What? Obama's new wonder-plan is what TOOK AWAY our low deductible plan and forced us, for more money, to buy one that will cost us thousands more each year in premiums, and ten thousand more a year in deductibles. The people you're defending - Obama, Pelosi, Reid - forced us to buy a high deductible plan with fewer benefits, minus the doctor we'd used for years, and more. Obama didn't "outlaw" bad, expensive coverage, he just forced us into that exact situation. Thanks for shilling for him, though - it's nice to see that BS so transparently on display for all to see.

I used to have affordable insurance for my wife and I. The ACA killed it. Were forced to go to a new plan that:

1) Has much higher monthly premiums (we went from roughly $230/month to about $500/month)

2) Has a hugely higher deductible (we went from $2,500 a year to about $12,000 a year). This means that we are much, much farther out of pocket every year, especially if we actually need medical care beyond one or two simple visits annually.

3) We are past any risk of pregnancy. None the less, we are being forced to pay for elaborate maternity care that we cannot possibly use.

4) The new plan forced us to give up the doctor we've been using for 15 years unless we want to pay cash for that in a way that doesn't help with our deductible.

5) The two best local hospitals are no longer available to us unless we want to pay retail for their use, and get no benefit against our deductible.

Prior to this "affordable" new act, we had no need to change insurance, doctors, hospitals or anything else for well over 10 years.

Because of how the math is working out, we're told to expect that next year's premiums will go up by another 45-55%. Thanks, Mr. Obamacare Cheerleader, if you're one of the people who helped to empower the people who snuck this 100% partisan monstrosity through congress on Pelosi's "deeming" technique. Thanks a lot.

So you are ALSO saying that the information presented is incorrect ... that the people at HHS had NO idea that the site wasn't full of holes in terms of security and functionality. That the "cherry-picked" emails that show the administration knew the site was a train wreck are referring to something else, because the site wasn't a train wreck when it went live. Right? I see. So if that's incorrect, then what you're saying is that the administration did NOT know that the site was a train wreck. Which makes them stupefyingly incompetent.

So your idea of "nothing to see here" is either:

1) The administration knew exactly what a train wreck the thing was, but lied about it. Or...

2) The administration, at every level, was so foolish and incompetent that it had no idea whether or not the system was useless, and in lacking any sort of knowledge one way or the other, just assumed it was fine.

So what you're saying is that: 1) The administration didn't knowingly force people to use a badly designed, insecure web site that wasn't ready for prime time. That's just something the administration's critics made up, out of context. 2) The administration has fixed all of the security concerns, and that the whole platform is now working as they promised it would, and that anyone saying otherwise is lying and spinning the glorious real facts on the ground. I see.

I have little doubt you believe that, but it is complete nonsense, rubbish.

Even if you do believe it, and it would take little research to disprove it, you are still stuck with the question of what to do about ISIS.

The difference is that when you make someone who starts up a business pay all of the country's taxes, they're forced to simply pass that along to consumers as higher prices. The consumers pay the taxes regardless, always. Businesses can't exist without people buying their goods and services.

Do you think there is a possibility you have a few things wrong?

If not, perhaps you should brace yourself.

ISIS engages in rape, torture, beheadings, amputations, crucifixions, live burials, mass executions, and genocide.

Are they simply misguided? They desire to spread their civilization and form of government over all the earth. Is that wrong? Are you being "judgmental"?

ISIS Attacks: “Religious Cleansing and Attempted Genocide”
Horrors Of ISIS: Children Buried Alive, Crucified Corpses
Iraq crisis: Islamic militants 'buried alive Yazidi women and children in attack that killed 500'

It isn't rare for would-be "martyrs" to disapprove of dying when it isn't under their control, and they don't get to take large numbers of people with them to "earn" their spot in paradise.

So, preventing citizens from getting their heads chopped off or blown up by suicide bombings is calculated to gain the voters favor? Those clever bastards! One question - will the next government not do that? How do you think people will react to that? Are you suggesting that people in Australia are resigned to being slaughtered like so many cattle? How will that reflect upon Australia?

Perhaps the fairy dust stole your memory?

If you think the Valerie Plame saga is worth flogging compared to Snowden you have a very serious gap in your judgment and sense of proportionality.

But if you want to continue, maybe you should get it right.

Valerie Plame

And no, "Richard Armitage" isn't an anagram for Richard Cheney.

When massive amounts of detailed information on intelligence programs and alliances is stolen and released to all comers and people try to claim that it doesn't cause any harm, as many here do, they might have a case to describe some of those people as "idiots."

Al-Qaeda's Embrace Of Encryption Technology - Part II: 2011-2014, And The Impact Of Edward Snowden

The CIA was about having an American intelligence agency suitable to face the challenge of the Cold War: the enormously powerful and dangerous Communist bloc lead by the nuclear armed Soviet Union which was further fortified by the Warsaw Pact nations, Communist China, and the growing number of Communist insurgencies across the world. Trying to explain the CIA as "making the world safe for American business" is silly.

The Communists killed 100,000,000 people in the last century in all manner of cruel tortures, executions, forced starvations, and many other crimes against humanity. Why wouldn't countries want to prevent that from befalling their people? Of course! The real danger is "Wall Street bankers and lawyers!" Please.

The Soviet Story - trailer