Slashdot Mirror


CPJ Report: the Obama Administration and Press Freedoms

dryriver writes "Committee To Protect Journalists reports: U.S. President Barack Obama came into office pledging open government, but he has fallen short of his promise. Journalists and transparency advocates say the White House curbs routine disclosure of information and deploys its own media to evade scrutiny by the press. Aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information and broad electronic surveillance programs deter government sources from speaking to journalists. In the Obama administration's Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. Those suspected of discussing with reporters anything that the government has classified as secret are subject to investigation, including lie-detector tests and scrutiny of their telephone and e-mail records. An 'Insider Threat Program' being implemented in every government department requires all federal employees to help prevent unauthorized disclosures of information by monitoring the behavior of their colleagues. Six government employees, plus two contractors including Edward Snowden, have been subjects of felony criminal prosecutions since 2009 under the 1917 Espionage Act, accused of leaking classified information to the press—compared with a total of three such prosecutions in all previous U.S. administrations. Still more criminal investigations into leaks are under way. Reporters' phone logs and e-mails were secretly subpoenaed and seized by the Justice Department in two of the investigations, and a Fox News reporter was accused in an affidavit for one of those subpoenas of being 'an aider, abettor and/or conspirator' of an indicted leak defendant, exposing him to possible prosecution for doing his job as a journalist. In another leak case, a New York Times reporter has been ordered to testify against a defendant or go to jail."

289 comments

  1. "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by gelfling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even South Park made fun of England's libel courts which are absurdly tilted in favor of whomever has the money and the power. Perhaps Obama can start suing them all there. Why not? It's not as if anyone cares whether we live in a tyranny or not.

    1. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably... all it takes for extradition these days is for the libel to be posted on a server located in the US right?

    2. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the Good Old Days whistleblower's leaking "illegally" in the public interest on even greater illegal activities like systematic corruption, war crimes, cover-ups etc were actually afforded some protection (Daniel Ellsberg as one example). Journalists reporting on the whistleblower material were also afforded some protection. Today in the first world there appears to be an all out assault on both reporting and whistleblowing no matter how egregious the crime they are bringing to the publics attention. Libel laws strengthened and extended laws and new ones are being passed like the US Shield law - designed to shield the corrupt from exposure and outlaw any media organization that is not complicit from doing investigative reporting.

      Hard not to come to the conclusion that those institutions behind the prosecution of journalists and whistleblowers are wholly and irrecoverably corrupted. Guess that is what happens when the population votes in a two headed single party dedicated to serving power and moneydecade after decade...

    3. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Xicor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you can blame the people who refuse to vote for a third party because "they cant win"... if people actually voted with their brains and voted for who they ACTUALLY want in power, we might get a libertarian president.

    4. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      "Don't Blame me, I voted for Kodos!!!"

      - Homer Simpson

    5. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't vote libertarian because I don't want my neighbor having a pet panther in their back yard.

    6. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Good Old Days whistleblower's leaking "illegally" in the public interest

      In the good old days one only saw grocer's apostrophes in crude, handwritten signs. Get your GED, son.

      Today in the first world there appears to be an all out assault on both reporting and whistleblowing

      There's also an all-out assault in the written language.

    7. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Xicor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      well, your only options are to stick with the two parties who are both the exact same thing and will destroy your rights, or to vote for a third party. is there any reason why you dont want your neighbor to have a panther? panthers are much quieter than dogs.

    8. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 0

      you're ignorant if you think a 3rd party can beat the 2 gorillas. its a closed system, mate, there is NO hope of this ever happening however much you or I would love to see a 3rd party have a fighting chance.

      the reality is that the system is broken and needs a do-over.

      no tweaks will be enough. we need a full do-over. sorry to say, but I have given up hope of the system fixing itself.

      the sooner people stop the fantasy of being able to vote in non-corrupt people, the sooner we can actually make PROGRESS toward serious reform.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    9. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Xicor · · Score: 1

      lol, you clearly dont understand how voting works. if the majority of the people vote for a third party, one of the two parties will lose out and we will have a third party (now second party) president. tweaking the system wont make a difference as long as there are ignorant people voting for the lesser of two evils because they think they only have two choices.

    10. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      In the good old days one only saw grocer's apostrophes in crude, handwritten signs. Get your GED, son.

      WTF is a grocer??

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Its a single party state. The two parties are a pretense they are just factions

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    12. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      Grocery store.. run by a grocer?

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    13. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by evilRhino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In our current system, a third party will only tilt the favor against the mainstream party that is the exact opposite politically. A liberal third party would split the vote with the Democrats and put a Republican in power. The modern tea party has the better successful model. You don't enter the general election, you have to work through an existing party and come up in the primary.

    14. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, you clearly dont understand how voting works. if the majority of the people vote for a third party, one of the two parties will lose out[...]

      Uh, we are talking about the U.S.A. here. A majority of the people voted for Democrats in the House of Representatives which is consequently controlled by a Republican majority. Because we are in the U.S., after elections we get reports of the "popular vote" and the reports of what the people actually get instead. I know no other "democracy" where there is a separately reported "popular vote" as if that was just an idle curiosity.

      "Popular vote" and "outcome" are often enough different even in the Republican/Democrat balance even though we are talking about two about equally sized bullies who have rigged the system together for hundreds of years. You don't just need a "majority" to cut through all of that vote stealing. You need a waterfall.

    15. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by jtnix · · Score: 2

      You, sir, are a shill. That and/or clearly mis/uninformed as to what has REALLY happened in recent years. Here's a taste for you that you are willingly or otherwise ignorant to: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/17/green_partys_jill_stein_cheri_honkala

      Please tell me how can a third party even hope to be voted for when the incumbent governmental system (not even sure about that) has the third party candidate sequestered and handcuffed while trying LEGALLY enter and attend an election debate?

      --
      She blinded me with science, she tricked me with technology. ~ Thomas Dolby
    16. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Panthers can be solved with a bullet, at least.

    17. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any reason why "third party" means "libertarians"? Don't want to return to 1900-era consumer and labor protection, thanks.

    18. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by judoguy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I will never understand the bizarre interpretation of libertarianism with anarchy! Why do statists always scream that if ANY liberty is allowed we will go all Mad Max? Oh, that's right, they're statists and ANY individual freedom/responsibility threatens the state.

      When I talk about liberty, it's not anarchy. I would just like to see the discussion moved to how little government do we need to live and work together. The current discussion, in the US at least, is always about how much government can we have without fomenting an armed rebellion. How much government control of healthcare, communications, income, etc.

      Being opposed to a totalitarian state doesn't presume chaos, unless you're a totalitarian statist which a depressing number of people are. They take umbrage at that description of course and claim they just want to help people. because, you know, if people were allowed to make important decisions, they'd fuck up. Only a vast bureaucracy has the compassion and wisdom to run other peoples lives.

      Yes people do fuck up their lives sometimes. God knows I've made bad decisions and will make more. That's called living. And Learning. And not being eternally cast in the role as a child who must always protected by the all knowing state.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    19. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not as if anyone cares whether we live in a tyranny or not.

      They would care a great deal if it was a tyranny led by the REPUBLICANS instead.

    20. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are the third parties putting so much focus on the presidential election? They should start with state legislatures, move up to congress, then maybe think about it.

    21. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      I would agree with that sentiment except that I have actually looked to see what third parties are available to vote for. Most of them are nuts!!! The Libertarians who you mentioned are probably the most voteworthy of the bunch (IMHO), maybe even better than the big two but personally I still disagree with them on some matters to the point I don't want to vote for them. The rest of the US third parties are just off the deep end either far right, far left or trying to build a religious state.

    22. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I agree, the groupthink reaction to leaks is astonishing, and I can't figure out why it is apparently getting worse. In yesteryear, you ACTUALLY had an formidable enemy (the USSR) who could theoretically gain secrets from leaks to destroy us. With nukes and ICBMs. Do these people ACTUALLY believe that Al Qaeda, whose arms are boxcutters and pipe bombs, could actually do more damage with Snowden's leaks about the computer spying program?

      I recognize it's apples to oranges, with Manning some of the concern was specific informants identified, while the soviets could launch a nuke without knowing so much as a zipcode, but still, the response is wildly disproportionate with the threats we face today.

      I suspect it's just "Oh, wait, the public DOESN'T care that we ruthlessly pursue people who dare to speak out against us? Shit! We could STILL be torturing Deepthroat!"

    23. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      That's because the people who are shouting "Tyranny!" nowadays are on the level of people who spend their time on a corner shouting at passing cars or playing 70's rock records backwards looking for messages from satan.

    24. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not fucking up my own life that worries me. It's someone fucking up my life for their own gain. Discriminating against me and leaving me unemployed and hungry without a safety net. Paying me peanuts and forcing me to work ungodly hours to get by or starve. Raiding my retirement savings and leaving me with no hope of retiring without social security. Dumping toxins into my environment and leaving me sick and dying without healthcare. Government has arisen to help with those things because the past has shown that they will be abused otherwise.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    25. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by morgauxo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As someone with a pretty bad smoke allergy I really apreciate that in Ohio and Michigan I can go to bars and restaurants without getting sick now. I do support people's right to put things in their bodies. (tobacco, marijuana, etc... I really don't care) I just don't want to be forced to chose between being a shut-in or having people put their smoke in MY body. Somehow that just doesn't seem like liberty to me.

      They can do it at home, in there cars, outside(Not in front of the door where we all have to walk through it).

      As far as I can tell the Libertarians want to change things back to how they were, giving people the liberty to make others sick against their will again.

    26. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by morgauxo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ideally no but here in the US if you are voting third party your choices are either really far left or really far right mixing church and state. Libertarian is the closest thing to a middle ground that there is in our third parties.

    27. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by tqk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect it's just "Oh, wait, the public DOESN'T care that we ruthlessly pursue people who dare to speak out against us?

      Add to that the NSA and Alexander couldn't give a rat's ass what you care about. He's going to do it whether you like it or not, Constitution be damned. You stopped the Clipper chip in the nineties, and he just went ahead and did it another way, lieing his ass off all the way to everyone who asked.

      You don't live in a democratic republic any more. Caeser has spoken. Enjoy the bread and circuses.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    28. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      I want a government that gives people the liberty to fuck up their own lives however they want. It's their choice.

      I want a government that protects us from someone else fucking up our lives.

      That includes protecting kids from fuck-up parents. (hey, nobody choses their own parents why should they be punished for them?)

      But.. I also want a government that lets me raise my kids as I see fit. (the state should not be our mother of father)

      Are my wants that different from anyone else's? I doubt it. But I'm pretty sure it's impossible to strike a balance that fills them all in every situation.

    29. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, you can vote Green in that case. Then you can actually live in the pre-1900 era.

    30. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... dedicated to serving power and money decade after decade ...

      The USA has seen the accelerated monetization of the political process. The war on drugs, then on terror turned the voter from a political counter-balance to a voiceless criminal. It resulted in unaccountable bureaucrats and 'self-regulating' agencies doing business with what remains: Corporations driven by neo-liberalism and profits. The law is created to protect the rich, then is changed to protect corporate person-hood, then changed again to create their bodyguard: Fascist government. Corporations no longer need money to corrupt the political process, they are the political process. This is the danger zone: Firstly for corporations, who saw the neo-liberal dream in China, Cuba and Iran lead to revolution and anti-American policies. Secondly for the citizens, who saw a military cabal in Germany's Nazis , Chile's Pinochet, El Salvador's FMLN embrace slavery and 'disappeared' citizens. The US version of this is called mandatory sentencing(*) and extraordinary rendition.

      A wave of neo-liberal ideology is sweeping the world. This has multiple dangers in Islamic countries because there, law equals religion. Those countries don't limit oppression to a 'tough on crime' mentality, or to horny women (by denying sex education, free contraception, pre-marital sex, abortion, self-selection of a husband), or to homosexuals but oppress the majority of people according to a strict religious interpretation. This is creating civil disobedience as theocratic supporters battle secular supporters.

      * A slave has no rights, no income and produces economic value for a lengthy duration. A mandatory convict has no rights, no income and consumes economic value for a lengthy duration. But my focus is on the similarities of dehumanization in these processes.

    31. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That includes protecting kids from fuck-up parents. (hey, nobody choses their own parents why should they be punished for them?)

      But.. I also want a government that lets me raise my kids as I see fit. (the state should not be our mother of father)

      Once you resolve that internal conflict within your own head, perhaps you will have more luck convincing others.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    32. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by mythosaz · · Score: 1, Troll

      "The Libertarians" don't want to make people sick against their will. We know where peoples' rights stop.

      In public, sure, no lighting things on fire and blowing them at us. Your rights end at your nose (and lungs).

      However, restaurant and bar owners (should) choose if they want you as a customer or not, or prefer smokers. You don't have any right to visit my business.

    33. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by poity · · Score: 1

      The Presidential election goes by state, and is winner takes all, so only battleground states can tilt the election. Deeply blue or deeply red states will stay their colors with or without HUGE numbers of voters. Even if a million Democrats (~9% of 2012 turnout) in California voted 3rd party, that state would remain blue by a healthy margin and still go to the Democratic Presidential candidate. Likewise, even if 100k Republicans (~9% of 2012 turnout) in Kansas voted 3rd party, that state would remain red by a healthy margin and still go to the Republican Presidential candidate.

      Consider that a 3rd party is empowered by federal funding and ballot access that is based on the aggregate popular vote -- which is entirely different from the way electoral votes are won -- and you will see that victory for a 3rd party is not synonymous with defeat for any mainstream party. And a 3rd party doesn't even need 9%+ of the popular vote in every state, it only needs to reach 5% to get funding and access. For the Libertarians, that's means another 4% average per state on top of what they have of the popular vote, for Greens it's another 4.5%. That's well within margin, especially for a country that is more and more composed of deeply blue and deeply red states.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    34. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by davester666 · · Score: 1

      If he's going to bother sending people to another country fuck them over, he won't bother to do it in the other countries court system.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    35. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Circulate a petition to require political offices to be voted on using single-transferable vote or other such system and I will be quite happy to sign it.

