Slashdot Mirror
George W Bush Made Retroactive NSA 'Fix' After Hospital Room Showdown
circletimessquare writes: New details have emerged about the 2004 conflict between George W. Bush and his Attorney General, John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized when he forcefully disagreed with the president's authorization of the NSA's sweeping new collection powers after 9/11. The New York Times has discovered that the conflict was about a retroactive alteration of the President's wording on the legal theory by which the NSA is allowed to siphon up metadata on all Americans, not just certain targets or classes of targets, such as suspected terrorists. 'Mr. Bush, for the first time, explicitly said that his authorizations were "displacing" specific federal statutes, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and criminal wiretapping laws... the president had "made an interpretation of law concerning his authorities" and that the Justice Department could not act in contradiction of Mr. Bush's determinations.' The president faced a severe backlash from the Justice Department, including a threat of mass resignation.
...that the Libs are cool with Obama doing the same stuff now because...Boooosh!
Really, anyone about to post condemnations of Bush should consider the fact that Your Hero as he same policies and have argued in court to keep them.
Another interesting fact is that " The president faced a severe backlash from the Justice Department, including a threat of mass resignation."
Can you imagine anyone Justice now giving a Flying Fuck what Obama does?
A discussion of constitutional limits of power ten years ago? How quaint. In 2015 we pretty much expect the president to do whatever he/she wants without regard to law of any kind.
The summary suggest to me that he was hospitalized BECAUSE he disagreed with Bush, I had to google it to make sure.
Bush was bad, but not that overtly bad.
One evil does not excuse others
When someone we don't like does an evil, it's because they are evil. When someone we do like does an evil, it's okay, because they have goodness in their hearts.
So, Bush actually went full Gestapo, and the Justice Department and Ashcroft Backed it Down a bit?
That's fucking amazing, really. I'm sure this is Bullshit, but I'm not sure which parts, or how much.
Since Cheney isn't implicated as the originator of the Full Gestapo move, I'd be more willing to bet He's the one now trying to throw Bush under a bus for some reason.
I dunno, but, like Obama found out: You can't vote out the Gestapo.
Once they're here, it takes lives to go back.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
One evil doesn't excuse another. But overlooking an evil because it is your kind of evil is the worst kind of evil.
Further, Obama has had six years to fix this "evil" and hasn't. And yet, nobody is blaming him for not doing anything about it ... because he is "your kind of evil" so you overlook it.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
As soon as he dropped the public option it became evil.
/em Watches Slashdot rage about Bush retroactively and unilaterally revising law passed by Congress re: the Patriot Act /em Watches Slashdot not rage about Obama retroactively and unilaterally revising law passed by Congress re: Obamacare
Not to mention that prick who retroactively stole all that private property from half the states.... Lincoln. Because those three things are all exactly the same.
What are you talking about? There is no end of Slashdotters complaining about all aspects of Obamacare and everything Obama has done with regards to it. You're hardly the first one to whine about it.
Congratulations! It only took a few minutes before someone already brought the ACA into this.
Fuck Ajit Pai
I think there are two permutations of this "worst kind of evil".
1. "My guy is doing it, so I'll look the other way.", and 2."The other guys got away with it, so I might as well use it to my advantage too"
The first coup of the century was in the USA all along.
Stop supporting the lessor of two evils .... Cthulhu all the way!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
TFS implies that the NSA policy dispute took so much out of Ashcroft that he ended up in the hospital as a result.
Is that fact, or the submitters/editor's conjecture?
I think they are both evil, how about them apples. Am I allowed to criticize them yet, as I have unique criticisms for both of them and would like to share the criticisms without having to list all of my criticisms of the other in the same breath.
Your justification of torture and spying on Americans makes no sense.
One act of insanity and unconstitutional lawlessness does not justify another.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
So...More proof that Bush was just as slimy as Obama.. I used to be an (R) but once I learned that both parties are spawn of the devil, I changed my party affiliation... I'M A FUCKIN' AMERICAN......
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Will PBS re-make "Spying On The Home Front" in the light of subsequent revelations? The Ashcroft hospital incident is documented.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...
It's still worth watching.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
And what if we don't like either of them?
It's the new Godwin.
Serious question here - I understand that people love to hate Obamacare/ACA. But I don't understand why. What's bad about federally mandated healthcare that says the health insurance companies must offer all people coverage, cannot drop us after they pay out a certain amount (no lifetime maximums), and in general sets a specific lower rung for basic minimum coverage to maintain quality of life? This is similar to minimum car insurance requirements for all people who drive. Why does everyone hate it so much? I've always had good health insurance through employers, so I'm not aware of any effect it has had on me. But my policies have always had lifetime maximums, and now that is removed. Over time (a decade or so), I would expect that since everyone has insurance, there will be more doctors, likely driving the cost of doctors education down. More people filing insurance claims means a higher number of incidents. All of that works together to lower the actual cost per incident (insurance company paid $5k each for 20,000 procedures, but now they only pay $4k for 30,000 of the same procedure. Where's the downside? End users win with better insurance, doctors win with more patients (more procedures) and hopefully lower educational costs since there will be more medical schools competing for them, insurance companies win both with lower costs and a larger client base. Plenty of other countries already do this. Why is it so bad other than somebody is forcing me to buy something I didn't have to buy before (meaning a lot of times I personally subsidize those un-insured emergency room visits with my own taxes)? I really don't get it, and I'm not looking to start a flame war, so I'm posting as AC on purpose. If you have an intelligent response, I'm very curious as to what you see as the downside. There are specific scenarios for a small percentage of people where costs went up significantly because they make a bit over minimum wage and don't qualify for reduced fees, and maybe they chose not to have good insurance before (see my comment about public subsidized emergency room visits). But for low income, middle, and high I don't see the problem. It's just the extreme lower middle with an issue from what I can figure out.
I long for the days of the petrified Natalie Portman and hot grits... in those days trolls were trolls, and not cowish fairies.
