So your "collegue" is trying to drive a nail into an oak board using a Sears screwdriver - and complaining that a less expensive screwdriver from Walmart shatters when abused that way. Have either of you ever heard of a freaking hammer!

"How many times dijja have to tell ya - the right tool for the job, Laddie!" - Lt. Cmdr. Scott

1. Americans have experienced the severe negative effects of air pollution. It would be unkind not to warn the world's largest democracy to avoid our mistake.
2. Technology molds society. After 70 years, American society cannot simply "stop driving". It will take a generation or more to transform American society into something compatible with less personal transportation - like, say, virtual living.
3. Not everyone in this forum has "talked down" to the developing world. Of those who have, not all "drive big Ford trucks". I drive a small Ford economy car, and power my house with 100% wind energy. So do I have your permission to warn Indians of the risk they are facing, and how they might avoid the worst effects?

I understand the point you are intending, but consider whether your bashing 300,000,000 people with such a broad bat isn't the moral equivalent of those who "talk down" to the developing world.

This silly assertion deserves its own post. The short answer is because "We lived through it, we didn't read about it on some fantasy revisionist websites".

Here's what really happened.

In January 1980, when Reagan took office, inflation was 14%. A home mortgage at 20% was "normal" (this was a rate for someone with excellent credit). The budget deficit was running about 2% of the GDP - more than it should be, but not yet serious. And the prior president had blamed the American people for the "national malaise" that was perpetuating the crisis.

Reagan was re-elected by one of the largest landslides in history in 1984 because of the success of his policies - and very rapid success at that. In 1984, inflation was a mere 3%, interest rates on mortgages had dropped to around 12%, and the deficit had climbed to about 5% of GDP - a bit worrisome, but nothing like Obama's rapid increase from 6% to 9% already this year.

Reagan wasn't eligible for re-election in 1988, which was lucky for Bush I. By now, these "disastrous" policies (say you) had resulted in a 3% inflation rate, mortgage rates down to 7%, and the budget deficit had fallen to just 3% of the GDP.

By the time Clinton took office (which I'm guessing is when you started paying attention in real life), inflation had dropped to only 2.6%, mortgage rates were down to 5%, and the deficit was around 4%. The good news continued through Clinton's 2 very successful terms (ignoring that whole impeachment thing) - almost a 3% of GDP surplus (which regrettably we spent rather than use to pay down the debt), with stable inflation and interest rates similar to what was achieved by Reagan.

Claiming now, 30 years later, that Reagan was a "disaster" is so foolish on its face to anyone who enjoyed the "Reagan Revolution" that you'll have to excuse my laughter. You've experienced the Bush II economic disaster, and actually think Reagan must have been similar.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Read it for yourself:

• Inflation Data
• Interest Rate Data
• Deficit Data

Your capacity to make excuses for any and all Democratic failings, including misquoting me repeatedly and "fixed that for you" childishness to avoid responding to points with an actual argument, and to even blame last week's retroactive tripling of the annual budget deficit (not "national debt") to over 1 trillion dollars on Republicans despite the Democrat's total domination of the national legislative and executive branch this year, should clue you in on how completely you've lost political perspective.

But I suspect it won't.

Perhaps with more schooling, you'll learn some critical thinking skills. Perhaps you'll realize that both the R's and D's are about acquiring and keeping power - which is why the current push for such a huge expansion of government power into the lives of Americans is such a real threat.

Until then, enjoy your hazy worship of all things D. Blaming R's can only last for a year or two (well, 30 and counting with you, but most Americans aren't nearly so brainwashed).

...and that Obama is proposing today, which is what started this fascinating discussion. Not so hypothetical. :-)

Geesh, you really should learn to do these for yourself. Here's how: Type 'America privacy loss' into Google, and read the first article. It lists the top 4 disasters related to the rights of Americans preceding President Bush, from the San Francisco Chronicle.

• 'the Alien and Sedition Acts early in the 19th century' - that would be John Quincy Adams, a Federalist.
• 'the suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War era' - that would be Abraham Lincoln, a Republican.
• 'the "Red Scare" and the "Palmer Raids" in the time of World War I' - that would be Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.
• 'the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II' - that would be Franklin Delano Roosevelt, another Democrat.

So, if we count President Bush's actions, as the article does, then I see two Republicans, two Democrats, and a Federalist.

Now, your turn. Do some research that proves that the above Democratic abuses are really the fault of Republicans. Good luck!

So it was! After 5 responses, yours is the first to note this. Ruby Ridge was solely Bush I's fault, not Clinton's.

I'll concede that Waco was principally Bush I's responsibility, if you'll concede that 9/11 was principally Clinton's responsibility.

Not even close. Bush II worked with Democrats to create the largest deficit in our nation's history in fiscal 2008 - over half a trillion dollars. So I'm not a Republican. Of course, then Obama quickly worked with the Democrats to retroactively triple it - to a trillion and a half for fiscal 2008. So I'm not a Democrat, either. But keep guessing.

Twenty years and 6 presidential terms later, you still can't get over Reagan's success? My, you're so far left you've left the country. (Oh, wait, somebody already said that...)

And you can't read - the words you placed in quotes I didn't write. I said, "Not your research assistant." *I* do research, but only for people too incompetent to do it for themselves.

Here y'go, spoon fed. You can find the references by typing '"President Clinton" privacy violation' into Google. Here's the first six. It's not that hard. GIYF.

• "President Clinton violated the privacy of former White House volunteer Kathleen Willey by releasing private letters"
• "Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chair of the subcommittee on technology and the law, warned that the Clinton proposals would result in a nationwide computerized database holding confidential data."
• "President Bill Clinton has agreed to reveal the names of major donors to the William J. Clinton Foundation, his charitable foundation. We find this to be highly disturbing and potentially unethical."
• "Coalition Criticizes President Clinton Over Support of Company That Invades Children's Privacy"
• "When President Clinton released personal letters from a woman who had accused him of making a sexual advance, he illegally violated her privacy, a federal judge said today."

That's just from the first page of Google search.

Not your research assistant, but probably old enough to be your grandfather. Only two presidents have been even modestly competent since WWII IMHO - Reagan, who recovered America from the brink of a Carter-induced military disaster, and Clinton, who single-handedly put Republicans in congressional power for the first time in 30 years, then worked with them to finally (but oh too briefly) balance the budget.

Every president has had their problems with the concept of limited government intrusion in people's lives. Clinton, your beloved godlet, had Ruby Ridge and Waco for his trophy case, among more serious breaches of the public trust. Regrettably, he proved far too well that competency doesn't prevent power from corrupting.

Now, go do your own research on Clinton. Bring your tissues, though - he was human despite your deification.

And yes, your puppy-dog adoration of him is still cute!

You mean in the one month that Obama has had, versus the 8 years that Bush had? That's a lot less subtle of a flaw than the one you claimed from my argument!!!

Well, let's think a moment. Your bank wouldn't know your spending habits if you spent cash. Your boss wouldn't read your email if you used a private email account on a server you control. Costco and Trader Joe's would be much less clueful if you bought healthy foods from the farmer's market.

I don't have a reasonably convenient solution for Google off-hand (library != convenient), but three out of four ain't bad.

How about a central database which by law contains all of my health information? Or a personal "fat tax", where the government sets tax rates based on (say) measured BMI?

R's violate privacy "for defense", while D's violate privacy "for my own good". But you'll notice that the result is the same - less privacy. Ptbarnett is right - it's a bipartisan sport.

What, you mean I would take responsibility for me? No trillion-dollar bailouts for mismanaged banks? Detroit would actually have to make cars people want to buy, or face bankrupcy?

I like it! :-)