Ponzi Scheme definition: an investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.
So you are saying that if everyone currently paying into SS were to stop paying (and possibly receive their investment back if they promise never to claim benefits), then all people currently receiving benefits would continue to receive those benefit in perpetuity based solely on their own contributions? If that's not the case then SS pretty much meets the textbook definition of a Ponzi Scheme.
The ODA only focuses on official government aid in calculating it's results. The main problem with that it the US, in general, places a very high value on independence and as such they prefer to donate on an individual front and not through federal committee.
The Index of Global Philanthropy (warning, this is a PDF) gives a much more accurate view of international giving.
To be fair, Sweden is still in the #1 spot as a percentage of GNI, but the numbers are much closer. You'll can also notice most of the top countries on the ODA graph have exceptionally small values for personal donations and the US appears to be the only country where personal donations exceed governmental.
China currently pays for 3% of UN activities (Canada actually pays more than that), the US 22%.
I don't think China will care one iota about a possible chance to increase their funding for UN projects knowing full well the UN is merely a symbolic body that nobody takes seriously.
China's influence comes almost entirely from it's ability to provide extreme amounts of cheap labor. They don't really have any use for the UN except to use them to help prop up some of their allies around the world. Any additional influence China will gain on the world stage will happen in a boardroom, not in an UN council meeting.
One small problem with your great plan; most UN actions require US funding or participation to be affective. Seeing the US currently funds almost 1/4 of all UN activities, if they simply stopped paying how much do you think the UN would manage to accomplish (as if they accomplish much now).
The resolutions may continue flying off the desks of UN diplomats but they will be even more worthless that the ones currently filling their books.
If the US just decided to give their UN dues to charity instead the world would be a much better place.
Almost any basic level 82 green will beat 80 epics, except possibly where set bonuses come into play, and even then you'd only have to wait for a level 83 green.
I ran a LK raid for fun while leveling a toon not too long ago (was either 83 or 84 at the time), wearing almost all greens with an occasional quest blue, and was pulling dps that I only dreamed about when actually wearing full icc gear.
The changes in stats on even level 78+ cata greens compared to pre-cata everything else is like day and night.
Looks like my earlier post didn't work for some reason so time for try #2, the less sarcastic version.
If you really want to call someone lame you may want to take a brief second to think about what you are typing; possibly form your statement into a question and see if you can answer it yourself: How can a person stay home and still be heard?
I know Slashdot has veered far off the tech front from time to time but I would think that a person who has spent any time on here or for that matter, any time outside of a locked room in their parents basement would have heard of the wonderful advancements in telecommunications. For those apparently unaware of the wonders of this industry, as in the parents case, humans now have the ability to transmit text, speech, and even images over great distance without requiring a person to physically travel from their location to that of the listener. They can even sync them all together so that the receiver sees the sender and hears his words at the same time. I know it's a bit unbelievable, but trust me, the tech does exist.
You would think that a person so concerned about the amount of carbon dioxide they are introducing to the atmosphere, would be championing the use of this technology to spread his message instead of flying to tropical island or hopscotching the globe to talk to everyone in person. Hell, you'd think someone so concerned would at least fly commercial.
Imagine, if only we could come up with the technology to allow Al Gore, or any other number of proponents of AGM, to communicate without having to take private jets to tropical islands to hold conventions about how mankind's use of inefficient means of transportation is destroying our world. Say a device that allows sound, or even images (hey if we are imagining a fantasy future tech we may as well go big) to be transmitted from one location to another without the need for the person themselves to make the environmentally damaging trip.
But of course, since that type of tech only exists in sci-fi novels we'll just have to sit and wait for the day that it becomes reality. Until them I guess we should all just sit here quietly and understand that while Al Gore et al. might preach restraint in the use of CO2 emitting machines, they can't be expected to observe it themselves because there is no other way to get the word out.
I liked the movie in general but that entire scene of them administering the newly redesigned drug was sooooo painful to watch. From the delivery method to their security procedures it made me wish I had gone for a snack break and missed those 5 minutes. I would have rather just heard someone describe it, after the fact, and assumed it couldn't be as bad as they made it sound then to see such a blatantly bad scene be projected on screen just to push the story along.
Still a good movie but a little more imagination would have helped.
I guess you missed the part where the drug doesn't make the humans dumb but DEAD. Not much of a rebellion needed when you're enemy manages to kill himself off.
At the end the apes seemed happy enough to just sit around in the trees.