    36. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by HeckRuler · · Score: 0

      Actually, the guy didn't say anything about anarchy, he just commented about exotic pet laws. You're the one that took the slightest mention that people can be assholes and assumed he's a wing-nut statist who wants to clamp down on your every freedom. That's.... actually the exact same sort of behavior that you are rally against.

      Really, read the thread again. Someone mentions libertarians, someone makes a comment about exotic pet laws, someone questions if we really need those laws and then there's you. Who's flipping out, and calling that anonymous coward a statist who thinks libertarians are anarchists. Come on dude.

      That's called living. And Learning.

      Well, you know, unless you're eaten by a panther. Then it's called dying. Fortunately other people have learned from such deaths and as a whole they decided that anyone wanting a pet panther should know how to handle and care for panthers. And that someone should vouch that he knows what he's doing, possibly training him if he doesn't. And that he panther owner should then carry around a little piece of cardboard known as an exotic pet license. Which you and your libertarian minded panther-loving friends can go get. Your freedom to own a panther is not gone. It just has a hoop you have to jump through. Because some poor bloke in the past died to some rich dick's weird-ass pet.

      But anyway, like all things, it's a balance. We obviously need more state control than we had during the 1980's. Nobody likes a rober baron. And in a desperate attempt to get this whole mess back on track, I believe that we certainly need less state control when it comes to journalism and whistle-blowing. That's the first amendment. A specific limit of power that the government shall not break. A collar to keep it in line. If they slip out of that then they could do something horrible like maul a child or something. And then we'd have our exotic government license revoked.

    37. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish my bosses could see this.
      It feels like a portion of the 45-65 crowd thinks everyone else is a mess and needs to be controlled by them and The State for their own good. Frankly, it's a little scary. They seem paranoid and jump at their own shadow, and are really condescending.
       

    38. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by johanw · · Score: 1

      This discrepancy is inherent to a district voting system. In the UK there are similar problems, and the country has a history of specifically dividing districts so that certain parties are favored by it.

    39. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that the one who can fuck up your life the most for their own gain is the government, right?

    40. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you just deliver the fucking pizza already? We're getting hungry over here.

    41. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Ah, the -1 over-rated mod with no explanation given. The mod of choice by all those quiche-eating libertarian's with their panties in a twist.

      Gee, I'm sorry I rained on the spontaneously generated libertarian rant and gave a level-minded explanation of exotic pet laws. It's a good rant. It really gives that strawman a beatdown.

    42. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      Working through the primaries is great if you can win the primaries. What it comes down to for the tea party is that the Republican party had abandoned its small government roots and eventually became distant enough for establishment Republicans to lose their base to more ideologically pure candidates. This revolt occurred chiefly in the more populist House and may or may not spread to the Senate.

      But if you are a moderate group, or differ with the Democrats/Republicans on different issues from what their base considers core, you will probably not get any traction in the primaries. You are better off participating in the general elections where you can preach to the full American audience and draw in support from the 40% of Americans who identify as independents. Except in rare cases, the principal effect will be influencing the other candidates -- if your views start carrying more weight with the electorate, the major party candidates will be pressured to lean that direction to regain those votes, which, if it happens, achieves your policy goals, but does not gain the third parties any election viability.

      However, I the most effective means of *protest* is to vote for the other major party. Elections are decided by the difference in votes, and subtracting one vote from one candidate and adding it to the leading competitor has 2 X the impact on whether he/she gets elected.

    43. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Xicor · · Score: 1

      if a third party gets 5% of the vote in any given election, the next election, they are automatically put on the ballots and are automatically accepted into all debates.(this was what gary johnson was trying to accomplish last election)

    44. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add to that the NSA and Alexander couldn't give a rat's ass what you care about. He's going to do it whether you like it or not, Constitution be damned. You stopped the Clipper chip in the nineties, and he just went ahead and did it another way, lieing his ass off all the way to everyone who asked.

      So instead of the Clipper chip we got the Clapper trap?

    45. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertarian is the closest thing to a middle ground that there is in our third parties.

      That's extremely sad.

    46. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      That is the fault of the U.S. Constitution which, although it doesn't specify the number of parties, pretty much assures a two party system with a winner take all process in the Electoral College. This colors all political strategy as third parties have an almost impossible hurdle to over come. If the U.S. would go to direct election, this situation would quickly change and if representatives were elected at large by popular vote, third parties and coelition politics would easlly emerge.

      Since the duopoly, with its corporate moneybags, has a lock in the current system, it would take a major crisis, such as a prolonged fiscal shutdown or a stolen national election to get people to change their attitudes.

      But be careful, the UK has no room to talk about diversity and the lack of a ruling class, locked in. If the U.S. has a Capitalist elite calling the shots, the UK has that and the institutionalized aristocracy controlling things, amounting to the recent decline of civil liberties in the UK. I wouldn't aspire to be one of the Queen's subjects at all, but we share the prospect that each of our constitutional systems has lost the promise of democratic institutions where all men are equal, clearly if you are a greedy wealthy American or a member of the English Aristocracy, you are more equal than everybody else.

    47. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      But not Liberatarian, Randian thinking, Ron Paul thinking, is only thinly disguised Conservative Elitism, "I've got mine, screw you!" and is popular with Silicon Valley Engineers and their billionaire pimps :-)

      The human condition is that people are stupid and selfish. And yet we live in a time when crowding is making us more interdependent, somewhat to the dismay of the antisocial personalities that go into tech and support Libertarian nonsense. But, no matter, if selfishness wins out, and the people who say that human activity is not destroying the earth (for a profit) get their way, the Fermi Conjecture will get the last word as the human race goes extinct.

    48. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'd rather someone fucked up my life for their own gain than for my own good.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    49. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Xicor · · Score: 1
      communism doesnt work either. the fact of the matter is that we are a capitalistic country. those "elite" views you talk about is actually just capitalism. that being said, there are a lot of current laws that would be changed by a libertarian government that would benefit both sides of the spectrum. eliminating the tax code and putting in a flat tax above the poverty line would effectively reduce taxes on the lower classes, while increasing taxes on the upper classes and lowering the taxes a little on the middle class. eliminating the tax code would decrease all the abuse by the wealthy(with all the tax loopholes). it would also save the government a fortune by being able to eliminate the IRS.

      but i digress. it isnt anyone's business what other people are doing unless it IS their business. this is the libertarian policy. it isnt the wealthy's job to pay for the poor, and it isnt the wealthy's job to pay for people who are too lazy to work for themselves. this isnt an "elite" policy, this is just a fact. you pay for yourself. your taxes pay for things that improve your life in some way, i.e. highways, police, security, army etc.

      im not incredibly wealthy, and i find it absurd that people should have to pay for me to be lazy. the libertarian party is about creating a government that minds its own damned business and goes back to what a government SHOULD be doing, which is keeping the peace, security from other countries, and keeping order, as well as regulating trade. it isnt their business to keep people from smoking weed in their own homes, and it isnt their business to keep people from doing stupid shit to harm themselves. It IS their business to keep people from harming others though, which is why i think you should be free to do whatever as long as you are in private and arent harming others.

    50. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not as much of a conflict as you imagine.

  2. You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Slashdot (/.) overwhelming supported Barak Obama's runs for President.
    Slashdotters were warned that Senator Obama would do "bad things like this" if elected. (In the general news/media arena and here on Slashdot.)
    Now the blessed, Slashdot Messiah is screwing you over.
    Regrettably, it is a bittersweet truth--the sweet is that President Obama is screwing his devotees and followers of his Progressive (Leftist) Way and the better is that he is screwing everyone with his Royal Presidency.

    1. Re:You asked for this by fredrated · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and conservatives supported Bush, even after he started 2 wars.
      Everybody fucks up sometime, conservs and libs fucked up back-to-back.

    2. Re:You asked for this by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know what would be nice? Being able to have a grown-up discussion about issues like TFA without being distracted by whatever bullshit the GOP is using rise the hackles of their Tea Party base this week (death panels? Benghazi? Who can even keep track?). The signal-to-noise ratio is really low when a conversation about press freedoms needs to be overpowered by "No, really, defaulting on national debts would be Bad, you fucking morons."

    3. Re:You asked for this by jasper160 · · Score: 2

      How come when classified information is leaked under a republicrat president it is glorified but if classified (embarrassing) information is leaked under a "liberal" president they get the jumper cables out?

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished.
    4. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would be nice. Unfortunately, the American electorate no longer resembles "grown-up discussion", which is why our political system is so fucked right now.

    5. Re:You asked for this by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Of course we supported him. Did you see the other guy?

    6. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slashdotters were warned that Senator Obama would do "bad things like this" if elected.

      The problem is that no one better ever had a chance of making it through the primaries. It's not like there was a better viable alternative.

      President Obama is screwing his devotees and followers of his Progressive (Leftist) Way

      Everywhere in the wide world, Obama is a conservative moderate right. US does not have a "Left" side.

    7. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all conservatives did. I know of more conservatives who thought that things like The Patriot Act were a bad idea before they ever passed than I know liberals who are willing to offset Obama and his boys.
       
      Get beyond Fox news and start looking at the deeper, more active conservative core and you'll see there is plenty who want to give a good number of what the man on the street calls conservatives the heave-ho. You don't find that in the liberal circles. It's extremely rare to see a liberal shout down the likes of Feinstein, Obama or Reid.

    8. Re:You asked for this by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Don't even bother wasting your breath on being thoughtful. The Right hasn't a single idea of their own beyond "fuck the rest of you - especially Obama". Every time a REAL issue like this comes up, the signal-to-troll ratio approaches zero. I'd LOVE to have an honest discussion about what a disappointment this guy has been, but it ain't gonna happen here on /.

    9. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can never have a grown-up discussion with divisive people like you. A grown-up discussion ignores labels and whimsical associations, and cuts right to the battle of ideas. The press should have some freedoms, and not others. "This" has historically resulted in "that," and here is evidence to support my claim.

      Also, citation needed on "defaulting on national debts would be Bad," preferably not one from an op-ed. Yeah, I went there.

    10. Re:You asked for this by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

      Well, yes, if Cthuhlu was the alternative.

      But for the most part, Brand D and Brand R are like toothpaste. Different flavors of pasty abrasiveness. . .

    11. Re:You asked for this by Xicor · · Score: 1

      there are more than two candidates... it is people like you that cause this ridiculous shit to occur. use your brain, vote for a third party. if enough ppl actually vote for who they want instead of "the lesser of two evils", we wouldnt have had to deal with obama in the first place.

    12. Re:You asked for this by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the FIRST step to thoughtful debate is to STOP DEMONIZING YOUR OPPOSITION.

      Obama is NOT the anti-Christ (that would be Larry Ellison. . .) and the Tea Party is not the KKK in Izod and Chinos. . .

    13. Re:You asked for this by Megane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually it's more funny that he only got there because the press had such a hard-on crush for him. ("Sort of a god", "had to step down" to the White House, etc.) Now that he's not living up to their fan-fiction dreams of him, they're not happy.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    14. Re:You asked for this by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall the candidacy of one Hillary Clinton.

      And as for the rest of the world's political spectrum, the US poltical spectrum is simply different. It probably has something to do with the Metric system (grin)

    15. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Just imagine if Hillary had won. (McCain't had no chance either way, he was too much of a moderate Republican pussy to win.)

    16. Re:You asked for this by Megane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Two words: Term limits. No way should someone be a senator for multiple decades, if only to keep them from "going native" to the DC culture. Of course the very people who need the term limits are the ones who would have to vote it in, so it's not likely to happen.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    17. Re:You asked for this by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A grown-up discussion ignores labels and whimsical associations, and cuts right to the battle of ideas.

      Ah, how noble! Well, on one side the idea is "Maybe we could sort of regulate the banks that, when left unregulated, broke the global economy, and wouldn't it be nice if we had a modern healthcare system while we're at it?" On the other we have "HITLER HITLER HITLER ARGLEBARGLE!" Surely there's an enlightened discussion to be had between such well-reasoned views!

      Also, citation needed on "defaulting on national debts would be Bad," preferably not one from an op-ed.

      You go around natural history museums asking "Were you there?" don't you?

    18. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately I watched with a grim attitude I watched as he appointed many previous people who did the same thing under the Clinton admin. Some of the very same people who came up with the bright ideas of this sort of thing under the Bush admin (he appointed many of the same people).

      We seem to have picked up a group of contractors and carer politicos who are paranoid as hell. We can switch out the top of the political chain but the beast lives on.

      Unfortunately things like this shutdown are exactly what we need at this point. People need to see how deadlocked they are and how out of control they are. Snowden I think is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg how f-d up it is. And you are worried the theater the GOP/DNC have produced for you? Neither side wants to budge an inch. With people getting off message being punished. I will be shocked if Kerry is still in this game a year from now after he royally screwed up what they wanted to happen in Syria.

      I'd LOVE to have an honest discussion about what a disappointment this guy has been
      That will not happen as anyone who raises the least bit of descent about him is shouted down as a 'foxnews watcher' or racist if the argument goes really bad. I have watched as the DNC has used the normal divide and conquer rules that they have used for a hundred years. Pretty much pushing the same agenda. I dont hate the man I think he is just your run of the mill DNC guy.

      What gets me even more mad is the GOP side is mimicking this behavior. Basically the 'take it or leave it' attitude the DNC has been doing for a long time now. I talk to fellow GOPers and they are unwilling to bend an inch. Much like when I talk to people from the DNC party.

      If you want me to sum up the parties ( and I know you didnt ask)
      GOP - We made these rules and by God you are going all follow them and if we do not like the rules we will vote them away. We are not all special we are all equally screwed over.
      DNC - We made these rules and by God you are going follow them but only if it does not affect me and if we do not like the rules we will change them until they work (we can get it right *this* time). They also only apply to some people because we are all special in some way.

