I think the difference is that if you drink or do drugs in your living room, you are only increasing the risk for yourself. If you drink or do drugs while driving, then you are increasing the risk for yourself and others who do not wish to share your risk.

Doctors don't need to know every drug everywhere. There is this thing called google where you can type in your symptoms and find out what drugs might be helpful. There are also reference books that a doctor could use to look up what are the appropriate medications for various problems. Or the primary care doctor could consult with a specialist if they are unsure about appropriate medications for a certain condition. I would much prefer my doctor determine the correct medication via a book or Internet search vs. a commercial.

The Bank of America data (along with some other interesting stuff) was deleted by Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

Thanks for articulating that very well. It actually takes some effort to analyze the facts and try to make a well reasoned argument. I guess that's why so many people take the easy way out to show themselves they are right, and just say something like "X is a crackpot, therefore don't listen to X".

Sounds like you are quoting the figures that were given before the war and didn't bother to check if that's how things actually played out. The war in Lybia lasted from March 31 to October 31, so it was more like 7 months. And wikipedia says 1.3 Billion spent just by the US. And now that Gaddafi is dead, everything is great there right? Not quite. There is still plenty of murder, torture, rape, etc. going on, probably worse that what was occurring under Gaddafi.

As far at the Republican criticisms being inconsistent, I won't argue with you there, but Obama has been at least as inconsistent as them on this issue given that during his candidacy he specifically said the president does not have the power to do what he did in Libya.

I have a somewhat different view of this. It seems that Obama actually got the health care that he wanted. Sure he paid lip-service to a public option for political reasons, but maybe you don't remember or didn't know that he negotiated away the public option in private meetings with the insurance companies early on [1] [2]. There's also the fact that Obama decided to personally scold Kucinich for trying to stick up for the public option. So I don't really buy the argument that Obama has good intentions but is just too powerless, inexperienced, good-natured, etc. to stand up to the Republicans.

Are you saying that the extra military spending and Bush tax cuts somehow kept the deficit lower than it would have been otherwise? I find this hard to believe. What are your sources/reasoning for this?

To be sure Obama (and Congress during his term) has been very fiscally irresponsible. He extended the tax cuts (after promising to veto them), and has continued the high military spending. I believe most of the increase in deficit under Obama was caused by the bailout/stimulus.

Just turn your laptop on it's side.

I think it's more like a pattern of corporate owned media and politics, than any single sinister organization. Any leader to tries to spread ideas outside the accepted dogma is quickly attacked and/or ignored by the existing powers. The media had an extremely strong negative reaction to Wikileaks when it started gaining popularity because it went outside the normal power structures. The mainstream media also had a pretty negative initial reaction to the Occupy movement. They also had/have a significant bias against Ron Paul. Whether you agree with RP or not, I think it's difficult to deny that the media did a lot to marginalize him.

There are just three little problems with that argument:
1. The timeline for withdrawal was negotiated under Bush.
2. Obama tried to keep us in Iraq beyond the timeline, but was blocked by the Iraqi government.
3. We are still keeping a significant militarized state department security force in Iraq indefinitely.

How about these two words: prison industry. The private prison industry has a strong interest in making every law as strict and harsh as possible.

But it's not an open market in this case, it's a monopoly where the vendors (various security contracting organizations) and the customers (elected officials) are basically a single group using the public's money. The objective of this group is to get as much money as they can while still giving a reasonable appearance of providing a service to the public. This particular employee tried to interfere with this relationship.

I agree in general that Romney will take (or not take) whatever position he feels will give him the most political advantage at the moment. However, the health care example might not be a good example of this because there are legitimate reasons to think that a given policy could be good at the state level, but not good at the national level.

{quote}I've never heard him say anything against doing this. On the other hand I've never heard him saying anything for it either. Romney's stance on things is often an enigma (like Obama 2008).{quote}
I thought Obama make his positions quite clear during his 2008 campaign. The problem was that he reversed these clear positions soon after becoming president. Closing Guantanamo being one of the most well known examples.

I guess all his tweets had to be removed from the Internet because they were so horrible that just reading them would make you want to go outside and start killing people.