obama the hypocrite

[Old'n'Slow]

- It's all about oil (though this has a major impact, people blame it on the GOP - when in reality you can blame the Chinese, OPEC, our lack of ability to drill on OUR SOIL

Close, but the real issue is that there has not been a new refinery built in the US since 1981, and of those that existed then, about half have been closed. Meanwhile, due to high demand, the oil companies enjoy record profits. 2 years ago, the Saudi Prince told Bush, "we could send you more oil, but you lack the capacity to refine it." There's plenty of crude available.

- This isn't typical "conservative name calling" or whatever else it's branded as - it's actually analyzing the data. For instance, 30-40% of oil companies firms are owned by mutual funds and shareholders. Liberals don't want to hear that. They want conservatives to just be good and stop talking about how these things are working. I'm not going to do that.

I'm sorry but this doesn't illustrate your point clearly. What do you mean by "oil companies firms"? What difference does it make that they are publicly held? All that means is they will do nearly anything to assure a dividend for the stockholders and keep prices/profits high. As a liberal, the only reason that bothers me is that it is short-sighted. It puts more money in the hands of the already well off, but does Joe Public a disservice because now he has to use even more of his weak dollar to get himself to work everyday. Assuming he hasn't already been laid off by another publicly held company who has exported his job in search of higher profits and therefore higher dividends for its shareholders.....

- Your final statement about how you want someone to do something is great - however, Obama has done nothing what-so-ever to suggest he has anything but good ideas; not feasible solutions.

We all know that no matter what a candidate says, in reality, it is not up to him/her what shape solutions take. That is generally up to the House and Senate in the end. But they can at least bring some fresh ideas to the table and be willing to lend them their support.

- I guess I simply believe in the power of individuals and the work ethic/capability of the American people - not the ability of government to solve these problems for me. you should to, as you just illustrated that the government clearly mishandles everything, apparently. Why would you want to increase their power?

We increased their power exponentially when we, as a sheepishly cowed, fearful public assented to the ratification of the so-called Patriot Act. And they have mishandled it! You are far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist attack, yet through manipulation of information asymmetry, the Bushies have convinced us that if we don't cheerfully support their carte-blanche spending on the "War on Global Terrorism", that something-they're not sure what, (there's that fearmongering again) will happen.

If you still believe in the power of the individual in a country where individual votes don't really count, and the work ethic/capability of Americans that can't be bothered to show up to vote in the first place, then I humbly suggest you re-evaluate those beliefs. Get on the TSA's No Fly list due to an admitted "internal error" and see how much power you really have. :p

[DarkWing6]

he has no where near the ability to do what needs to be done to pull us out of recession and rebuild a world community.

Why is it the government’s job to “pull” us out of a recession? Let the market do the work. A little tweak here, a few billion there, and another program is not going to fix it. Recessions are inevitable. The same way we allow the market to go up we need to allow the market to go down. Ups and downs happen. Sometimes they are bigger and sometimes they are smaller (in both respects). As long as the market, in the long run, is on the incline we are ok. If we had a truly free market this would be happening.


On a separate note, I don't understand how people can sit and complain about how corrupt government is then turn around and support and vote for canidates that are pushing for more government. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a government at all, but it should be a whole lot smaller. Read the Constitution then compare what the government was put in place to do with what the government is actually doing.


P.S. - Ted, you can add a line in your signature that says your posts have been approved by me cause you are right on!

[blunttech]

Close, but the real issue is that there has not been a new refinery built in the US since 1981, and of those that existed then, about half have been closed. Meanwhile, due to high demand, the oil companies enjoy record profits. 2 years ago, the Saudi Prince told Bush, "we could send you more oil, but you lack the capacity to refine it." There's plenty of crude available.




I'm sorry but this doesn't illustrate your point clearly. What do you mean by "oil companies firms"? What difference does it make that they are publicly held? All that means is they will do nearly anything to assure a dividend for the stockholders and keep prices/profits high. As a liberal, the only reason that bothers me is that it is short-sighted. It puts more money in the hands of the already well off, but does Joe Public a disservice because now he has to use even more of his weak dollar to get himself to work everyday. Assuming he hasn't already been laid off by another publicly held company who has exported his job in search of higher profits and therefore higher dividends for its shareholders.....