You're assuming all risks end with yourself. They don't.
Semi Spoiler - If a drug using a virus based delivery system has side affects on it's subject it's not just the subject who has to deal with it. But then I guess you're fine with untested viral mutations being spread willy nilly amongst populated areas.
If you're willing to receive the cure but stay confined to a medical lab for long term monitoring then feel free, although having a disease that primarily targets the brain and reduces cognitive skills who is to say that you are in your right mind when volunteering to become a human guinea pig.
According to the CBO revenues increased every year after 2003 (the year the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented) and at a rate more than 2 times inflation. You can argue the "why", but not the numbers. It could have been a natural bounce back after a tech bubble recession and an unprecedented terrorist attack on American soil or it may have been an affect of the tax cuts increasing disposable income and making investing more appealing, or it may have been any number of other things or all of the above.
Claiming the tax breaks cost 1.8 trillion in revenue (over 10 years) should be taken with a big grain of salt since it is merely a hypothetical number based on assumptions of the rate at which the economy would have grown without the cuts in place; an impossible situation to completely predict, but it is also really a moot point. As the the historical data clearly shows, there was more than enough revenue coming into the government coffers to maintain all programs, even accounting for inflation. The problem was and is that politicians always love to expand and create new programs and the concept of 'living within their means' is completely foreign on Capital Hill, regardless of who is holding the purse strings.
Are you even in the right thread? We were discussing Bush tax cuts and revenue, not the Clinton vs. Obama economies.
But for the record both Clinton and the Republican Congress lucked out in that the economy they oversaw was riding high on both the tech and start of the housing bubbles without ever really having to deal with the downturns. It was a dream time in the US economy before people started to wake up and realize that maybe some of these companies who produced no real goods and had no real income strategies weren't really worth their overinflated values and that maybe it wasn't a good idea to give people mortgages on houses that are worth more than 20 times their yearly income.
You can argue their effectiveness and impact but the facts are that federal revenues did increase after the original Bush tax cuts, and at a historic rate.
Some people have hypothesized that they would have increased at a higher rate if not for the cuts and some have hypothesized the opposite, and both have some evidence to back their claims, but the hard numbers do show a rise in revenues above the norm. The problem was there was also a rise in spending to offset any revenue gains.
Even under the loosest reading of the US constitution military action still requires consent from Congress, whether the UN is involved or not. The UN simply gives international cover to an argument for attacking Libya but does not override any member nations requirements for domestic authorization. Member states routinely refuse to commit troops to various UN actions all over the world based on their own domestic policy because the UN itself doesn't have the authority to order them to take part.
Even under the War Powers Act Obama's own limited authority to commit military personnel expired in June and even that the WPA was adequate cover for his actions was an argument many of the Federal government's own lawyers rejected.
Simply put, Obama's entire legal argument for continued US actions in Libya, and I am not making this up, is that firing missiles from drones at targets within a sovereign nation does not constitute 'hostilities'.
Is 10 seconds of typing on Google really that hard for you to do or would exposure to real data cause such a disruption to your twisted reality that they don't let you have access to it at your 'institution'.
Libya was authorized under, opps, sorry I don't have a congressional bill authorizing the President to dedicate troops to that war and no matter what flowery speech you or Obama try to hide behind, when your goal is the ouster of a sitting leader of an independent country through military action, that's generally considered a war. Even if you go by the original excuse of only blowing up Libyan government installations and military bases to defend the rebels, you are still actively attacking the official government while aiding armed revolutionaries; sorry, still a war. Of course if you think launching almost 100 tomahawk cruise missiles at a country you are not 'at war' with is just being neighborly then remind me never to let you anywhere near a weapon of any kind.
As for the UN, you may want to look it up but the UN does not supersede the United States Congress when it comes to committing American forces into an active combat role. The Congress can use the UN as a reason or even an excuse to commit troops but the US Constitution still requires their consent.
Now I personally don't have any issue with taking out Gaddafi, I personally think this should have been the stated goal on day 1, but then again I'm Canadian and our government sent our troops over there following our legal process. Obama, on the other hand decided to completely ignore that the US Constitution separates the powers of the various branches of government for a reason and decided that he didn't need anyone elses approval, despite what all the lawyers at the DOJ and State department said.
