With the way the current administration is gutting surveillance and interrogation methods, and presenting the world with the "weak horse" image, don't count on that.
No, Obama made sure to give the _impression_ that his campaign was funded entirely by us the citizens.
Since basic credit card verification was deliberately disabled on web sites taking donations for Obama, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know who funded his campaign. Search the web for "Doodad Pro" if you seek enlightenment.
You shouldn't use your position as a US Senator to funnel money to the hospital which invented a VERY lucrative job for your wife.
You shouldn't use your position as Speaker of the House to push through laws which favor your husband's employer, saving said employer millions of dollars.
It reeks of corruption and distracts from the argument when it's brought to light - except when it's not brought to the general public's attention because it's an inconvenient truth for the MSM.
If you won't face THOSE conflicts of interest, then spare us your phoney concern over the examples you mentioned.
> I don't get it, where do you people get that everyone thought of Obama as a messiah?
Oh, maybe the people who swooned over him, believing his speeches meant more than his actions. Or perhaps Mr. Farrakhan, who SAID Obama was the Messiah.
> The vast majority of Americans are asking for a giant pork bill.
The polls show otherwise, and Wall Street (i.e., millions of investors) seems to differ with your opinion. In fact, the latest poll I saw said that the American people greatly favored tax cuts over increased government spending as a stimulus measure.
> that much money which was previously something the former administration liked doing
THAT much money? Sorry - but this is the biggest appropriations bill EVER. Interesting note - for all the (legitimate, IMHO) griping about government spending too much, it took a sharp jump in 2007 and 2008. Hmmm... which party was controlling Congress then?
> the idea of borrowing several billion dollars to give people a tax cut is also quite absurd
Actually, it's pretty well established that tax RATE cuts DO increase tax revenue, because they encourage business growth. Even the Obamessiah acknowledged this in an interview, but said it was more "fair" to hike the rates on the wealthy even if it actually reduced tax collections.
I could laugh at the ways Obama's lies will disappoint his devoted followers, if I didn't know that _I_ would also be negatively affected by his devotion to ever-expanding government.
Care to cite a reference for the Rossum's alleged comment? I think "the whitespace problem" is actually one of Python's big advantages, since it greatly enhances program readability.
> He is essentially correct, replace TV with Radio and the larger picture he was painting is correct.
And here you illustrate your ignorance of history. Roosevelt was NOT president in 1929.
Biden made numerous false and/or ignorant statements during the debate (like the US and France kicking Hezbollah out of Lebanon (it never happened)), and he was given a pass by the MSM.
"the state of Alaska wound up passing a law banning the practice statewide for no reason but to force Palin to stop charging rape victims"
Really? Can you cite any publications at the time which said "this is being done in response to Sarah Palin's policy?" Or are you just making up that part?
Sorry, but there are no records of anyone being charged for rape kits in Wasila during Palin's time in government there, and it's not obvious that she was even aware of the policy.
And stupid comments like "he picked her because she just HAS tits and ovaries" display an astounding ignorance of the bloggers and columnists who were suggesting her as vice presidential material because of her ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
"OMG his name is Barack Hussein Obama, he's a terrorist!"
Can you say "straw man"? I hope so. Obama is opposed because of his RECORD (his votes, allies, and practices (like funneling taxpayer and Annenberg money to radical lefties and racists)), which some people consider to be more significant than his eloquence.
But repeating convenient lies is probably more comfortable for you than actually LOOKING up the facts.
>Good thing I judge a president by how well they can manipulate me then.
You must judge Obama really well, then. After all, a great many people believe his tripe about bringing America together when he's done nothing of the sort (voting with the far-Left, allying himself with far-Lefties, America-haters, and racist demagogues).
>I am sick to death of the rampant corruption within the republican party.
But you're OK with the corruption within the Democrat Party, right? Especially with a politician from Chicago, one of the most notoriously corrupt cities in this country? Or the corrupt Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank, and their corrupt buddies Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick?
