| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2005/1/25 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35889 Activity:high |
1/25 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145330,00.html Your pro-Bush fanatic Bill says "The truth is the Bush administration has made mistakes in Iraq and in defining the new rules in the terror war." Fox is becoming more and more Fair and Balanced. \_ If you think O'Reilly is pro-Bush fanatic, you didn't see his interview with Bush (which is the only thing I've seen of him in 2 years). -emarkp \_ Is that something I might be able to find on the web? When was that? \_ Your google fu is weak: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133712,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133854,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133993,00.html \_ Dubya needs to clarify to Americans and the world that we were wrong about WMDs. He can open reconstruction bids to other countries. Then he can say, regardless of the U.S.'s mistake in presenting its case on WMDs to the UN, the people of Iraq don't deserve to Then he can say, regardless of the U.S.'s incorrect conclusions on WMDs as presented to the UN, the people of Iraq don't deserve to suffer because of one nation's faulty intelligence. Then he can ask for help from Americans and the rest of the world. Dubya has had the ball in his court since Kay and Duelfer's findings, and arguably, since his re-election. It has been fully Dubya's decision to not make the clarification on WMDs to the world, and all the consequences follow naturally and deservingly. WMDs to the world, and all the consequences of people not wanting to ally with him follow naturally and deservingly. \_ Dubya has made no mistakes that he can recall. Didn't you watch the debates? He has a mandate from God. He doesn't need to admit to error. \_ O'Reilly is neither Pro Bush nor Anti anything. He is merely Pro-Ratings and Pro-Publicity and Pro-OReilly \_ Pro-O'Reilly is closest, but I also say he's anti-liberal. Hard to defend Dubya's mistakes, but in the context of "liberals", O'Reilly says Dubya is still better than them. |
| 11/23 |
| 2005/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35863 Activity:kinda low |
1/23 Johnny Carson, RIP.
\_ was he blue, red, or purple?
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1326799/posts#23
\_ Johnny Cash, Johnny Carson, who will be next?
\_ *shrug* You, if we're lucky.
\_ Johnny Ramone beat Carson to it. That's three. Leave it alone. |
| 2005/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35841 Activity:very high |
1/21 Remember I was talking about my O'Reilly watching younger brother who
was thinking of joining the National Guard? He signed up a couple days
ago: Six years active duty, two years reserve, requested duty is
Infantry. (Could've signed for less, but he thought, why not?)
He's shipping out to Ft. Benning March 1.
I also think Starship Troopers (the book) played a big role in his
decision.
\_ Hmm. Your little brother doesn't sound mature enough to have been
making decisions like that.
\_ He also said most of the people there were 18-19 year old
jittery chain smokers. (not to disagree with you)
And it was also true he was a lot brighter than the average
recruit. He did qualify for pretty much anything on his exams.
He also said they told him requesting Infantry is rare.
\_ Yah. I completely believe that. As for 18-19 year old, etc,
well...that's the best age for the army to get 'em, when
they're still young and programmable.
\_ I know a guy who scored in the 99th percentile on the army
intelligence test and requested... infantry. He said he
wanted something to toughen him up. As luck would have it he
spent a year in Hawaii and the last 2 in a quiet corner of
Afghanistan.
\_ What is it with these guys? I know somone who did exactly
what you described. He spent four years driving humvees,
and standing around guarding stuff in various god forsaken
countries...and now he has a JD from a top ten law school.
\_ Do they teach you to drive?
He can't drive yet, even though he's 26.
\_ uhhh...I guess if this is a contest to see who's
army infantry friend is more eccentric, I just
lost. Yes, he could drive.
\_ GOOD. If he gets killed, that's one less Reddie voting.
\_ You just told someone you hope their little brother gets killed.
I assume this is some sort of parody.
\_ Nah, it's just a friendly troll. I took it in full humor. -op
\_ Of course it's a friendly call Dimitri! Of course I like
to call and say hello!
\_ sowings, I presume.
\_ Hi paolo!
\_ I wish your brother good luck in his assignments. When he realizes
that he doesn't want to be another statistic, remind him to take as
many tests as he can-- the higher rank he gets, the less likely he
is to end up in a bad place.
\_ He says if he gets promoted he wants to deserve it -- because
he may be in charge of people who die. Under this reasoning,
he didn't bother to submit proof of college credit for the
automatic pay grade increase.
\_ Tell your brother that at least one sodan wishes him the best,
thanks him for his service, and understands that he's fighting for
the freedom I enjoy.