Not true, but even still one is not even in the same league as the other.
Slashdot is a website composed of comments from a wide variety of people. Since the first year of Slashdot, I have seen a variation of this reply over and over again, almost as prevalent as hot grits, natalie portman, and first post. That sweet cry of Hypocrisy! as if the commentor has discovered some conspiracy by a non living entity website.
I thought Putin was?
How about "I hate Bush for creating this mess, and Obama for continuing it on his watch"
He's had six years in power and hasn't done shit. So he is equal to Bush, no better, no worse.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
He'll dig us back out of the hole!
Well, probably not, he'll run the country for a year then try to declare bankruptcy to wipe out his mistakes and start over, except that only works for corporations not for Presidents.
And what if we don't like either of them?
Then don't post that because fanboys from both parties will mod you down.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No it really shouldn't be about the ACA. But as far as your argument is concerned I believe you may have made the "bandwagon" logical fallacy with your last sentence.
Downside is that with no robust public option (a promised lie) the profiteers of healthcare (big insurance, big healthcare, big pharmy) continue to raise costs and premiums. This is what is happening, insurers will have huge rate hikes for 2016.
Hallelujah!
Obama has increased the violations of privacy started under Bush; he is worse
The downside is that it's against free markets, free speech, free beer, and all the free things that slashdotters like.
That's what Hitler thinks.
When a plan or process exists it can be revised. No plan, no process, it's tough to even get the ball rolling.
ACA is a start. It's far from perfect. Its shortcomings hopefully will lead to further revision, now that we have something to actually revise.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Why do you have a problem with people bringing up ACA?
It's funny.
Reading this just made me realize that Ashcroft took a stronger stand against spying than Obama has, if I judge only actions and not words.
Given that you are raging about Obama and not Bush, you've proven your own statement wrong.
I see that Slashdot is much more anti-Obama than anti-Bush. But then, I was here in the Bush years, and watched the support as he did those things in real time. The same consistent support here has never gone towards Obama.
Learn to love Alaska
When someone we don't like does an evil, it's because they are evil. When someone we do like does an evil, it's okay, because they have goodness in their hearts.
We tend to overlook the evil things done by people we like.
It doesn't mean every controversial thing done by someone we like is actually evil.
To the extent that Obama has "retroactively and unilaterally revising law passed by Congress" with the ACA he's done it to work around things that most here would recognize as bugs, ie words in the law that make the law do things we didn't actually want it to do.
The issue we're talking about with Bush wasn't a bug fix, he added new features to make the law things it was never intended to do.
I stole this Sig
Problem is, if you criticize one you are automatically assumed to be a fanboy of the opposite party. Politics is like a sports game, you are required to choose sides.
It's funny because it's true. I get modded down all the time, from both sides. I'm a classic liberal, and that makes me hated by both sides, and the anarcho-capitalists who call themselves "libertarian". Though classic liberal is centrist by US political standards, just not the right kind.
Learn to love Alaska
Is Obama's increase more than Bush's increase over Clinton? Evil isn't just an absolute, but also the move towards absolute evil. If Bush moved us there faster than Obama, then wouldn't that be more evil?
Learn to love Alaska
It helps the poor, and we hate the poor. If they didn't deserve it, they wouldn't be poor.
Learn to love Alaska
Don't forget freedom itself. You are now obligated to purchase something from a third party because of nothing more than being a citizen and of legal age.
Not to mention that roe v wade was decided largely on a right to privacy in that the protections from search prohibit the government from nosing into your health care. Now the federal government has a distinct right to be involved via the ACA which calls roe into question.
John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized when he forcefully disagreed with the president's authorization of the NSA's sweeping new collection powers after 9/11.
The English language is a funny thing...
I read that as meaning that John Ashcroft was hospitalized as a result of forcefully disagreeing with the authorization.
I suppose the word "when" was not intended to imply that -- but after re-reading it many times, I still think that's the most natural way to interpret it.
because it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with this topic
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
From TFS:
'Mr. Bush, for the first time, explicitly said that his authorizations were "displacing" specific federal statutes, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and criminal wiretapping laws... the president had "made an interpretation of law concerning his authorities"...
That's the heart of the issue right there. President Bush wrongly believed the threat of terrorism gave him authority to break constitutional law. It actually doesn't, but no one has thus far found a way to correct this mistake. It's absolutely stunning to me after 14 years. The Orwellian-named Patriot Act was supposed to be a temporary measure and yet it's still in place.
Whether I agree with your statements is not the subject of this post, but here's something for you to think about.
Spying on my communications pisses me off.
Keeping me alive and not dying for lack of medical care, is something I can't be angry about.
Does that clear up anything for you?
I take it you are talking about slaves?
Well they were stolen property in the first place, and all the abolition of slavery did was return them to their rightful owners.
You can't say that Lincoln "stole" them from anyone.
It's sad because it's true.
FTFY
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The ACA is a perfect example of how Obama is every bit as rotten as Bush. It's a giveaway to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Despite being guaranteed millions of new customers, absolutely no effort was made to negotiate a better price for Americans and in the case of pharmaceuticals, the U.S. government is still estopped from even negotiating a better price.
Meanwhile, other first world nations such as Canada, Germany, Australia, etc. pay a fraction of what Americans pay for the exact same prescription medications.
I have the best health care plan of all: good genetics. However, even though I'm not getting shafted by the ACA all that much (other than the premiums), it pisses me off like hell that the ACA passed and that Democrats are too blind to see that Obama is a lousy president just as W. Bush was a lousy president.
A pox on both of your houses and I hope you go bankrupt on the medical bills.
"i knew a guy once who murdered someone and got away with it. therefore we can never criticize any murderer anywhere"
this is your "morality"
when your "morality" means "someone did something bad so someone else should be free of criticism for being bad" (aka, two wrongs make a right) you really don't have any morality at all
it's entirely possible to criticize BOTH bush and obama, for the *separate* things they did wrong. you understand that right? criticizing one does not mean we can't or won't are aren't criticizing the other. what bush did wrong is not linked to what obama did wrong
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Because behinds the scenes, it's the same people running the show.