    19. Re:You asked for this by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. Enough. There's a natural human inclination, when listening to two other parties argue, to assume that the sensible position is somewhere in the middle. That's how, in the last 20 years, the Far Right has dragged the goalposts so far into extremest right-wing nutter land that a "moderate Republican" like Barak Obama can be vilified as a wild-eyed socialist. The Tea Party are extremists, plain and simple. The Koch brothers are plutocrats, plain and simple. They are both at war with democracy, the middle class and the very NOTION of government, plain and simple. We can start a thoughtful debate when we start to recognize the facts on the ground.

      But you ARE right about Larry Ellison :)

    20. Re:You asked for this by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slightly off topic, but I feel the need to push this now more than ever...

      The US needs a new voting system, one that doesn't favor two-party control. This bickering and extremism in Congress today, and in the White House, starts at campaign time and leaves us with fewer moderates every year.

      Imagine what might happen in the US if the Democrats and the Republicans couldn't push their agenda on the American people just because they have a slim majority. What if, heaven forbid, there were a third party with no ties to the other two, and a bill actually were judged on its merits rather than on the party that proposed it?

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    21. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, i think Obama is the lesser of two evils.

      Oh really?

      We have a budget deficit that is literally an order of magnitude larger than it was under your "greater" evil. Your "lesser" evil called those 10-times smaller deficits "unpatriotic". What does that make your "lesser" evil?

      We have a workforce participation rate that is lower than it has been for the past six or seven of your "greater" evils.

      We have a President who, until he got snookered by Putin, was prepared to actually invade a country unilaterally, unlike the President that you would term your "greatest" evil, where "unilateral" meant 43 other countries involved.

      Your "lesser" evil has bombed Libya, helped to turn it into a failed state, then claimed there we no "hostilities".

      Your "lesser" evil has turned the IRS into a political attack dog used to harass and silence political opponents.

      That's just off the top of my head.

      THIS is your "lesser" evil in action:

      There is no access to the daily business in the Oval Office, who the president meets with, who he gets advice from,” said ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton, who has been covering presidents since Gerald Ford. She said many of Obama’s important meetings with major figures from outside the administration on issues like health care, immigration, or the economy are not even listed on Obama’s public schedule. This makes it more difficult for the news media to inform citizens about how the president makes decisions and who is influencing them.

      “In the past,” Compton told me, “we would often be called into the Roosevelt Room at the beginning of meetings to hear the president’s opening remarks and see who’s in the meeting, and then we could talk to some of them outside on the driveway afterward. This president has wiped all that coverage off the map. He’s the least transparent of the seven presidents I’ve covered in terms of how he does his daily business.

      That's from the very CPJ report that's the subject of this very topic. One you obviously failed to read.

      You, sir, are a fool.

      At best.

    22. Re: You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you seem to pick and choose your half-truths.

      The wars were not put on budget until 2007 when Democrats demanded your 'sunshine'.

      Let's not forget Bush outing a CIA agent when the agents husband told the republicans there was no yellow cake.

    23. Re: You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The honest discussions stopped when Bush started putting protesters in cages... 'Freedom Zones'. Which I guess we're analogous to freedom fries?

    24. Re:You asked for this by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Thanks for proving my point.

    25. Re:You asked for this by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

      Let me flip it back at you: How about a mod of the First Amendment for Political Campaigns:

      1. Limited Time for campaigning: say, 30 calendar days prior to election

      2. NO political Advertising, period. Each Candidate makes a statement on his or her stands on the issues of the day. Maximum length, 2 pages. All responses are in a booklet mailed to voters 10 days prior to the election.

      3. No political parties.

      4. One public forum for candidates: each has 15 minutes to sell him/herself and their ideas. Saved to web, and viewable.

    26. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is, and always has been other parties.

      When I turned 18 I was able to vote for GW's second term election. I noticed that the Neo-Nazi's and the Socialist parties both had people on the ballot. Take your pick.

      The problem isn't a lack of a third party. It's a lack of a GOOD third party.

    27. Re:You asked for this by operagost · · Score: 2

      If this nation has slipped so far that people who have peaceful demonstrations and write blogs are considered extremists, then I guess it's time for the revolution.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    28. Re:You asked for this by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Canada "fucking NATIONALIZED healthcare." The United Kingdom "fucking NATIONALIZED healthcare." Democrats couldn't even agree among themselves to offer everyone the ability to voluntarily buy into Medicare.

      But thanks for proving my point: your inability to even recognize the difference is why We Can't Have Nice Things.

    29. Re:You asked for this by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Our plurality voting system favors two parties. Voting for a third party candidate is like throwing your vote away; people vote for the lesser of two evils, not the best candidate.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    30. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm actually kind of glad McCain DIDN'T win....and I voted for the guy....What a two faced son of a bitch.

    31. Re:You asked for this by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      OK, what do you suggest ??? Political Combat in Thunderdome ??

      Two pols enter, one pol leaves. . .

      It would certainly fix the geriatrication of Capitol Hill. . .

    32. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely correct. The problem is that being a congressman/woman is an icnredibly sweet job, with tons of benefits and no accountability. And as history shows over and over, money and power breed corruption. Limiting terms will reduce the power and money one can accrue while in office, and prevent it from becoming a career.

    33. Re:You asked for this by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, I must've missed that.

      I have no recollection of people complaining that Senator Obama would end up being a conservative right wing leader hell bent on attacking our civil liberties at home while exporting undeclared warfare worldwide.

      I do remember plenty of idiots rambling about how he is a foreign born Muslim communist. None of those claims panned out, however.

      So yes, Obama supporters were misled. They were perhaps naive to think that a candidate supported by one of the two established parties could possibly be a departure from business as usual. However wrong Obama supporters were in their opinion of Obama, the detractors were doubly wrong. None of you asshats was claiming that Obama was a closet conservative, so don't try to spin it like that's what you were saying all along.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    34. Re:You asked for this by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Obama is to the RIGHT of people like Eisenhower and Nixon, FAR to the right of people like Dirksen.

      I've looked at your trolling^Wposting history, I'm not going to further engage such a belligerent know-nothing as yourself, thump your chest and go away.

    35. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush bailed out the banks, you wouldn't know what a socialist was if one bit you on your extremely wide ass..

    36. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberals don't tend to shout and rant at those who are on their side.

      They want to quietly work people, and get them to reform, rather than throw them out of the troika to the wolves.

      That, and the ones that do, like OWS, don't have the same backers as the Tea Party to make them look good.

    37. Re: You asked for this by tom229 · · Score: 1

      People that cry over the Republicans last two losses need to get their head out of their ass. The party may have good financial ideas (which is certainly debatable) but most of us can't get past their 20th century social policies long enough to even have that discussion.

      Stop bringing your little book of fairy tales into every discussion and then maybe we'll talk. Until then I think I'll keep voting for the adults that aren't afraid of brown people or the big bad gays.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    38. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asked? No. I don't think anyone could have easily predicted this is what would be going on, unless you think there's some sort of "leftist" guarantee that whistleblowers will get prosecuted more, while under "rightist" governments they don't (at which point I'd laugh at the suggestion, given history). This seems to be some kind of peculiarity of either this president or of the people in power getting generally unnerved by the ease with which secrets can now flow out of government, thanks to technological improvements. Given the greater frequency of this kind of clampdown on ordinary press freedoms in many other democracies, I think this is a sign of the times, not of a particular government official or the particular political leanings of this one.

      Don't get me wrong, I think it has to be stopped and the Obama administration should be acutely ashamed of the distinction of doing more of this than all previous administrations combined. It's ridiculous. But I don't think changing who the president of the USA was would change the situation dramatically, and it might even be worse. These people are scared of us and the press. To which I say: good. What we need to do is lean on politicians generally to lay off the press. The press isn't revealing this information because they want to conduct espionage, and they usually try to do it responsibly by cutting out the parts that could compromise anything of specific operational significance. They're doing it because they think the people are interested in the information and that it matters to the future of democratic institutions, so people should be informed. They're not doing it because journalists are "spies" or something foolish like that.

    39. Re:You asked for this by davecb · · Score: 1

      You also need to reduce the costs, so that you don't need to be a millionaire to have enough of your own money to fund getting into the primaries. Check out their backgrounds: in the U.S., the number of non-millionaire federal politicians is tiny.

      Alas, the U.S. House of Representatives now has a higher (de-facto) property requirement that the British House of Lords (;-))

      --dave

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    40. Re:You asked for this by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      I like this list, and I'll propose a few alternatives. (Not to go against yours, but because alternatives are useful if only for engaging people to think.)

      1. Political advertising allowed, but 100% paid for by taxes and split evenly with all candidates. No campaign contributions allowed.

      2. Use an alternative election system like range voting or a Condorcet method.

      3. Because of #2 , no political party primaries are needed nor are they allowed. All party candidates are on the final ballot.

      And for Congress, my main proposal:

      - No voting for your district representative, who could win/lose by just a few votes out of several thousand. Instead, you appoint your representative from among all the choices in the state. The first X appointed representatives, ordered by number of people represented, are the state's delegation (where X is the number of representatives/appointees for your state).

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    41. Re:You asked for this by Terwin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      there are more than two candidates... it is people like you that cause this ridiculous shit to occur. use your brain, vote for a third party. if enough ppl actually vote for who they want instead of "the lesser of two evils", we wouldnt have had to deal with obama in the first place.

      There is also the option of getting involved earlier in the process.
      On the Democrat side tehre were at least 2 candidates: Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama
      On the republican side there were several: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Fred Karger, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Buddy Roemer, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Jr., and Michele Bachmann according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2012

      In my own district, there was even a party meeting the night after the primaries where there was a discussion of what should be on the party platform and a group of representatives were selected to go to the next higher level caucus(State?). There were actually fewer attendees at the meeting I went to than there were slots for representatives from our district, so everyone who wanted to go was selected, plus a few people someone knew who had gone in the past.(I did not go as I had a schedule conflict, but I could have).

      If you want to fix things, get involved earlier in the process when there are so few people who care, every voice is magnified.

    42. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet given multiple opportunities, you do not back of your completely wrong point. I guess you're not used to being called out on your BS. Fucking coward.

    43. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everywhere in the wide world, Obama is a conservative moderate right. US does not have a "Left" side.

      The Communist Party USA begs to differ with you that the US does not have a Left. There is just little support for it. President Obama won an election, not a revolution. He has to govern with the government that exists which greatly limits him. Obama is a leftist in a system with checks and balances. He would prefer to go further than he can.

      The problem is that no one better ever had a chance of making it through the primaries. It's not like there was a better viable alternative.

      Hillary Clinton could have run. She probably would have won the presidency as well.

    44. Re:You asked for this by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2

      RIght .. so please name these other countries that do not have two party dominant systems and which function so much better? I'm at a loss. Those that have prime ministers either have a dominant party or are in continuous turmoil with one party with slight edge having to cut deals with little hanger-on parties to stay in power. How is that any better or different?

      The grass is usually not greener.

    45. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you replying to someone else's post? I ask because either you did not understand any part of what I posted, or you are just posting random comments.

      I was pointing out the obvious cognitive dissonance required to equate Mr. Obama's policies with that of a moderate republican.

      So, I'm not sure what you could possibly be talking about, because Canada has not place in the discussion *I* was having. In fact, I'm not sure anyone important has taken Canada into account when discussing important things - as Canada is completely irrelevant on the world-wide stage.

      An entire nation of "me too'ers". Must be nice to have your southern neighbor support your socialism by allowing you to spend nearly nothing on nation defense. If we decided tomorrow that we would not defend Canada if attacked, China or Russia would roll through your nice empty country in a matter of a couple of weeks.

      You people live in an unreality bubble supported by the USA - you people are basically a protectorate for us, like Pueto Rico.

    46. Re:You asked for this by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Bush did not start or go looking for the Afghan war. Try again.

    47. Re:You asked for this by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Ha really? Guess you never frequented a place like Democratic Underground. Fail to click your heels and goose step in line and you'll see a liberal rant.

    48. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Banks? Who was talking about the banks? Not me. Not the other guy. Having a little trouble coming up with an argument, yet you still chose to post. Not getting enough attention from Daddy?

    49. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary, I only know a few liberals who still support Obama (the NSA trainwreck lost him a LOT of support, and ACA doesn't have a chance to recover even a fraction of it); but every conservative I know still believe GWB was the best president ever after Reagan, and is quick to rail on Obama for things that Bush did before him, while allowing their guy a free pass.

    50. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush did not start or go looking for the Afghan war. Try again.

      True but Bush created the Iraq war out of thin air, imaginary threats, waving of hands.

    51. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like somebody used up all his "I'm posting at -1 'cause I'm such a belligerent fucking troll" posts for the day. Fucking idiot.

    52. Re:You asked for this by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Canada "fucking NATIONALIZED healthcare." The United Kingdom "fucking NATIONALIZED healthcare."

      Hey, that's great for them...really.

      You seem to have a problem with the majority of people in the US not wanting to NATIONALIZE heathcare. Its our choice, and most folks here don't want it....and what we got rammed through by the Dems when they had supermajority, seems to kinda blow too, in terms of cost, red tape and confusion.

      Many in the US *do* agree something needs to be done, and that maybe starting over from scratch might indeed be the best way to do it...maybe start reforms in smaller pieces everyone can agree on?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    53. Re: You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Journalists ?

      Your Greater evil did the Libya bit in Afghanistan and Iraq, and got lots of US and NATO troops killed at the same time (ignoring the civilian tolls) .

      They are both shit. Bush's pile was bigger and stinkier, which is why Obama's looked to be less.

    54. Re:You asked for this by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      In the end it was oil interests and the CIA under Reagan who created that beast..

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    55. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sure isn't what I expected from the /. crowd who are generally better than parroting the talking points the partisans are saying. It also adds nothing to this idea of press freedoms. Well I'm convinced, meaningful conversation is a dead art. I'll be living in a hole if you need me.

    56. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is what you call Liberal and Socialist is what for most of the rest of the world what is called Conservative or Right Wing.

      Stop using those words, either you don't know what they mean, or you're being disingenuous.

