of Obama's biggest donors in 2008:
Goldman Sachs
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Citigroup Inc
Time Warner
Morgan Stanley
Obama has been the best investment the banks ever made.
Who do you think has the bigger influence, the boss or the peons who work for him?
Quite obviously the people that make stories every day for broadcast. You obviously do not know much about media.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Except we live in a manipulated media world. Look at the 'Tea Party', they started out as a group wanting budget balance, less spending, more taxes, an end to bailouts. They got hijacked by Karl Rove and now the usual Republican candidates are labelled 'Tea Party Favorites' as a way of saying 'not Bush backers' (even when they are). The actual real Tea Party Candidates, aren't Republican mainstream and got shut out.
Ron Paul should have had a positive effect on the Republicans, instead the party elite, didn't even allow his votes to be read out. They even blanked the microphone at the mention of his name.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg&feature=related
How can they ever have an effect on politics, if the media is so manipulated their views are never allowed to come out, and fake candidates mouth false views in their name?!
Here is a wake up call for you: Very few people take opinions, when written incompetently, seriously. You can either use language as a beautiful, powerful tool, to express your positions in finely controlled strokes from broad to fine, so that your readers don't have to wade through lexical slush... or, you can finger paint poorly assembled words like an addled child. With predictable results among whatever remnants of your audience you have retained.
I would encourage you to put a decent amount of effort into your communications; but of course you can elect to continue to slop your way into obscurity.
Just from all the "fuck politics, I'm going back to being a libertarian" pouting I'm seeing here. Just like right after the 2008 election.
As for the actual DEBATE, anyone catch Romney's comment about Syria important to Iran as their only shipping route to the ocean? Or, how about how he went from "the Arab spring sucked, we shouldn't have done it" to "I agree with deposing Mubarak." He also went back to defending the $5/$2 trillion tax-cut/defense spending hike he DENIED in the 1st debate.
Also notable was Romney getting called out on his Big Flashy Numbers approach to military spending which works fantastic when you're cheerleading for your base, but really poorly when there's someone to challenge you. OMG did you know our Air Force is smaller than it was in 1947???? When we had tens of thousands of prop jobs and 1st generation jets as opposed to a mere hundreds of supersonic modern fighters with state-of-the-art electronics???? Oh noes!!!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The Demopublican Party (or Republocratic, if you prefer) has a tremendous, vested interest in people believing the age-old myth that a vote for [anyone other than candidate R] is as good as a vote for [candidate D], and that a vote for [anyone other than candidate D] is as good as a vote for [candidate R]. This has ensured that the "Democratic Party" and the "Republican Party," between the two, decide, and NOT WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, who will be our President, and who will sit in the houses of Congress, and make our laws. They do this for their own greater benefit, and it is not only NOT to the benefit of the people of our nation, it is generally TO OUR DETRIMENT.
I will not presume to tell anyone else FOR WHOM to vote, but I propose as we drag ourselves, tired, beaten insensible by the back-and-forth distraction from what matters that has been the 2012 Presidential campaign, that anyone who reads this, considers the following, and asks his or her friends and family to think about the same, because it's important for the sake of the integrity of our national government, as well as the well-being of the country as a whole, in every sense of the expression, that our leaders be chosen by US, and not those who seek to pull the strings from behind the scenes.
IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE, ALTERNATIVES NOTWITHSTANDING, THAT ROMNEY WOULD MAKE A GOOD PRESIDENT, AND GENUINELY WANT HIM TO BECOME THE NEXT PRESIDENT, VOTE FOR HIM.
IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE, ALTERNATIVES NOTWITHSTANDING, THAT OBAMA SHOULD CONTINUE AS PRESIDENT, AND GENUINELY WANT HIM TO HAVE ANOTHER TERM AS PRESIDENT, THEN VOTE FOR HIM.
IF YOU DON'T THINK EITHER SHOULD BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT, then either DON'T VOTE, or vote for someone else, such as Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, for example, if for no other reason than to let it be known that the so-called Democratic and Republican party is NOT guaranteed a victory just because they're the Democratic and Republican party.
I know people bristle when someone suggests they not to vote. Please understand I'm not saying don't go, because there are other people to vote for, and things to vote on, than just the President. But I ask you to consider that if you vote for someone you don't think should be President, you're doing two things. First, you're voting for someone whom you KNOW would not be good for America, as President, and two, you're HELPING TO PERPETUATE THE PARTISAN FREAK SHOW THAT HAS BEEN FOISTED ON US AS A DISTRACTION FROM WHAT MATTERS, while our federal government is nearly paralyzed with bickering, in-fighting, back-biting, and the people we feel compelled to pick ARE IN THE POCKETS OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN PAYING FOR THEIR ADVERTISEMENTS, FUNDING THEIR CAMPAIGNS.