\_ I actually want to tell him his commander-in-chief is a moron,
and it isn't very noble to die or come back maimed under a
moron's leadership, even with the best of intentions.
Instead, I told him his family would support him no matter what.
I won't tell him what you asked me to tell him, since I think
he needs to understand the more important point.
\_ Yes, it's much more important to be a self-absorbed prick
trying to 'teach' people 'lessons' then actually conveying
a genuine show of support from people. Btw, I wish him
the best also, and thank him for volunteering. -- ilyas
\_ What part of me telling him his family would support him
no matter what is not conveying a show of support from
people? What part of not telling him my true feelings
that he is going in for the wrong reasons is trying
to "teach" people "lessons"? I think you are assuming
a lot. And I think you are much too rash in calling
me a self-absorbed prick. -op
\_ I think it's the 'I think he needs to understand
the more important point' phrasing that set me off.
I don't think you are in any position to be
teaching this guy anything, certainly not 'life lessons,'
but that's my opinion. -- ilyas
\_ ilyas, I think you're much too emotional right
now to think clearly. This is also his problem.
\_ Here's what I don't understand. If you liberals hate Fox News
so much, why don't you ask why liberal media anchormen don't
look as good as say, Sean Hannity and Brit Hume? I mean,
everytime I think about liberals, I think about this fat guy
wearing shorts and sandles and baseball cap shouting for
social reform or green power or something like that.
\_ What liberal media anchormen are you talking about?
\_ Because it's not PC to have good-looking people to appear on TV.
\_ Your brother is a hero. You should be proud.
\_ Actually, I'm not proud at all. I'm more disappointed that
perhaps I didn't argue with him more.
Then again he did not relent in shouting down everyone when
the family was watching the Democratic National Convention
as much as my mom and I said, "If you don't want to listen, don't
watch", but he kept on yelling. Yeah, my mom and I weren't
saying anything at all -- we just wanted to watch, but that
wasn't possible.
And he still thinks there's WMDs, because he knows "how the
world works", even though I told him everything in the Kay
and Duelfer report, and the reasons why Saddam wanted to play
"Yes I have it, but you can't actually prove I do."
\_ I hope your brother survives, and wakes up. The whole thing of not
submitting college credit to forgo the pay increase... He's got a
misplaced sense of nobility. I hope he survives and doesn't see
too much. And I hope if he does see too much, that the VA can
actually get itself more funds so they can help him.
Does he know that O'Reilly didn't serve? |
| 2005/1/20 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35828 Activity:very high |
1/20 What happened to the egg & tomato throwers? And what happened
to the Turn-Your-Back protestors? I don't see it on news.
\_ Yeah, I watch Fox News, too.
\_ actually Fox News has a section on protestors.
\_ "The procession of cars sped up as President Bush neared the
designated location for protesters on Pennsylvania Avenue. Two rows
of police lined the street in front of the main protest site.
Officers stationed atop buildings along the route kept close watch
on the crowd." -AP
\_ you know, the President probably didn't even get to see them
and even if he did, SO WHAT? You liberals are wasting your
time. You lost, get over it.
\_ Dubya now has the opportunity to fix his administration's
mistakes for the next four years.
\_ mistakes in the eyes of hippies and tree-huggers.
\_ "If I could just say one thing, though, about lessons
learned, and that is that I spoke yesterday about the
important work that we've been doing on the Office of
Reconstruction and Stabilization. I think that's a lesson
learned. We didn't have the right skills, the right
capacity, to deal with a reconstruction effort of this
kind." -Hippie / Tree Hugger Condi Rice
\_ Just a snowball! http://csua.org/u/as4 (Yahoo! News photo) |
| 2005/1/19 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35790 Activity:kinda low |
1/19 aaron needs to read this:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050113.shtml
\_ When the evil legions of Dubya dupe America with a sophisticated
media campaign of misrepresentations of the truth, and we just got
four more years of it, there is a reaction.
\_ Sowell would do well to point out that the same sharp analysis he
wants trained on the Left would be equally welcomed if applied to
the Right.
\_ So does Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity,
Bill O'Reilly and all the other screaming maniacs on the Right.
I fight it amusing that I get an ad for Ann Coulter and Sean
Hannity on this page. |
| 2005/1/15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35728 Activity:high |
1/15 Proof that conservatives have more manners:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/14/polite.cities.ap/index.html
\_ The most polite cities aren't cities.