We all know that no matter what a candidate says, in reality, it is not up to him/her what shape solutions take. That is generally up to the House and Senate in the end. But they can at least bring some fresh ideas to the table and be willing to lend them their support.



We increased their power exponentially when we, as a sheepishly cowed, fearful public assented to the ratification of the so-called Patriot Act. And they have mishandled it! You are far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist attack, yet through manipulation of information asymmetry, the Bushies have convinced us that if we don't cheerfully support their carte-blanche spending on the "War on Global Terrorism", that something-they're not sure what, (there's that fearmongering again) will happen.

If you still believe in the power of the individual in a country where individual votes don't really count, and the work ethic/capability of Americans that can't be bothered to show up to vote in the first place, then I humbly suggest you re-evaluate those beliefs. Get on the TSA's No Fly list due to an admitted "internal error" and see how much power you really have. :p

"We all know that no matter what a candidate says, in reality, it is not up to him/her what shape solutions take. That is generally up to the House and Senate in the end. But they can at least bring some fresh ideas to the table and be willing to lend them their support."

this is true unless youre a liberal talking about bush

[uofom3]

Close, but the real issue is that there has not been a new refinery built in the US since 1981, and of those that existed then, about half have been closed. Meanwhile, due to high demand, the oil companies enjoy record profits. 2 years ago, the Saudi Prince told Bush, "we could send you more oil, but you lack the capacity to refine it." There's plenty of crude available.




I'm sorry but this doesn't illustrate your point clearly. What do you mean by "oil companies firms"? What difference does it make that they are publicly held? All that means is they will do nearly anything to assure a dividend for the stockholders and keep prices/profits high. As a liberal, the only reason that bothers me is that it is short-sighted. It puts more money in the hands of the already well off, but does Joe Public a disservice because now he has to use even more of his weak dollar to get himself to work everyday. Assuming he hasn't already been laid off by another publicly held company who has exported his job in search of higher profits and therefore higher dividends for its shareholders.....



We all know that no matter what a candidate says, in reality, it is not up to him/her what shape solutions take. That is generally up to the House and Senate in the end. But they can at least bring some fresh ideas to the table and be willing to lend them their support.



We increased their power exponentially when we, as a sheepishly cowed, fearful public assented to the ratification of the so-called Patriot Act. And they have mishandled it! You are far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist attack, yet through manipulation of information asymmetry, the Bushies have convinced us that if we don't cheerfully support their carte-blanche spending on the "War on Global Terrorism", that something-they're not sure what, (there's that fearmongering again) will happen.

If you still believe in the power of the individual in a country where individual votes don't really count, and the work ethic/capability of Americans that can't be bothered to show up to vote in the first place, then I humbly suggest you re-evaluate those beliefs. Get on the TSA's No Fly list due to an admitted "internal error" and see how much power you really have. :p

First paragraph I don't have a problem with - we need to lift our bans on drilling on domestic soil. There is more than enough oil to meet demand.

Mutual funds is what I mean. I mean your average Joe Public who bought some mutual fund with a large investment house that has part of his portfolio investment in oil companies. These aren't multi-billionaires - it's the guy who paints stripes on the roads you drive on.

If you're going to say that about candidates - you can't drop another word about Bush. That would be hypocritical.

I'm not going to touch your biased opinion twoards the Patriot Act. Based on your profile, user name, admitted liberalism, and the cars in your "Stable" - I'm guessing you're not a young gun. Chances are, you've been a liberal for a long time. Maybe went through the 60's and did the whole free love, burn the flag, sit and protest thing. Fine. I can't solve your problems now, and I'm not going to try and argue with it.

I will say this - the power of the individual to work hard, handle their own business, etc. has shit-nothing-squat to do with the Patriot Act. Citing that you are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver is an erroneous example. You're also more likely to die in a plane crash, or get cancer. And guess what? We throw billions at all of those things each year in the forms of cancer research, FAA regulations/operations/airline subsidies, and MADD/other drunk driving outlets. The difference? Drunk driving still exists, people still die from cancer, and planes wreck around the world more often than gets reported. Fortunately, we took the war on terror to them - and guess what? There hasn't been any more attacks of significance worldwide with the exception of what takes place inside the Iraq theatre.