      As a suggestion, try authoritarian..

    57. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You point out that he nationalized certain things, I point out that Bush did others, the result was the same, corporate welfare.. which isn't socialist or conservative.

      Stop saying socialist until you've actually learned the definition for yourself, not learned it by osmosis via Fox News.

    58. Re:You asked for this by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

      Your main proposal is unworkable, simply because of the Tyranny of the Majority: it means all the Pro-City candidates would win for a state.

      We already see area of states wishing to secede, because their legislatures are dominated by city folk. Because what's perfectly reasonable for a densely-populated city is often unworkable for rural areas. . .

    59. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OWS was pure astro-turf, a "movement" manufactured by the Professional Left in an attempt to co-opt the Tea Party Movement. The TPM is a real expression of the political will of citizens who want a real opposition to the march toward statism in the US govt.

      Do you find it hard to accept what I have written? I encourage you to spend a couple of hours or even just a few minutes watching online video interviews of people at TP and OWS rallies. What you will discover is that most of the people at OWS rallies didn't even know why they were there or what the issues were. Other than a few of the usual suspects vaguely complaining about corporations, taxpayer handouts to corporations or capitalism in general and suggesting that our entire system of political economy needed to be changed, there weren't any discernible messages from OWS. In sharp contrast, most of the TP attendees were well-informed and were focused on excessive govt. spending, crony capitalism and the intrusion of the govt. into everyone's lives. Not everyone at TP rallies was polished in their ability to articulate the point of the TP rallies, but they all knew why they were happening. And, seriously, trying to suggest that the TPM was created by a same number of mega-rich boogey men is just tired and clearly contrary to the facts.

    60. Re:You asked for this by charlesj68 · · Score: 1

      Just tossing in that banning or prohibiting political parties is gonna run foul of Freedom of Association.

    61. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      every conservative I know still believe GWB was the best president ever after Reagan

      Then you need to broaden your circle of acquaintances. Few conservatives even consider GWB or any other member of the Bush clan to be a conservative. The only people who praise Bush highly are those who support any and all military action in the ME. Bush's extremely low poll numbers when he left office clearly indicate that he was disliked by a large portion of the RP faithful. Certainly, anyone who supports limited govt. doesn't think much of Bush.

    62. Re:You asked for this by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Well, i think Obama is the lesser of two evils.

      "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.". C.S. Lewis

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    63. Re:You asked for this by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if the makeup of the professions of people who become Congressmen and Senators at least somewhat reflects the makeup of the professions of the actual people. We need scientists and accountants and grocery store clerks and laborers in the gov't, not a gov't made up of 99% lawyers.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    64. Re:You asked for this by soccerisgod · · Score: 0

      Leftest, now that is a joke. In most of Europe, he'd be considered a right-wing conservative for most of his policies :)

      --
      If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
    65. Re:You asked for this by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Government is power plus money. And its decisions affect everyone. Plans to "get the money out of politics" founder on the simple reality that people have immense incentives to make sure that government gives them more than it takes from them. If you really want the money out of politics, you can either find a race of angels to elect to office, or you can remove the incentives by making government much smaller.

    66. Re:You asked for this by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Hence, I suggested it as a mod of the First Amendment. . .

    67. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have a problem with the majority of people in the US not wanting to NATIONALIZE heathcare. Its our choice, and most folks here don't want it.

      That's good because what you are getting isn't even close to nationalized healthcare. You are getting some weird mandatory insurance thing.

      Also, I'm guessing those folks you mentioned would be the ones who are able to get health insurance. How many people who cannot afford insurance don't want nationalized healthcare? What's that quote about 2 wolves and a lamb voting for dinner....?

    68. Re:You asked for this by whistlingtony · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uhm. Wait. Sanity check. Obama did NOT nationalize the auto industry or the healthcare industry.

      I know you're refering to the government buying a controlling interest of GM stock. GM was in trouble and needed some money to stay afloat. The government bought a ton of stock (which I happen to think is better than just GIVING them money), it did NOT tell the company how to run, and then it SOLD the stock(I think even at a profit) once GM was on it's feet again. It did all this to prevent GM from folding and causing huge job losses.

      I also know that you're refering to Obamacare, AKA, the ACA. I WISH the government had nationalized the healthcare industry, but mandating that you buy insurance from a NON GOVERNMENT insurance company is a far cry from nationalizing anything.

      So, basically, you're so wrong we can't even talk to you. Obama didn't nationalize squat. Look to Venezeula if you want to see a country nationalizing private industries. There's none of that here. Your belief is a fantasy. Kool-Aide indeed.

    69. Re:You asked for this by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      Can we stop yelling?

      Also, I totally want medicare extended all the way down. Lets just cover everyone. It's far more efficient. Yes, I am an American and I want a single payer insurance system.

    70. Re:You asked for this by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      You call a completely disorganized protest movement professional astroturfing, while saying "ignore the Koches behind the curtain"?

      You've given me a completely new definition for spin, and it isn't positive.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    71. Re:You asked for this by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      If you were asked to only choose between Kang and Kodos you may had a point. There were more alternatives, like voting for other of the candidates (no matter if won or not, what matter is that you didnt choose Kang nor Kodos) or voting for no candidate where is allowed. Not going to vote is to say that let the others decide, going to vote but somewhat telling that you don't like those 2 main options is another kind of message, and if most expressed it it could had lead to some change.

      BTW, for the next election if a third candidate appears with a big campaing behind, dont bite, in all 3 cases the ones that puts the money are the same people, and the same rulers as of today.

    72. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, if you just want to quibble over degrees, fine. Either way, due to Obama's policies and direct actions, the government now has a major "in" to manipulating both the auto and the healthcare industry. Either way, nothing about that is in ANY way something that would be wanted by an actual moderate republican. Period.

      So, quibble all you like, it does not change what happened. I am an actual conservative, and I literally have yet to meet another conservative who thinks that ANYTHING that Obama has done in relation to healthcare or the auto industry is anything other than socialism/communism. So, you can ascribe whatever beliefs you want, but it does not change the actual facts of the matter.

    73. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nationalized, this word, it does not mean what you think it does.

    74. Re:You asked for this by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Absolutely right.

      Makes the old complaints about the Patriot Act seem almost quaint, doesn't it?

      SlashCrowd most definitely asked for this. Couldn't wait. Stick it to all those old white dudes! (Which since this is Slashdot, most of us are, but we like to imagine we aren't.)

      The Achilles' heel of the tech weenie (myself included) is to imagine that since you are smart about something, you must be smart about everything.

    75. Re:You asked for this by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      I have to agree that the discussion does really seem like "lets regulate the banks that took huge gambles with government insured money, that's a bad idea" Vs. "Obama is a socialist muslim and all government is bad".

      It's hard to have a grown up discussion with hyperbole. I know many equate the left saying "Damnit, the right is bat shit crazy" with the right saying "Obama and the democrats are executing a long term plan to crash the government and destroy the US dollar so the UN can take over the world!", but I don't equate those two. The right ARE bat shit crazy.

      Obama is not a socialist. Even if he WAS a muslim, who cares, religious freedom. I like government. I like public roads, police, the fire department, environmental regulations, etc, and I dread those things being provided by private companies who would do it SO BADLY. I'm not a communist. I want a mix. The government should provide basic infrastructure and private businesses and people should be free to use that infrastructure to get on with their lives and buy crap they don't need. Reid and Pelosi are pansies, who haven't championed a good leftist cause in... Ever? Obamacare is boring, and not a government takeover of anything. Neither party has done a thing to really fix the budget in decades, and I'm sick of all of them crying about the debt that THEY racked up. Etc...

      Note: I can tell you what Obama and the democrats are doing that's wrong. There's plenty of things I don't like. Plent of REAL things. Our government is broken and the Dems are corporatist pansies. I in no way think the R's do all the bad things and the D's are shiny paragons of virtue. That's not true.

    76. Re:You asked for this by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, if Cthuhlu was the alternative.

      The alternative was someone who hates anyone who isn't in the 1%, a corporate pirate who said "I like firing people". How could any working person with half a brain vote for him?

    77. Re: You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Novack.

      Look it up.

    78. Re:You asked for this by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      The US needs a new voting system [wikipedia.org], one that doesn't favor two-party control. What if, heaven forbid, there were a third party with no ties to the other two, and a bill actually were judged on its merits rather than on the party that proposed it?

      The problem is the corporate media, who have convinced everyone that voting for a loser is a wasted vote. People don't use logic; rub two brain cells together and you'll see that if that's true, everyone who voted for Romney wasted their vote.

      Last Presidential election there were five parties on enough ballots that they could win the White House. The people who own the corporate media also own the corporations that bribe candidates with campaign contributions. Give a million to each candidate and it doesn't matter who loses, you win. If the media weren't corrupt they would have covered all five viable candidates, but that would mean they would have to bribe five parties instead of just two.

      Personally, I refuse to vote R or D. Everyone has friends and family who smoke pot, why are you voting for men who want your friends and family in prison? That's just madness. The liberal Greens and the conservative Libertarians don't want your loved ones in jail, vote for one of them instead.

      If you actually smoke pot yourself and voted for Romney or Obama you're just fucking retarded.

    79. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, if you just want to quibble over degrees, fine.

      Here's a quibble over degrees:

      "Feels about 75 here"

      "No, more like 77, maybe 78"

      Yours is "It's at the freezing point of water in here!" when other people are saying "Huh, it's actually closer to 68"

      To pretend " Obama has fucking NATIONALIZED the fucking auto industry and healthcare" is anything but hyperbole by trying to reduce it to quibbling is disingenuous.

      It's not quibbling to say refute a claim that Obama nationalized the Auto industry or healthcare. It's refuting a statement of empty hyperbole that has no actual facts behind it, just emotion-laden rhetoric.

      But do keep trying to change the actual facts to fit your narrative.

      And yes, a moderate Republican would have done just what Obama did to save "AMERICAN INDUSTRY" and the healthcare reform passed by Obama came right out of Romney's playbook, which he photocopied from the Heritage foundation.

    80. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burn the books and hang all the reporters! for Learning, knowledge, math and facts are the enemies of our beloved overloads who keep us safe from the fears they have instilled in our heads. Our bickering and picking sides is the only distraction they need to quietly sneak up behind us and steel our freedoms while we were not looking.

    81. Re:You asked for this by komodo685 · · Score: 2
      I absolutely agree that something needs to be done, and I've thought a bit about this but hopefully someone with a PolySci background will give substantive feedback:

      What I agree with

      1. 1) Need a new voting system -- Agree completely there isn't a single best (comparision here). Don't have the background to have a strong preference.

      What I disagree with

      1. 2) Limited campaigning time -- I like that it forces them to not flip flop (it would be too obvious) but I suspect voters would have very shallow information on candidates.http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/10/11/0043200/cpj-report-the-obama-administration-and-press-freedoms#
      1. 3) No political advertising, or [with conditions] -- I like Laurence Lessig's idea and haven't heard a better one.
      1. 4) No political parties -- I actually like this but I don't see how it can be enforced, I think this will happen informally if outlawed.
      1. 5) Single public forum for candidates -- I dislike centralizing control of where candidates are presented, too vulnerable to corruption.
      1. 7) State pooled representatives for congress. -- Concerned the representative will be ineffective if they come from an area with very different problems.

      Neutral

      1. 6) No primaries --- I'm not sure how this would be enforced, or if it would really be beneficial, but I'm not sure it wouldn't either. More info please.

      What I suggest

      1. 1) Voting system is a major but not sole part of the solution. -- Corruption and human errors have affected other areas as well. Media has massive biases, both major parties have die-hard supporters, civic engagement isn't part of our culture (beyond voting). We need a whole new voting ecosystem. I don't know how you would accomplish this, it will take many people many decades to change things. I do think the approach of identifying and targeting structural failings (like voting system) rather than individuals is the right approach.
      1. 2) Change should happen SLOWLY. -- Quick fixes never work this will be no different. Contrast Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years to any Learn X language in Y days material.
      1. 3) Strategy 'war of attrition' -- I think attempting to change federal politics directly is a strategic mistake, in order for any structural change to get support you would need many people familiar with it and have proven success. People are justifiably suspicious of any change to the government, bills will be watered down, movements will be co-opted (Tea party). Trying these changes in small towns and cities first before moving to state and federal allows you not only to target areas with more receptive citizenry, and reduce costs, but reduces backlash you might expect from entrenched players on the national level. (Koch brothers care who gets elected president but have no idea who is running in SmallTown Iowa)
      1. 4) Game Theory 'Watch your step' -- I suspect this comes up a lot in poly sci already and I think would give insights on unexpected effects of any proposed changes Yale released a course to youtube, enjoyable instructor. (Obviously a lecture series isn't enough just trying to spread information)
      1. 5) Corporations are not democracies. This is a sore area, especially in America, but one I feel is important. The power structure varies from public firms to single owner firms to small groups of investors to significantly employee owned (Boeing or Mondragon) and others your might imagine. Each is simply a different way of running an organization with its own merits and flaws. The fact that we tend more towards top down management and industries with a few major
    82. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This bickering and extremism in Congress today, and in the White House, starts at campaign time and leaves us with fewer moderates every year.

      You are missing the big picture. America was founded on the political philosophy of the FFs which is based on the belief that govt should be limited in order to maximize personal political freedom. Demographic shifts from immigration injected continental European political ideas into the US. Those ideas were further bolstered by marxist agitators and by the personal ambition of individual pols. The current political gridlock is an unreconcilable conflict between those wanting a return to limited govt and those promoting the final conquest of govt power without restraint. The so-called "moderates" are simply pols who support an incremental approach to govt acquiring unlimited power.

      Let me flip it back at you: How about a mod of the First Amendment for Political Campaigns:

      Who will decide when a campaign starts? Big Media never sleeps and constantly promotes political narratives and conducts never-ending smears of pols.

      1. Limited Time for campaigning: say, 30 calendar days prior to election

      See above.