I also find it funny that just because you happen to have a tingle up your leg for the current head of the executive branch you have no problem with him unilaterally committing US troops to killing Libyan's just because the UN asked nicely. I may not 'give a rat's ass about another living being on this earth' but I'd rather my government follow the proper chain of command before taking action that results in killing people half way across the world.
You can debate the how and why of things but the fact is after the Bush tax cuts federal revenues increased at an historically high level. Whether this was directly or even partially because of the tax cuts doesn't really matter at this point, but it does show that federal income really isn't the problem.
The problem is that for every extra dollar coming in Feds will always find a pet project to spend 2 dollars on, and it really doesn't matter who is in charge. Add to that the complete bastardization of the Commerce Clause to try and make every issue a federal one and you get a central government spending untold millions to prevent such small time activity as preventing a farmer from giving some of his extra crop to his next door neighbor simply because they can, even if no state borders are ever crossed or even money exchanged.
On good thing about this possible shut down is that there is more than enough income to pay for interest payments, social security, veteran's affairs, the military and all the health dept., despite what your President keeps repeating, but it may smarten some in congress to realize it's time to stop trying to put their fingers into everyone elses pie and let the State and local governments earn their tax dollars.
Could you provide a link to the President's plan. I know more than a few reporters that would be interested in seeing a written copy with some real numbers too.
If you want to argue technicalities Congress is also the only US political body with the ability to declare war, not the President, and it was Congress that voted on two bills authorizing the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President can only authorize the use of force without Congressional approval when the United States is facing a direct threat to it's security, and even then it is limited and is supposed to be followed by approval by the congress.
The only President to bypass this constitutional requirement in the last 10 years has been Obama with his sustained military intervention in Libya.
Rogers seems to use a throttling method of simply randomly dropping P2P connections when they exceed a certain number (and that number is awfully low). Since WoW uses some form of P2P protocol during game play, and not just when a patch is available but all the time, if you happen to be downloading ANYTHING else with a BT client then there is a chance that the WoW data will be the randomly dropped connection. It's been this way since CATA was released.
From some simple tests I could get my WoW to drop with as few as 30 simultaneous connections under uTorrent. Speed itself doesn't seem to be a determining factor since if I can get 1MB/s from 10-20 peers my WoW remains stable but if I up the allowable peers to 20+, even with a slow dl of 10kb/s, I'm almost guaranteed to disconnect from WoW within 5 minutes and while I can reconnect to the logon server no problem, I won't be able to reconnect to the gaming server until I close uTorrent or lower my connection settings.
It's annoying but my 95gb/month limit is about perfect for my needs and switching to almost any other ISP in my area will mean lowering my limit or paying more. And since Rogers no longer offers the 95gb option if I switch and decide to come back I'd end up losing 15gb/month or having to pay an extra $10 to move up a package.
You do realize your wiki links use the National Archives as their primary source don't you and that by clicking on almost any of their reference links you will be brought to see the complete list of EO's signed by each President since Hoover.
It's not rocket science. Just click your own link and read the source data. The Archives even have a nice list of EO's signed per year if you click on a President's name.
Simply put, GWB is not even close to the #1 spot for EO's (even Carter signed more in half the time in office) and at the current rate BO is right on par to equal or pass W.
The number of EO's signed (according to the National Archives list of Executive orders):
Obama - 75 (2 years) Bush Jr - 291 (8 years) Clinton - 364 (8 years) Bush Sr. - 166 (4 years)
So Clinton beat Bush Jr. by a significant number (as did Reagan and Carter for that matter) and Obama is actually a little over Bush's average for EO's/yr.
Sorry to bring some actual numbers into this argument. Carry on with your factless rhetoric.
I believe the actual crime O'Keefe was charged with had to do with entering a federal office under false pretense. No on involved, except a few rabid polticos who jumped the gun, thought he was trying to plant a bug.
By the Cranick's own description of the fire this was not a quick burn. It started in a burn barrel, then spread to a shed then the house. So if anyone is to blame for the pets death it is the Cranick's who never cared enough about their 3 dogs and a cat to open the door and let them out.
I feel sorry for the dogs and cat but it's not the FD's fault and in most cases a fire chief would not authorize his men to enter a burning structure simply to save a family pet, or even 4. It does happen but it is not standard operating procedure to put human lives at risk solely for pets.
Slashdot Mirror
Ponzi Scheme definition: an investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.
So you are saying that if everyone currently paying into SS were to stop paying (and possibly receive their investment back if they promise never to claim benefits), then all people currently receiving benefits would continue to receive those benefit in perpetuity based solely on their own contributions? If that's not the case then SS pretty much meets the textbook definition of a Ponzi Scheme.