It's ludicrous to suggest that abortion laws will stay the same regardless of candidate. Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate the Democrats have ever run - he even voted against an anti-infanticide bill because he thought it might deter abortions.
Abortion is important enough that Obama has pledged that his FIRST ACT AS PRESIDENT will be to sign the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act", which will strike down ANY restrictions (Federal or state) on abortion (even parental notice laws). He also favors subsidizing abortions, and would urge a Democrat-controlled Congress to repeal the Hyde amendment, which currently prohibits such subsidies.
As for the stated differences which you pooh-poohed, at least one difference wasn't mentioned: energy. McCain favors research, development and exploration of every possible energy source. Obama claims to support "limited" offshore drilling, but his actual votes have been in favor of blocking such activities. Given his party's marriage to environmental extremists (my definition for the sort of person who, in practice, opposes virtually every source of energy), I rather doubt he'll change his approach if he becomes President.
As an aside, I recall the Slashdot hysteria over Diebold voting machines, and people claiming that the Diebold CEO's pledge to help Republicans meant that he would have those machines programmed to steal elections for Republicans. Now that the major source of vote fraud appears to be a Democrat ally (ACORN), can I expect to see similar hysteria about that group's activities? (there's solid evidence about their fraud, as opposed to mere speculation about Diebold)
> Fun fact: the only song he has ever written that directly apes the source material is "Smells Like Nirvana".
That's not true.
"Achy Breaky Song" is a complaint about "Achy Breaky Heart", and "This Song is (Just) Six Words Long" is obviously poking fun at "I've Got My Mind Set On You" ("This song has got plenty of music, but just six words child. And so I'll sing them over, and over and over and over, etc.")
> She also fired her town's librarian for refusing to allow Palin to ban books.
Lie.
When she'd won the mayoral election, she asked for the resignation of public officials who'd supported her opponent. She included the librarian in this group.
Oh, and the librarian wasn't fired. She resigned almost THREE YEARS LATER.
But that fact doesn't fit your "religious extremist" meme, and therefore must be ignored.
You left out "filthy rich trial lawyers", like the late (politically, that is) unlamented Mr. Edwards.
Healthcare costs have increased because of one fundamental fact - people who perceive that a service is free (or nearly so) have no reason to self-ration their use of that service. When the State runs the show, healthcare is still rationed, but the financial decisions (i.e., the comparison of costs to benefits) are made by bureaucrats (in England they've decreed that heart surgery will simply be unavailable for people over a certain age - 70, IIRC).
Your statement doesn't agree with basic math - union membership has steadily declined for decades (except where a monopoly (i.e., government) results in no competition for the employer).
So the union companies are more likely the first to go (going out of business, rather than offshoring)
They're not preventing redistribution - they're simply distributing in a way which makes it slightly more difficult to redistribute. I have Firefox plugins which allow me to save the flash video OR download the mp4 version, instead.
Buffett may _say_ he should pay more in taxes, but I rather doubt he believes it.
If he believes it, then why is his company fighting the IRS (which claims the company owes more in taxes than it has paid)?
Sorry, but that's a lie. How can I tell? Easy.
Buffett is a liberal Democrat who has publicly promoted the idea of higher taxes for wealthy people (like him), so it's simply not possible for him to pay a lower tax rate than his gardener.
Oh, and the "they pay a significantly less percentage" statement is also a lie (it's grammatically challenged, too), as any perusal of tax demographics (i.e., average percentage of income paid in tax for people in a given income bracket) will show.
Slashdot Mirror
This was performance art by the Obama administration, the better to show people what paranoid idiots they are.
Indeed - people are paranoid idiots when they see an unusual event which looks a lot like a previous event, and suspect it may have the same result.
I'm sorry, but this time you are the idiot.
It's one of those once-in-a-lifetime events.
With the way the current administration is gutting surveillance and interrogation methods, and presenting the world with the "weak horse" image, don't count on that.
Indeed, everyone should be willing to spend millions of dollars on such endeavors just for the joy of participating.
