That's what I don't understand. Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie.

At this point, I wouldn't say Obama is like a peace loving hippie. Obama is a typical corrupt politician who happened to choose the left wing as the group he'd get cozy with to advance in politics and get elected. So he publicly supports all sorts of left-wing causes and groups, and gives them what they want because it's political patronage. Stuxnet was created in secret; what they don't know about they won't complain about, and since he doesn't actually care about their cause, it didn't prevent him from supporting it.

As for his other military adventures, he probably is aware that those acts are better for getting elected than the loss of leftist support is for not getting elected, which is the bottom line. And not many leftists would reject him for killing Osama anyway.

He's also done a bunch of other non-peacenik things, even where the peaceniks are right: he's supported warrantless wiretapping (to the point where the Supreme Court actually asked the administration if they were going to change their position now that Obama was in office and they said no).

Because the media, who are biased in favor of Obama, aren't giving them the free publicity that they used to get when they were going up against Bush.

That's not an argument for government control over soda, it's an argument against socialized healthcare.

I think the major flaw is that this seems to be assuming that bias on Wikipedia is done in the same way as bias elsewhere. Someone who wants to bias a Wikipedia article has to do so within the confines of rules which help prevent some kinds of bias more than others.

For instance, one of the most common ways to bias a Wikipedia article is undue weight--you include negative information and exclude positive information, or vice versa. This sort of bias doesn't use coded language (thus making it invisible to this study) and while it is still against Wikipedia rules, Wikipedia does relatively poorly at stopping it.

Someone who warns enemy forces about military presence is a combatant, mother or not. It's war; you don't get to make your side immune from being killed by making sure you are using mothers to do your military work for you.

Secondly, it is about perception and politics, not reality.

If the argument is that we shouldn't do it because it's wrong, it absolutely is about reality. Killing lots of innocent people is immoral; being perceived as killing them because of propaganda, is not immoral.

Superheroes inherently do things which if performed in the real world would get a lot of innocent people caught in the crossfire as well. That scene may not have been an example but even if it had been, it has nothing to do with the involvement of the military--just consider that superheroes tend to do warrantless searches, use gratuitous violence against suspects (and maybe even threaten them with physical harm to get information), gratuitously destroy property, etc. which would be really disastrous if performed by real-life law enforcement officials (and sometimes are when they are).

That's not a fair response because not only has the government built things using tax money, it has distorted the market and prevented those things from being built without tax money. He can avoid using those things, but he can't avoid *not* using the things that the government's presence drove out.

Furthermore, even most libertarians believe that the government has a role in national defense, so border patrol isn't objectionable anyway.

In modern times the "loudness war" can actually make the vinyl version better, when the studio doesn't compress the range on the vinyl version.

According to TFA, the government refused to say whether the Icelandic parliament member was violating the law or could be jailed. Perhaps we haven't snatched any Icelanders yet, but the government is still reserving the right to do so in the future and specifically is reserving the right to snatch this particular person.

Of course, the government probably wouldn't snatch any Icelanders, but that would be because of selective prosecution--the law lets them snatch anyone. If the law lets them snatch anyone, then anyone should have standing.