And this doesn't frighten ANY of the privacy advocates here on slashdot? Were this any other government organization people would be screaming to the hills, so why is Obama given a free pass for this sort of privacy incursions?

Please take your own advise. When you get to an income bracket where you can itemize taxes, suddenly you will have a new realization that our system is very screwed up. Itemizing is not "dodging taxes", that is just the oppositions tagline. He has paid millions in taxes every year, he does everything legally, and on top of that pays millions more to charity. This last round he didn't even claim everything he could potentially claim, and he's still lamblasted for it. It is laughable how ridiculously illogical his opposition is.

Glad to see you can join in the choir, and complain about others.

The cry that he doesn't have details is merely a tactic, because they have so little else of "meat" to argue. The Obama camp's responses have descended to schoolyard "liar!" and "I know you are but what am I" type responses. This is what happens when somebody has already lost the argument.

The reality is, you don't WANT to get into the weeds of how it'll work right now because doing so would preclude the entire concept of bi-partisanship. If you want to leave the door open for bi-partisanship, you define a direction (which Romney has done) and you define core principals that will be used as a guide (which Romney has done). Arguing that there are no details is frankly getting hoodwinked by the Obama campaign, it is short-sighted and ignorant, and more people need to wake up and recognize it for the sleight of hand tactic that it is.

Consider this, if he came out and outlined a plan that was 100% palpable to every voter and it was detailed with clarity, the Obama campaign would then argue that he is not being bi-partisan, because they didn't have a chance to give input! Plus, they would argue that he has changed direction in some random way, because it doesn't match word for word some comment made six years ago!

The latter is laughable. Is it really a BAD THING if somebody changes their position after listening to both sides and carefully considering the options? I would think this is a GOOD THING, yet for some reason the political system (both sides) have used it over and over as a cry that somebody is somehow a bad person if they change their opinion over time, and they keep shouting this over and over in hopes that eventually enough people will believe it!

Answer me this: have you EVER changed your mind? On any topic? Are you a horrible person because of this?

The sad thing is, because of how human psychology works, despite the facts, many people just listen to the "party line" and stick with it, without taking the time to do the proper research (getting away from the "party" propaganda sites), as did the 2nd parent.

Kudos to you AlphaWold_JK.

How dare you speak facts and reason!

What do you think is "enough"?

I suspect he pays more in taxes than you, based on $$ amount alone.

Rather than dredging up the distant past for skeletons that are scary, why not look for positive things more recent? Not that slashdot has ever claimed to be neutral in its journalism (hah), but this is a bit leaning in a biased article. How about discussing all the technology that the Obama camp has killed, at least to balance it out?

I may actually go back to Fedora. Once it switched to GNOME3, I dropped it in lieu of CentOS6.

I am insanely curious to know what kindof hit they had on users after GNOME3 was integrated. There has to be a drop.

I would love to sign the petition on whitehouse.gov, but there is no chance I'll give that presidency my info. Next thing I know I'll be bombarded by political info I don't care about.