      2. NO political Advertising, period.

      See above. Also, who decides what is political advertising? Does an incumbent sending out mailings describing his voting record and activity in office qualify? Your rule protects incumbents and those who are favored by Big Media.

      Each Candidate makes a statement on his or her stands on the issues of the day. Maximum length, 2 pages.

      Better include a literacy requirement for voting then. Good luck trying to pass any limitations on the voting franchise.

      3. No political parties.

      So, no freedom of association as well as no freedom of speech? Political parties are just formal structures for political factions and factions will always exist. Also, who decides what constitutes a political party? Is NARAL a political party for instance?

      4. One public forum for candidates: each has 15 minutes to sell him/herself and their ideas. Saved to web, and viewable.

      Better create a new govt program to give universal access to the web and another govt program to teach grandma how to use it and a govt watchdog agency to make sure that the web trainers are politically unbiased and another govt program to insure that new immigrants are able to get political information in their native tongue and ...

      Govt action usually creates more problems than it solves.

      alternatives are useful if only for engaging people to think

      Yes, please think. Think much more than you have about what you are suggesting.

      1. Political advertising allowed, but 100% paid for by taxes

      Public financing of campaigns simply reinforces incumbency since challengers must always overcome the natural forum that incumbents have by virtue of holding office. The power of Big Media is also enhanced by public financing since it gets to influence politics without being subject to legal limits on financing.

      and split evenly with all candidates.

      Who gets to decide who is and who is not a candidate worthy of receiving part of the cut? Oh yeah, existing office holders do. Sounds like a great plan for suppressing or watering down political opposition. One strategy: incumbents allow so many candidates to divide the money that no challenger ever has the funds to overcome the advantages of incumbency. Bonus: incumbents encourage their friends to throw their hats in th

    83. Re:You asked for this by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Except it isn't the Senate that shut the government down, it was brand-new tea party Republicans who are really bad losers. They lost and Obamacare won, they tried to kill it in the courts and lost, they nominate a man who ran on an anti-Obamacare platform and lost, now they're holding the budget and debt limit hostage; Defund Obamacare or we'll destroy the US's economy!

      My own Congresscritter, Rodney Davis, is one of these first term tea party "I'm going to step on your dog if you don't give me a cookie" mental toddlers. The idiot barely squeaked by in the election, which was so close they had to do a recount, against a Democrat who advocated giving Medicare to everyone (the candidate was a medical doctor). Davis is one of the "kill obamacare or we destroy the economy" assholes and will surely be limited to ONE term.

      If the Republicans don't wake up and tell the Koch brothers to fuck off and stop nominating ultra-right wing loonies they'll destroy themselves.

    84. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other Guy: Mostly Harmless....

    85. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those that have prime ministers

      The beauty of the parlimentary system is that it is essential a game of musical chairs for a static ruling class. Since one votes for a party instead of an individual candidate, it effectively prevents truly new or innovative political blood from getting into office. It's rare, but it is possible in the US for an outsider to be elected.

    86. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see, polished and articulating standard talking points...why does that seem like a professional campaign to me, while the less polished, even inarticulate, are more likely to be a natural movement?

      Not that it's hard to find silly Tea Party things. Keep Gov't out of my Medicare for example. Or the Orly Taitz brigade. Or the wannabe Neo-Confederate Secessionists that got up their silly petitions not too long ago.

    87. Re: You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point being A Journalist/ Some Journalists...

    88. Re:You asked for this by ak3ldama · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sanity check: It was sold at a loss. Not even close to a profit. From wikipedia: A White House report sent to Congress in August 2012 estimated the sale of the remaining G.M. stock acquired by the United States Treasury during the company's bankruptcy will result in a loss of $25.1 billion to the American taxpayer. The government is basically selling the stock at half the value we would need to be selling it at. I wish people would pay attention and remember the basic details of this shit. So in review: the GM market cap is ~$48 Billion and we the people are losing about half of that, maybe more.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    89. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck should I have ANYTHING to do with YOUR healthcare?
      Take care of yourself please.
      If you want me to take care of you, then I will submit your exercise and diet regimen which you will be tested against.
      No smoking, weed, alcohol, etc. Must run a mile in 10 minutes.

       

    90. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll ignore the Koches (the current enemy of the Left), if you'll continue to ignore George Soros. Seems fair, right?

    91. Re:You asked for this by cc102bob · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the tax loss carry-forwards that GM was able to keep in bankruptcy - something no other companies are allowed to do. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/11/gm-carry-forwards-worth-45b-off-future-tax-bills// That's another $45B that the taxpayers lost out on.

    92. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... So Barry's inclination to control the debt stopped when he got into office, does that make him a former Tea Party member? Cut the crap about the goalposts. By comparison, John F. Kennedy would be considered a 'right-winger' in today's politics.

    93. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's part of the process to nationalize, a big part. Now the way is wide open for future socialist administrations to incrementally push things further along.

    94. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Natural History Museum is closed, you insensitive clod!!!

    95. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You call a completely disorganized protest movement professional astroturfing, while saying "ignore the Koches behind the curtain"?

      The Professional Left has spent 50 years building a network of agitators (community organizers), many of them funded through redirected tax dollars, who dial-up a "spontaneous" protest whenever needed.

      Obama trying to demonize a bank CEO in order to justify a power grab? Put together a mob with bullhorns to stomp through a residential neighborhood in order to terrorize the CEO's family. Scott Walker making serious efforts to curtail govt union privileges before they destroy the WI State budget? Bus in mobs of union goons and idiot college kids from out-of-state to try to disrupt normal govt functioning. Need a response to the TPM? Organize OWS. Need a distraction because Obama is getting hammered by a series of very serious charges of incompetence (Bengahzi) and malfeasance (using the IRS to suppress the TPM)? Signal the network to try to spark race riots over the Zimmerman verdict. Thankfully, the last effort didn't work.

      All of the above are examples of agitation and astroturfing by the Professional Left. A characteristic of astroturf rallies is that they typically attract the same group of useful idiot college kids looking for a cheap date, union goons, anti-capitalists and fringe special interest groups. Professionally printed signs are common as are clueless attendees who leave behind a mess when they leave.

      The TPM demonstrated real political clout, attracting tens of thousands to rallies all around the country, running hundreds of successful candidates and sparking the wrath of the RP establishment by defeating numerous RP incumbents in primaries. OWS did none of that. Name a few successful OWS candidates. Hell, name a few unsuccessful OWS candidates.

      The Kock brothers have a lot of money, but they have far, far less than the big supporters of the left and they don't have enough to have manufactured the TPM. Also, the TPM doesn't have access to streams of tax money flowing through universities, govt employee unions, "community" organizations like ACORN, taxpayer subsidized orgs like NPR and Planned Parenthood, etc. That's why the use of IRS to stifle TP orgs and to attack TP organizers is so serious.

    96. Re:You asked for this by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I'd argue the tea party IS a third party that has been fit into the two party system. It won't disappear with more than two parties, if anything it will be worse. And I'd argue that many problems are entirely the tea party's fault.

      Another major cause of political woes is voter apathy, which again, wouldn't be solved.

      So I doubt it would solve anything, and I'm more certain that changing the voting system would require the two parties to sign off on changing a voting system which clearly benefits them, which will never happen.

    97. Re:You asked for this by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The first step towards thoughtful debate is to accurately demonize your opposition. Barack Obama and the Tea Party are both slightly different shades of corporate authoritarians. They're ALL fascists.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    98. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... favor two-party control ...

      Look around the world; there will always be two-party control. Government can regulate the status quo and protect the rich, or it can oppress the rich and empower the poor. No manager has other choices. What's needed is a voting system that gives minority interests equal power in elections. When the electoral race is winner-takes-all, the minority politicians can never give their voters a democratic voice.

    99. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying Benghazi was no big deal and/or a lie? You really have been brainwashed by Dear Leader, haven't you?

    100. Re:You asked for this by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      It's tricky voting 3rd party.

      While some shocks happen, by the time I make it to the polls, the news already knows which races are close. I those, I pick between Kang and Kodos - whichever one offers a less painful death.

      In every other landslide category, I make sure the 3rd party candidate gets one more vote. Maybe that'll shift their percentage point to keep people thinking it's possible to ever elect one of them...

      Also, I vote NO on every judge, school board member, corporation commission and every other stale face on the ballot seeking another term unless I know they're out there fighting a good fight.

    101. Re:You asked for this by Sedated2000 · · Score: 1

      I would look forward to a system where someone doesn't have to be a millionaire or have millionaire friends to get in to office. There are plenty of people who would do an excellent job but don't even attempt to run for office anywhere because they don't have money to spend on commercials and big websites. It would be simpler if there were controlled places to announce a candidacy, and a ban on all of the ads these people put everywhere for election. Everyone gets equal time and opportunity to state their positions and goals. I know, it's not reasonable to expect this would come to fruition.

    102. Re:You asked for this by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Another good fix would be to just make our lawmakers spend 95% of their time in their home state. Turn Congress into a telecommute. This would have the two-fold effect of a.) making it easier for them to be petitioned by their local constituents & b.) greatly increasing the cost of companies to lobby them since they aren't all piled up in DC like fish in a barrel.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    103. Re: You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the examples you gave are empty allegations without foundation or evidence.

    104. Re:You asked for this by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      It has to do with the transition of the 50's, 60's, and 70's when the two parties re-oriented to split the public along the social axis instead of the fiscal axis. Remember that the Democrats were brought kicking and screaming into implementing things like desegregation, and realizing their growing horrible public image began pushing out social conservatives from their party.

      With the help of the media things like the abortion debate were re-framed as a "pro-choice" movement, dehumanizing the fetus much the same as the Democrats once dehumanized people with different colored skin.

      Its the same tactics as always from the Democrat camp, just with a better paint job. They say one thing, but do the other and through public relations spin look good because the average American is shallow and not at all thoughtful about what their position really is, and what the actions of government really are.

      Its the party of popular opinion, which would be OK if not for their influence and control over which opinions are popular to begin with. This is due in a large part to the transition from investigative journalism to he-said-she-said journalism, and to make sure that it stays that way the press itself is now a target of an administration willing to pass laws that give it the power to determine by themselves who is and who is not a journalist, and willing to use the justice department to intimidate the media.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    105. Re: You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh so now it's part of some future plans to achieve a nebulous goal.

      That Obama, he's diabolical.

    106. Re:You asked for this by drMental · · Score: 1

      Better create a new govt program to give universal access to the web and another govt program to teach grandma how to use it and a govt watchdog agency to make sure that the web trainers are politically unbiased and another govt program to insure that new immigrants are able to get political information in their native tongue and ...

      New immigrants aren't allowed to vote, to become a citizen you have to have lived here for 5 years. That should be plenty to learn the language.

    107. Re:You asked for this by fredrated · · Score: 1

      How do you spell 'deluded'?

    108. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you go re-read the parent post. No where did Salgak1 say the middle road is right, only the neither of the two parties are the vile evilness so many people (like you) are making them out to be. You, and those that take your attitude, are the problem. You are so blindly partisan than anything that suggests you might be like your opposition must be blindly denounced, to the point that your reading comprehension had to be suppressed for you to even try to rebut it.

    109. Re:You asked for this by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      1. 2) Limited campaigning time -- I like that it forces them to not flip flop (it would be too obvious) but I suspect voters would have very shallow information on candidates.

      I would be inclined to say this is already a problem, especially since it seems like many of them ignore obvious information sources (such as congressional voting records of incumbents) in favor of soundbites.

    110. Re:You asked for this by whistlingtony · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now THAT is how to do it. Thank you ak3ldama for giving me more information and correcting me. Thank you for the link. I shall correct my thinking and keep that in mind for the future.

      It's still better than just GIVING them the money though. /shrug

    111. Re:You asked for this by komodo685 · · Score: 1

      1. 2) Limited campaigning time -- I like that it forces them to not flip flop (it would be too obvious) but I suspect voters would have very shallow information on candidates.

      I would be inclined to say this is already a problem, especially since it seems like many of them ignore obvious information sources (such as congressional voting records of incumbents) in favor of soundbites.

      To clarify I meant that scandals wouldn't have time to be researched and surface. I don't like media hype on scandals more than the next person, but the longterm pressure on Palin when showing her extreme religious beliefs and lack of experience may have taken away votes from those who would otherwise have reflexively voted R (some in my family choose not to vote for that reason). I think you bring up a good point, and the benefits may out way the disadvantages (sadly as I think in an ideal world you would have a long run up to get plenty of information about the candidates).

    112. Re: You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap. freak'n AC plural Nazi.

    113. Re:You asked for this by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Remind me again how much oil Afghanistan exports?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    114. Re:You asked for this by sycodon · · Score: 1

      You know what would be nice? Being able to have a grown-up discussion about issues like TFA without being distracted by people like you calling others Fucking Morons.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    115. Re:You asked for this by Falconhell · · Score: 0

      In all fairness he is talking about Americans, so fucking moron does leap to mind when viewed from a civilised country.

    116. Re:You asked for this by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      "Imagine what might happen in the US if the Democrats and the Republicans couldn't push their agenda on the American people just because they have a slim majority."
      For all its flaws, I actually think the present system does a very good job one this one. The country is narrowly divided and the result is Congress is not able to enact an agenda one way or the other.

    117. Re:You asked for this by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Would you prefer "copulating imbeciles?"

      It's because of such people that legitimate criticisms like these get lost in a sea of complaints that are meritless at best, maliciously cynical at worst. This is not going to be heard above the din of cries about our Kenyan-born, atheist Muslim, socialist fascist, elected despot who hates America, grandma and apple pie. Republicans will ignore it because it just seems so insignificant to the bullshit they're so willing to swallow, while Democrats will ignore it because they've long since tuned out the noise of that boy who keeps crying "wolf!"

      But obviously the most important thing to worry about here is decorum, you're right.

    118. Re:You asked for this by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Are you saying Benghazi was no big deal and/or a lie?

      No, I'm saying that 99% of what Congressman Issa says and does is complete and utter bullshit, and the remaining 1% is suspect at best.