[e30sd]

John McCain, the guy i dont want answering any phones, or ever leaving the old folks home for that matter...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html

A McCain Gaffe in Jordan
By Cameron W. Barr and Michael D. Shear
AMMAN, Jordan -- Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran.

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

The mistake threatened to undermine McCain's argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.

McCain was in Jordan leading a week-long Congressional delegation and has stressed that the trip was not political, despite the decision to hold a fundraiser in London later this week.

But advisers said a side-benefit from the trip would be the image of McCain standing next to world leaders and showing his expertise on issues of war and terrorism.

The U.S. has long asserted that elements of the Iranian security forces have been training and supplying weapons to Iraq's Shiite militias. Iran is an overwhelmingly Shiite country whose government has applauded the emergence of a Shiite-led government in Iraq but has denied supporting Shiite militias inside Iraq.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a predominantly Sunni militant group which is blamed for deadly mass killings of Shiites, along with attacks on U.S. forces. Some extremist Sunni consider Shiites to be heretics and therefore legitimate targets of attack.

The schism between Islam's Sunni and Shiite sects grew out of a dispute over the leadership of the faithful following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 AD.

Shear reported from Jerusalem.

[Jordan325iC]

You all seem to look at the economic disparity between the lower class (especially African Americans) and the middle class is the result millions of individual wrong decisions.

Looking at it from an individual perspective ("You have loans and scholarships available to you. Why do you choose to sell dope?") is not going to answer the question. The question is: Why does the lower class, as a whole, have values that are conducive to crime?

Of course you, as a white middle class American, having been instilled with the positive values of hard work and honesty, cannot understand why some people seemingly refuse to socialize. It's easy to just throw up your hands and say "Well, we gave them the opportunities. Not my fault they didn't take them!"

I personally believe that what we are seeing is with poor African American communities is rebellion adaptation. They are rejecting institutional means and cultural goals, and substituting an alternate goal system where they feel they can compete. Why? Unlike other minority groups throughout America's history, the first blacks did not come here as a group and did not come willingly. They were all from Africa, but from different tribes, with different languages and religions. There was no common community base. Once they were freed, and could form large, thriving, influential urban communities, the social base was created against a backdrop of economic disparity (unemployment caused by white flight to suburbs), the bitterness of slavery and the current reality of segregation. Marginalization and victimization have always been strong elements in the black identity, for good reason. Until 50 years ago, it was a large factor in their existence. Thus, they are more prone to become frustrated with, and eventually reject, standard means and goals and embrace the ghetto culture that they are socialized in.

The solution? Fuck if I know.

[DarkWing6]

All that means is they will do nearly anything to assure a dividend for the stockholders and keep prices/profits high. As a liberal, the only reason that bothers me is that it is short-sighted. It puts more money in the hands of the already well off, but does Joe Public a disservice because now he has to use even more of his weak dollar to get himself to work everyday. Assuming he hasn't already been laid off by another publicly held company who has exported his job in search of higher profits and therefore higher dividends for its shareholders....

I'm going to tackle this one for you.

Globalization, outsourcing, whatever you want to call it creates more and better jobs in America. Moving jobs like call centers etc outside of the US does lower the cost and create a better profit margin, you are right. However, the main reason for outsourcing is growth. I have been to India, talked with workers and business leaders there, I have study global businesses, so I have first hand knowledge of what I am saying. If a business is growing that creates more jobs. These jobs are also better than simlpe call center jobs, so it creates oportunity for people to grow.

Now for the part about giving more money to rich people.

Rich people also create jobs, especially when you give them money to do so. If you continue to tax the hell of them then they don't have any money to invest in new businesses, etc (i.e. new job oportunities for people). Adding the government middle man to attempt to "direct" the money to "better" places ends up wasting money to pay government people to try to do this. I can go into this quite a bit further, but I will leave it here for now.

[e30sd]

I'm going to tackle this one for you.

Globalization, outsourcing, whatever you want to call it creates more and better jobs in America. Moving jobs like call centers etc outside of the US does lower the cost and create a better profit margin, you are right. However, the main reason for outsourcing is growth. I have been to India, talked with workers and business leaders there, I have study global businesses, so I have first hand knowledge of what I am saying. If a business is growing that creates more jobs. These jobs are also better than simlpe call center jobs, so it creates oportunity for people to grow.