Do you seriously think a Black Lawyer who had a small time civil rights practice can become president without being bought?
It cost 100's of millions in Americas corrupt political system to become president.
46137
Funny how Americans still think of King George III as a tyrant, when in fact his powers were far more constrained by law and parliament than those of Bush II or any other recent president.
While a hostile congress makes it harder for the President to pass new laws, they are getting better and better at finding ways around the law.
To execute Bush and the rest of his cronies for treason?
Stolen? No those guys and gals were captured by competing tribes and sold to us. And if we didn't buy they were left to die. White people did not capture Africans, they did that enough themselves. We didn't even have to go further than the beach to make our purchase.
What a crock. If one continues evil then they are equally as evil as the instigator. If they increase the evil, then they are more evil than the original instigator. You can't be a good person by increasing evil from massive to massive+ instead of ++.
Oh, I do blame him. It's just that, by itself, it was not enough of a reason to vote for the sorry excuse for a candidate that the Republicans ran against him and there wasn't enough other things to justify electing the Romneytron.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
In a few years the penalties will go up to 2K if you don't have health insurance. It is a way to force people to pay for health "care" before they realize how useless most of it is. The press release hype can only go for so long before people realize there are still no cures for anything new, and nothing has substantially improved over their parent's generation.
Current medical research practice is so sloppy there won't be anything new coming out for the foreseeable future. We benefited from the work of the generations educated before WWII, before null hypothesis testing was indoctrinated (as opposed to the scientific method of testing your theory). As the properly educated retired and the newer generations took over, the proportion of pseudoscience skyrocketed to the point that 99.9% of what is published today is worthless. A few years ago I was at a conference and tried to look at every poster, about a dozen out of 10k didn't look like cherry-picked p-hacking of results that could easily be explained 10 other ways.
That said, if you're sick in the jungle go to the witch doctor. He probably knows the most about it. Forcing people to pay for what modern medicine is being turned into is awful though.
It's like when a puppy craps on your living room floor. That puppy isn't evil. But when your brother does it, that's a different story.
The wording in Obamacare was deliberate. Parts were necessary to get it passed; it would not have passed without those "bugs" in place. Other parts were there to punish uncooperative states; that backfired on Obama.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Long term, it helps nobody.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
One thing that amazes me about American politics is how they get caught up on certain issues forever, while a lot of other countries seem to just move on to newer problems after making a decision. Abortion is a good example - I could barely believe how Planned Parenthood funding was a core debate subject at the Republican leader debate (sad when that was the most entertaining TV on).
Just in the last year, I've added single payer health care to the list. We had some staff from a subsidiary in the US come up here for a few days (Canada), and how vehemently and confidently they would disparage a health care system clearly so much better than their own.. the cognitive dissonance against their better interest is staggering. Even typical extreme conservatives can't follow the logic of how a single payer can drastically reduce costs, nor understand how they're already funding social health care for the most expensive groups, the poor and elderly. Health care in the US is an ideological issue, and I don't get why.
Stealing from me to keep you alive incites my fury.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Mostly because Obamacare is not what we got. we got Romneycare.
Obamacare was going to be single payer free healthcare. We instead got a system to make insurance companies even richer that was penned by the republicans.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You are the only one that has a true argument. Most everyone else here is a stupid parrot whining about "obamacare"
The real problem is that he not only made sure the bush spying and war on freedom was continued, but he also increased persecution of whistleblowers trying to make public gross government spying and overstepping.
I still firmly hold the opinion that anyone that voted for or signed the patriot act and any of it's extensions is actively working against the american public.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Because it allows them to increase rates at 25% a year. insurance companies have been making RECORD profits. They should be required to make 25% reductions yearly.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Actually the poor are better off not on it. because if they get sick they are covered completely already.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
So delaying the corporate mandate was a "bug", in that no on really expected ACA to go into effect for *everyone*, even up until this very day?
You're a useful idiot.
Clinton looked the other way while the Rwanda genocide happened. Bush's support and push of the Patriot Act is and was unconscionable. Obama's use of drones against American citizens and foreign civilians with unreviewed (publicly) evidence of their threat is likewise evil. As is the ongoing politicization and unpunished corruption on display in nearly every facet of the US government.
It's like when a puppy craps on your living room floor. That puppy isn't evil. But when your brother does it, that's a different story.
And when your girlfriend does it, you're probably into scat porn.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
President Eisenhower said immediately before leaving office. In his valedictory, Ike famously warned against "unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." The government overreach is repugnantly massive and sadly, now the genie is out of the bottle, is nigh on impossible to put back. Technology will only enable further erosion of liberties and freedoms.
As an American, I feel that I've been lied to and swindled by both sides so many times, that I naturally assume any major legislation (regardless of who supports or opposes it) will just be more of the same. Maybe that's not very nuanced, but it has become my default position.
Regarding the ACA, my personal experience is higher prices, less choice, and more bureaucracy. (Demographics: I'm a middle-aged man with a wife and three school-aged children )
One evil doesn't excuse another. But overlooking an evil because it is your kind of evil is the worst kind of evil.
Further, Obama has had six years to fix this "evil" and hasn't. And yet, nobody is blaming him for not doing anything about it ... because he is "your kind of evil" so you overlook it.
To be correct, a lot of people have been yapping about it a lot.
But it just gets lost in the Demon Baby from Kenya birth certificate claims, the claims he's a muslim, his FEMA death camps, his death panels, and all the other batshit crazy accusations that have made most Americans numb. And somtimes roll with laughter. So it just gets thrown on the pile with all the other kooky stuff.
My favorite one, and I shit you not - is that He made a secret deal with Mexico for them to send diseased Illegal immigrant Mexicans across the border to infect and kill Americans.