    119. Re:You asked for this by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      Let's just assume the tea party is a group of extremist anarchists as you surmise.

      What is your plan for defeating them which apparently does not involve "thoughtful debate"?

      Because you're talking about a group of people who right now are being legitimately elected, courtesy the sentiments of the American public. That means you must be either (1) of the view that telling people they are at war with civilization and simply unworthy of your cogent rebuttal is a fantastic way to convince them that you are right and they are wrong, or (2) planning something far less charitable for them and/or the democratic process.

      Let me illuminate this for you: people have to be treated as people. Being wrongheaded does not merit treating them as less than that, but being a person does merit giving that person's views more consideration and respect than the views themselves instrinsically merit. When people are not accorded that respect, they tend to dig in and become *even more* obstinate in their views. And the discourse becomes poisoned. That is a loss for you and your side in every conceivable way. The only thing you get out of "winning" that kind argument (the other side will of course purport to have "won" as well) is a few extra tally marks on the mental scoreboard you are apparently keeping.

      And let's face it, much of the electorate is not keen enough to keep track of who is cleverer than whom on national policy. But they can probably identify who is being a jerk and who isn't. So, if you want to do anything for your side, the next time someone says something really stupid and ridiculous, ask them about it. Make them feel like you value their opinion. When they are done sharing, offer to share your views. You'll be surprised how willing they are to value what you have to say once they are under the impression that you value what they have to say. What you will probably wind up with is a person who, though still in general disagreement with you (though perhaps not!) is now willing to admit their views are not utterly perfect, and your views have some virtues. And someone who sees that there is more than one side is no longer an extremist.

      "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" -- Abraham Lincoln

    120. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck should I have ANYTHING to do with YOUR healthcare?

      Because you're the head of the FDA or CDC, duh.

      Oh wait, you personally aren't in the government?

      Then no, YOU shouldn't.

    121. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I recall, while taking over GM, Obama has done the unprecedented move of telling the primary bondholders to take a hike and forcing them to take major haircuts to protect the pension funds for the benefit of the UAW union, which arguably helped bring GM into this mess in the first place. The government had no business doing that. That move had also prevented Ford (which had kept solvency without the crushing weight of UAW) from reaping the deserved rewards of doing better in management.

      Here's one article I could find from back then, there are a lot more.
      http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/gop-lawmakers-side-with-gm-bondholders/

      As an aside, this is the same GM which was running ads for SUVs and trucks at $5/gallon gas and had dealerships stuffed to the gills with Escalades and other SUVs, while people were ready to pay 5-10k premiums on Priuses and everyone else was advertizing smaller cars with high mileage.

    122. Re:You asked for this by Reziac · · Score: 1

      California instituted term limits (max 2 terms in a given office), and things got worse. Instead of entrenched interests, now CA has ladder-climbing interests, as the whole two allowed terms are spent in pursuit of the next higher office, rather than merely pursuing another term in the current office. (And then Jerry Brown did an end run around the law and is in the governor's office for a 3rd term.)

      Term limits are meaningless unless it's N-many terms in ALL OFFICES COMBINED, and even then, I'm not sure it wouldn't result in more concentrated self-serving, just like term limits in CA did.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    123. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference between the two political parties in America is.....
      The one says we might screw you, and does.
      The other says we will try not to screw you, and does.
      Defining which is which is left as an exercise for the reader.

    124. Re:You asked for this by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      If the commies got hold of afghanistan, who'd say what other countries they'd take over, pulling a nationalize the oil industries..

      Are you really incapable of making that sort of connection?

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    125. Re:You asked for this by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      You're getting some damn good weed where you live..

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    126. Re:You asked for this by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Except it isn't the Senate that shut the government down, it was brand-new tea party Republicans who are really bad losers. They lost and Obamacare won, they tried to kill it in the courts and lost, they nominate a man who ran on an anti-Obamacare platform and lost, now they're holding the budget and debt limit hostage; Defund Obamacare or we'll destroy the US's economy!

      Why is it that when your side in intransigent, it's "Republican obstructionism holding up sensible legislation", but when the other side is doing it, it's "holding the budget and debt limit hostage". You do realize Obama held the fiscal cliff hostage back in December over tax hikes on the rich? He was equally "willing to destroy the US economy" over a partisan demand, despite Congressional agreement over the other 99% of the budget. However, the Republicans actually compromised/caved and gave in to his demands, so we had no disaster. The Democrats aren't doing the same in this instance, unwilling to even discuss reforms to entitlements or Obamacare.

    127. Re:You asked for this by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I don't have a side, I vote for the candidate (usually 3rd party if there's one on the ballot), not any party. And it isn't "Republicans" holding the economy hostage, it's a small Republican offshoot that I see as batshit insane.

  3. Transparency by blach · · Score: 3, Insightful
    1. Re:Transparency by Thanshin · · Score: 0

      That might be true.

      Maybe in previous administrations the same people that are now prosecuted were killed and erased from history by CIA black ops.

    2. Re:Transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it didn't mean that anything that could be used to hurt the USA would be declassified. You have to understand why the NSA wouldn't just release all of those documents themselves and cause the backlash, even though they still haven't shown that they didn't really do anything against the law.

      The media has had a field day these last few years and have not be investigated themselves for lying to the public and posting minority opinions to promote them and encourage people to not work with Obama.

    3. Re:Transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "This is the most transparent administration in history."

      "I made your email protections transparent, your cellphone privacy transparent and all of your fourth amendment rights so transparent that you can't even prove they exist."

    4. Re:Transparency by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

      Have to agree. I had just moved back to Canada when Clinton was on his way out and Bush was on his way in. It seemed like overnight the media went from TMI on US news to a black hole. Then Obama got in and we again started having more US news on Canadian News sites than actual Canadian news. Then again, when Harper (our PM) got a majority government he took the same route as Bush did and basically black balled any reporter that didn't report what he wanted or asked questions that weren't previously vetted and approved at press conferences.

    5. Re:Transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "This is the most transparent administration in history."

      "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is knowledge. Weakness is strength."

    6. Re:Transparency by cmorriss · · Score: 2

      Are you on drugs? Bush was lambasted by the media. Constantly. Now Obama is in office. Remember how we're still fighting a war in Afghanistan? What happened to Guantanimo? The only reason we know ANYTHING about the NSA is because every news outlet would be dumb as a bag of rocks not to report it. It was thrown in their lap.

      Who knows what else is going on. There's very little real journalism in today's media. Part of that really is a belief by many in the media that Obama is overall a great man and they should not pound him too hard for anything, and part of that is because of the KGB like surveillance of the media keeping everyone else in line as much as possible.

      --
      10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
    7. Re:Transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, when the press was "interviewing" the family of every soldier that died in Iraq and asked questions like "Do you believe this war was worth the loss of your child?" that was a 'black hole'?! Now we loose 16 in one incident and it's not even reported in most outlets

    8. Re:Transparency by xdor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just keep telling yourself that. Drink much Kool-Aid lately?

    9. Re:Transparency by MtHuurne · · Score: 1

      If you count just the amount of information released, maybe. But the people in this administration are control freaks when it comes to deciding which information gets released, and they lash out when someone releases information against their wishes. Also transparency in itself is not enough: for example campaign contributions are public, but they are still a corrupting influence.

    10. Re:Transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get real. The news media has morphed into the entertainment industry. Fox is the instrument of the Saudis (did I say that out loud?) and Rupert Murdoch, the criminal who was forced to close his London papers because his reporters were encouraged to hack into private phone lines. We put up with all our media being owned and managed by six companies, and we wonder why our news is bland.

    11. Re:Transparency by melikamp · · Score: 1

      It could not be more transparent: without opening this bag, you can plainly see it's full of shit.

    12. Re:Transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is the most transparent administration in history." --Barack Obama

      You have to admit that this indeed is a contender for the most transparent lie in history.

  4. Transparency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our government's idea of "transparency" is how they can see everything we're doing ... even see us typing up a FOIA request.

    1. Re:Transparency? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      Indeed. A one-way mirror is still transparent. Just not both ways.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  5. Hope and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How's it working for you these days? There were plenty of people who were screaming that this stuff would be happening. Nobody listened. Maybe next time you will, but I doubt it. The American public is too busy watching American Idol to give a crap about anything important anymore.

  6. Press Freedoms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask Snowden what does he thinks about it...

  7. Obama, the non-leader leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This man has no ideas of his own, and virtually zero leadership cred. He got to where he is by selling out to those with money, and was elected to the highest position in the land with so few qualifications that it boggles the mind. He speaks OK (when his teleprompter works) and is capable of telling people what they want to hear. Of course when the powers that be want to clamp down on things that may reduce their power, he plays along. He's a spineless douchebag. He should go back to smoking pot and just hanging out. That's what his vision for America is anyway.

    1. Re:Obama, the non-leader leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Kenyan born Muslim who plays golf eight days a week on Martha's Vineyard with George Soros, Nancy Pelosi and the other libs hatching plans for the next Solyndra or Fisker bailout and Fast and Furious and when are the MSM (that's Main Stream Media) going to finally get off their butts and cover the outrage at Benghazi? Or Fast and Furious! While Putin plays him for an easy mark and bails him out of Syria and America looks small again? Look I'm not saying Bush did a good job but in comparison, he had nothing like Benghazi or Fast and Furious and that's why increasingly, polls are showing that the voters are coming to see what a miserable excuse who should never have been elected because anyone can fake a birth certificate. Doesn't mean it's real.

    2. Re:Obama, the non-leader leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He speaks OK

      You sound like an excellent judge of grammar.

    3. Re:Obama, the non-leader leader by Quila · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, the presidency is the first election he ever won against a solid opponent. In all previous elections he either had no opponent, an opponent who could never win (a Republican in his solid Democratic state district), or a last-minute swap-out who had no chance (Alan Keyes). He even won state senate primaries mainly by having the opposition disqualified, or running unopposed. In 2000 he ran a primary against the incumbent for his Congressional district and lost badly (he got the upper class vote, but the regular black population voted against him).

    4. Re:Obama, the non-leader leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget, the presidency is the first election he ever won against a solid opponent. In all previous elections he either had no opponent, an opponent who could never win (a Republican in his solid Democratic state district), or a last-minute swap-out who had no chance (Alan Keyes). He even won state senate primaries mainly by having the opposition disqualified, or running unopposed. In 2000 he ran a primary against the incumbent for his Congressional district and lost badly (he got the upper class vote, but the regular black population voted against him).

      What election did Romney ever win against a strong opponent.

      Who cares about this kind of trivia. Go back to your talk radio hole.

    5. Re:Obama, the non-leader leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's a fake progerssive who's doubled down on every failed Republican policy of the last two decades.

    6. Re:Obama, the non-leader leader by Quila · · Score: 2

      Romney challenged Ted Kennedy, an absolutely sure losing proposition since everybody knew The Swimmer would keep his fat ass in that seat until he died. But Romney still managed to get 40% of the vote, which is incredible.

      For governor of MA, Romney was trailing in the polls up until the end against a strong opponent.

    7. Re:Obama, the non-leader leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we've done it -- right-wing screeds are now indistinguishable from the output of a Markov chain.

    8. Re:Obama, the non-leader leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solid opponent? Wait, do you mean the 2008 run against Geriatric/Crazybitch, or do you mean against the 2012 Republican Circular Firing Squad, where the GOP ran the right-wing mirror image of John Kerry?

      I still can't figure out if the Republicans were deliberately throwing the 2012 election. It's the only explanation that makes any sense; that should have been a slam-dunk.

    9. Re:Obama, the non-leader leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For governor of MA, Romney was trailing in the polls up until the end against a strong opponent.

      You obviously don't live in Massachusetts. The governor before Romney was a Republican who committed a series of indiscretions and gaffes; she dropped out of the race and Mitt won the GOP primary with no opposition. His opponent in the fall was a local politico named Shannon O'Brien. A tough opponent? Google for her Wikipedia bio and find out.

    10. Re:Obama, the non-leader leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Romney challenged Ted Kennedy, an absolutely sure losing proposition since everybody knew The Swimmer would keep his fat ass in that seat until he died. But Romney still managed to get 40% of the vote, which is incredible.

      So incredible it managed to happen in 1980, 1970, and 1955. With a nod to 1986, which was 34%.

      Yeah, Ted Kennedy was as popular as fucking in Massachusetts, but Romney's number wasn't that spectacular.

    11. Re:Obama, the non-leader leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For governor of MA, Romney was trailing in the polls up until the end against a strong opponent.

      Well, it's cheaper to buy the voting machines than the votes, but it does look fishier. Perhaps polls should require the use of voting machines as well?

    12. Re:Obama, the non-leader leader by Quila · · Score: 1

      Much better than Obama's performance against a marginal sitting congressman.

  8. change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Change you can believe in!

  9. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    U.S. President Barack Obama came into office pledging open government, but he has fallen short of his promise.
     
    Fallen short? Is that's what it's called when it's the most closed administration in recent history? Fallen short? Give me a break!
     
    Today we are the police state that the likes of Obama told us we were under Bush. People really need to wake up.
     
    Oh, but yeah, I know... it's Apple and the "XBone" that we need to worry about, right?

  10. Its Own Media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know that the press is liberal left leaning Obama fan boyz. But, Obama has his own media? Which channel is that?

    1. Re:Its Own Media? by fredrated · · Score: 2

      Channel 666.

    2. Re:Its Own Media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MSNBC Muslim-Select News to Bifurcate the Country

  11. Re:Right.... by dreamchaser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could it be that Slashdot is rasist as fuck against a black president? No, it couldn't be that.

    Grow up.

    That isn't even a good troll. Crying 'racism' at any criticism of Obama is actually in and of itself racist. He gets plenty of criticism for his actions, not so much the color of his skin. You're the one who really should consider growing up.

  12. Bread and circuses by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  13. There have been classified documents since 1911 by sandytaru · · Score: 1

    Reporters didn't have access to classified documents in the Good Old Days either. And anyone caught leaking papers to the Soviet Union during the Cold War was in serious, serious trouble.