Now for the part about giving more money to rich people.

Rich people also create jobs, especially when you give them money to do so. If you continue to tax the hell of them then they don't have any money to invest in new businesses, etc (i.e. new job oportunities for people). Adding the government middle man to attempt to "direct" the money to "better" places ends up wasting money to pay government people to try to do this. I can go into this quite a bit further, but I will leave it here for now.

there's a difference between actual investors (icahn, soros, etc) pouring capital in the mix and tax haven hobos like kbr (paying taxes on only $85 million in FY2003). get real. you sound like tom friedman's bastard child.

[uofom3]

Pasha - I'm going to get on your last post when I have more than two seconds. I would make you foregin policy advisor though in a second - that's one area i'm not going to attack you on ;)

[DarkWing6]

there's a difference between actual investors (icahn, soros, etc) pouring capital in the mix and tax haven hobos like kbr (paying taxes on only $85 million in FY2003). get real. you sound like tom friedman's bastard child.

I think I know what you are saying, but can you expand on this a bit for me?

[Old'n'Slow]

First paragraph I don't have a problem with - we need to lift our bans on drilling on domestic soil. There is more than enough oil to meet demand.

:)

Mutual funds is what I mean. I mean your average Joe Public who bought some mutual fund with a large investment house that has part of his portfolio investment in oil companies. These aren't multi-billionaires - it's the guy who paints stripes on the roads you drive on.

I get that, but why would/should that upset me, as a liberal?

If you're going to say that about candidates - you can't drop another word about Bush. That would be hypocritical.

What? Me be hypocritical about a man whose actions are the very definition of the word?

There is a difference in outlining a plan, then facilitating the actions through support of legislation favorable to the plan. This is, to me, a very different matter than using fear of the threat of imminent harm to push for a course of action that had no plan. Imagine a candidate now saying he wanted to throw a few trillion dollars at (insert cause here) with no plan of how the money will be spent, no post-spending accountability, and no metric of what success looks like. By the way, we will be forsaking funding our infrastructure as we cut the domestic budget, to make up for it. And run our military to the breaking point in the process. Would you still support it? I give you "The War in Iraq".

The Bush campaign platform said nothing of a desire to "spread democracy" at all costs.....what he promised was a "humble foreign policy with no "nation building".

I'm not going to touch your biased opinion twoards the Patriot Act. Based on your profile, user name, admitted liberalism, and the cars in your "Stable" - I'm guessing you're not a young gun. Chances are, you've been a liberal for a long time. Maybe went through the 60's and did the whole free love, burn the flag, sit and protest thing. Fine. I can't solve your problems now, and I'm not going to try and argue with it.

Not that old, and not that liberal, but thanks....

I will say this - the power of the individual to work hard, handle their own business, etc. has shit-nothing-squat to do with the Patriot Act.

Not directly perhaps, but I do own a business and I will tell you I have experienced problems associated with certain articles of the Patriot Act related to banking.

Citing that you are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver is an erroneous example. You're also more likely to die in a plane crash, or get cancer. And guess what? We throw billions at all of those things each year in the forms of cancer research, FAA regulations/operations/airline subsidies, and MADD/other drunk driving outlets. The difference? Drunk driving still exists, people still die from cancer, and planes wreck around the world more often than gets reported. Fortunately, we took the war on terror to them - and guess what? There hasn't been any more attacks of significance worldwide with the exception of what takes place inside the Iraq theatre.

This is a great example of how information asymmetry and perceived fear can modify perceptions of reality.

Fact: Drunk driving costs more in medical, legal, and lost earning potential than is spent on preventing it. About 40% of highway deaths involve drunk driving. Around 18,000 Americans each year! And it could be prevented. The laws simply don't provide enough incentive for someone to think twice about getting behind the wheel drunk. And the booze industry spent 1.42 billion in 2000 on advertising alone.

Fact: Cancer research is paying off in terms of survivability. Pancreatic cancer used to be a death sentence, but is now treatable. Progress, no? This year, though 1500 people a DAY will die of cancer. Way, way, way more than the big boogie man of terrorism.

Fact: When the airlines were regulated by the government, they were profitable, if more expensive for the public. However, there were no billion dollar bailouts. Flash forward to the era of deregulation. It's cheap to fly, but now airlines are running in the red, maintenance is deferred and now government subsidies are required by some even to remain in operation. So much for free enterprise.