That one doesn'e even make any sense. It's right up there with the conspiracy that W. Clinton sent all his bodyguards to Waco so the Branch Davidians could kill them - which means the Davidians were in cahoots with Clinton. All of this makes me wonder if conservative Republicans are seriously into meth.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You are not forced. You are simply not eligible to not pay an income tax penalty for forcing the American public to be the guarantor of your ER visit.
Plenty of people have been blaming him. The "liberal press" has been talking about it since he took office and calling him to task for lack of transparency.
Congress doesn't care though. Too busy trying to overturn ObamaCare I guess.
The wording in Obamacare was deliberate. Parts were necessary to get it passed; it would not have passed without those "bugs" in place. Other parts were there to punish uncooperative states; that backfired on Obama.
You mean the thing that just went to the supreme court? Everyone understood the subsidies went to all the states right up until Republicans started arguing differently. The only evidence offered to the contrary is a single individual, making a single argument, several years later.
For all we know he forgot about that section entirely, saw it during the talk, then made up a justification on the fly.
I stole this Sig
Because behinds the scenes, it's the same people running the show.
Who? If you can't give names, it's just paranoia.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So delaying the corporate mandate was a "bug", in that no on really expected ACA to go into effect for *everyone*, even up until this very day?
You're a useful idiot.
It was written for a specific set of conditions, those assumptions were slightly off meaning the original timeline wasn't possible, that's exactly what I'd call a bug since the intended end state is the same. Running the program intelligently (and fixing bugs on the fly) is precisely the role I think the US President is supposed to fulfil on domestic matters.
The alternative is any significant legislation requiring modification by several successive congresses to work properly. Forcing a President to execute a broken law to the letter strikes me as a very dumb way to run a country.
I stole this Sig
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8045657&cid=50571155
"Stealing" aside, you paid for other people's healthcare before ACA. Now you pay less. A single-payer system would save you even more.
Do You have proof of the underlying premise or are You just a cynical Idiot?
I do no understand the conflict at all. It is illegal to obey an illegal order, just put in writing the order and, the affected legislation. They fire you and you sue them and demand payment for you losses and as a bonus demand they be prosecuted for attempt to issue that illegal order. Don't be a chick shit, a illegal order is an illegal order.
The bug problem is the repeated failure to prosecute all those individual who broke the law based upon illegal orders and pursue those prosecution up the chain of command to those who issued the orders. You are bound by the law and not by those individuals who are temporarily in charge.
They want to issue an illegal order, then demand they put it in writing and then use that instruction to force their prosecution, in writing or not, you never obey an illegal order. I know the US in-justice system is hugely corrupt at the moment but it does not matter, do not be a part of the corruption and the more that resists and refuse the sooner the corruption comes to an end.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Do you seriously think a Black Lawyer who had a small time civil rights practice can become president without being bought?
If you ignore the fact that he was also a law professor and US Senator, maybe...
Clinton looked the other way while the Rwanda genocide happened.
The Republicans said to not get involved, then bashed him for doing what they asked. So when Somalia came up, he did get involved, and was bashed for getting involved. That you bring that up labels you a party hack. Clinton was evil for not sending Americans to their deaths to stabilize an African country, and Clinton was evil for sending Americans to their deaths in Somalia trying to stabilize an African country.
Like any good spinner, you try to be fair and balanced, while being neither. I've voted in every election since '92, and never a winner. So you can't blame me for not voting, and you can't blame me for voting in the idiot who screwed things up. Still not sure who to vote for in '16. The choices aren't set. I may break my streak and, for the first time ever, vote for a winner. Now I'm curious. I've voted in every primary I was eligible for as well, and I think I've also never voted for a winner there, but I hadn't thought about it until just now. The choices are always so bad, primary and election.
Learn to love Alaska
Your sarcasm detector is on the fritz today, eh?
Which, in turn, makes you a villain in world's story... so why should anyone care?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Thanks for making it weird.
Try to make up your mind.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Thanks for making it weird.
That's what she said...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Stop supporting the lessor of two evils .... Cthulhu all the way!
I'm the lessor of two evils!
Sadly, both the Democrats and the Republicans have 99 year leases, with an option to renew.
Is Obama's increase more than Bush's increase over Clinton?
My health insurer keeps begging for my SSN. I consider them having that to comply with the ACA reporting requirements for the IRS being a substantial invasion of my privacy.
I'm sure most people have just naively called the toll free number and handed it over, so they are pretty screwed, if an industry well known for their lack of information security gets hacked. Again. After the new information is in their system.
That's a pretty steep escalation right there.
It cost 100's of millions in Americas corrupt political system to become president.
It's OK; if the Trans Pacific Partnership passes, his debt will be considered paid in full.
1) As others have pointed out, lots of people bitch about obamacare on here. So what's with this claim of no one bitching about obamacare?
2) Obamacare was retroactively revised? Citation needed.
There's always Kissinger, been at it for damn near 50 years. And Brzezinski is still working it... And just look for the world's bankers who work free of national constraints. They make the rules and set the rates. For all practical purposes, the US president is more ceremonial than the Queen. Obama's legacy? He makes the suit look good! But, he's still the celebrity butler to take your selfie with (looks like Lurch standing next to that little Korean motherfucker), let's remember that.
You do realize that the fact that they can't negotiate the prices of pharmaceuticals is due to the republicans and the Bush administration. That occurred before Obama took office with the Medicare part D aspect and now they're cashing in. I just read an article today about how the drug for treating toxoplasmosis went from $13.50/tablet to $750 overnight despite being a 62 year old drug. The drug companies are basically price gouging the US public. In another case they raised the price of Doxycycline, an antibiotic from $20/bottle to $1849/bottle.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Other parts were there to punish uncooperative states
For example?
it's entirely possible to criticize BOTH bush and obama, for the *separate* things they did wrong. you understand that right?
