Yes, it seems fairly systematic. When talking about the budget, they emphasize the amount of spending on Social Security and Medicare, but when talking about taxes, they shift to the percentage of income taxes paid by the top of the scale, ignoring the fact that Social Security and Medicare are funded almost entirely via payroll tax and not income tax.
I find the "they-pay-nothing" argument pretty disgusting given the fact that the bulk of the working poor are probably paying a higher rate than the likes of Mitt Romney.
I don't know what you find reputable, but here are a couple. The USA Today story cites the New York Times as the original source.
As much as I recall, the quote itself was never disputed, just denial of any sinister intent. The fact that the guy gave $100k to the Bush campaign and sent out fund raising letters for them would seem in line with that.
Perhaps you can explain, why exactly would the release of details about American prisoner abuse cause an increase in factional tension within Iraq? Particularly when that abuse had been rumored/known within Iraq, and wasn't particularly abusive based on standards set by Saddam. Also, the photos in question were released in early 2004, not particularly closely tied to either the hand over of power or the rise in sectarian violence.
I would suggest that the near civil war in Iraq had a number of contributing factors, the prisoner abuse photos not among them. First, the decision to send in too few forces to control the country initially lead to general chaos and anarchy. Second, the disbanding of the Iraqi army more or less ensured that said chaos would continue and that any new Iraqi government would be unable to secure the country. Third, the policy of de-baathification further weakened the government by removing most/all experienced government officials and strengthened sectarian divisions. Put that on top of the existing sectarian tensions left from the Saddam era, and the outcome was fairly predictable.
If you want to place blame for the countless lives lost and protracted military involvement, I suggest you look to the policy makers who time and again overruled the advice of experienced military and diplomatic officials; or perhaps to the American people, who were too busy waving the flag, supporting the troops, and playing partisan politics to notice that our war effort was being directed by a bunch of people out of think tanks and the executive offices of military contractors. The prisoner abuse was largely a symptom of the same problem. And the reporters, generally had little control over or impact on any of it.
Have any reference or citation to back up the validity of your statement? I did find an unsupported statement on Wikipedia making the same claim, but skimming the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, and reading President Carter's statement upon signing it, it doesn't sound like freeing us from dependence on foreign oil was a major focus. If DOE had been "formed to attempt to free us from dependence on foreign oil", I would think the subject would be raised more prominently by one or the other.
If you are actually concerned or surprised by the mods, I suggest you focus on being more accurate/truthful in your statements.
For example: Anyone saying that man puts more CO2 into the air than volcanoes or the ocean is lying to your face.
Now from the source you cite: modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 teragrams (0.13-0.23 gigatonnes or 145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year,[9] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities
So, is your source lying? If you had stuck with the accurate statement "Nature itself is responsible for 95% of the CO2 emissions, and humans get to claim responsibility for 5%" you would have been better off.
So you give US civilian rights to someone who isn't a US citizen and has never been here?
Well, generally if you are to believe the U.S. Declaration of Independence rights are endowed by the Creator and not by the State or by citizenship. Likewise, the U.S. Constitution generally refers to the rights of people or persons, not citizens. So, generally it is people like the GP who founded the United States on the principle of human rights not U.S. civilian rights.
do you think if I donate him $5000 I can get out of paying my taxes?
Since the donations are for the Treasury, my guess is yes as long as your tax bill is less that $5000.
But it looks like my guess is wrong, it is probably handled like other gifts. An account for accepting gifts to the U.S. Treasury was established in 1843. So much for an email suggestion I guess.
Sure, Obama was sworn in on January 20. AG Holder was confirmed on February 2.
Rather than political finger pointing, I find it more interesting that U.S. Attorney Morrison has been with the DOJ for 17 years. Sadly, this is probably more indicative of how the DOJ does business than who was in the White House the day the subpoena issued.
Only the calls with one of the ends outside America [mit.edu] were ever "spied" on.
And we'll just have to take the NSA's word on that I guess.
While the legality of the program limits how the information is used, everything I have read leads me to the conclusion that they have "wholesale" access to the information. The article you link to suggests that that is what the NSA wanted/asked for. The details that have leaked about how the system is constructed support the conclusion that they got what they asked for. You are just choosing the believe the Government's story on what they are doing.