\_ A real conservative should have better manners. Southerners
are nothing if not genteel, at least the white ones.
\_ Then again....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144454,00.html |
| 2005/1/11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35647 Activity:high |
1/11 Man, is this photo where O'Reilly looks like Satan intentional or not?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/10/oreilly.clooney/index.html
\_ That's the way he looks after he's been denied steamy hot
falafel sex for 3 months.
\_ "falafel sex"? |
| 2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35636 Activity:high |
1/10 No mention of the CBS firings here? Well here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml
Read it for yourself. Find out on page 153 they cite Freerepublic!
Woohoo! At least the Democrats can say they are winning at the
box office as a consolation.
\_ Actually, they can't even say that, unless you consider Shrek2
or Spiderman 2 to be Democrat movies.
http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Years/2004/top-grossing
\_ I am talking about NOW. Meet the Fockers, Streisand and
the so-called People's Choice Awards for Moore F9/11.
\_ Please, "Mett the Fockers" is a sequel to a very funny movie.
\_ Please, "Meet the Fockers" is a sequel to a very funny movie.
It has absolutely zero competition. I won't see it because I
can't stand Streisand. Oh, and because reviews of it suck (a
whopping 39% on rottentomatoes). Did they miss The Passion at
the awards?
\_ Mmm.. why don't you do a little research. they gave it
the best drama award.
\_ Um...that was the point. How did the lefties miss that
one and claim the lead?
\_ This is how a professional organization deals with mistakes.
Too bad the White House promotes people and gives them
medals when they screw up.
\_ Tenet was what?
\_ Already on his way out.
\_ So who was given medals? General Franks screwed up?
\_ All right, Tenet and Bremer screwed up. Franks was
smart enough to get out of TMTA^H^H^H^HDubya's
administration while the getting was good.
\_ Actually, Franks was replaced for offering a candid
assessment of the situation on the ground.
\_ That was Shinseki. Franks retired because he
promised his wife he would. He was offered
Shinseki's job as CoS of the Army. Get it right!
\_ URL please. Everything I read was that he got
out while the getting was good.
\_ Didn't he and the proconsul get a Medal Of Freedom? |
| 2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35625 Activity:nil |
1/9 Can some of these Fox News idiots be sued in British court
for calling just about anyone who disagrees with them traitors?
http://csua.org/u/anb |
| 2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35614 Activity:very high |
1/8 Why are movie stars mostly liberal democrats? I thought most people
with seven figure incomes were ususally republicans. Doesn't this seem
odd?
\_ First, just how "usually" would you expect 7-figure-makers to be
Republican? There are large numbers of wealthy people who are
liberal. Secondly, acting requires a very empathetic personality.
People that are drawn to it will tend to have a circle of concern
well outside themselves, and a curiousity in humanity that
supercedes the urge to condemn what they don't understand (or simply
don't like). Do you know any actors?
\_ This argument is amusing. Why does having an empathetic
personality and having a tendency to curiosity over
condemnation make one a liberal in the US sense? Those
virtues belong to western secular liberalism as a whole.
The distinguishing characteristic of a US liberal is a certain
frame of reference that sees government as 'family,' and
prefers communal decision making at the expense of individual
wishes. See Lakoff for more on this. Anyways, liberals, if
soda is any indication, condemn what they don't like with far
more spittle than pretty much any other group. -- ilyas
\_ You have the definition of the liberal world view from
non-liberals. This discussion will go nowhere.
\_ Lakoff is a liberal. Not a stupid one, either. -- ilyas
\_ Uhm, huh? Have you visited freerepublic? I don't exactly
think of that site as 'spittle-free' or even 'spittle-
reduced'. I think this tendency of vocal condemnation has
far more to do with people as a whole rather than a single
unrealistically simplified political affiliation. -mice
\_ Eh. Freerepublic people are idiots. Soda people are
Berkeley students or Berkeley graduates. I hold soda
folks to a much higher standard. -- ilyas
\_ "...liberals, if soda is any indication..." This
would seem to imply that you're extrapolating
liberal behavior based on the soda population...
which you just said you hold to a higher standard,
in effect implying (perhaps not correctly, I hope)
that you're holding liberals to a higher standard.
A system of labels that reduces the political
landscape to one of two affiliations doesn't seem to
be serving a very useful purpose in this
conversation -- esp if you're going to start holding
specific segments to variable standards. -mice
\_ It's very simple. I accused liberals of 'spittle.'