I understand it better than you understand OP's post apparently. OP said pretty much the exact opposite of "someone [Obama] did something bad [obamacare] so someone else [Bush] should be free of criticism for being bad [TFA]".
Yes, it is silly for OP to claim that no one bitches about obamacare on this site. But try to respond to what OP actually said, and not the make-believe words that were in your head.
Serious question here - I understand that people love to hate Obamacare/ACA. But I don't understand why. What's bad about federally mandated healthcare that says the health insurance companies must offer all people coverage, cannot drop us after they pay out a certain amount (no lifetime maximums), and in general sets a specific lower rung for basic minimum coverage to maintain quality of life?
You've answered the question yourself, and you don't even know it.
The answer is "insurance companies".
What the hell do they have to do with healthcare? In the ACA situation, this is what:
* They charge people for health insurance ...and then, when they have a claim, they do their damnedest to deny it, so it becomes an out of pocket expense for the insured.
* They charge doctors for malpractice insurance
* They charge nurses for malpractice insurance
* They charge hospitals for malpractice insurance
* They charge doctors with practices or clinics for liability insurance on the premises
* They charge medical equipment manufacturers for liability insurance on their products
* They charge hospitals for liability insurance
Even better: when they have to pay a claim: most of the money doesn't go to the provider of the insured, it goes to the providers insurance company. Which may or may not be the same company that is paying the claim.
Meanwhile, most of the tort reform that would help limit the damages in any of these cases is held up by the legislators, who get major campaign contributions and endorsements... from the insurance industry.
And the funny part of the last one is that, most of the legislators (including the current president) are lawyers.
And when any of the claims (especially liability or malpractice) get litigated, the people doing it are ...the lawyers. Who would make less money if there were tort reform reducing the maximum damages on liability or malpractice claims.
The funniest part of all? Lawyers *also* have to carry malpractice insurance (and liability insurance, if they have a physical premises)... payable to the insurance industry.
They own us, lock, stock, and barrel.
that as a principled conservative he was actively blocking some of this spying on Constitutional grounds. Instead of honestly reporting this stuff at the time, and explaining to the public that there was a split between the "establishment" and "neocon" Republicans, and the actual conservatives, the journalists in DC were amusing themselves and each other trying to embarrass and provoke Ashcroft. They actually made a game of always trying to position the news photographers so that whatever picture they took of him at justice would have in the background one of those topless female statues, presuming that this would embarrass him with conservatives in middle-America. When the man got annoyed with this "game" and all the distractions it was causing and ordered those statures draped, the press then ran around laughing that he was a prude and writing that he was such a prude he had covered up all the breasts on the statues - very dishonest since he only took the action to try to stop their adolescent game.
Never a peep of honest journalism about Ashcroft and his defense of the privacy rights of the American public, only hostility and attacks by "neutral" journalists who absolutely refused to report on anything good the man did that might even get the support of people on the left. The man was still opposing the spying while very seriously ill in the hospital, when a less-principled man might have used that situation as an excuse to do the politically (an personally) easy thing: give-in.
Too bad Mr Obama never nominated an equally principled Atty Gen and instead insisted on a DNC boot-licker named Holder who has never crossed anybody in his party.
The public option plan existed also (and indeed, was the preferred one). It was scuttled.
It's debatable whether ACA is actually better than what was before it long term. It does force you to buy insurance without putting any meaningful price controls in place on the cost of said insurance.
doesn't have a fucking thing to do with this topic
I quickly debunk your fucking HORSE shit.
The DSM codes have everything to do with "health care."
The DSM comes from PSYCHIATRY, which is a "false science" used to torture people in war, considered to be quacks, but now they are considered the highest doctors in obamacare. Billing / eligibility is also done in these DSM codes which are exploited by bottom feeding end doctors.
Obamacare connects 36 agencies to your medical situation.
Already multiple times these databases have been exploited.
Many of these government agencies have oath breaking scum fuckers working in them.
shit's a fucking nightmare and it's all my fault.
REMEMBER I am the piece of shit, and I need to be WATCHED and SURVEILED and all that...
Those cameras on the streets and the COPS in the hospitals aren't armed against the fuckers losing trillions at a time--No they are pointed at ME, my organic garden. I Must have caused all this. Maybe cause I didn't want to be on statins so I quit eating wheat, sugar, flour, and ate a carrot apple and beet each day and laughed at the fucking pathetic overweight sick hospital doctors. Sick of waiting 6 months to see a cardiologist why not drop 70 lbs and heal yourself instead, fuck the ace inhibitors, blood thinners and beta blockers. Have some grapefruit. The potus wife's food thingy is sick, anyone using the TERM DIET is a SICK delusional fuck, it's Nutrition you want, medical doesn't have nutritionists they have "dieticians" and DSM CODES motherfuckers.
Now wake the fuck up.
My understanding of the package of laws designed to 'defend' against ter ror ism is they have essentially nullified due process in America and a good portion, if not all of the Bill of rights under the constitution have been wound back by the passage of these bills. So who's defending the Constitution against the domestic enemies that seeks to take America over from the inside?
W.Bush passed the laws however Obama hasn't restored due process, so one can only conclude that the American government is no longer controlled by the American people. This is not a political issue any more, it a democratic one of why aren't the people in control anymore? It should be at the top of the list and front page news but it isn't even being talked about. I *wish* our country had the same rights as American citizens however it seems to be that the apathy over what should be the *most* important issue has been glazed over by ignorance and nationalism described as patriotism.
People died for what you have, but no one seems to care. The really cool thing about America was that it was a mercantile nation open for business, not that she is the worlds police.
There is little hope of pleading the first with a media so controlled. 1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. How many times do you see protesters being told to move along when they do?
I only have to look at youtube to see blatant and regular violations of the 4 and 5th
4th: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause
5th: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6th amendment was obilt 8th amendment violations occur even before a trial
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Continuing on after I accidentally posted:
The 6th amendment was obliterated by the anti democrac^h^h^h^htewworism laws: 6th: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
And 8th amendment violations occur even before a trial 8th: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
So with all the vows of defending against domestic enemies, who actually *is* defending the American Constitution against *its* enemies? Furthermore, if the laws passed to suppress democracy to "defend against terrorism" are against the constitution, how can they be legal or even enforceable?