Calling it "wholesale" isn't flamebait. From a technological perspective it sounds like an accurate description of the level of access they have.
For the sake of accuracy, I do not believe that criminal charges were ever filed against Bill Richardson. It would appear that a year long investigation did not provide enough evidence to get a grand jury to indict him. While there are political fingers pointing in both directions, I would think that if they had the evidence, they could have gotten an indictment before Obama even took office.
While I agree that the handling of the New Black Panther case looks political, it was a civil case not a criminal one.
The unfunded liabilities of universal health care will make Medicare part D look like pocket change.
Well, lucky for us there aren't any unfunded universal health care bills on the table. Perhaps you should inform yourself on what health care bills are currently under consideration.
Dude, what are you talking about? Who is "we"? Last I knew, Sony was a Japanese company. Is "we" referring to Japan?
I remembered this story from 2003 about the U.S. more or less outsourcing missile guidance systems to China. Given that we are letting the Chinese buy and relocate our manufacturing capacity there, and given the amount of computer products we ship there to be "recycled"; I have a hard time believing there are any significant trade restrictions with China. Perhaps you can supply some references? How does Lenovo manage to manufacture Thinkpads and PCs without a steady supply of Intel CPUs?
The story I recall regarding Playstation "supercomputers" involved them being imported into Iraq pre-invasion.
The earliest humans were, in fact, scavengers, were not contemporary with saber toothed tigers
I do not think that is correct. Smilodon went extinct only 10,000 years ago. I believe humans driving them to extinction is still one of the popular theories.
You might want to double check your copy of the Constitution. Congress clearly has the power to regulate interstate commerce. So, as long as your ads and products are crossing state lines, the federal government can regulate. Since television and radio transmissions tend to ignore state boundaries, they get regulated by the FCC.
Granted the commerce clause has been pushed to rather ridiculous limits, but corporations have had no small part in pushing it in that direction. They would much rather have one set of regulations to deal with than 50.
Lol. Last time I checked, the federal government hasn't waited for medical classification to regulate firearms. Perhaps you could spin this as a way to get right-wingers behind universal health care, woohoo free guns for all! Or maybe it is an attempt by the right to sour lefties on the idea.
I think it is most likely a case of well connected gun maker getting friends in the administration to reserve him a space at the government teat. I imagine selling firearms to the elderly (or their children) is a bit easier with the taxpayers footing the bill. It is the gun maker who gains most directly from this.
Private insurance companies are self-serving by definition. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for firearms to appear in my coverage. Wouldn't anything addressed by a firearm be a pre-existing condition anyway?
You may want to review your history. Al queda was not founded until after the Soviets left Afghanistan. The folks who went on to found Al Queda were there, but were a small fraction of the forces engaged. Many of those forces serve the various warlords, what was called the Northern Alliance, and now largely serves as the Afghan government.
Perhaps Al queda likes to spread the idea that they defeated the Soviets. But it is far from a fact. I would argue that Al queda was a fairly small organization compared to many other terrorist organizations, and certainly compared to organized crime operations or revolutionary armies. They are not known for having defeated the Soviets, they are known because of 9/11.
U.S. funding of various organizations in the region is certainly an interesting and complex topic.
He didn't forget anything. You are either making things up, or seeing things which do not exist. The fact that copyright law has existed for a long time, is far different from it being a "constitutional right".
As you show, the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power create copyright laws. If copyright was a right, we would already have them and at best the Constitution would bar government from taking them away. In the context of the U.S. Constitution, it is fairly clear that copyright laws are recognized as an infringement on the natural rights of the people, namely freedom of speech and press. Similarly taxation could be viewed as an infringement on the people natural right to property/pursuit of happiness. The power to make copyright laws is a power given by the people to Congress. Copyright is a privilege granted by the government, not a right. Copyright is certainly well supported by current U.S. law, but I think calling it a "constitutional right" not valid.
The problem being, the Republican party in general, and the Bush family in particular, have very questionable records with regard to drugs and drug policy and the U.S. relationship with China. The ability to ignore human rights abuses really crosses all political lines. Clinton doesn't really compare to the Carlyle Group as far as enriching themselves through government policy. It is sadly not new. As a marine, you may be familiar with Major General Smedley Butler, if not you may find his perspective interesting.