I would liken this to flying a plane. Our representative democratic republic is like a plane, and by voting, we control that plane. If you don't know how to fly, LET GO OF THE STICK, MAN! Let people who know how to fly control where it goes. By all means, exorcise and fight for your right to vote, it is through this mechanism that we have freedom, it is what keeps the government from going completely insane, that they MUST impress us, as voters, to grant them the power they seek.
I ask that you consider voting for a "third party" candidate, even if you know he or she won't win, it's not wasting your vote if because you voted for someone who is NEITHER the Republican or Democratic nominee, the next President only barely wins, because a third-party candidate got almost as many votes as they did, or even manage to come in second, rather than third. If we can pull that off, maybe they will be able to get sufficient funding for the next election, that they'll be able to get their message heard, and we can break this cycle of "two-party" politics. If we don't do this now, next election will be JUST LIKE THIS ONE, A TWO-MAN CONTEST to see which one, of the two that were chosen by the people who control the Democratic and Republican party, gets to be president.
Until we fix this, we're no longe
Democracy is definitely dead and buried in America. That is pretty obvious, looking at these two corporate puppets.
The big question now, is what are the American people going to do to rid themselves of the single party government of the democrat/republican corporate totalitarian regime. If you look at the policy differences between Bush/Obama, their have been virtually none. Healthcare is the only small difference, and a pretty pathetic one at that. Look at civilised countries, in comparison to America. They have all long offered state provisioned healthcare, as a basic human right. The whole political debate in the United States, is framed in fearmongering, totalitarianistic, militaristic, paranoid, right wing, fascist gibberish.
Romney: Kill 'em all.
Obama: Kill 'em all, politely.
Does Mitt Romney have a facial expression that ISN'T a smirk? Just wondering.
Well, there's certainly been a big uproar ... all this over a choice between greed and compassion. Of course I'd choose greed over compassion any day! .. hold on a sec!
To criticize the Constitution is human. To ammend it is divine. :)
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
So explain why all these liberal media wont ask Romney the hard questions then. Or that damn liberal media would not ask hard questions to Bush when he was in.
I dont buy the liberal media conspiracy. There is plenty of extreme right wing media out there. Fox news for example.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Well, to illustrate this difference he is talking about, take ending the Iraq war for instance. Bush created a Status of foreign soldiers agreement with the Iraqi Government signing it before the 2008 elections. The media said little about it as bush effectivly ended the Iraq war. Obama comes into office, changes a detail or two and keeps everything else Bush put into place and he is the hero of the day lauded by all the everyone.
John Stewart did a piece on this. I can't find the complete segment, but he revists the notion to make fun of republicans later too.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-20-2008/mess-o-potamia---iraq-surrenders
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-3-2009/mess-o-potamia---the-iraq-war-is-over
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-24-2011/end-o-potamia
I suggest watching them in order.. even though they aren't complete. The middle one, in its original entity comes right out and says Obama's ending of the Iraq war is just a Bush policy renamed. But Obama gets the credit instead of Bush.
Hey, Missouri elected a dead guy for Senator .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG4IX5jBc4Q
* Carthago Delenda Est *
You're making the mistake of thinking the bosses care about politics. The bosses care about making money. They make money by hiring entertaining on-air peons that sell news.
I think the difference is huge.
But even if you don't think that, it comes down to 2 views on how big changes will come about. My view is that it's more likely to get big changes by fighting hard each election and with a win, the next election will be fought on more reasonable grounds. Another view is that the less reasonable party might win, but that could precipitate a big change all at once as the people are fed up and (hopefully peacefully) revolt.
United States Constitution
Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Although the United States Constitution does not define Natural Born Citizen, the framers understood the definition given by Emmerich de Vattel in his book entitledThe Law of Nations. Vattel's definition, from Book I, Chapter 19 of the English translation of 1797 as follows:
"The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights..."
The French original of 1757 reads as:
"Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, ."
Over the history of the United States, findings in four cases with the Supreme Court Of TheUnited States (SCOTUS)have affirmed this definition of Natural Born Citizen. The four United States Supreme Court cases are:
1. The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814).
2. Shank v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
3. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
4. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
The Constitution of the United States and the findings of SCOTUS in these cases can be found on-line at the following web pages:
The United States Constitution:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html
Shank v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet 242 242
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/242/case.html
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html
The SCOTUS findings in the Venus case clearly quote Vattel when it wrote "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
In Shank v. Dupont, Vattell is paraphrased when the courts stated "for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country".