I hope the reminder is welcome because as far as I can see tewworists don't pass laws and something very precious is being lost to ignorance.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Cthulhu is actually a mild one. Nyarlathotep or Yog-Sothoth are big league.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
It has helped less desperately poor by making it easier to qualify for that coverage.
This space intentionally left blank
They hate it because
Black, muslim Obama, born in Africa. Dirty liberal communism and praise our Lord and Savior Donald Trump.
Is what about half of US population has in their heads. Courtesy of Fox News.
Because behinds the scenes, it's the same people running the show.
Who? If you can't give names, it's just paranoia.
Prove that it's "just" paranoia and not true. To ignore history is unforgivable when it is so readily available.
God put Jesus in the midst of Jews with His own spirit in Him.
Is that near the bit where the cat's smile is still there even though he vanishes? I sometimes get these things mixed up.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Let's see: The USA has the most expensive education service, health service, legal service on the planet. It has the biggest military system and prison system on the planet. This is a consequence of small government ideology where small government means corporate welfare means mandatory fascism. A bit like religious fanatics, Americans want to obey the commandments of 'small government', 'tough on crime' and actual Christian ideology (abortion, prostitution, homosexuality) regardless of its real contribution to society. In that rather large aspect, US government is a theocracy.
Domestic corporations use this 'eevil gubermint' mindset to tell Americans that what is good for the wealthy is good for the poor (trickle-down economics, capital gains tax-cuts), and what is good for their competition is bad for everybody else (Google fibre, multiple casinos).
The 'land of opportunity' isn't really an ideology, it's just a example of a slightly or moderately rich person using the legal exploitation of others to become extremely rich (Bill Gates, Donald Trump). The genuine rags-to-riches story is really an anomaly in the labour resource that occurs because the middle layer (tradespersons, white collar employees) of that resource is a meritocracy.
Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden 2016!
That's pretty much it. He had to water it down so congress would pass it, and in the spirit of bipartisanship he went along with it.
He should have insisted it was done properly, or not at all.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
A real nazi dictator. To bad they did not walk out.
Might have prevented the bank collapse and the depression that followed.
Who is forcing the American public to do anything?
Why do you invent scenarios trying to justify the confiscation of freedom and pretend it didn't happen at the same time?
I'll pretend that is a serious question since if it was a joke it'd be funny right? Not even the sarcasm and playing stupid rustled any jimmies. Here's your homework handed to you. If you think i'm looking for alms as AC just go ahead and mail them to Slashdot.
https://encrypted.google.com/#q=how+many+christians+in+the+world
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/
2.18 billion Christians
Global Christianity – A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population. A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 2.18 billion Christians of all ages around the world, representing nearly a third of the estimated 2010 global population of 6.9 billion.Dec 19, 2011
With all those people alive right now that you can ask, you come to Slashdot. Maybe you can find a reliable source before you die. You might not want to wait.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2.18+billion
2.18 billion is 10 decimal digits and you think God is a cat smiling and vanishing or whatever?
https://encrypted.google.com/#q=how+many+jews+in+the+world
15 million
Jewish population figures for the United States are contested, ranging between 5.7 and 6.8 million. (The core global total of Jews jumps above 15 million if the highest American estimates are assumed).
So it looks like you have a lot of questions.
Ask the chicken whirling baby dick suckers that are running banks and mass media. Then ask why they hate Jesus. Ask them how the banking sector is faring for them and also if there's any good news stories lately on Fox. I read they just bought National Geographic. Now they can take and look at pictures of everything God made and still not see Him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/national-geographic-magazine-shifts-to-for-profit-status-with-fox-partnership/2015/09/09/7c9f034e-56f0-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html
http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=69&ch=2&l=22#x
[21] I have not written to you as to them that know not the truth, but as to them that know it: and that no lie is of the truth. [22] Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. [23] Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also. [24] As for you, let that which you have heard from the beginning, abide in you. If that abide in you, which you have heard from the beginning, you also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father. [25] And this is the promise which he hath promised us, life everlasting.
Good "luck" I guess.
Does this mean 'while he happened to be in hospital for something or other, Ashcroft forcefully disagreed with the President's authorization...'
Or does it mean how it reads? "Due to disagreeing forcefully with the President, Ashcroft was hospitalized....
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
The number of people believing something to be true has no bearing on whether or not it actually is true.
The biblical claims of godhood/Jesus' supernatural origins and actions are without any historical or scientific evidence, so there's no reason whatsoever for a rational minded individual to take them as anything but fables and allegory, just like any other old myths.
This is not to say one cannot appreciate the teachings of the supposed character of Jesus, but again, just because you have 2 billion people believing that 2000 years ago the supernatural invisible ruler of the universe fathered himself from a virgin and then schemed to have himself executed as a sacrificial gift to himself to save us from the sin he himself implemented to begin with, does not mean any of this is true, empirical, or logical.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
He's probably referring to the fact that American emergency rooms are not allowed to turn away anyone, regardless of whether they have health insurance or money to pay the bill. Ultimately, the money for an ER visit comes from tax dollars -- the American public.
Running the program intelligently (and fixing bugs on the fly) is precisely the role I think the US President is supposed to fulfil on domestic matters.
No the role of the president should be to implement and execute the law as written by congress. If the time lines were supposed to be felible congress could have easily have said, "starting not before tax year 2014" and left it to the executive to determine the specific when. They did not write that though, they wrote specific dates, which the president then simply ignored and did his own thing, which he is not entitled to do.