You don't really need to rely on "initial reports", the DOD has actually released documents since then. If you need pictures, I believe there were pictures of some of the people who were beaten and choked to death. I'm sure the Internet can provide them. And those were people in direct U.S. custody, not including programs like extraordinary rendition, or the various C.I.A. prisons. You must be living or working a spin machine of your own to be basing your thoughts on "initial reports". I'm personally puzzled by the fact that the U.S. considers Syria a sponsor of terrorism, won't engage them diplomatically on Iraq or Lebanon, yet sends "terror suspects" there to be interrogated.
The problems with the U.S. engaging in these tactics are numerous and profound.
I agree. But, I would offer up the idea that the Anthrax attacks against Congress and several media outlets in 2001 certainly impacted the way things played out.
This doesn't mean that the Soviet Union was actually doing all these things; it does mean that the CIA believed they were. Of course, with the CIA's track record on predictions...
You really think that what the CIA believes about secret enemy weapons programs shows up in Time magazine in near real time? I think what shows up in Time magazine is what the CIA/government want the U.S. people to believe. Manipulating the political will of the people through misinformation via the press has been a feature of our government for quite some time. Given some of the people working in that administration, I wonder if this information didn't originate from something like the Office of Special Plans
Reagan was a 'big idea' guy. It seemed pretty clear at the time that he really thought nuclear weapons were evil, and wanted to eliminate them if he could. I remember conservatives quietly fuming at what they regarded as strategic naivete on his part.
Perhaps Reagan was that big of an idiot, but it seems like in the best case, SDI would simply change the delivery mechanisms for nuclear weapons. It never stood any chance of eliminating them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it seems fairly systematic. When talking about the budget, they emphasize the amount of spending on Social Security and Medicare, but when talking about taxes, they shift to the percentage of income taxes paid by the top of the scale, ignoring the fact that Social Security and Medicare are funded almost entirely via payroll tax and not income tax.
I find the "they-pay-nothing" argument pretty disgusting given the fact that the bulk of the working poor are probably paying a higher rate than the likes of Mitt Romney.
I don't know what you find reputable, but here are a couple. The USA Today story cites the New York Times as the original source.
As much as I recall, the quote itself was never disputed, just denial of any sinister intent. The fact that the guy gave $100k to the Bush campaign and sent out fund raising letters for them would seem in line with that.
Perhaps you can explain, why exactly would the release of details about American prisoner abuse cause an increase in factional tension within Iraq? Particularly when that abuse had been rumored/known within Iraq, and wasn't particularly abusive based on standards set by Saddam. Also, the photos in question were released in early 2004, not particularly closely tied to either the hand over of power or the rise in sectarian violence.
I would suggest that the near civil war in Iraq had a number of contributing factors, the prisoner abuse photos not among them. First, the decision to send in too few forces to control the country initially lead to general chaos and anarchy. Second, the disbanding of the Iraqi army more or less ensured that said chaos would continue and that any new Iraqi government would be unable to secure the country. Third, the policy of de-baathification further weakened the government by removing most/all experienced government officials and strengthened sectarian divisions. Put that on top of the existing sectarian tensions left from the Saddam era, and the outcome was fairly predictable.
If you want to place blame for the countless lives lost and protracted military involvement, I suggest you look to the policy makers who time and again overruled the advice of experienced military and diplomatic officials; or perhaps to the American people, who were too busy waving the flag, supporting the troops, and playing partisan politics to notice that our war effort was being directed by a bunch of people out of think tanks and the executive offices of military contractors. The prisoner abuse was largely a symptom of the same problem. And the reporters, generally had little control over or impact on any of it.
Have any reference or citation to back up the validity of your statement? I did find an unsupported statement on Wikipedia making the same claim, but skimming the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, and reading President Carter's statement upon signing it, it doesn't sound like freeing us from dependence on foreign oil was a major focus. If DOE had been "formed to attempt to free us from dependence on foreign oil", I would think the subject would be raised more prominently by one or the other.