You first.
No, Obama made sure to give the _impression_ that his campaign was funded entirely by us the citizens.
Since basic credit card verification was deliberately disabled on web sites taking donations for Obama, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know who funded his campaign. Search the web for "Doodad Pro" if you seek enlightenment.
You shouldn't use your position as a US Senator to funnel money to the hospital which invented a VERY lucrative job for your wife.
You shouldn't use your position as Speaker of the House to push through laws which favor your husband's employer, saving said employer millions of dollars.
It reeks of corruption and distracts from the argument when it's brought to light - except when it's not brought to the general public's attention because it's an inconvenient truth for the MSM.
If you won't face THOSE conflicts of interest, then spare us your phoney concern over the examples you mentioned.
> I don't get it, where do you people get that everyone thought of Obama as a messiah?
Oh, maybe the people who swooned over him, believing his speeches meant more than his actions. Or perhaps Mr. Farrakhan, who SAID Obama was the Messiah.
> The vast majority of Americans are asking for a giant pork bill.
The polls show otherwise, and Wall Street (i.e., millions of investors) seems to differ with your opinion. In fact, the latest poll I saw said that the American people greatly favored tax cuts over increased government spending as a stimulus measure.
> that much money which was previously something the former administration liked doing
THAT much money? Sorry - but this is the biggest appropriations bill EVER. Interesting note - for all the (legitimate, IMHO) griping about government spending too much, it took a sharp jump in 2007 and 2008. Hmmm ... which party was controlling Congress then?
> the idea of borrowing several billion dollars to give people a tax cut is also quite absurd
Actually, it's pretty well established that tax RATE cuts DO increase tax revenue, because they encourage business growth. Even the Obamessiah acknowledged this in an interview, but said it was more "fair" to hike the rates on the wealthy even if it actually reduced tax collections.
I could laugh at the ways Obama's lies will disappoint his devoted followers, if I didn't know that _I_ would also be negatively affected by his devotion to ever-expanding government.
I'm sure R Gerard Salemme, AT&T, and Clearwire are very grateful for this decision.
I'm also sure they'll find some way to express that gratitude during the next Congressional campaign.
Care to cite a reference for the Rossum's alleged comment? I think "the whitespace problem" is actually one of Python's big advantages, since it greatly enhances program readability.
> He is essentially correct, replace TV with Radio and the larger picture he was painting is correct.
And here you illustrate your ignorance of history. Roosevelt was NOT president in 1929.
Biden made numerous false and/or ignorant statements during the debate (like the US and France kicking Hezbollah out of Lebanon (it never happened)), and he was given a pass by the MSM.
"the state of Alaska wound up passing a law banning the practice statewide for no reason but to force Palin to stop charging rape victims"
Really? Can you cite any publications at the time which said "this is being done in response to Sarah Palin's policy?" Or are you just making up that part?
Sorry, but there are no records of anyone being charged for rape kits in Wasila during Palin's time in government there, and it's not obvious that she was even aware of the policy.
And stupid comments like "he picked her because she just HAS tits and ovaries" display an astounding ignorance of the bloggers and columnists who were suggesting her as vice presidential material because of her ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
"OMG his name is Barack Hussein Obama, he's a terrorist!"
Can you say "straw man"? I hope so. Obama is opposed because of his RECORD (his votes, allies, and practices (like funneling taxpayer and Annenberg money to radical lefties and racists)), which some people consider to be more significant than his eloquence.
But repeating convenient lies is probably more comfortable for you than actually LOOKING up the facts.
>Good thing I judge a president by how well they can manipulate me then.
You must judge Obama really well, then. After all, a great many people believe his tripe about bringing America together when he's done nothing of the sort (voting with the far-Left, allying himself with far-Lefties, America-haters, and racist demagogues).
>I am sick to death of the rampant corruption within the republican party.
But you're OK with the corruption within the Democrat Party, right? Especially with a politician from Chicago, one of the most notoriously corrupt cities in this country? Or the corrupt Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank, and their corrupt buddies Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick?