As to taking the War on Terror to "them".....who is them? Are you talking about the thousands of non-combatant Iraqi and Afgani men, women, and children who have died, and will continue to die as our government, going forward without a plan continues to "spread democracy in the Mid East? Estimated cost of the war? $12,000,000,000 and rising. Where's the payoff? I don't think there will ever be one. Think about it: our borders are still sieves, there are miles and miles of unguarded coastline, yet Al Qaeda, with all their supposed resources hasn't bothered to smuggle a guy with a backpack sized "dirty bomb" into the country. Could it be this "threat" is a teensy bit exaggerated?

The total death toll due to ALL acts of terrorism by any group since 1998 is estimated at 115,000. That is, sadly, approximately the same number our government believes applies to the number of civilian Iraqis killed since 2003.

We sure showed them.....:sad:

All that said, I'm not defending Obama, but I don't believe that anything the mainstream media dishes out is ever the whole story. I will, for now, give him the benefit of the doubt, just as I gave Bush the same after 9/11. The difference is, at least with Bush, the doubt is gone.

[Old'n'Slow]

I'm going to tackle this one for you.

Globalization, outsourcing, whatever you want to call it creates more and better jobs in America.

If this is true how come the standard of living, when adjusted for personal debt has plummeted? And now, with fewer factories where lower skilled workers could still make a decent wage, where does the guy with no higher education work? Wal*Mart? McDonald's? Jiffy-Lube?

Now for the part about giving more money to rich people.

Rich people also create jobs, especially when you give them money to do so. If you continue to tax the hell of them then they don't have any money to invest in new businesses, etc (i.e. new job oportunities for people). Adding the government middle man to attempt to "direct" the money to "better" places ends up wasting money to pay government people to try to do this. I can go into this quite a bit further, but I will leave it here for now.

New jobs? Where? In Asia? India? Pakistan?

I own a business. And yes, the amount of taxes I pay is ludicrous. My payroll is even taxed. That is, the more I pay my employees, the more tax I pay. How does that make me want to pay a higher wage? I have to match the employee's SS and Medicare "contributions". Why should I invest in more US workers? I wouldn't have to pay all that if I had my widgets made in China!

What I expect of the government is to help foster a level playing field. The US cannot be competitive as long as other countries don't have to play by the same rules.

[DarkWing6]

If this is true how come the standard of living, when adjusted for personal debt has plummeted? And now, with fewer factories where lower skilled workers could still make a decent wage, where does the guy with no higher education work? Wal*Mart? McDonald's? Jiffy-Lube?

There are still "unskilled" jobs in America. Some are being outsourced, but there are a lot that stay. There are also skilled jobs being outsourced (go read about Infosys).

Work in customer service. We are a country full of people that want service. As businesses grow through some outsourcing and other strategic moves there will be need created for more service. These jobs are higher paying and take as much skill as the ones being outsourced.

New jobs? Where? In Asia? India? Pakistan?

In America. The businesses grow, which mean there are more jobs needed to run that business. A majority of the business is in America, so if the company grows a majority of the growth will be in America. That means more jobs in America, and we will actually create some jobs that give people an oportunity to grow.

I own a business. And yes, the amount of taxes I pay is ludicrous. My payroll is even taxed. That is, the more I pay my employees, the more tax I pay. How does that make me want to pay a higher wage? I have to match the employee's SS and Medicare "contributions". Why should I invest in more US workers? I wouldn't have to pay all that if I had my widgets made in China!

I don't really know what you are trying to say in this that has to do with what we were talking about. I think our tax structure here sucks. I think businesses should not be taxed as heavily as they are and SS and all that is total BS (not cause I am not going to get any, which I still think I will, but because it is dumb for the governemt to "save" for me). Voting Obama or anyone with similar ideas is gonna screw you and force you to go to China. Read about his economic plan, if you could even call it that.

There are other taxes you will have to pay if you have your widgets made in China. Also, a lot of these countries require that you put a certain amount of the money you make back into the economy. Maybe not on a smaller scale, but as a large business you will

I am all for giving you, the business owner, more money. Why would you vote Democratic as a business owner?