The President has a chance to second guess Congress, its call the veto. if a law is so specific as to be unworkable the president should veto it, and tell Congress why. "I am vetoing this law that I generally like because I can't possibly implement it as written with resources allocated, either send me a version with looser constraints or give me a larger allocation of assets to work with" would be a perfectly presidential response IMHO. Just ignoring the parts you don't like or can't effect on the other hand is just illegal. The rest of us don't get to do that!
Sorry mister firemarshall I would have installed a centralized fire detection system while converting this to a commercial space but you known the building is old, and there was no way we were going to be able to run the cables in time... Would not fly.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Insures ask for huge price hikes every year. But they cannot just raise their rates, they actually need permission from the state to do that.
They are better off in massive debt? So you are saying they are better off with no chance of ever being able to dig themselves out of poverty?
Health care in the US is an ideological issue, and I don't get why.
Because we are programmed from the time we can walk to know that 'communism' and 'socialism' are evil.
Business interests have convinced Americans that a single payer health system = socialism (or communism to those who can't tell the difference), thus the ideological aspect of the discussion which is actually a capitalism vs. 'communism' propaganda issue.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Obama has increased the violations of privacy started under Bush; he is worse
The implication of that statement is that he has no real control over the situation. He is a different person from a different political party. Things should be different, not necessarily better or worse, but definitely not the same. It is like a new president was never even elected.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
You mean the thing that just went to the supreme court?
Like Citizens United?
Further, Obama has had six years to fix this "evil" and hasn't. And yet, nobody is blaming him for not doing anything about it ... because he is "your kind of evil" so you overlook it.
Or, some of us recognize of all the many screwed up things going on, this "evil" ranks lower than other stuff we'd rather agitate for/see fixed.
If Obama doesn't have control over the situation, then neither did Bush, and liberals should stop blaming GWB. The problem is, they want to blame everyone with an (R) behind their name, while absolving everyone with a (D). Party politics is poison to the brain.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Very interesting. Good to know, thanks! That is a significant downside, and I'd never heard that before. But if one company raised their rates 25%, and another company raised their rates 5%, which one is going to get more clients? The companies will be doing themselves significant harm if they raise their rates substantially while other companies do not. If they all raise their rates, then there is possible collusion going on because that's not how a free market normally operates. Government will step in to take another look at it. Instead, I expect there will be some health insurance companies out there that raise their rates more in line with economic growth, and they will grow vastly quicker than insurance companies that try to raise rates by 25%. If all baseline health insurance is equal (minimum standards required by ACA law), then deciding between insurance companies is irrelevant - you simply pick the cheapest unless you want more than the minimum standards. The companies will figure this out very quickly. Rates will probably fluctuate dramatically for a couple years, but they'll stabilize once they see they are losing significant numbers of clients. Doctors will quit if rates are decreased significantly, since it will no longer be worth their many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars for education. Yes, I'd like cheaper health insurance too, but there is a bottom line somewhere that should be found where doctors make enough to be happy, but not so much that individuals get reamed on cost.
The crazy is strong with this one.
Wake up, you need to see a psychiatrist to get your issues looked at.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Keep thinking that and not understanding why people hate you for being a partisan asshole.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You're right it's illegal to obey an illegal order. But often most of us can't predict which orders will be illegal. Orders in general are prima facie legal, and when an executive arm of government says its legal, it's pretty hard to disobey it, not least because they can fire you, so it takes big balls to fight it.
Because ... socialism!!!
Sigh, There are times that it is good to see the past changed, this is not one of them. 1. The Congress and Senate were both controlled by Democrats. 2. There was a Republican Senator that was ready to vote yes on anything that came down the line, and publicly stated so. (Senator Olympia Snow). 3. This gave the Democratic Senate Filibuster Proof votes. 4. There was no problem with the House for the Democrats. In summary, President Obama said (paraphrasing), This is what I think should happen, (Did not actually propose any legislation for it) but you guys hammer it out. Then the Democratic Party came up with what we have today.
One thing that amazes me about American politics is how they get caught up on certain issues forever, while a lot of other countries seem to just move on to newer problems after making a decision. Abortion is a good example - I could barely believe how Planned Parenthood funding was a core debate subject at the Republican leader debate (sad when that was the most entertaining TV on).
That is amazing to you? If you believe abortion is murdering babies, then you aren't going to "move on." Anti-war protesters don't "move on" until the war ends or their country stop participating. You're talking about things that are an affront to these people, and expecting them to shrug it off and talk about highway funding or fiscal minutia is naive.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
It's only "wiretapping" if you search through it after having collected and stored everything.
Not a start. A subversion.
"trickle-down economics"
This is a federal reserve issue. Why do they think constant inflation to make rich people spend is good?
The price control is called "competition". The classifications and marketplaces are intended to allow comparison shopping. An insurance company that charges a lot more than the others will have no business, while one that undercuts the others will get a lot of business.
I am required to buy auto insurance, since I insist on driving on public roads. I can shop by price, and change insurance companies to save money. It works essentially the same way.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The price control is called "competition".
Yeah, right.
I am required to buy auto insurance, since I insist on driving on public roads. I can shop by price, and change insurance companies to save money. It works essentially the same way.
Yes, and it's equally ridiculous. In BC, for example, the auto insurance company is run by the state, allowing it to control prices, so mandating it makes sense.
If you NEED names, you're stupid
He's worse, because his Democrat party traditionally has been one that was more believing in privacy, at least for the last 20 years. Before that, not so much. The fact of the matter is, Democrats are as evil, if not more so, than Republicans, mostly because they are the intellectual heirs of Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin, and act accordingly.
Actually, some of us citizens of the USA who are genuine conservatives (probably a small number) think all of these people are obscenely evil and deserve to be sent somewhere else in the universe - alpha centuri, perhaps, because they have mostly destroyed this nation, and the western world, and continue to do so. Unfortunately, it's the liberals who have embraced the 1984-esque scenarios whilst the "conservatives" have embraced the Brave New World scenarios. And the difference is?
Impressive. But probably so stupid you or maybe even me doesn't even know what it did...
