Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Privacy Government Your Rights Online

Obama Administration Wants Your Old Email 639

Nemesisghost wrote to us with a story about attempts to reform the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Under the act, messages left on a server are considered abandoned after six months and are trivially subpoenaed by law enforcement. A group of ISPs is lobbying to extend the protections afforded to locally stored messages to messages stored on third party servers, but the Obama administration is urging Congress not to reform the law.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Administration Wants Your Old Email

Comments Filter:
  • by bongey ( 974911 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:05PM (#35752048)
    The only thing that Obama did good was get elected. Every single person except real left wing die hards are cursing him. What has he really accomplished? Obamacare was slim ball way to pass such a huge measure.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:07PM (#35752066)

    Come on, man. I agree with you, but we've had the same argument here a thousand times before, and will a thousand times more. There is nothing left to be said, let's spend our time arguing about the specifics of email abandonment instead.

  • by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@gmai l . c om> on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:09PM (#35752078) Homepage
    Nope, completely wrong; the left wing die hards have been criticizing him for a while. It's the moderates who like him. I'm a little disappointed in how he's done, though even now he is still head and shoulders above GWB, or how McCain would have been.
  • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:13PM (#35752114) Homepage

    Well here would be one big reason to avoid webmail or outsourced mail servers in general.

    Although most people really aren't "geeky" enough to avoid having someone else handle their email server. This law is just attempting to take advantage of the average n00b's clueless and disorganized nature....

    +...calling something at the bottom of that big pile on your desk "abandoned".

    They should enforce a standard like that for out of print creative works...

    It's all just a part of the Corporate/Individual double standard that both parties heartily embrace.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:16PM (#35752146)

    Yeah, Obama stopped the war and thank god he closed Gitmo! He's way better than G Dub!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:17PM (#35752154)

    He's worse than Bush. Bush may have been stupid, but he wasn't such a fraud.
    If Obama had been president 10 years ago he would have gone to war as well. No doubt about it.

  • by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:23PM (#35752198)

    he is still head and shoulders above GWB

    We're still in Iraq. We're still in Afghanistan. He's started a third war in Libya. Gitmo is still open. Unemployment is still way too high. We're still broke and spending more than we ever have. The Patriot Act is still around and the Administration continues to press on with other initiatives which erode the rights of American citizens. So, exactly how is BHO "head and shoulders above GWB"?

  • by Compaqt ( 1758360 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:36PM (#35752264) Homepage

    If the people don't have the right to be secure in their papers and effects (by extension, computers and emails), what right does the government have (by extension) to
    -buy weapons systems that didn't exist when the Constitution was written?
    -set up a cyberspace command?
    -use electronic money?

    When interpreting the people's rights, it's always done to the letter. When interpreting the government's rights, it's done expansively. [/rant]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:38PM (#35752276)

    For one I would say Obama has a head above his shoulders.

  • by errandum ( 2014454 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:39PM (#35752284)

    You guys are delusional.

    From an international standpoint, your allies actually talk to you now.

    From an economic standpoint, your economy is actually almost getting out of the hole republicans led you to

    Yes, you're still in two wars. Two wars he did not start and he's been trying to end since he got elected

    Did he do everything he said he'd do? No. Far from it. Way too many politics in the way of ideals. Too bad, some of those were actually good.

    But can you honestly say he's been bad? I guess you'd prefer the side that says "3 is a better number for pi".

  • by bongey ( 974911 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:40PM (#35752296)
    Can you please point to somewhat of unbias resource . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Monthly [wikipedia.org] is left leaning and was founded by someone who started in the peace corps. So yes you link is bullshit.
  • by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:42PM (#35752306)

    Anyone who thought those items were even slightly possible drank waaay too deeply from the ultra-liberal kool-aide.


    Anyone who thinks them impossible has become to brainwashed by the political tendency (by both parties) to keep saying something until people believe it.

  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:42PM (#35752308) Journal

    You know I never really cared for GWB either but mocking the man's intelligence when he was smart enough to get elected Governor of one of the largest states in the Union and then beat the best the Democratic Party had to offer twice in a national election is pretty pathetic.

  • by MoonBuggy ( 611105 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:46PM (#35752332) Journal

    I'm not a great fan of Obama, and I'm sincerely disappointed in his performance, but I'd agree with those who say he's much better than Bush.

    Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (absolutely unjustly, in my opinion), but having done so it would cause a greater mess to disappear and leave a power vacuum. Better not to have gone in in the first place, but now the troops are there, I agree with the decision to remain. Agree with it or not, Libya's a different situation: backing up something the local population started, rather than starting something at the behest of the US government.

    As for Gauntanamo bay, I quite agree with you, he has absolutely failed in his promise to shut the place down; his administration's attempts to give the inmates fair trials have been hindered by congress (something I find absolutely astonishing), but nonetheless he made a promise he wasn't in a position to keep. Still, though - Bush actually started the place, and considered it a good idea, while Obama is having trouble in his attempts to shut it down; I'd call that a serious improvement, even if far from perfect (and, to be honest, well below even 'acceptable').

    I'll admit to not being well enough informed on the current US economic situation to comment with confidence, but I do know enough to know that the major issues with the worldwide banking organisations early in Obama's presidency make direct comparisons to Bush's terms difficult.

    As for the patriot act and general civil liberties: I basically agree with you, Obama hasn't lived up to what many of us hoped for, and that is a serious problem. Again, though, Bush was the instigator of many of these policies, and Obama's greatest crime has been not to repeal them - I know "ll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing", but there is still a difference between actively pushing for bad policies (not to say Obama hasn't done some of that too) and failing to remove the ones that already exist. On some issues (gay rights, for example) Obama has at least tried to make a stand, although he hasn't done anywhere near enough.

    On balance, though, that still puts him ahead of Bush on some issues and as bad, or almost as bad, on others. Not a shining report, certainly, but still better than Bush.

  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:50PM (#35752348) Journal

    And in Libya we went in with an international coalition

    Bullshit. The United States is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting. We went in with two allies making real contributions (France and the UK) and twenty five providing moral support (the rest of NATO). If that's a "coalition" then GWB arguably had one for Iraq.

    Oh that's right, they would rather go it alone into an unnecessary and immoral quagmire like Iraq.

    This is such an amazingly hypocritical position that it defies belief. Our stated reason for intervening in Libya is the protect the civilian population. Care to venture a guess as to how many Iraqis died at the hands of the Saddam regime? I don't recall Gaddafi ever using WMDs (gas) on his own people. I don't recall him invading two of his neighbors. I don't recall him trying to assassinate any former US Presidents.

    You could at least be consistent about it. If you oppose intervention (as I do) then you need to condemn Obama's intervention in Libya. If you support humanitarian intervention then you can't very well condemn GWB for deposing Saddam. Only an idiot could claim the Iraqi people are worse off for having him removed from power and held accountable for his crimes.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:51PM (#35752350)

    But can you honestly say he's been bad?

    Did you not read the article? The man and his misadministration are effectively attacking the Constitution of the United States.

    I'm sorry that you don't seem to comprehend that an assault on the fourth amendment is just as evil as anything Bush or any of the Republicans may have done. I'm sorry you don't understand the meaning of the word liberty; that you have no notion of this country's founding ideals.

    I'm sorry that you're retarded.

    I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry for me. I'm sorry for all of us, because you, sadly, aren't alone. No. You and your fellow sports fans are legion, waving your pennants and cheering for the blue team while the country burns down around us.

  • by Glock27 ( 446276 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @08:57PM (#35752376)

    You know I never really cared for GWB either but mocking the man's intelligence when he was smart enough to get elected Governor of one of the largest states in the Union and then beat the best the Democratic Party had to offer twice in a national election is pretty pathetic.

    Not only that GWB has a MBA from Harvard. 0 has kept his records closed, why is that do you suppose? Don't the American people deserve to see the school accomplishments of the "smartest President ever"? What was his SAT/ACT score I wonder?

    0 is an outright sham and disgrace.

  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:00PM (#35752404) Journal

    That same logic could be used to justify a repeal of the bankruptcy code and return to debtors prisons. Freeloaders whom can't pay their debts drive up borrowing costs for the rest of us.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:03PM (#35752432)

    Oh, god. 'rammed down the throats of the American people'. Jon Stewart did a clip of Republicans/right wing commentators repeating that phrase over and over - try having an original thought. Obama made clear he was going to seek healthcare reform when he ran for office, and the American people elected him and a majority Democratic congress. Polling suggests that if anything a plurality of Americans are annoyed that they didn't go far enough.

    Until you decide that it's not okay to let people die from illness when your society is being rich enough to heal them I personally think your human race membership card should be revoked.

  • by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:06PM (#35752456) Journal

    Unjustly, you mean by getting the consent and approval from congress, verses Obama, we're going to send planes to bomb a sovereign country without any provocation what-so-ever?

    You may not like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is fine. The war in Lybia is pure and simply a "war for oil", more so than Iraq ever was, but you seem to like it because the bombs have (D) on them and not (R).

  • by sqrt(2) ( 786011 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:08PM (#35752468) Journal

    Left-wing die hards ARE the ones cursing him! Obama is not a leftist, he is a socially moderate pro-business Democrat. Look at his handouts to the media industry (appointments of industry insiders to high positions in his administration) and favorable treatment to business with tax (they practically let GE write their own tax code). Even the much derided "socialist" Obamacare was in actuality a massive government give away to insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Real socialized medicine reform wouldn't have allowed those two players to have a seat at the negotiating table, it's impossible to balance their interests (profits) with the idea of covering everyone because the people in most need of care are the least profitable to insure. He does no better on foreign policy. He hasn't closed Gitmo, has made no real progress divesting us in the Iraq or Afghanistan adventures, and has in fact added a third mid-East country to our list of active military engagements; Libya--although that is only in an air-war capacity, similar to America's involvement in the war in the Balkans under Clinton.

    I voted for him the first time. I wanted a real left-wing president to bring the US back on course after so many years of disastrous right-wing imperialist policies that nearly brought our economy to the point of utter collapse, increased inequality to points nearly as high as our nation has ever seen in its history, and squandered the good will of the world that we had just barely started to win back.

    Obama is NOT a socialist, and that's a shame, because that's what the US needed. It is what we still need.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:12PM (#35752496)

    Being smart enough to be elected governor of a state full of retards(retards tend to be bigger people so they need a state big enough to accommodate them ) doesn't say much. And he still needed to use all those fancy-schmancy political connections when all he really had to do was put on Sesame Street and hand out a bunch of twinkies. I can talk shit because I used to live there. Whole lotta nothin'.

    Have you ever seen a retard stoned? I have. Two retards, actually. One is named Roberto, and he used to buy us beer when we were in high school. Once shit his pants after lifting an 18-pack from Texaco and smokes meth like a motherfucker. The other's name is Ronald. His childlike awe of everything was really heartwarming, especially when we poured Jack Daniels in his fish tank and showed him our homemade pornographic videos. He would slowly say, "Naaaah!" in disbelief while smiling with his mouth open.

    -- Ethanol-fueled reporting in from Karma Hell. Not posting anonymously for visibility, but simply because Slashdot's login is broken at this time. Fix your fuckin' code!

  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:12PM (#35752498) Journal

    Unjustly, you mean by getting the consent and approval from congress

    Thanks for pointing that out. I neglected to do so in my posts on the matter. What do you suppose the reaction would have been from the left if Bush had launched the Iraq War without securing the AUMF? Think the 'I' word might have come into play a few times?

    One wonders if Obama thinks the UN outranks the US Congress in these matters. He refused to launch the war without getting permission from the UN but couldn't be bothered to do the same from the US Congress. You know, the folks represent the American people, control the purse strings of the Federal Government and whom are constitutionally empowered to declare war. Why would we do something silly like involve them in the decision making process?

  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:21PM (#35752550) Journal

    We nearly elected a senile old man and his bimbo VP to presidency.

    Nearly? He lost with the largest margin of defeat in the electoral college since 1992. 1988 if you want to look at the popular vote. McCain didn't "nearly" win. Gore nearly won in 2000. Kerry nearly won in 2004. McCain didn't even come close.

  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:26PM (#35752596) Journal

    "We don't need a permission slip to defend ourselves," is a sentence that did an enormous amount of damage to the world.

    Obama did the same fucking thing! He just opted to cut the representatives of the American people out of the decision making process instead of the United Nations.

    I'd actually argue that what Obama did was worse. He denied my representatives in Washington any meaningful chance to weigh in on the decision to drag my country into it's third war. Bush never tried to do that. You can hate him for Iraq all you want but he convinced a majority of the US Congress to go along with him. Obama couldn't be bothered.

  • by StrahdVZ ( 1027852 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:42PM (#35752716)

    I've never understood the Republicans' fear of "frightening expansion of government" while in the same breath they're happy to have the government track and monitor their every move in the interests of national security and tell them what they can and can not watch or read in the interests of morality.

    It doesn't make sense. How can you not trust them to give basic services and necessities to the poor, but you can seemingly trust them to listen in on your every move and tell you exactly what you can and can not do?

    Isn't the whole point of government to provide services to the community, as opposed to being a nanny?

  • by bit trollent ( 824666 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:44PM (#35752722) Homepage

    The government intervened to help the economy, much to the consternation of Republicans everywhere.

    That intervention stemmed the job losses, as it was designed to. It gave money from the states that were hemmoraging teachers and other government funded jobs. Those teachers and other workers still paid their bills.

    The stimulus plan which was passed over Republican objections also created jobs in the private sector. These people also paid their bills and continued to support the rest of the economy.

    The President also propped up the banking system, allowing credit to continue flowing, even if at a slower pace.

    Over time, things got better until the private sector was able to start hiring again.

    Without government intervention, job losses would have continued unabated.

  • by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:49PM (#35752770) Homepage Journal

    Wait. The U.S. has a Constitution?

  • by ukemike ( 956477 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:50PM (#35752780) Homepage
    Don't forget that instead of universal health care he got us a universal requirement to purchase private insurance.
  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:57PM (#35752830) Journal

    Except that "separate group" was effectively one and the same as the Government. That "separate group" provided many of the troops used by that Government, was there at the invitation of that Government and was provided with safe harbor from that Government. I rather doubt that non-violent pressure would have worked even if the American people had been inclined to wait long enough to find out. You are talking about a Government that cared so little for global opinion as to not be concerned by the fact that they were recognized by a grand total of THREE nations (two after the Saudis dropped their recognition) out of nearly two hundred. You are talking about a society that is effectively living in the dark ages and which has no meaningful trade with the outside world aside from narcotics exports. What "non-violent pressure" do you suppose would have been effective?

    There is also the political aspect. If the Bush Administration had sat on it's hands and tried "non-violent pressure" the American people would have marched on Washington wielding torches, pitchforks and AR-15s. The AUMF against terrorists passed with similar margins (only one nay vote in the House and unanimously in the Senate) as the declaration of war against Japan (also one nay vote in the House and unanimous in the Senate) after Pearl Harbor. The American people would not have long tolerated their Government doing nothing against the organizations that murdered thousands of their countryman.

    Bush could have glassed Kabul in the months after 9/11 and the majority of the American people would have supported him. I'm glad that wasn't on the table but your notion that we should have tried non-violent pressure is equally absurd and unworkable.

  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * on Thursday April 07, 2011 @09:58PM (#35752838) Journal

    it takes away the individual right to choose

    What right do you think you have to "choose"? You've got to be kidding.

    Here you go:

    1) Coverage can not be denied to children with pre-existing conditions.
    2) Adults up to age 26 can stay on their parents' health plans.
    3) Free preventive care.
    4) Rescinding coverage is now illegal.
    5) Eliminating lifetime limits on insurance coverage.
    6) Restricting annual limits on insurance coverage.
    7) More options to appeal coverage decisions.
    8) $5 billion in immediate federal support to affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions.
    9) $10 billion investment in Community Health Centers.
    10) Create immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees.
    11) Made an $80 billion deal with the pharmaceutical industry to contribute to cut prescription drug costs for the nation's seniors reduce the size of the "donut hole" in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit.
    12) Provides a $250 rebate to 750,000 Medicare Beneficiaries who reach the Part D coverage gap in 2010. As of March 22, 2011, 3.8 million beneficiaries had received a $250 check to close the coverage gap, according to an HHS report.
    13) Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering up to 35% of employee premiums effective 2011 and a 50% tax credit effective 2013.
    14) Creates a state option to provide Medicaid coverage to childless adults with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level. By 2014, States are required to provide this coverage.
    15) Provides a 10% Medicare bonus payment for primary care services and also a 10% Medicare bonus payment to general surgeons practicing in health professional shortage areas.
    16) Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) requires that insurance companies spend at least 80 to 85 percent of the proportion of the premium dollars on clinical services. As an example, WellPoint's Anthem Blue Cross unit in California has reduced its proposed rate increase

    But you're concerned about having the "right" to choose to go to an emergency room if you get sick so the rest of us can pay for it. Fuck you.

    Obama's a disappointment for a lot of reasons. But taking away your "right" to leech off the rest of us by not having health insurance is not one of them. And the health care reform act is not one of them. I'd have preferred a single-payer system similar to the ones the rest of the world have, because it will cost less, but this one is a big improvement over what we had before.

  • As a person with two nurses and a doctor in the family do you want to know the REAL reason our system is completely broken? You do? The answer is simple: we save a penny and spend a pound it is as simple as that. Let me give an example of one my mom had to work on...

    37 year old male, working poor, couldn't get a tooth extracted. Cost of the tooth? maybe $700 if he needs an oral surgeon. But to the working poor that may as well be $700,000 because both are out of reach, since they are living hand to mouth. Neither the state nor the fed will pay for preventive care like that. So what?

    Well instead you got to pay for the new valves for his heart and a month in the hospital getting antibiotics because the infected tooth spread infection into his bloodstream and it attacked his heart. It is actually quite common, the actor Andy Hallet died from it. Cost? I'd say around $300,000 easy.

    And THAT, that right there, is the problem. Instead of adopting a sane system where the poor could get preventive medicine we instead pay outrageous prices to take care of them when they are at death's door, when it costs CRAZY money to put them back on their feet. if either the state or the fed would have paid that $700 we wouldn't have had a $300,000 bill passed on to the government. Does the current system make ANY sense?

    As for TFA, meet the new boss, yada yada. That is why we need multiple parties here, because what we have is an "El Presidente" banana republic going on, where it doesn't matter which you vote for they BOTH want more power for themselves and less rights for you, they BOTH want to stuff their pockets and pay off their cronies. The ONLY difference between the two is which asses get kissed the most and neither give a shit about the country or the people.

    The Ds prefer the taste of big media and union ass, while the Rs prefer the corporate and MIC ass. That's it. Otherwise it is the same shit, different day. And if the Rs run anybody but Caribou Barbie they'll win by a landslide because so many are sick of Obama's bullshit.

  • by fred911 ( 83970 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @10:09PM (#35752906)

    We spend 100 million a week in Libya without any debate except to cut more social services and prohibit collective bargaining.

  • by bmo ( 77928 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @10:20PM (#35752994)

    >Don't forget that instead of universal health care he got us a universal requirement to purchase private insurance.

    Which was a Republican Idea (TM).

    This is how it works:

    Republicans come up with something on their own.
    Democrats come up with something on their own.
    Republicans vehemently oppose the Democrats' ideas.
    Democrats cave, and adopt a Republican idea
    Republicans vehemently oppose the Democrats' Idea (formerly republican) because there are "points to score"
    Democrats get the formerly Republican idea through and signed and call it victory.
    Republicans wail and gnash their teeth calling Obama a Communist Nazi Jew (Go back to Canada) etc. for passing a Republican idea.

    This country is fucked.


  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @10:43PM (#35753144) Journal

    Now the world is calling, strangely reminiscent of WW2, and you want to do nothing.

    Yes, because Libya has invaded several neighboring countries, conquered the better part of a continent and is on the cusp of overthrowing the established international order. It's exactly like WW2.

  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @10:46PM (#35753164) Journal

    George W Bush and Saddam Hussein have alot in common.

    You are officially no longer worth talking to. Have a nice life.

  • by LordLimecat ( 1103839 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @10:52PM (#35753210)

    Not war! Kinetic military activity! And we're only providing our unique dictator-removal capabilities, not bombing!

    And didnt we have to invade a country to arrest Noriega?

  • by LordLimecat ( 1103839 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @10:56PM (#35753234)

    Pretty sure GWB didnt open Gitmo either. Pretty sure GWB wasnt the first to establish free speech zones. And im pretty sure EVERYONE was for war in Afghanistan when we first invaded.

  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Thursday April 07, 2011 @11:14PM (#35753332) Journal

    Our alliance [nato.int] with those Allies only comes into play if they are attacked by a third party. It says nothing about putting American blood and treasure on the line for a country that isn't even part of the alliance. Nice try though.

  • by haruchai ( 17472 ) on Friday April 08, 2011 @12:17AM (#35753718)

    The real problem are the voters - how can they be so stupid? Much as I think the Republicans are venal, their ability to convince the sheeple to vote against their best interests is truly astonishing.

  • by Slashdot Parent ( 995749 ) on Friday April 08, 2011 @12:39AM (#35753834)

    >Don't forget that instead of universal health care he got us a universal requirement to purchase private insurance.

    Which was a Republican Idea (TM).

    This is how it works:

    Republicans come up with something on their own.
    Democrats come up with something on their own.
    Republicans vehemently oppose the Democrats' ideas.
    Democrats cave, and adopt a Republican idea[snip]

    Actually, it was more like:
    Democrats strongly push single-payer socialized medicine.
    Conservative think tanks try to come up with a more palatable solution that focuses on individual responsibility so conservatives don't look like tone-deaf morons without a plan of their own, knowing full well that their "proposal" will never see the light of day with the Democrat stranglehold on Congress.

    At any rate, that was a long time ago. Things change. The Heritage papers weren't written by Constitutional scholars, they were written by policy wonks.

    The funny thing about this whole thing is if the Democrats weren't so chickenshit about creating a new tax, they could have done an end-run around the Constitutionality argument. Nobody denies that the federal government has the right to levy taxes, and nobody denies that the federal government can provide a service. So create a new tax called the ObamaCare MegaTax of 2011, and a new service called the ObamaCare Catastrophic Health Insurance Plan. Enroll every man, woman, and child in this new plan.

    There, done. Now everybody has some sort of minimal coverage. Let the free market handle any needs beyond that like the MediGap plans do today for Medicare.

    Jesus Christ, Democrats. Is it so hard to stay true to your Tax And Spend(TM) ideals? What the hell is in that 2,000 page monstrosity of a bill, anyway?

  • by lennier1 ( 264730 ) on Friday April 08, 2011 @01:48AM (#35754152)

    Who really cares? It's the same corrupt pile of shit on both sides, just with a different label attached.

  • by Keen Anthony ( 762006 ) on Friday April 08, 2011 @02:51AM (#35754390)
    Actually, and this is an area were too many people are absolutely clueless, the military incurs costs whether its engaged in a war or not. Obviously, the military doesn't sit conveniently in a cabinet until the president is ready to pop open the DVD case and load the game. Also, the assumption people make regarding Libya is that the choice we faced was either spend zero money dealign with the Libyan situation or spend a lot of money. I believe the President and his Chiefs have more and better information than any Slashdotter. The President's choice, for all any outsider knows, may have been the least expensive option. Finally, the fact that Libya is a third hot spot means nothing. You didn't bring that up, but others did. The US military is more than capable of being in three places at once. In fact, we're not just in three places. What the military cannot handle is a government shutdown that results in military families not getting the money they need to live on. Most of the military lives paycheck to paycheck in communities that have survived only because of military bases. Often these communities are part of the Republican base. A government shutdown will quickly kill local economies that rely on the military. Ironically, if Republicans give in to the desires of the Tea Party, much of the ordinary Republican base will be hurt.

"Let every man teach his son, teach his daughter, that labor is honorable." -- Robert G. Ingersoll