The ODA only focuses on official government aid in calculating it's results. The main problem with that it the US, in general, places a very high value on independence and as such they prefer to donate on an individual front and not through federal committee.
The Index of Global Philanthropy (warning, this is a PDF) gives a much more accurate view of international giving.
To be fair, Sweden is still in the #1 spot as a percentage of GNI, but the numbers are much closer. You'll can also notice most of the top countries on the ODA graph have exceptionally small values for personal donations and the US appears to be the only country where personal donations exceed governmental.
China currently pays for 3% of UN activities (Canada actually pays more than that), the US 22%.
I don't think China will care one iota about a possible chance to increase their funding for UN projects knowing full well the UN is merely a symbolic body that nobody takes seriously.
China's influence comes almost entirely from it's ability to provide extreme amounts of cheap labor. They don't really have any use for the UN except to use them to help prop up some of their allies around the world. Any additional influence China will gain on the world stage will happen in a boardroom, not in an UN council meeting.
One small problem with your great plan; most UN actions require US funding or participation to be affective. Seeing the US currently funds almost 1/4 of all UN activities, if they simply stopped paying how much do you think the UN would manage to accomplish (as if they accomplish much now).
The resolutions may continue flying off the desks of UN diplomats but they will be even more worthless that the ones currently filling their books.
If the US just decided to give their UN dues to charity instead the world would be a much better place.
Almost any basic level 82 green will beat 80 epics, except possibly where set bonuses come into play, and even then you'd only have to wait for a level 83 green.
I ran a LK raid for fun while leveling a toon not too long ago (was either 83 or 84 at the time), wearing almost all greens with an occasional quest blue, and was pulling dps that I only dreamed about when actually wearing full icc gear.
The changes in stats on even level 78+ cata greens compared to pre-cata everything else is like day and night.
Looks like my earlier post didn't work for some reason so time for try #2, the less sarcastic version.
If you really want to call someone lame you may want to take a brief second to think about what you are typing; possibly form your statement into a question and see if you can answer it yourself: How can a person stay home and still be heard?
I know Slashdot has veered far off the tech front from time to time but I would think that a person who has spent any time on here or for that matter, any time outside of a locked room in their parents basement would have heard of the wonderful advancements in telecommunications. For those apparently unaware of the wonders of this industry, as in the parents case, humans now have the ability to transmit text, speech, and even images over great distance without requiring a person to physically travel from their location to that of the listener. They can even sync them all together so that the receiver sees the sender and hears his words at the same time. I know it's a bit unbelievable, but trust me, the tech does exist.
You would think that a person so concerned about the amount of carbon dioxide they are introducing to the atmosphere, would be championing the use of this technology to spread his message instead of flying to tropical island or hopscotching the globe to talk to everyone in person. Hell, you'd think someone so concerned would at least fly commercial.
Imagine, if only we could come up with the technology to allow Al Gore, or any other number of proponents of AGM, to communicate without having to take private jets to tropical islands to hold conventions about how mankind's use of inefficient means of transportation is destroying our world. Say a device that allows sound, or even images (hey if we are imagining a fantasy future tech we may as well go big) to be transmitted from one location to another without the need for the person themselves to make the environmentally damaging trip.
But of course, since that type of tech only exists in sci-fi novels we'll just have to sit and wait for the day that it becomes reality. Until them I guess we should all just sit here quietly and understand that while Al Gore et al. might preach restraint in the use of CO2 emitting machines, they can't be expected to observe it themselves because there is no other way to get the word out.
By far the biggest plot hole in the movie.
I liked the movie in general but that entire scene of them administering the newly redesigned drug was sooooo painful to watch. From the delivery method to their security procedures it made me wish I had gone for a snack break and missed those 5 minutes. I would have rather just heard someone describe it, after the fact, and assumed it couldn't be as bad as they made it sound then to see such a blatantly bad scene be projected on screen just to push the story along.
Still a good movie but a little more imagination would have helped.
I guess you missed the part where the drug doesn't make the humans dumb but DEAD. Not much of a rebellion needed when you're enemy manages to kill himself off.
At the end the apes seemed happy enough to just sit around in the trees.
You're assuming all risks end with yourself. They don't.