In Minor v. Happersett, the court again relied on Vattel when it said "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens,
Despite congressional approval and a UN resolution, the press still hammered Bush on the legality of the Iraq war. Meanwhile, Obama attacked Libya without congressional consent and kept it up for over 60 days (War Powers Act violation), and when confronted by even his own party in Congress, he basically said "It's legal because I say it is." We didn't hear much uproar in the press over that, even though Candidate Obama had strongly disapproved of such actions.
They also hammered Bush on Guantanamo, but not much for the guy who's kept it running despite promises otherwise.
Still with the whining about the liberal media, eh?
Do you have any facts -- not personal anecdotes or confirmation bias, but facts -- to back up your assertions?
No? Then please STFU.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Nah, he's just saying that to get elected. He'll say anything he thinks you want to hear, in order to get elected. Take Obamacare, perfect example. He says he'll repeal it, but he knows the Democrats will cock-block him in the Senate if he tries to do that. He actually likes Obamacare. It's HIS FUCKING HEALTHCARE PLAN! But he knows a lot of people hate the idea that the might be required to act responsibly (many of them while claiming to be Republicans) and so he says that to get elected. He'll get elected, not be able to get the votes to repeal it, throw up his hands and say he tried.
If Romney is elected I predict he'll be a mildly ineffective leader, probably start an unfunded war in Iran, and spent most of his time being blocked by the Democrats in the Senate. If Obama is elected I predict he'll be a mildly ineffective leader, possibly start an unfunded war in Iran and spend most of his time being blocked by the Republicans in the Senate.
That is what scares me about Romney. He seems to want to be president just so he can be president--like he's going down his bucket list: 1) Start a family, check 2) Make hundreds of millions of dollars, check 3) Govern a state, check, 4) Become POTUS _____ .
I know 12 years ago is an eternity to the American electorate, but doesn't anyone remember Bush? He wanted to be president just to be president. He wanted to follow in his dad's footsteps. He got into office by promising to cut taxes, offsetting the revenue losses by "deregulating" and through "free trade." He was going to be the first "CEO president." But when he got into office, he had accomplished his goal: to be president. He wasn't really that interested in policy, so his cabinet just walked all over him. Sure, he liked getting on camera and acting tough, but about half-way through his second term he realized that being a "hands off" president is a great way to ruin your legacy--but it was too late. Six years of rubber-stamping whatever nonsense came out of the swarm of neocons running the White House ruined his presidency and the economy.
Obama struggled with the same thing when he took office, with people like Larry Summers trying to push him around. But Obama wanted to be president to accomplish policy goals, so he pushed back and took control of his cabinet. His biggest mistake was probably focusing too much on pushing legislation--though arguably trying to work with the republicans in Congress was just as big of a mistake.
Romney looks to me just like Bush did in 2000; he wants to be president so badly he will say or do anything to achieve that goal. But I'm afraid that he has no real policy goals--he just wants to live in the White House and bask in his own ego. Can anyone actually name one policy goal that he hasn't changed his mind on at least three times? Even his 20% tax cut was a new invention, meant to pander to dumb voters and rich people. Health care? He's now adamantly opposed to his own health care plan... He has surrounded himself with people from the W administration, who are going to walk all over him if he becomes president because they have actual agendas and long-term policy goals. Romney 2012 is Bush 2000 all over again.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
Remember Obama saying 97% of small businesses wouldn't be hit by tax raises, which would of course hit the employees? That implies just the few rich get hit, right inline with his class warfare strategy. Remember the reply? Those 3% that would be hit account for 50% of small business employees.
CEO Obama wants to literally squeeze more money out of these small businesses, and hide the fact of how many employees would be affected.
Except: the PPCA does nothing to guarantee you care. It does nothing to stop your insurance from dramatically increasing in cost. It does nothing to reign in drug prices.
What it does do is give the insurance industry, which was on an unsustainable business model (shareholders demanding blood from a stone), hundreds of billions in new revenue from tens of millions of consumers now forced to buy their junk products.
There were twice as many Democrats in Florida that voted for Bush than the total number of Nader voters, and five times that number of Democrats didn't vote on election day.
So, given the fact that there's no mathematical difference between a Nader voter and a non-voter, and that a Dem vote going for Bush was twice as bad for Gore's percentages as a vote going to Nader, who's really at fault again for the 2000 election?
Which Gore did actually win. A statewide press recount showed that Gore would have earned more votes than Bush, which means we had a stolen presidential election.
Obama is arming the rebels already.