    It's probably a lot easier to try someone under the Espionage Act today since you can deliver a large volume of information electronically and odds are there will be some electronic fingerprint on it pointing back to the leaker unless they're fully aware of all the security precautions. Fifty years ago, if you leaked the amount of data that would fit on a single CD-R to someone today, it would take up several boxes full of printed papers. ("Where are you going with that crate of papers, Ed?" "Uh....") But if you slipped a handful of papers into your briefcase a few at a time and gave them to someone at dinner, it'd be harder to trace the leak.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:There have been classified documents since 1911 by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reporters didn't have access to classified documents in the Good Old Days either. And anyone caught leaking papers to the Soviet Union during the Cold War was in serious, serious trouble.

      Which, presumably, is why the Obama Administration has brought charges against more journalists (6) than all other administrations combined (3)?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:There have been classified documents since 1911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which, presumably, is why the Obama Administration has brought charges against more journalists (6) than all other administrations combined (3)?

      Which is bs as there were 15 prosecutions during the 1990. Hell 1985 had 4 prosecutions in a single year

      [citation needed]

    3. Re:There have been classified documents since 1911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:There have been classified documents since 1911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making contrary claims, telling people who ask for citations, which you should have provided in the first place, to Just Fucking Google It, as if anybody will....Obama, is that you?

    5. Re:There have been classified documents since 1911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were 15 prosecutions against journalists under the Espionage Act in the 1990s? Four Espionage Act prosecutions against journalists in 1985?

      Your cheeky little link posted below doesn't back you up.

    6. Re:There have been classified documents since 1911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go hang yourself you fucking lowlife piece of trash

  14. its quite telling really. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once the structure falls apart, once the cognitive dissonance between what we say and what we do becomes so indefensible, then we have no choice but to persecute dissent and stifle protest.
    the government surveillance, crackdown on leaks, and persecution of journalists just shows how desparate america is to maintain the illusion of the land of the free and home of the brave. in reality we kill our own citizens, run torture camps, kidnap people we consider enemies, and maintain the highest incarceration rate in the world. we topple foreign governments, install dictators, sabotage existing governments attempts at independence and autonomy, and detain indefinitely without trial anyone we see fit. We had an entire slew of protests across the country called Occupy that ended with nothing but arrests and more surveillance. Nothing changed and nothing will.

    the fastest way to stop the leaks and the leakers is to stop pandering to a minority constituency of plutocrats while paying lipservice to real americans, and get on with some real change. Arrest corrupt wall street bankers, shut down guantanamo, and for fuck sake stop sticking your dick in the middle east every six months for a boost in the opinion polls leading up to an election.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:its quite telling really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Once the structure falls apart, once the cognitive dissonance between what we say and what we do becomes so indefensible, then we have no choice but to persecute dissent and stifle protest.

      And that will mark the end of what was once a great country, which has now become everything they've ever opposed.

      Congratulations America, you have given up your rights and freedoms in the name of securing your rights and freedoms.

      You're no longer the shining example. You're the sad joke whose demands the world is going to start ignoring. Your security and economy don't trump the rest of the world.

      And I imagine Americans will continue to believe how awesome and free they are ... all the while becoming as bad as every government you've ever criticized.

      Pathetic.

  15. But... but.... but...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't mean "transparency" as "you can look at me," I meant, "you can look at what I want to show you." Plus the bonus of, "you can look at those Nasty Republicans." You know, that one-way glass kind of transparency.
    -Barack Obama

  16. Good Man + Absolute Power = Bad Man by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 1

    If we were watched over by scrupulous eunuch atheist priests who lived in a walled off commune and never spoke to another soul wouldn't mind, but we are watched by public servants. The value of mass surveillance data inevitably means it will be abused. http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=386989

    1. Re:Good Man + Absolute Power = Bad Man by Silverhammer · · Score: 2

      I reject your premise. Good people do not seek power in the first place.

      That's not to say there are no good people with power. But those who have it almost always have it forced upon them by the circumstances of the moment, and when the moment has passed, they try to get rid of it as quickly as possible.

  17. Re: There have been classified documents since 191 by techprophet · · Score: 1

    This just in: journalists equated with the Soviet Union. More at 11

  18. More examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    * Hushing up Fast 'n Furious debacle by executive privilege.
    * Gagging Benghazi witnesses, even forbidding them from testifying to Congress.
    * Blaming Benghazi on a stupid YouTube video for weeks (right before the election -- we have to make the attack seem "spontaneous" so it looks our policies have ended terrorism), knowing full well that it's a lie.

    I could go on all day, but I do have to actually work. Most of these things (all three of the cases I mentioned) happened before His reelection, so it was completely obvious to those of us who aren't idiots what kind of president this guy was/is. Now, time to wait for said idiots to try to deflect the issue by talking about how bad Republicans are (happens every time, as if these turds get their marching orders from On High; so predictable).

    1. Re:More examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He is shit, Bush was shit.

      They're both symptoms of the same problem, your country is run by corporations. Republicans may actually be more honest in this sense, since they claim to be pro business (though in all honesty it's just the big ones). Democrats try and hide it, but it's not hard to trace it back either.

      BTW, Bush lied, thousands died. This happened before his re-election, don't point out the splinter while ignoring the beam.

  19. Re:Right.... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could it be that Slashdot is rasist as fuck against a black president? No, it couldn't be that.

    No, it isn't be that. Because nobody is talking about the color of his skin.

    See, being a person who is working against your freedoms and trying to keep government activities a secret isn't an issue of the color of your skin.

    It's an issue of your integrity and your campaign promises. If your president isn't working to improve or maintain your liberties, he's working against them.

    We're not seeing a whole lot of 'audacity of hope' these days. We're seeing someone who is helping reduce your freedoms and curtail your press from telling people what it is they're actually doing when that might be illegal.

    This is very much a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" kind of thing.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  20. Well, what did you expect? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Obama got the Nobel prize, not the Sakharov prize.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Well, what did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They should take his back and give it to Snowden.

  21. Re:Right.... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    No, it isn't be that

    Wow, I be typing goodly today ...

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  22. Re:Right.... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

    There is a lot of dislike of Obama due to his race. There's no question about that. But that doesn't lesson the seriousness of legitimate criticism. For that matter, even if someone is motivated by racism to make a specific criticism it doesn't impact the validity of that criticism. To go full-Godwin, if Hitler said that 1+1=2 as part of an argument to kill all the Jews, it doesn't make 1+1=2 less true.

  23. Re:Right.... by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    Yes. Many of us oppose Obama because of his color. We don't like Yellow-striped Reds (evil grin)

  24. Obama bin bama caught being a fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How could this be? Surely it is not true. Surely it is because of them darn republicans. Obama bin bama wouldn't betray his own words of peace nor transparency ....would he??? What a traitor he is to the American people.

  25. Well... by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...this is what happens when you have a President that makes your leg tingle.

    Seriously, though, the press has ALWAYS done a better job covering Republican presidents, as their adversarial role is abundantly clear. Largely, Democratic presidents who ostensibly have the shared outlook, overall sympathies, if not outright vote of reporters (http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp), have been covered much more gently and with (dare I call it) an almost collaborationist approach.

    As politics have become more strident and divisive, it seems like the press itself has found itself more stridently taking a side, with Fox on the Right, and everyone else on the Left.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As politics have become more strident and divisive ... the business of government has kept on expanding, in terms of both power and reveue, while the "divisive" parties have kept on dominating -- not seperately, but together.

      Could it be that the two "divided" parties aren't at odds with each other at all?

      The way to understand the true motives of those in power is to ignore what they say, and carefully observe what they do. Actions define coercive authority, not words, and their actions only point to one conclusion: they are all on the same team.

    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems more likely to me, as a non-American, that your belief in this kind of bias actually highlights the bias of the news media you prefer to read.

    3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... it seems like the press itself has found itself more stridently taking a side, with Fox on the Right, and everyone else on the Left.

      You must not watch other channels but Fox. Calling Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. national channels "news" is pure satire. They are tabloid first and foremost and have been for at least a decade or more. Callinf Fox right-wing is like calling Reagan an Independent and calling the entire rest of the "News" channels left wing is like calling Reagan a Democrat. (although even the Demo's are becoming a bit more right-wing than Ronnie these days).

    4. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incidentally this is what is meant by the phrase 'fair and balanced'. No competent human being seriously believes they're balanced, but they do offer a different perspective, which is a form of balance.

      Also if you feel like raging at me, please don't bother. I have already left this thread and will not be returning.

  26. Lack of Transparency? Wonder why. by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 0

    When you have to deal with people who work for you and claim to be on your side and who you feel you should be able to trust only to find leaked confidential documents and conversations online and in the press ...can you blame the administration for tightening their safeguards and access by the media? This isn't what he wanted. He believed in his mission of "Hope and Change".

    People want and demand transparency. But, it's these very same people who also want to screw him over every chance they get.

    If they let him do his job and not worry about him trying to explain his every move in explicit detail when he takes a shit, he might be more forthcoming. Think about all the "scandals" he's had to contend with - starting with the "birther" movement, racist comments about a "black man (oh..wait a B/W milkshake) in the "WHITE house" to WikiLeaks to screw ups by the intel community and the DOJ and extreme conservatives who have made it their solemn promise that he wouldn't get elected (well, he can't again..so, I guess they win) to those shutting down the gov't....yeah...he's going to insist that things be reviewed and and withheld....we all created this situation.

    We asked him to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring troops home. We then bitch about him using drones and violating sovereign turf of those nations who claim to be our "allies" so he can cut down on the number of needed body bags for brining our people home. Sadly, we can't have it both ways...especially, when there wasn't an exit strategy in place and harder when the situation keeps evolving. Sticking our heads in the sand doesn't work wither.

    We tell the guy to find a way to create jobs in this country. Then, we bitch when he tries to stop large corporations from outsourcing our jobs to those overseas by raising taxes. We tell the guy that we can't afford healthcare. Then, we bitch that his plan is going to destroy America. See the previous bitch about sending our jobs overseas as to why we can't afford healthcare.

    Am I thrilled by the lack of transparency? No. But, this is our doing by not supporting the person elected into the office to do a job and second guessing everything he does rather than coming together to help solve the problems. Partisan politics be damned.

    I, personally, received an interesting phone call the other night - an obscene phone call from someone I didn't know.. Turns out, caller id was my friend. Referencing the name of the business with a LinkedIn profile, it came from from the owner (or someone in his employ) of a staffing agency that "specializes" in outsourcing tech jobs overseas. Worst part of it? If it was him, he was the head of our school board for 10 years and lead the change in curriculum that eliminated most science, music/arts programs but increased spending on sports. A little self-serving? You think? It's crap like this that is the very reason the administration is more opaque than transparent.

  27. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess having every news outfit in the country EXCEPT FoxNews in his pocket isn't enough for Emperor Obama. Whoduv thunk it?

  28. orly? by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    Whaaaat? You say a democrat came into office and made government bigger and more aggressive? That's simply absurd! How unprecedented!

  29. Re:Right.... by Quila · · Score: 1

    There is a lot of dislike of Obama due to his race.

    There's a lot of like for Obama due to his race too. Do you think White Candidate Obama would have won?

  30. Voters duped by goldspider · · Score: 2

    How many people voted for Obama believing that he wouldn't use the executive powers expanded by the previous administration? How many were dumb enough to believe he'd actually try to roll them back?

    Worse yet, how many are OK with their guy abusing his new authority?

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:Voters duped by geek · · Score: 1, Troll

      How many people voted for Obama believing that he wouldn't use the executive powers expanded by the previous administration? How many were dumb enough to believe he'd actually try to roll them back?

      Worse yet, how many are OK with their guy abusing his new authority?

      According to the latest gallup poll 37% are just dandy with what Obama is doing. You can thank the Liberal press for being his lapdog while he bends them over without a reach-around.

      The sad part is, if Obama ran for a 3rd term he would still win because he gets 98% of the Black vote, 99% of the Democrat vote and 85% of the women's vote. Once amnesty passes he'll also get 90% of the Hispanic vote. Nevermind that black unemployment is higher than its ever been, that the real war on women is being waged by Democrats via abortion (look up how man girls get aborted versus boys) and Obamacare (just wait for the premiums on 'women's issues' medical care and the fact spouses are being dropped like crazy from healthcare plans).

      It's bizarro world right now, everything is backwards, upside down and inside out. Yet the press, like the drooling lapdogs they are keep towing the party line and not holding this disgusting pig of a president accountable. Liberals who so hated George Bush love Obama, who hasn't canceled or otherwise stopped a single one of Bush's policies and in fact has greatly expanded the surveillance state. In bizarro world it doesn't matter that Obama is exponetially worse than any president we have ever had. All that matters is that he has a D next to his name. Why else would this man get a Peace Prize?

      Michelle Obama said that for the first time in her life she was proud of her country when Obama was elected. Well, ma'am, for the first time in my life I am ashamed of my country.

    2. Re:Voters duped by bytesex · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the hippie girl picture: I never realized how cool wars where until Obama started them.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    3. Re:Voters duped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Worse yet, how many are OK with their guy abusing his new authority?

      More than one might imagine, given he is on their "team". And politicians who happen to belong to one's team can never do any wrong, no matter how egregious those actions may be.

  31. As much as I dislike the President.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I come to slashdot to get away from politics.

  32. Schadenfreude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suck it Bitches!

  33. Re:Right.... by ichthus · · Score: 2

    No. McCain lost.

    --
    sig: sauer
  34. Re:Right.... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

    Just because calling opposition to President Obama's policies "racist" is a dishonest, failing tactic doesn't mean that it isn't in common use.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  35. Re:Right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  36. Fallen short of his promise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With regard to pledging open government, he has fallen short of his promise like a boy scout falls short of his pledges when going on a chainsaw massacre using organic oil for its lubrication.

    One does not have the impression Obama even has a clue what his pledges were supposed to be about. That's not "falling short" of one's aim. That's rather turning bow and arrow into firewood.