It's ludicrous to suggest that abortion laws will stay the same regardless of candidate. Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate the Democrats have ever run - he even voted against an anti-infanticide bill because he thought it might deter abortions.
Abortion is important enough that Obama has pledged that his FIRST ACT AS PRESIDENT will be to sign the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act", which will strike down ANY restrictions (Federal or state) on abortion (even parental notice laws). He also favors subsidizing abortions, and would urge a Democrat-controlled Congress to repeal the Hyde amendment, which currently prohibits such subsidies.
As for the stated differences which you pooh-poohed, at least one difference wasn't mentioned: energy. McCain favors research, development and exploration of every possible energy source. Obama claims to support "limited" offshore drilling, but his actual votes have been in favor of blocking such activities. Given his party's marriage to environmental extremists (my definition for the sort of person who, in practice, opposes virtually every source of energy), I rather doubt he'll change his approach if he becomes President.
As an aside, I recall the Slashdot hysteria over Diebold voting machines, and people claiming that the Diebold CEO's pledge to help Republicans meant that he would have those machines programmed to steal elections for Republicans. Now that the major source of vote fraud appears to be a Democrat ally (ACORN), can I expect to see similar hysteria about that group's activities? (there's solid evidence about their fraud, as opposed to mere speculation about Diebold)
Uhh... it's "Bargle Nawdle Zauss"
Don't you young whippersnappers know ANYTHING? (time for me to start singing "When I Was Your Age")
> Fun fact: the only song he has ever written that directly apes the source material is "Smells Like Nirvana".
That's not true.
"Achy Breaky Song" is a complaint about "Achy Breaky Heart", and "This Song is (Just) Six Words Long" is obviously poking fun at "I've Got My Mind Set On You" ("This song has got plenty of music, but just six words child. And so I'll sing them over, and over and over and over, etc.")
> She also fired her town's librarian for refusing to allow Palin to ban books.
Lie.
When she'd won the mayoral election, she asked for the resignation of public officials who'd supported her opponent. She included the librarian in this group.
Oh, and the librarian wasn't fired. She resigned almost THREE YEARS LATER.
But that fact doesn't fit your "religious extremist" meme, and therefore must be ignored.
You left out "filthy rich trial lawyers", like the late (politically, that is) unlamented Mr. Edwards.
Healthcare costs have increased because of one fundamental fact - people who perceive that a service is free (or nearly so) have no reason to self-ration their use of that service. When the State runs the show, healthcare is still rationed, but the financial decisions (i.e., the comparison of costs to benefits) are made by bureaucrats (in England they've decreed that heart surgery will simply be unavailable for people over a certain age - 70, IIRC).
Your statement doesn't agree with basic math - union membership has steadily declined for decades (except where a monopoly (i.e., government) results in no competition for the employer).
So the union companies are more likely the first to go (going out of business, rather than offshoring)
They're not preventing redistribution - they're simply distributing in a way which makes it slightly more difficult to redistribute. I have Firefox plugins which allow me to save the flash video OR download the mp4 version, instead.
Did you also mention that those countries have a much higher unemployment rate than the US, and that has been true for decades?
Buffett may _say_ he should pay more in taxes, but I rather doubt he believes it.
If he believes it, then why is his company fighting the IRS (which claims the company owes more in taxes than it has paid)?
Sorry, but that's a lie. How can I tell? Easy. Buffett is a liberal Democrat who has publicly promoted the idea of higher taxes for wealthy people (like him), so it's simply not possible for him to pay a lower tax rate than his gardener.
Oh, and the "they pay a significantly less percentage" statement is also a lie (it's grammatically challenged, too), as any perusal of tax demographics (i.e., average percentage of income paid in tax for people in a given income bracket) will show.
The Voyager round-the-world aircraft was originally sketched on the back of a napkin at a Mojave restaurant.
I extract the magnets and slap them on the fridge. A typical hard drive magnet is strong enough to keep a legal pad stuck there.