Semi Spoiler - If a drug using a virus based delivery system has side affects on it's subject it's not just the subject who has to deal with it. But then I guess you're fine with untested viral mutations being spread willy nilly amongst populated areas.
If you're willing to receive the cure but stay confined to a medical lab for long term monitoring then feel free, although having a disease that primarily targets the brain and reduces cognitive skills who is to say that you are in your right mind when volunteering to become a human guinea pig.
According to the CBO revenues increased every year after 2003 (the year the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented) and at a rate more than 2 times inflation. You can argue the "why", but not the numbers. It could have been a natural bounce back after a tech bubble recession and an unprecedented terrorist attack on American soil or it may have been an affect of the tax cuts increasing disposable income and making investing more appealing, or it may have been any number of other things or all of the above.
Claiming the tax breaks cost 1.8 trillion in revenue (over 10 years) should be taken with a big grain of salt since it is merely a hypothetical number based on assumptions of the rate at which the economy would have grown without the cuts in place; an impossible situation to completely predict, but it is also really a moot point. As the the historical data clearly shows, there was more than enough revenue coming into the government coffers to maintain all programs, even accounting for inflation. The problem was and is that politicians always love to expand and create new programs and the concept of 'living within their means' is completely foreign on Capital Hill, regardless of who is holding the purse strings.
Are you even in the right thread? We were discussing Bush tax cuts and revenue, not the Clinton vs. Obama economies.
But for the record both Clinton and the Republican Congress lucked out in that the economy they oversaw was riding high on both the tech and start of the housing bubbles without ever really having to deal with the downturns. It was a dream time in the US economy before people started to wake up and realize that maybe some of these companies who produced no real goods and had no real income strategies weren't really worth their overinflated values and that maybe it wasn't a good idea to give people mortgages on houses that are worth more than 20 times their yearly income.
You can argue their effectiveness and impact but the facts are that federal revenues did increase after the original Bush tax cuts, and at a historic rate.
Some people have hypothesized that they would have increased at a higher rate if not for the cuts and some have hypothesized the opposite, and both have some evidence to back their claims, but the hard numbers do show a rise in revenues above the norm. The problem was there was also a rise in spending to offset any revenue gains.
Even under the loosest reading of the US constitution military action still requires consent from Congress, whether the UN is involved or not. The UN simply gives international cover to an argument for attacking Libya but does not override any member nations requirements for domestic authorization. Member states routinely refuse to commit troops to various UN actions all over the world based on their own domestic policy because the UN itself doesn't have the authority to order them to take part.
Even under the War Powers Act Obama's own limited authority to commit military personnel expired in June and even that the WPA was adequate cover for his actions was an argument many of the Federal government's own lawyers rejected.
Simply put, Obama's entire legal argument for continued US actions in Libya, and I am not making this up, is that firing missiles from drones at targets within a sovereign nation does not constitute 'hostilities'.
Is 10 seconds of typing on Google really that hard for you to do or would exposure to real data cause such a disruption to your twisted reality that they don't let you have access to it at your 'institution'.
The Afghanistan war was authorized under Public Law 107 - 40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force passed on Sept. 18, 2001. The war began October 7, 2001.
Iraq was authorized under Public Law 107 - 243 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 on October 16, 2002. The war began March 30, 2003.
Libya was authorized under, opps, sorry I don't have a congressional bill authorizing the President to dedicate troops to that war and no matter what flowery speech you or Obama try to hide behind, when your goal is the ouster of a sitting leader of an independent country through military action, that's generally considered a war. Even if you go by the original excuse of only blowing up Libyan government installations and military bases to defend the rebels, you are still actively attacking the official government while aiding armed revolutionaries; sorry, still a war. Of course if you think launching almost 100 tomahawk cruise missiles at a country you are not 'at war' with is just being neighborly then remind me never to let you anywhere near a weapon of any kind.
As for the UN, you may want to look it up but the UN does not supersede the United States Congress when it comes to committing American forces into an active combat role. The Congress can use the UN as a reason or even an excuse to commit troops but the US Constitution still requires their consent.
Now I personally don't have any issue with taking out Gaddafi, I personally think this should have been the stated goal on day 1, but then again I'm Canadian and our government sent our troops over there following our legal process. Obama, on the other hand decided to completely ignore that the US Constitution separates the powers of the various branches of government for a reason and decided that he didn't need anyone elses approval, despite what all the lawyers at the DOJ and State department said.