  37. Re:Right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    White Candidate Obama

    Who, Edwards? I figure the October Surprise sex scandal would have let McCain take the win. The Dems really dodged a bullet on that one. Just the timing on that reveal convinced me that Somebody was sure the democrat primary would go to the white guy.

    If you mean some hypothetical alternate-reality John Edwards who kept it in his pants, of course he would have beat McCain. Bush fucked the GOP's chances in 2008 but good.

  38. Re:Right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could it be that Slashdot is rasist as fuck against a black president? No, it couldn't be that.

    Grow up.

    If you mean "black president" in the same connotation as "dark age" and "rasist [sic]" in the same meaning as "appalled", you might be onto something. He could be pink with green dots for all I care as long as he was capable of understanding his own fscking campaign promises.

    The whole administration down from the president is more fraudulent, corrupt and shitting on the constitution than Nixon's was at its worst time. Yes, he definitely is a blacker president than even Nixon was.

  39. Re:Lack of Transparency? Wonder why. by Hatta · · Score: 1

    When you have to deal with people who work for you and claim to be on your side and who you feel you should be able to trust only to find leaked confidential documents and conversations online and in the press ...can you blame the administration for tightening their safeguards and access by the media?

    Yes, yes I can. Those documents should have been public from day one.

    This isn't what he wanted. He believed in his mission of "Hope and Change".

    Then why hasn't he done anything about it? Not one damn thing.

    People want and demand transparency. But, it's these very same people who also want to screw him over every chance they get.

    Maybe he shouldn't be doing shady dealings that he doesn't want made public. The President is a public servant, he doesn't get privacy in his official capacity. If he doesn't want to get "screwed over" he shouldn't violate the Constitution.

    If they let him do his job and not worry about him trying to explain his every move in explicit detail when he takes a shit, he might be more forthcoming.

    And why can't he explain his every move in explicit detail? Being a good leader means you have good reasons for the actions you take. Share them with us.

    We asked him to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring troops home.

    Yes, and then he tried to get an extension on the SOFA with Iraq, yet another Obama lie. And we're still fighting in Afthanistan.

    We then bitch about him using drones and violating sovereign turf of those nations who claim to be our "allies" so he can cut down on the number of needed body bags for brining our people home

    He could just bring or people home alive, AND not send drones over. Complete withdrawal from the middle east is the best policy.

    Am I thrilled by the lack of transparency? No. But, this is our doing by not supporting the person elected into the office to do a job and second guessing everything he does rather than coming together to help solve the problems. Partisan politics be damned.

    No, this is our doing by electing a corrupt piece of shit into office. A good President would be proud of his decisions, and be eager to share them with the people he was elected to serve.

    You're such a fucking sycophant. Blame the victim (the American people) for the bad behavior of their abuser. Remember when Iraq war protesters were called "unamerican" because they opposed the President? You're doing the exact same thing.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  40. you mean zero. soldier to USSR != journalist by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    By 15, mean 0, right? I see that in the 1980s a service member and a CIA agent were prosecuted for selling information to the Soviets. I'm not finding any journalists being prosecuted until Obama.

  41. People also say that about voting for incumbent by Marrow · · Score: 3

    People say, I am am beginning to agree, that voting for the incumbent office holder is throwing your vote away. If that is the case, then you only have two choices: The main party challenger or the third party challenger.

    Therefore, voting for the third party is not throwing your vote away. Its voting for one of your only two options for not throwing your vote away.

  42. succession is the only practical option by odigity · · Score: 1

    You cannot reform or even influence the federal government. It is too big, too entrenched, too corrupt. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying to themselves or to you.

    The only practical option is succession. If you live in one of the fifty states, advocate for succession. You can't fight the beast, but you can withdraw your 1/50th of support for it, and when enough other states do the same, the beast will vanish into angry, disbelieving smoke.

    1. Re:succession is the only practical option by bytesex · · Score: 1

      That word.. it does not mean what you think it means.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    2. Re:succession is the only practical option by odigity · · Score: 1

      Arg! I'm blaming lack of coffee.

      s/succession/secession/g

    3. Re:succession is the only practical option by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      there would be some rather steep obstacles for a seceeding state to overcome.

      1. money
      2. resources for which it is not self-sufficient
      3. federal governmen pulling "a lincoln" and sending in troops

    4. Re:succession is the only practical option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot reform or even influence the federal government.

      Of course one person can't. But from what I see, the federal government is doing what a majority of Americans want. Just because a slight majority of one party that holds one half of one branch of government doesn't like things they way they aren't isn't a sign that the majority isn't represented. You just don't agree with the majority.

  43. The press has turned on the administration by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The Obama administration is paranoid obsessive about controlling the press and spouting half-truths, and career journalists have branded Obama as the least accessable president they have ever encountered.

    Sure they like to flout that Obama has conducted more interviews than any president before him. But Obama intentionally selects outlets where he can evade scrutiny. His "interviews" have largely been on entertainment shows. When preparing for the precious few press interviews, Obama selects journalists who are least likely to challenge him. The administration exploits social media and prepared videos/press releases to evade scrutiny. At his "press conferences" in the WH he abruptly leaves the podium after delivering his prepared statements to ignore journalists trying to confront him with questions. WH spokesman Jay Carney shows an evasive disposition that has resulted in increasing confrontation from an increasingly skeptical and frustrated press.

    Obama has admitted that he intends to punish his political enemies. Intimidation, harassment, and retaliation are tools frequently deployed, witness the IRS singling out conservative groups and other federal agencies targetting businesses and individuals who have either criticized the administration or contributed funding to opposition movements. Dr. Ben Carson was endured his first ever IRS audit less than four months after delivering a speech critical of the administration, with a visibly steaming Obama sitting two seats away from him. The Rev Billy Graham was audited after he endorsed Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign.

    Obama had the mainstream press in his pocket until they learned of his betrayal when the DoJ ordered the search of phone records of Associated Press organizations. Their eyes were finally opened to the manipulations of the administration and they have turned on him. Not all of the news outlets have followed suit but they are changing their stripes one by one.

    Obama (and Hillary) were disciples of Saul Alinsky, whose "Rules for Radicals" book encourages ad hominem tactics, deception, harassment, any means necessary to accomplish an agenda. Indeed, Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to Satan.

    For those of you who voted for a new hope, you have no idea of the deception that was handed to you.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    1. Re:The press has turned on the administration by celle · · Score: 1

      "At his "press conferences" in the WH he abruptly leaves the podium after delivering his prepared statements to ignore journalists trying to confront him with questions"

            Seems you have a short memory. Early in Reagan's presidency he walked through the press after a conference to get out of the press room. After Sam Donaldson managed to bag him with embarrassing questions all of a sudden the press room was remodeled and Reagan would leave via the opening behind him. What you state is nothing new.

  44. Well, that's absurd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, though, the press has ALWAYS done a better job covering Republican presidents

    Like when they buried the story that a press recount showed that Gore won the election under any state-wide scenario, or when the NYTimes buried the NSA wiretapping story until Bush was safely elected? The surveillance state and might-as-well-be-state-run media transcend petty partisan butthurt.

  45. If you did nothing wrong... by gmuslera · · Score: 2

    then you should have nothing to hide. That they make such big efforts to actively hide everything (even to the point of rerouting the president of Bolivia plane just for suspecting that Snowden may be there) means that they did, and probably keep doing, something very wrong. And it must be far bigger than anything we know they are doing (not mass snooping or subverting internet security protocols, not favoring big corporations, no giving chemical weapons to syrian rebels to blame the government, etc), and at difference of the current situation, should be something that if disclosed it really would have most of the population very upset.

  46. Re:Right.... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    I have a dream, that one day all the little factual posts on Slashdot will not be marked troll because of the color of the moderators politics.

    Charge of racism offensive to Obamacare critics

    Louisiana state Sen. Karen Carter Peterson last week took to the chamber’s floor to declare opponents of President Barack Obama’s “signature legislative achievement” are motivated by race.

    “I have talked to so many members both in the House and the Senate, and you know what? You ready? You ready? What it comes down to? It’s not about how many federal dollars we can receive, it’s not about that. You ready? It’s about race,” Peterson said. “I know nobody wants to talk about that. It’s about the race of this African-American president.”

    After Calling Obamacare Critics Racist, LA Legislator Says 'I Didn't Call Anyone a Racist'

    Mainstream Scream: Martin Bashir accuses Obama scandal critics of racism

    Are Obama's critics racist? Jimmy Carter thinks so

    A Modern Timeline of Liberals Claiming That Opposition to Obama = Racism

    There is plenty more that could be posted on this topic.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  47. Re:Right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think White Candidate Obama would have won?

    Easily. Obama was elected because the Bush admin crashed the stock market causing a voter panic. All other explanations are, at best, only contributing factors.

    (Actually, if O was white, he wouldn't have won the primary and Hillary would have been president.)

  48. Re:Right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You KNOW your guy is really fucked up when you need to play the racist card to support him. Priceless.

  49. Been covered already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    42 years ago.

    Meet the new boss
    Same as the old boss

  50. Re:Right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot isn't about truth. It's about cheerleading.

  51. Re:Right.... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    That is insightful.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  52. Re:"I'll sue you.......in America" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the Good Old Days whistleblower's leaking "illegally" in the public interest on even greater illegal activities like systematic corruption, war crimes, cover-ups etc were actually afforded some protection (Daniel Ellsberg as one example). Journalists reporting on the whistleblower material were also afforded some protection. Today in the first world there appears to be an all out assault on both reporting and whistleblowing no matter how egregious the crime they are bringing to the publics attention. Libel laws strengthened and extended laws and new ones are being passed like the US Shield law - designed to shield the corrupt from exposure and outlaw any media organization that is not complicit from doing investigative reporting.

    Hard not to come to the conclusion that those institutions behind the prosecution of journalists and whistleblowers are wholly and irrecoverably corrupted. Guess that is what happens when the population votes in a two headed single party dedicated to serving power and moneydecade after decade...

    Informative post, but the power at be did in fact go after the "rat" and the reporters for exposing the governments propaganda, or secretive programs that targeted not only US leaders, but people of "targeted interest".

    The irony of the mainstream press/media is there inept reporting over the current state of laws and bills (more to the point the loopholes they insert to benefit the politicians and the companies that bought them off), as well as agencies that are randomly popping up, they do not bother to report or investigate on these government contracts when they are clearly sketchy attempts to create further oppressive tech. Basically the media is a long arm of government pushing the governments bullsh**. And the only time they bother with any "real reporting" is after 60% of the population has already figured it out. They're there own enemies, I do not fell sorry for any of them..

    Maybe the only mainstream (i don't know if you could call it that) is Frontline which does report on things before the mainstream press/media bothers to put any thought into a possible story. What makes PBS and some of there programming better (use to) is how the idiot corporate media/press bash them at any chance, because they report shit people should know about.

  53. Re: Lack of Transparency? Wonder why. by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

    No, I blame individuals like you who have opposed the man from the moment he was elected for most of the problems we are now facing. It doesn't matter if he does good or bad, it's people such as yourself who find the bad in everything - there must be a hidden agenda.
    You elect people to represent you who hold the country hostage because they don't like legislation that is, Constitutionally, law of the land. As a result, many are out of work and services cut.

    You say we should just pull out of the countries we have been fighting in. Lovely. Except out of the mess comes a bigger one. Now, we can't even see it coming because our intel methods have been exposed and people laud Snowden as a hero.

    You blame THIS president because he is the one in office when it was exposed. Surprise - these programs go back before 1966. Each administration has just added to it a little more.

    You have yet to show where he violated the Constitutiion. Yet, it's very clear that Congress is nearly about to violate the 14th.

    Do I think the man is he messiah? No. But, I think the demonizing the far right has done has shown their character. Obama has not been permitted, from day one, with carrying forth his promised agenda because of the allegiance the right has made, not to this country, but to the Koch brothers and their election money.

    If many republicans voted their conscience vs their wallets, things would be a lot better off. Same goes for democrats who vote to the left because there is nothing in the middle. And, if things were exposed while non-partisanship ran the gov't, the problems would be solved without bickering - even if that meant impeachment. Right now, that can't happen .

  54. Re:Right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This wins the thread.

  55. Now we know what he meant with "Hope and change" by rhalstead · · Score: 1

    So much for "hope and change". What it meant was Obama hoped the populace didn't find out what he planned for change. He's now down to a 37% approval rating. I wonder what other presidents have gotten that low? That we need government, laws, and regulations is a given, but we don't need big government nor do we need more than a tiny fraction of the laws and regulations thrust upon us. This administration is working to eliminate the freedom given to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights starting with open attacks on the first and second. They are working to make it illegal for someone to tell us when the government breaks the law and doesn't follow the constitution, so they can do as they wish, "behind the curtain". Promised an open and transparent administration. It's amazing that there are enough that have yet to see the truth for him to have anywhere near 37%.

  56. I dont care what color, or sex by rhalstead · · Score: 1

    I was taught many decades ago to never judge a person by their race, but rather by what they do. I don't care what color or sex the president is. I don't like Obama because, he lied to us, promised lots, delivered none, made Bush look good by taking his faults and making them far worse. He's a master of blaming others for his failures and taking credit for others successes. He manipulates things so it is always appears to be the "other guys fault" He is the epitome of the Chicago politician. Ask his teaching colleagues what kind of person he was (when they could find him). Check his voting record (when he did rarely show up) and stances when a Senator. I don't like him because he is the epitome of a corrupt politician who does not want the best for the country. His apparent goal "Dreams From My Father" and "The Amateur" are to lower us to the level of third world countries. Should we default on the debt the US dollar is likely to loose its place as the currency standard. If that happens things will really get expensive. We'll be paying 7 an 8 dollars a gallon for gas like they do in Europe and that will directly affect the cost of food and travel. Actually, it'll affect the cost of just about everything.

  57. Re:Right.... by rhalstead · · Score: 1

    No a White one would have not won and we'd be far better off.