If you are actually concerned or surprised by the mods, I suggest you focus on being more accurate/truthful in your statements.
For example: Anyone saying that man puts more CO2 into the air than volcanoes or the ocean is lying to your face.
Now from the source you cite: modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 teragrams (0.13-0.23 gigatonnes or 145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year,[9] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities
So, is your source lying? If you had stuck with the accurate statement "Nature itself is responsible for 95% of the CO2 emissions, and humans get to claim responsibility for 5%" you would have been better off.
So you give US civilian rights to someone who isn't a US citizen and has never been here?
Well, generally if you are to believe the U.S. Declaration of Independence rights are endowed by the Creator and not by the State or by citizenship. Likewise, the U.S. Constitution generally refers to the rights of people or persons, not citizens. So, generally it is people like the GP who founded the United States on the principle of human rights not U.S. civilian rights.
do you think if I donate him $5000 I can get out of paying my taxes?
Since the donations are for the Treasury, my guess is yes as long as your tax bill is less that $5000.
But it looks like my guess is wrong, it is probably handled like other gifts. An account for accepting gifts to the U.S. Treasury was established in 1843. So much for an email suggestion I guess.
The insightful mod is well deserved. U.S. Attorney Morrison has been with the DOJ for 17 years.
Sure, Obama was sworn in on January 20. AG Holder was confirmed on February 2.
Rather than political finger pointing, I find it more interesting that U.S. Attorney Morrison has been with the DOJ for 17 years. Sadly, this is probably more indicative of how the DOJ does business than who was in the White House the day the subpoena issued.
Only the calls with one of the ends outside America [mit.edu] were ever "spied" on.
And we'll just have to take the NSA's word on that I guess.
While the legality of the program limits how the information is used, everything I have read leads me to the conclusion that they have "wholesale" access to the information. The article you link to suggests that that is what the NSA wanted/asked for. The details that have leaked about how the system is constructed support the conclusion that they got what they asked for. You are just choosing the believe the Government's story on what they are doing.
Calling it "wholesale" isn't flamebait. From a technological perspective it sounds like an accurate description of the level of access they have.
For the sake of accuracy, I do not believe that criminal charges were ever filed against Bill Richardson. It would appear that a year long investigation did not provide enough evidence to get a grand jury to indict him. While there are political fingers pointing in both directions, I would think that if they had the evidence, they could have gotten an indictment before Obama even took office.
While I agree that the handling of the New Black Panther case looks political, it was a civil case not a criminal one.
The unfunded liabilities of universal health care will make Medicare part D look like pocket change.
Well, lucky for us there aren't any unfunded universal health care bills on the table. Perhaps you should inform yourself on what health care bills are currently under consideration.
Dude, what are you talking about? Who is "we"? Last I knew, Sony was a Japanese company. Is "we" referring to Japan?
I remembered this story from 2003 about the U.S. more or less outsourcing missile guidance systems to China. Given that we are letting the Chinese buy and relocate our manufacturing capacity there, and given the amount of computer products we ship there to be "recycled"; I have a hard time believing there are any significant trade restrictions with China. Perhaps you can supply some references? How does Lenovo manage to manufacture Thinkpads and PCs without a steady supply of Intel CPUs?
The story I recall regarding Playstation "supercomputers" involved them being imported into Iraq pre-invasion.
The earliest humans were, in fact, scavengers, were not contemporary with saber toothed tigers
I do not think that is correct. Smilodon went extinct only 10,000 years ago. I believe humans driving them to extinction is still one of the popular theories.
You might want to double check your copy of the Constitution. Congress clearly has the power to regulate interstate commerce. So, as long as your ads and products are crossing state lines, the federal government can regulate. Since television and radio transmissions tend to ignore state boundaries, they get regulated by the FCC.
Granted the commerce clause has been pushed to rather ridiculous limits, but corporations have had no small part in pushing it in that direction. They would much rather have one set of regulations to deal with than 50.
I was handed a piece of paper was it a post-it?
Ayers admits everything he was accused of.
That is far from true.
Ayers himself was the genuine article - the kind of terrorist who wanted to randomly murder innocent people
This for example.
