Present yourself, in person, with complete documentation as to who you are, including birth certificates, [...]

Long form?

Of course workers are not allowed to use free speech! It would lead to a slippery slope where soon where workers would expect to be treated like humans by corporations.

We all agreed remember, that after the 1% ruling class crashed the economy that the only solution is for the 99% losers to give up more of their rights and benefits.

Corporations are made out of people where one of those people is a CEO who had installed a friend as director of the board and then get milliions in pay and bonuses if the corporations does well or bad and also got himself a contract that gives him millions in a golden parachute if the corporation fails miserable because of its miserable CEO which it will finally have to fire. This CEO then lobbies / bribes "business friendly" politicians with the corporations money so that the corporation is allowed to pollute unlimited and bust unions so that the people who actually work for the corporation gets peanutes in pay and no job security, and since these people do not live in the nice neighborhoods of the CEO will have to drink their water unleaded. When these people who actually does the work get sick or burned out and the corporation starts to struggle some corporate raider like Mittens Bain buys the majority of shares in the corporations, then Mittens loads the corporations with debt while taking huge salaries and then leaves the corporation to die after they have robbed the pension money from the people in the corporation who has worked there for 40 years or more. After the corporation finally goes broke the federal government have to use taxpayers money to help the people in the corporation who actually did work while Mittens and the failure of a CEO live a marvelous life and give all the money they made from people who actually work for corporations but did not have time to waste to their spoiled brat children who get a Harvard education so that they can become CEOs and corporate raiders and corupte politicians.

So, yes, corporations are people.

Both the quotes by Obama are just factual statements, no? "Singing a different tune", or being a two-faced idiot, would be if Obama the candidate would have stated that "president Bush should drill baby drill to lower gas prices", while stating today that "drilling wont help". But Obama in 2008 did state that drill baby drill was not an energy policy that would help. It seems Obama was right in 2008 as well as today.

What would have been interesting about the factual statement about gas prices in 2008 in Ohio, would be the whole context it was stated. I am pretty sure that Obama the candidate was talking about investing in green energy (as he has done) and reduce wall street speculation in oil (which he has not done so far).

Lest you forget, when Bush left office, the world economy was on the brink of collapse. That might be the reason Bush managed to lower the gas price; by ruining the US economy.

It would be interesting to compare the morality of people who inherent their wealth like the Koch bros to people who actually have to work to get rich like Warren.

And again you are wrong. How sad.

Here is a link to a conference of top scientists of AGW alarmists on "crazy" ideas how to work around the worst effects of climate change: Blue-sky thinking about climate. It was in 2004. The key quote is:

On your other stupid comment of the day: scientist are working every day to be able to get earlier warning of earthquakes and to be able to accurately predict the effect and behaviour of tornados and earthquakes. Since many of these scientists are working for government organisations (e.g. universities) or (the horror) the UN, you might even call these scientists a part of a "global bureaucracy". When it comes to stop (instead of preventing harm from) such phenomena, it is surely easier to stop a phenomena that is caused by our own actions (i.e. Global Warming), than something that is caused by the movements of the earth crust.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/tea-party-debate-health-care_n_959354.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco

Not much of a criticizme, just old talking points.

Without the stimulus-spending that Obama initiated between 1 - 3.5 million more people would be out of job today. (According to independent analysis, CBO). That would be a real drag on the economy.

Also, of course you will have to do more stimulus to the economy to be able to pay of debt in the future, since it is the tax money from people actually working that will pay this debt. It is a total waste to let people be unemployed, so you invest to get people working. (You just have to make sure that the stimulus actually create jobs). This is especially true since people like yourself reject the filthy rich should pay more taxes (you know, as much as they did under Clinton and less than they did under Reagan).

A lot of the competition in the solar segment is from chinese companies run on government subsidies. China invest so heavily because they know coal is not going to cover their energy needs in the future. Beside China has often used the strategy to lose money for a while, drive out the competition and then get to set monopoly prices afterwards. Its what China for instance did to get control of the rare earths marked, i.e. metals needed to get all those electronic gadgets to work. China are now making a killing in profit from these metals after undercutting the price for years making companies in the western world go bankrupt, and it is going to take years before other countries can again build up the expertise and infrastructure to mine these metals. It would be sad if China would succesed in doing somehting similar the field of solar energy.

The big oil companies are getting 18 billion tax payers money in subsidies. Big oil with its record profits made from speculating in not building enough refining capacity. Is that what you call a level playing field?

Good post by Klein: how our debt happened.

It is also worth to note that the downgrade is not because of any near term debt problem in the US. The reason given by S&P is that the disfunctional political system in the US at the moment (i.e. the extreme elements taken over the republican party) makes S&P believe that the long term debt problem (i.e. the next decades) will not be dealt with properly. Like this statement:

A last point is how misinformed people in general is on this topic about the US economy and debt (just read some of the slashdot posts here getting modded up). It seems to be the medias responsibility to be fair and balanced and actually call out republicans talking nonsense about what the debt problem is.

People who don't support "half of what the federal government does" usually don't have half a clue about what the government actually do for them.

Best example is the so-called tea-baggers with their keep your government hands off my medicare, showning how propaganda that "everything bad is caused by the government" makes people happy about the service provided by the same government go out and vote to end those services.

So in your world view, McCarthey was correct in destroying innocent lifes, installing a culture of fear in Hollywood so that they would not make critical films about the current administration, making it hard for people with different political views to get a decent jobs and being able to bully people in general without having to prove anything? All this because there were some soviet spyes (what a shocker that is!) during the cold war?

How should one put it? "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Wasn't it the brilliant republican mind Dick C. that stated back in 2001:

Got to wonder what could have been achieved had there been a bit more focus on renewable energy 10 years ago.