What I expect of the government is to help foster a level playing field. The US cannot be competitive as long as other countries don't have to play by the same rules.

First off, that is not the job of the government. Go read the Constitution.

Either way, we are in a global economy. You are going to have to deal with that. If you try to restrict businesses from going outside for some jobs they will leave the country all together (maybe they will outsource thier jobs back to the US). Then where are all your taxpayers and jobs going to be?

[Funkmasta]

Close, but the real issue is that there has not been a new refinery built in the US since 1981, and of those that existed then, about half have been closed. Meanwhile, due to high demand, the oil companies enjoy record profits. 2 years ago, the Saudi Prince told Bush, "we could send you more oil, but you lack the capacity to refine it." There's plenty of crude available.

Selling oil at a market price will ensure that there will be plenty of it available for a long time. Yah, $4 per gallon sucks, but hey, that is still about half of what it costs everywhere else in the world. And to those that bitch about the oil price and our environment, BUT CONTINUE TO USE DISPOSABLE PLASTIC PRODUCT? L. O. L.

And hey, let's continue to BUY THEIR OIL. In the future, when it is depleting, and REALLY worth something, guess where it is going to be? Oh ya, ours.

I'm sorry but this doesn't illustrate your point clearly. What do you mean by "oil companies firms"? What difference does it make that they are publicly held? All that means is they will do nearly anything to assure a dividend for the stockholders and keep prices/profits high. As a liberal, the only reason that bothers me is that it is short-sighted. 1: It puts more money in the hands of the already well off, but does Joe Public a disservice because now he has to use even more of his weak dollar to get himself to work everyday. Assuming he hasn't already been laid off by another publicly held company 2: who has exported his job in search of higher profits and therefore higher dividends for its shareholders.....

1: Somebody, at some point in their life, MADE A CHOICE to invest in oil. I have good family friends that invested in Starbucks. I WISH I HAD INVESTED IN GOOGLE. It should not be held against them! They pay more taxes in two years than you or I may in our entire lives.
Also, liberally minded people tend to see the "Rich and famous" celebrities and movie/rock stars as the class with money. This is flawed thinking. THOSE type of successful people dont really create much, except for entertainment. MOST of the well-to-do people that liberally minded people bitch about, CREATE AND/OR MAINTAIN jobs for a majority of the population. And you're bitching about money going in their pockets? THEY are the ones PROVIDING means for people to feed their families. Why should THAT not be rewarded/ing.

2: Companies don't outsource to other countries in search or hopes of higher profits.
They outsource because they cannot afford to pay the huge taxes, and a mandated minimum wage. Common products would be unobtainable if they were made in the US.

We all know that no matter what a candidate says, in reality, it is not up to him/her what shape solutions take. That is generally up to the House and Senate in the end. But they can at least bring some fresh ideas to the table and be willing to lend them their support.

We increased their power exponentially when we, as a sheepishly cowed, fearful public assented to the ratification of the so-called Patriot Act. And they have mishandled it! You are far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist attack, yet through manipulation of information asymmetry, the Bushies have convinced us that if we don't cheerfully support their carte-blanche spending on the "War on Global Terrorism", that something-they're not sure what, (there's that fearmongering again) will happen.

I have never really understood this. People bitch about the patriot act, but does it REALLY matter? So the government can read some of you emails... do you think they give a flying fack if you are having an affair? Clinton got blown by Ms Lewinski, so I'm guessing not. And since when did ANYONE declare that the internet was not public domain?

The only thing that I have against the Patriot act is that it is one step closer to the socialist concept that appeals to so many.

If you still believe in the power of the individual in a country where individual votes don't really count, and the work ethic/capability of Americans that can't be bothered to show up to vote in the first place, then I humbly suggest you re-evaluate those beliefs. Get on the TSA's No Fly list due to an admitted "internal error" and see how much power you really have. :p

Vote locally.

[Funkmasta]

:)
The total death toll due to ALL acts of terrorism by any group since 1998 is estimated at 115,000. That is, sadly, approximately the same number our government believes applies to the number of civilian Iraqis killed since 2003.

It is not our military that is killing off civilians. We're not the ones that are blowing up bombs in the cities.

We are trying to build an infrastructure over there, FOR THEM, so that they can have a handle on THEIR extremists, and they can turn their country into a safe place.