Correction: it says much about the general public about what they know about the technology that powers their life. For most people, it might as well be Magic.
Wow. Every regulatory agency is just there to expand its own powers? They do nothing else?
The reason people point you at Somalia is because your hyperbole leads you directly there. Want to have a civilized discussion about the optImal size of government? Great, start by dropping the ridiculous hyperbole.
A broken clock is also right twice a day. What's your point?
Technically, WW2 and WW1 were the same war, just with a 20 year pause. At least from a European and lessons learned perspective.
I suggest the Federalist Papers as a start.
Funny. Every time I read them, they say the exact opposite of what people like you pretend they say. Democracy vs Republic is still my favorite and most blatant example.
Why does one deed excuse the other? It's not like anyone complaining about the chinese annexation of the Spratley's was alive to condone the annexation of Hawai'i by the US.
Both were and are bullshit. Extending national boundaries through force is something we were supposed to leave behind after WW2. Apparently, some people think that the lessons from WW2 don't apply to them.
The dailycaller and youtube are shitty sources. I don't waste time on those. The Sharyl Attkisson site is far less damning than you seem to believe: "“Looks like they were inappropriately offering to pay for his wife,” Lerner said. “Perhaps we should refer to Exam?”" Someone asks a question about whether something needs further attention. Do you think the IRS has a magical way of divining everything without any investigation? Furthermore, there was no investigation, as someone else chimed in that the pay was "not prohibited on its face." So what we have here is someone asking around whether something is an issue, someone else provides information that it isn't, and the issue is dropped.
If anything, that article reinforces the idea that this is a total tempest in a teapot: the IRS actually didn't do something, but Republicans are trying to sound like Grassley was investigated by the IRS. There wasn't even an investigation - there was an email discussion about whether something was appropriate or not.
So when you say "she targeted a senator", you're completely misrepresenting the article - she actually didn't target the senator. As a matter of fact, if she thought that paying for Grassley's wife would be inappropriate, it would have been illegal for her NOT to investigate the senator, just because he is a senator with an (R).
Again, you're really not helping your cause here, and are just making it sound like the birth certificate all over again.
As I understand "original intent"
And, like everyone is explaining to you, you don't understand the original intent of the executive branch, and the various agencies under its umbrella.
On the second thought...I'll just reply instead of moderating: the CDC isn't legislating anything. If you have a problem with the science the CDC is putting out, take it up with the scientists at the CDC. If you have a problem with the legislation based on the research from the CDC (or lack of being based on that), take it up with your Congress critter.
As far as I can tell, there really wasn't a cover-up. It was mostly when Republicans got a hold of the story and tried to have someone's head for it that bureaucrats started to circle the wagons. The rest seems pretty standard IT ineptitude. Plus there's the reality that the difference between a political lobbying group and a charitable organization is something that's almost impossible to legally define. It's kinda like porn that way: you and I both know which one is which, but in a court of law, you'll never get to a satisfactory conclusion - partially because you and I won't be able to agree to agree on which one is which, even if we do have a good idea of it ourselves.
If this was FoxNews checking with the CIA, you'd be outraged.
If this was the LA Times checking with the CIA under Bush, you'd be outraged.
Feel free to show me where I did anything of that sort. What, you can't? Then STFU with your assumptions about how I think.
I have a bit more of a history with some of the posters on this site than you (courtesy of multiple IDs since the days that 3-digit UIDs were run of the mill). So I'm aware of their posting history, much more than you are aware of their or mine.
Furthermore, in your rage at perceived hypocrisy, you completely gloss over the fact that people apparently think that Obama personally calls up every PR flunky and checks in on how tight of a leash they keep on the press. That's ridiculous, serves nothing but to reinforce polarizing stereotypes, and has no place in a discussion about self-censorship of the press under the guise of "access". Because that's all that this is about. It doesn't even have anything to do with your pet-peeve, which seems to be that the current government is somehow unusual in its expansiveness, or that it is even the main problem that we're facing today.
No, systematic harrassment of political lobbying groups posing as charitable 501 c(3) organizations. They should have registered as c(4)s, and no one would have given a shit.
The point here is that you don't seems to bat an eye that the most popular news network in the US is essentially a mouthpiece of the Republican Party. But if one LA Times reporter checks his stories with a CIA PR flack, then it's a sign of.... dunno, some sort of impending doom.
Show me that Obama (or any President) ordered this kind of behavior from the press and the CIA, and we can talk. In the meantime, this is little more than the usual "Bad Stuff is Happening Under Obama! He Is Therefore The Evil!"
Is that before or after he's acting like a king with unrestricted power? Before or after engaging in unauthorized military strikes in countries across the world?
Make up your mind already.
Just in the off-chance that you aren't a troll and are truly looking for a discussion: here's the first hit in Google. http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/f/terrorism_verse.htm I disregard thereligionofpeace links, as they are utter nonsense, and just quote mining the Koran. If we're going down that road, the Bible is full of similar nonsense.
As for a more personal answer: it's because muslims as a group aren't bloodthirsty morons, and quite a few have learned to read the Koran so as to better their lives - just like Christians. Regarding your last question: Egypt's populous, military and judiciary just kicked out Morsi because he had turned out to be a fundamentalist. Just because you don't hear of it on Fox News doesn't mean it doesn't exist.