I also find it funny that just because you happen to have a tingle up your leg for the current head of the executive branch you have no problem with him unilaterally committing US troops to killing Libyan's just because the UN asked nicely. I may not 'give a rat's ass about another living being on this earth' but I'd rather my government follow the proper chain of command before taking action that results in killing people half way across the world.
You can debate the how and why of things but the fact is after the Bush tax cuts federal revenues increased at an historically high level. Whether this was directly or even partially because of the tax cuts doesn't really matter at this point, but it does show that federal income really isn't the problem.
The problem is that for every extra dollar coming in Feds will always find a pet project to spend 2 dollars on, and it really doesn't matter who is in charge. Add to that the complete bastardization of the Commerce Clause to try and make every issue a federal one and you get a central government spending untold millions to prevent such small time activity as preventing a farmer from giving some of his extra crop to his next door neighbor simply because they can, even if no state borders are ever crossed or even money exchanged.
On good thing about this possible shut down is that there is more than enough income to pay for interest payments, social security, veteran's affairs, the military and all the health dept., despite what your President keeps repeating, but it may smarten some in congress to realize it's time to stop trying to put their fingers into everyone elses pie and let the State and local governments earn their tax dollars.
Could you provide a link to the President's plan. I know more than a few reporters that would be interested in seeing a written copy with some real numbers too.
If you want to argue technicalities Congress is also the only US political body with the ability to declare war, not the President, and it was Congress that voted on two bills authorizing the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President can only authorize the use of force without Congressional approval when the United States is facing a direct threat to it's security, and even then it is limited and is supposed to be followed by approval by the congress.
The only President to bypass this constitutional requirement in the last 10 years has been Obama with his sustained military intervention in Libya.
That's not egg.
Rogers seems to use a throttling method of simply randomly dropping P2P connections when they exceed a certain number (and that number is awfully low). Since WoW uses some form of P2P protocol during game play, and not just when a patch is available but all the time, if you happen to be downloading ANYTHING else with a BT client then there is a chance that the WoW data will be the randomly dropped connection. It's been this way since CATA was released.
From some simple tests I could get my WoW to drop with as few as 30 simultaneous connections under uTorrent. Speed itself doesn't seem to be a determining factor since if I can get 1MB/s from 10-20 peers my WoW remains stable but if I up the allowable peers to 20+, even with a slow dl of 10kb/s, I'm almost guaranteed to disconnect from WoW within 5 minutes and while I can reconnect to the logon server no problem, I won't be able to reconnect to the gaming server until I close uTorrent or lower my connection settings.
It's annoying but my 95gb/month limit is about perfect for my needs and switching to almost any other ISP in my area will mean lowering my limit or paying more. And since Rogers no longer offers the 95gb option if I switch and decide to come back I'd end up losing 15gb/month or having to pay an extra $10 to move up a package.
Your own sources prove you wrong.
You do realize your wiki links use the National Archives as their primary source don't you and that by clicking on almost any of their reference links you will be brought to see the complete list of EO's signed by each President since Hoover.
It's not rocket science. Just click your own link and read the source data. The Archives even have a nice list of EO's signed per year if you click on a President's name.
Simply put, GWB is not even close to the #1 spot for EO's (even Carter signed more in half the time in office) and at the current rate BO is right on par to equal or pass W.
Obama has already issued several signing statements, fewer than GWB to be sure, but you really should look these things up.
The number of EO's signed (according to the National Archives list of Executive orders):
Obama - 75 (2 years)
Bush Jr - 291 (8 years)
Clinton - 364 (8 years)
Bush Sr. - 166 (4 years)
So Clinton beat Bush Jr. by a significant number (as did Reagan and Carter for that matter) and Obama is actually a little over Bush's average for EO's/yr.
Sorry to bring some actual numbers into this argument. Carry on with your factless rhetoric.
I believe the actual crime O'Keefe was charged with had to do with entering a federal office under false pretense. No on involved, except a few rabid polticos who jumped the gun, thought he was trying to plant a bug.
By the Cranick's own description of the fire this was not a quick burn. It started in a burn barrel, then spread to a shed then the house. So if anyone is to blame for the pets death it is the Cranick's who never cared enough about their 3 dogs and a cat to open the door and let them out.
I feel sorry for the dogs and cat but it's not the FD's fault and in most cases a fire chief would not authorize his men to enter a burning structure simply to save a family pet, or even 4. It does happen but it is not standard operating procedure to put human lives at risk solely for pets.