Er, whatever. Sad thing is, I'm not making this shit up..
Yeah reading the title made me think Bush and Ashcroft argued, Bush stood over him like the knights saying knee to the old woman, forcing her all the way to the hospital. Argue with me and I'll use my Skull and Bones powers to wreck your elderly pancreas.
Correcting bad or imprecise grammar is not Nazi fascist behavior. If one forces your grammar onto a train, and steals all your stuff, then it would be more Nazi like. Correcting grammar is more like Allied gents rescuing the grammar from starvation and enslavement.
Running the program intelligently (and fixing bugs on the fly) is precisely the role I think the US President is supposed to fulfil on domestic matters.
No the role of the president should be to implement and execute the law as written by congress. If the time lines were supposed to be felible congress could have easily have said, "starting not before tax year 2014" and left it to the executive to determine the specific when. They did not write that though, they wrote specific dates, which the president then simply ignored and did his own thing, which he is not entitled to do.
The President has a chance to second guess Congress, its call the veto. if a law is so specific as to be unworkable the president should veto it, and tell Congress why. "I am vetoing this law that I generally like because I can't possibly implement it as written with resources allocated, either send me a version with looser constraints or give me a larger allocation of assets to work with" would be a perfectly presidential response IMHO.
And just like software mistake happen and you have to deal with them.
Just ignoring the parts you don't like or can't effect on the other hand is just illegal. The rest of us don't get to do that!
Sorry mister firemarshall I would have installed a centralized fire detection system while converting this to a commercial space but you known the building is old, and there was no way we were going to be able to run the cables in time... Would not fly.
The rest of us weren't given an electoral mandate specifically to implement laws with some degree of discretion.
Clearly he doesn't have complete discretion, the specific line is for the SCOTUS to decide, but I think saying "this deadline as laid out is clearly a problem because of X which the law didn't anticipate".
Consider the alternative which is software code where you literally have to cover every possible contingency and even trivial bills would take months or even years to write and be orders of magnitude larger.
Or you could make the bills so vague that the president really can do whatever they want.
Given that I think the current system "this is what we want, get as close as possible without being stupid" works pretty well.
I stole this Sig
Ignorance of the law is not excuse, unsure about the risk, check but make no mistake, there will be an accounting, a new Nuremberg trials and claiming to be a chicken shit will not save you.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The number of people believing something to be true has no bearing on whether or not it actually is true.
The biblical claims of godhood/Jesus' supernatural origins and actions are without any historical or scientific evidence, so there's no reason whatsoever for a rational minded individual to take them as anything but fables and allegory, just like any other old myths.
This is not to say one cannot appreciate the teachings of the supposed character of Jesus, but again, just because you have 2 billion people believing that 2000 years ago the supernatural invisible ruler of the universe fathered himself from a virgin and then schemed to have himself executed as a sacrificial gift to himself to save us from the sin he himself implemented to begin with, does not mean any of this is true, empirical, or logical.
2015 years ago.
http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-13.htm
That sucks for you if you can't figure it out. I would not be the slightest bit surprised based on what you said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVNzmb_eWyI
Do you actually want government price controls? I'd rather have market-based competition. It tends to make the economy work better, when applicable.
The drug price gouging you referred to is possible only in a monopoly situation, which is why I don't want to be in an area where there is a "the auto insurance company". If there's five businesses competing for my money, and I can pick and choose, there will be an option at a reasonable price (considering costs of production and whatever).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I want either a true free market with competition (i.e. the one where I'm not required to go shopping), or else a properly regulated market. Anything in between is unacceptable, because it is forcing me to buy a product from a private party without limiting how much the party can charge me; in such a market, the natural strategy for the providers is to collude on prices.
Lol. First of all, I was rounding the number because the ex act number of claimed years is irrelevant to the point that I was making, which is that there's no evidence that any of the supposed miraculous claims occurred. Do you obviously believe I am so stupid I don't know what year we're living in, or what the Gregorian calendar is supposedly based on? Really, are you that dense?
Secondly, if you had any clue as to how the timeline was actually derived back when the church was trying to calculate it, you'd know that the probable estimated birth date of Jesus is not in fact AD 1, but closer to AD 4-7. So not only is your logic of latching on to a rounded year figure dumb as fuck, you're also ignorant of the actual historical estimates of the guy you hold, without any evidence, to be the son of God.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Did Bush promise "hope" and "change"?
You hyphy little faggot calm your bitch tits. AD and BC are references to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
The terms anno Domini[1][2][3] (AD or A.D.) and before Christ [4][5][6][7] (BC or B.C.) are used to label or number years in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. The term anno Domini is Medieval Latin, which means in the year of the Lord [8] but is often translated as in the year of our Lord .[9][10]:782 It is occasionally set out more fully as anno Domini nostri Iesu (or Jesu) Christi ("in the year of Our Lord Jesus Christ ").
This calendar era is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus of Nazareth , with AD counting years from the start of this epoch, and BC denoting years before the start of the era.
I assure you that as much as you think you are this big internet bad ass mother fucker, you are just a dying skeleton on your best day. You are at most an Earth decoration. A vapor. A mist that appears for a little while then vanishes. http://biblehub.com/james/4-14.htm
anti-Christians are somewhat like space farts. Apparently this includes you, and Jews.
Evidence is literally everywhere. But.. https://youtu.be/ZVNzmb_eWyI?t=205
http://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/4-4.htm
Talk all the internet farts you can manage to squeeze out of your shit head. Sucks to be you I get it.
Have some free clues. (And I'm smarter than you.)
Foreign Affairs: Bush promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building. He had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."
One of the only things he's remembered for is nation building, interventionist policies that invaded Iraq for fabricated reasons.
So no, Bush didn't promise Hope and Change. But he didn't deliver on any of his promises, rarely do candidates.
Learn to love Alaska
In something like this, there are going to be people looking for price collusion. It doesn't seem to have affected the auto insurance market.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes