Who claimed the NK didn't launch the weapon? You don't understand what a false flag operation is. I'd advise you to read about the Gulf of Tonkin affair, but you'd probably walk away wondering why we fought Vietnam over little toy trucks.

The Administration recently announced that America would focus their projection of power to the Asian-Pacific region. My guess is that the claims of a long range NK missile are either the allowance of idiotic intelligence assessments to further propaganda goals, or the outright fabrication of assessments for the same purpose.

China will squash NK like a gnat if they threaten regional stability in any real sense, but the if the United States allows that to happen, it will be a blow to perceived US power in that area. There has to be an open ended excuse for a strike or an invasion to avoid that possibility.

How many people think earning billions of dollars of income is not enough reward in and of itself for hard work? Why should Schmidt and his corporation pay less tax by ratio than the people in my neighborhood who actually perform valuable functions within our economy?

Depraved materialists like Schmidt wouldn't have a dime if it were not for the efforts of American public research funded by taxes. Schmidt is probably smart enough to understand that he wouldn't be here without publicly funded research, but he has the ethical acuity of a fucking viral infection. Actually, that's a perfect analogy, because he's so blinded by his own limitless greed that he'd gladly kill his host as long as the digits in his bank account go up. Even a rat has enough empathy to help another one out, but Schmidt only aspires to be a rat. He would rather watch the American middle class sink while he talks about what a super guy he is and how it's justified that Google keep a few extra billion to piss away on his failed social media network while others fight for food stamps, safe neighborhoods, and the most basic educational programs.

Fuck Schmidt and every other hopeless asshole who thinks like him. The only way he could make the world a better place is if he stopped doing business altogether. And he should.

And to answer your question, no one earning under 250K has the time or the resources to game the system quite like multinational corporations. They are the only people, and I use that term loosely, with the resources and the absence of human dignity to suck money out of the economies they depend on so a few random shitheads can have nicer paintings in the bathrooms of their yachts. But according to capitalist fundamentalists, a ten million dollar panting hanging over a solid gold shitter has more economic value than a few thousand people getting assistance with a college education, or 20,000 families receiving nutritious food for a month. It's transparently a lie, and everyone knows it. It's too bad Schmidt lacks the integrity and/or the intelligence to say otherwise.

Astro turfing isn't going to solve the problem, and neither are integrations of third party utilities by end users desperate to avoid the crap interface that has been crudely bolted on to the Windows kernel. I notice that you're unable to explain how introducing two poorly integrated paradigms helps businesses accomplish their computing tasks.

Not only does Metro completely suck, but it breaks the definition of what a Windows application is. Microsoft has managed to create an operating system worse than Vista by breaking backwards compatibility going one generation back and forcing developers to choose a platform within a platform, or write for both and waste time and resources so Steve Balmer can consider himself an innovator. It's an accomplishment, but not the kind you'd want to put on a resume.

No 4g wireless. Less space than a laptop. Lame.

In all seriousness, Microsoft is failing because they have been busy abandoning their core principles since Windows 7 was released. I'm fine with experimenting with new interfaces, but you have to leave options for people who are comfortable with your old UI paradigm or no one will bother to make the transition if you're not in the same yuppie fanboy market as Apple.

Here's my advice, Microsoft: release 8.1, offer a "classic" shell, and stop pretending to be something you're not. If you lose your enterprise clients, you're going to be the next BlackBerry. Stop putzing around with internal C-level paranoid delusions and get back to work helping businesses accomplish their computing tasks.

Gay rights and reproductive rights are safe. They are the emotional platforms needed to rally the hysterical voters against the opposing candidate. They are brought up in every campaign and are very rarely acted on. The candidates need to save them for the next election because they are the only actual differences between the parties. (But the fact that they are never acted on means they can't really be counted as differences.)

So when Romney says that he wants to overturn Roe vs Wade and cut funding to Planned Parenthood, I'm supposed to vote for him because he is a liar and won't do anything? Are we voting for the guy most willing to be unethical?

Obama didn't end any wars that weren't already set to end. And he started the Libyan thing. And he's been ramping up aggression towards Iran. Romney may invade Iran sooner than Obama, but they'd both get us there eventually.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Yes, there are foreign policy problems with the Obama Administration. Meanwhile, Romney thinks the greatest threat to our country is Russia. Are you going to pick questionable foreign policy, or a foreign policy based on complete ignorance of foreign policy itself? The Obama Administration has backed Israel down from rash action in Iran, and as our client military state, Israel has little choice but to listen.

Reforming heath care is hardly a differentiating factor. Obamacare is Romneycare. It's the exact same thing. Obamacare isn't a single payer system, it's a mandate that everyone must do business with a cartel of for-profit insurance companies. Romney's just pissed that Obama didn't go too far enough.

Romneycare is the compromise proposed by Republicans in the late 90s when Clinton attempted to establish a single payer system. Obamacare has similarities, which were a compromise, but you didn't hear any kudos from the Republicans because the GOP establishment (not the voters) does not base policy on how well it helps working and middle class Americans. They base their policy on how much power it gives them to cut taxes for themselves and relax business regulations for their friends. And in this case, to their bizarre obsession with making things up about Obama. I'm so glad Mitch McConnel failed miserably at his goal of making Obama a one term president. I hope it sticks in his craw for the rest of his life for wasting taxpayer money and time on such a petty personal vendetta.

Anyway, that's why the financial service sector took a dive today -- they know with a second term and Elizabeth Warren taking office, the hammer will fall on all of the unethical corporate business practices that have been ruining our economy since 1980. I doubt Obama will go as far as I want him to go in punishing white collar criminals, but if Romney had been elected, they would have thrown a three day coke bender in every penthouse office in Manhattan in celebration of more free money.

I have no idea where your information comes from, but you should probably stop reading whatever is filling your head with nonsense. If you find yourself avoiding WikiPedia and every news source except for Drudge and Fox, you have only yourself to blame for constructing a fantasy world that never punishes you for being ignorant of the facts.

Gay rights don't matter? Reproductive rights don't matter? Ending wars doesn't matter? Reforming health care doesn't matter?

The fashionable political ignorance fad has really run its course. Learn something or find something less important to ruin with your branded apathy.

(This will contain factual statements about Mormon history that is not intended to needlessly disparage their religion. There could be an entire other discussion about continuing in a faith that finds the truth to be offensive, but my purpose here is to reveal the truth for its own sake.)

I will concede immediately that the Mormon stance on caffeine is not what I thought it was. It's even more ridiculous than I imagined, though it does allow for Mitt to drink Diet Coke, so you are narrowly correct in your implication for a citation.

From WikiPedia:

The "Word of Wisdom" is the common name of a section of the Doctrine and Covenants... It is also the name of a health code based on this scripture, practiced most strictly by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and Mormon fundamentalists, and to a lesser extent, some other Latter Day Saint denominations. In the LDS Church, compliance with the Word of Wisdom is currently a prerequisite for baptism, service in full-time missionary work, attendance at church schools, and entry into the church's temples...

The text discourages "hot drinks", the non-medicinal use of tobacco, the consumption of wine (excluding sacramental wine) or "strong drinks", and encourages using meat sparingly. The scripture also recommends the consumption of herbs, fruits, and grains, as well as grain-based "mild drinks". As practiced by the LDS Church, there is no firm restriction relating to meat consumption, but there are additional restrictions against narcotics, and all alcoholic beverages are forbidden, including beer. The LDS Church interprets "hot drinks" to mean coffee and tea.

They have recently softened their stance on caffeine to appear more rational and relevant, much as they did in 1978 when God suddenly revealed to the Mormon community that black people were okay. The official LDS stance on caffeine is this:

The only official interpretation of "hot drinks" (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term "hot drinks" means tea and coffee. Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.

What this means is that drinking hot peppermint tea is forbidden, despite containing zero caffeine, while drinking Jolt Cola or Bawls is okay because it is cold. If you think an adherent of those ridiculous rules is capable of forming an effective drug policy for people who live in the 21st Century, vote Romney, and hope he doesn't drag other horrible ideas from 1850 into your life.

Yes but which side supports balancing the budget during their term?

Obama wants to raise the top tax rate and cut some spending, and has outlined his specific plan which independent economists say would reduce the budget deficit.

Romney announced that he wants to cut taxes even more for the wealthy, and claims he'll close that loophole with deductions and spending cuts, but refuses to offer specifics.

Which side supports auditing the Fed? Which side supports repealing the NDAA? Which side supports repealing the PATRIOT Act?

Fair criticism. However, Romney has said things like "We should double Guantanamo."

Which side will bring troops home?

Obama has brought troops home.

From Politifact: 'Romney's current campaign website is vague on plans for Iraq. He buries the issue in a topics page about the Middle East, praising George W. Bush's 2007 "surge" of troops and bashing Obama's 2011 withdrawal deadline. He makes a reference to reports from field commanders who "recommended a 14,000 to 18,000-strong residual force as the minimum necessary to carry out our transition mission."'

Which side won't start a war with Iran?

US Warns Israel off pre-emptive strike in Iran

US military commanders have warned their Israeli counterparts that any action against Iran would severely limit the ability of American forces in the region to mount their own operations against the Iranian nuclear programme by cutting off vital logistical support from Gulf Arab allies.

Romney: "Well, it's worth putting in place crippling sanctions. It's worth working with the insurgents in the country to encourage regime change in the country. And if all else fails, if after all of the work we've done, there's nothing else we could do besides mil -- take military action, then of course you take military action. It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

Which side will cut unnecessary spending from the government?

See above.

Which side will stop the war on drugs?

Obama signs bill reducing cocaine sentencing gap

President Obama signed a bill Tuesday reducing the disparity in penalties for the use of crack and powder cocaine, according to the White House.

The enactment of the law seals a hard-fought victory for civil rights activists who have argued for years that the differing punishments unfairly target African-Americans.

Romney: "The entryway into our drug culture for our young people is marijuana. Marijuana is the starter drug. And the idea of medical marijuana is designed to help get marijuana out into the public marketplace and ultimately lead to the legalization of marijuana overall. And in my view, that's the wrong way to go."

The guy is religiously bound to avoid caffeine, for Christ's sake.

Which side will support gay marriage?

Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA and supports a legislative appeal of DOMA by the Respect for Marriage Act.

From CSM: "Mr. Romney signed a National Organization for Marriage pledge a year ago in favor of a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage solely as between one man and one woman. Further, the former Massachusetts governor does not support civil unions."

I think you get where I am going... You talk about 4 general ideas, but when it comes to important real issues, there is no difference.

That is a plainly false statement. The differences are real, and stark. I have heard it several times around the interwebs, but it's true: voting for Obama is choosing disappointment over disaster.

It may not be a fun vote, or a revolutionary vote, but it's at least a move in the right direction. Mitt Romney's Administration would be a clone of the GW Bush Administration, which will almost certainly lead to economic and foreign policy disasters. They will shut down alternative energy investment and pour ten times as much money into middle eastern policy that will further entrench us in conflict there. They will cut taxes for the ultra wealthy at the expense of everyone else. They will cut government programs that exist to help the poor, who Mitt Romney has said he is "not very concerned about" because they have a safety net. And let's not forget the despicable and pathetic comments he made concerning the 47%.

Examine the issues, and vote with your conscience. But for the love of Science, don't spread the lie that there's no difference between the two.

I read all sorts of sources including AJ. I just don't take it as gospel. My point stands.

No, it doesn't. Your assertion was that the United States did not invade Iraq for oil, but every single internal document is either aimed at excusing the invasion or at overturning the Iraqi constitution in order to open up their oil market. You are fucking wrong, and you're still wrong, despite your feigned ignorance aimed at winning this argument.

Even if that law was passed, it would have given "Western" nations no more of an advantage than the Chinese, Russians, and others who ended up getting the contracts. People like you love to go on about "conspriacies" without ever creating a concrete narrative as to how actions actually benefit the supposed conspirator. The net result of the Iraq was has been absolutely horriffic for the US. Our reputation as a nation is smashed to bits. The region has been destabilized. Iraq is soon to become yet another proxy state of Iran. Nobody will every believe us again about WMDs which gives every dictator with the will carte blanche to say "the US is lying again" while rushing unabated to the nuclear finish line. And on top of all of that we didn't even get any of the oil we supposedly did it all for. Jesus. If the conspirators are that incompetent, you really think it's out of the realm of possibility they were actually stupid enough to believe Saddam, suspicious as he was acting, didn't actually have WMDs.

Just because the conspiracy failed doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy. It would be like claiming that Moscow never had any intention of running things in Czechoslovakia if they were kicked out, or failed it any part of their plans. It's a childish way to escape the truth.

It's not like the CIA has a fantastic track record historically on predicting these sorts of things. We've missed the mark on every single nuclear advance of every single enemy without exception.

Holy fuck, are you actually that misinformed?

In the closing years of the cold war, Pakistan was considered to have great strategic importance. It provided Washington with a springboard into neighbouring Afghanistan - a route for passing US weapons and cash to the mujahideen, who were battling to oust the Soviet army that had invaded in 1979. Barlow says, "We had to buddy-up to regimes we didn't see eye-to-eye with, but I could not believe we would actually give Pakistan the bomb.

How could any US administration set such short-term gains against the long-term safety of the world?" Next he discovered that the Pentagon was preparing to sell Pakistan jet fighters that could be used to drop a nuclear bomb.

Barlow was relentless in exposing what he saw as US complicity, and in the end he was sacked and smeared as disloyal, mad, a drunk and a philanderer. If he had been listened to, many believe Pakistan might never have got its nuclear bomb; south Asia might not have been pitched into three near-nuclear conflagrations; and the nuclear weapons programmes of Iran, Libya and North Korea - which British and American intelligence now acknowledge were all secretly enabled by Pakistan - would never have got off the ground. "None of this need have happened," Robert Gallucci, special adviser on WMD to both Clinton and George W Bush, told us. "The vanquishing of Barlow and the erasing of his case kicked off a chain of events that led to all the nuclear-tinged stand-offs we face today. Pakistan is the number one threat to the world, and if it all goes off - a nuclear bomb in a US or European city- I'm sure we will find ourselves looking in Pakistan's direction."

Your really think it's just not possible Iraq is a result of stupidity and not malice? You have a lot more faith in our leadership than I do.

It's a combination of hubris, malice, and stupidity. You seem to live in a fantasy world of false dichotomies.

Perhaps you can explain then, if it was such a conspiracy, how the US managed to orchestrate the invasion

What kind of thinking person asks how the world's largest military power "managed" to "orchestrate" the invasion? It's what we do. We spend more than the rest of the world combined every single year on our military. So why are you asking how we managed to militarily overpower a nation with 30 million people that has been subject to sanctions and bombings from 1991 until our invasion in 2003?

and create a government without managing to get a simple law passed

A law that basically states that Iraq's resources are owned by foreign powers isn't a simple law. It's a declaration of ownership. Unsurprisingly, there was huge opposition to the law, and since the opposition was from real Iraqis and not puppets like Chalabi, the idea that Iraqis own Iraqi oil prevailed. Do not give credit to the United States government for their idiocy. Give credit to the Iraqis who had the fortitude to say no to an occupying power.

Perhaps you can explain how this law would have helped give "Western" nations an advantage over other countries.

The U.S. State Department's Oil and Energy Working Group, meeting between December 2002 and April 2003, also said that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war." Its preferred method of privatization was a form of oil contract called a production-sharing agreement. These agreements are preferred by the oil industry but rejected by all the top oil producers in the Middle East because they grant greater control and more profits to the companies than the governments. The Heritage Foundation also released a report in March 2003 calling for the full privatization of Iraq's oil sector. One representative of the foundation, Edwin Meese III, is a member of the Iraq Study Group. Another, James J. Carafano, assisted in the study group's work.

For any degree of oil privatization to take place, and for it to apply to all the country's oil fields, Iraq has to amend its constitution and pass a new national oil law. The constitution is ambiguous as to whether control over future revenues from as-yet-undeveloped oil fields should be shared among its provinces or held and distributed by the central government.

It's still about oil in Iraq

In essence, the Bush Administration invaded to overturn the Iraqi Constitution, which states that Iraqis own Iraqi oil. They failed at the second part of their plan.

On a larger note, if you want to understand geopolitics, you're going to have to read and think with some regularity in order to understand what's going on in the world. Reading US centric newspapers to understand our role in the world is like reading Pravda in order to understand Russia's role in the world. It's a helpful input, but often has nothing to do with reality.

Dude, it's not my fault you can't read. From the article you linked:

Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. had hoped to do with the Oil Law it failed to get the Iraqi parliament to pass, the oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years for seven of the 10 oil fields on offer -- the oil will remain the property of the Iraqi state, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel.

You don't remember Rumsfeld saying that the war would last no longer than five weeks and cost no more than 50 billion? The Iraq War was the result of the dumbest executive branch in world history attempting to continue the policy of occupation in the Middle East. They failed miserably on every goal, and one of those goals was to gain control of oil fields for Western companies.

Their failure to achieve that goal does not mask the goal, or erase it from history. It simply exposes that the plan was doomed from the start, as it always has been. You cannot occupy another nation and take their resources without wiping them out, or eventually being thrown out. That's why we need to invest trillions of dollars on new energy research instead of occupation and nation building.

Who is talking about Israel? They're a military outpost. They do what we tell them.

Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq's oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and economic sanctions.

"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

Juhasz, author of the books The Tyranny of Oil and The Bush Agenda, said that while US and other western oil companies have not yet received all they had hoped the US-led invasion of Iraq would bring them, "They've certainly done quite well for themselves, landing production contracts for some of the world's largest remaining oil fields under some of the world's most lucrative terms."

But don't let reality change your worldview. See if there's any more western friendly propaganda in the rabbit hole you live in.