Nice use of irony. Labeling a man who would attack his own government a terrorist, then suggesting the overthrow of the government. Troll+1
Lol. Last time I checked, the federal government hasn't waited for medical classification to regulate firearms. Perhaps you could spin this as a way to get right-wingers behind universal health care, woohoo free guns for all! Or maybe it is an attempt by the right to sour lefties on the idea.
I think it is most likely a case of well connected gun maker getting friends in the administration to reserve him a space at the government teat. I imagine selling firearms to the elderly (or their children) is a bit easier with the taxpayers footing the bill. It is the gun maker who gains most directly from this.
Private insurance companies are self-serving by definition. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for firearms to appear in my coverage. Wouldn't anything addressed by a firearm be a pre-existing condition anyway?
You may want to review your history. Al queda was not founded until after the Soviets left Afghanistan. The folks who went on to found Al Queda were there, but were a small fraction of the forces engaged. Many of those forces serve the various warlords, what was called the Northern Alliance, and now largely serves as the Afghan government.
Perhaps Al queda likes to spread the idea that they defeated the Soviets. But it is far from a fact. I would argue that Al queda was a fairly small organization compared to many other terrorist organizations, and certainly compared to organized crime operations or revolutionary armies. They are not known for having defeated the Soviets, they are known because of 9/11.
U.S. funding of various organizations in the region is certainly an interesting and complex topic.
He didn't forget anything. You are either making things up, or seeing things which do not exist. The fact that copyright law has existed for a long time, is far different from it being a "constitutional right".
As you show, the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power create copyright laws. If copyright was a right, we would already have them and at best the Constitution would bar government from taking them away. In the context of the U.S. Constitution, it is fairly clear that copyright laws are recognized as an infringement on the natural rights of the people, namely freedom of speech and press. Similarly taxation could be viewed as an infringement on the people natural right to property/pursuit of happiness. The power to make copyright laws is a power given by the people to Congress. Copyright is a privilege granted by the government, not a right. Copyright is certainly well supported by current U.S. law, but I think calling it a "constitutional right" not valid.
The problem being, the Republican party in general, and the Bush family in particular, have very questionable records with regard to drugs and drug policy and the U.S. relationship with China. The ability to ignore human rights abuses really crosses all political lines. Clinton doesn't really compare to the Carlyle Group as far as enriching themselves through government policy. It is sadly not new. As a marine, you may be familiar with Major General Smedley Butler, if not you may find his perspective interesting.
You don't really need to rely on "initial reports", the DOD has actually released documents since then. If you need pictures, I believe there were pictures of some of the people who were beaten and choked to death. I'm sure the Internet can provide them. And those were people in direct U.S. custody, not including programs like extraordinary rendition, or the various C.I.A. prisons. You must be living or working a spin machine of your own to be basing your thoughts on "initial reports". I'm personally puzzled by the fact that the U.S. considers Syria a sponsor of terrorism, won't engage them diplomatically on Iraq or Lebanon, yet sends "terror suspects" there to be interrogated.
The problems with the U.S. engaging in these tactics are numerous and profound.
Also, when is the last time the government passed a law to help the petroleum industry?
I believe that would have been in 2005. Nothing like some tax breaks and environmental exemptions to go with your record profits.
I agree. But, I would offer up the idea that the Anthrax attacks against Congress and several media outlets in 2001 certainly impacted the way things played out.
This doesn't mean that the Soviet Union was actually doing all these things; it does mean that the CIA believed they were. Of course, with the CIA's track record on predictions...
You really think that what the CIA believes about secret enemy weapons programs shows up in Time magazine in near real time? I think what shows up in Time magazine is what the CIA/government want the U.S. people to believe. Manipulating the political will of the people through misinformation via the press has been a feature of our government for quite some time. Given some of the people working in that administration, I wonder if this information didn't originate from something like the Office of Special Plans
Reagan was a 'big idea' guy. It seemed pretty clear at the time that he really thought nuclear weapons were evil, and wanted to eliminate them if he could. I remember conservatives quietly fuming at what they regarded as strategic naivete on his part.
Perhaps Reagan was that big of an idiot, but it seems like in the best case, SDI would simply change the delivery mechanisms for nuclear weapons. It never stood any chance of eliminating them.