You countered with freerepublic. I pointed out
that freerepublic are random internet idiots, whereas
soda people are Berkeley students/grads. The cream
of the crop, so to speak. It's not really reasonable
to expect a 'better behaved statistical group' among
liberals than college grads from such a good school
as Berkeley. So I am extrapolating from this group
to liberals as a whole, who, I conclude will likely
only be worse than soda people. Is anything I said
unreasonable to you? -- ilyas
\_ Some of it, yeah -- but it's the weekend, so I
hope you'll not be too hurt if I take my toys
and play somewhere else. Have a decent weekend,
ilyas! -mice
\_ The fact that you regard soda members as
representative of anything forces me to downgrade
my opinion of your intelligence. -ausman
\_ My intelligence seems to come up a lot on the
motd. In the interest of avoiding useless
repetition, let's just all agree I am an idiot,
and move on to other things. -- ilyas
\_ Cf. talk radio, the neocons, Safire, Davids Brooks
and Horowitz, Orson Scott Card, and Fox News in
general for a rebuttal of the spittle comment.
\_ DailyKos, DU, Al Franken, etc. on the
democrat side. He's talking about
average people. I'm not saying he's
right, but I am saying you're argument
misses the point.
\_ Good point. Cf. Freeper troll, ChiCom
troll, etc.
\_ I find white liberal guilt pretty odd too. -- ilyas
\_ 1) Hollywood is a liberal town, and most actors are stupid. If
Liberal arguments are the only ones you hear, and your stupidity
makes you easily influenced, then you'll be liberal, too.
2) Making millions acting is mostly a matter of luck. They may
suffer and work hard, but making it big is a matter of luck, and
is much less correlated with talent than in the business world.
Hence the guilt and resulting liberal bleeding-heart mentality.
3) But where does the liberalism originate and renew itself
from? This may smell racist, but I think it comes from the Jewish
contingent in Hollywood. The Jewish faith and culture has a long
tradition of liberal views of peace and justice, and Jews are much
contingent in Hollywood. The Jooish faith and culture has a long
tradition of liberal views of peace and justice, and Joos are much
more likely to retain these values even as they grow older and
rich. They are also much more likely to be strongly steeped in this
culture as children, as opposed to WASP and Catholic families.
Later in Hollywood, among a lot of stupid people, their conviction
wins out. And it certainly has its merits. But there aren't many
fundamentalist Christians in Hollywood to compete with their
"eye-for-an-eye, the poor get what they deserve" mentality.
\_ 3) doesn't make you a racist, it makes you a moron. If "exposure\
to Joos" infects people with liberalism, how come the finance
industry is so god damn conservative?
\_ Wow. Stupidity incarnate.
\_ such guilt made more sense in the era when blacks had to sit in
the back of the bus and many whites thought this was a fine idea.
\_ You don't have to be dumb to embrace a worldview, left or right.
If you are dumb, however, I'll mock you whichever way you lean.
\_ One party makes money off the way they make you feel when you watch
them on the silver screen.
Another party makes money by dicking you around, and say "suck it
up, it's America, land of equal opportunity" when you complain.
What's so surprising?
\_ I don't understand how they make money in the 2nd part.
\_ you must be a movie star!
\_ Much of wall-street and hollywood is leftist because secular
jews (and higher % gay) wield much power in these areas.
joos (and higher % gay) wield much power in these areas.
\_ Next time someone brings up the tired The Left Is Anti-Semite!
crap I'd suggest they remember this stupidity first.
\_ The left *is* anti-semite. Jews vote Democratic anyway
as a lesser of two evils. On most issues, Jews lean
\_ The left *is* anti-semite. Joos vote Democratic anyway
as a lesser of two evils. On most issues, Joos lean
Republican but Republicans won't have them. As for
actors, it's because most are not businessmen and as such
have no ties to big business. It really is similar to
a lottery winner. Most wealthy people are tied to
big business and hence are Republican.
\_ Care to back up your left = anti-semite claim? Come on I
dare you. I double dare you. Oh and neocon = filthy jew
dare you. I double dare you. Oh and neocon = filthy joo
is not backing up your claim, cause that is patently false.
\_ God damn it, would you please use that brain of yours to
get your mind around the idea that you can be against the
Israeli government's handling of the Palestinian issue and
not be anti-Zionist or anti-semitic?
\_ most of the earliest Communists / leftists in USSR and Europe
were Jews. There are historical reasons for this - look them
up rather than revealing your ignorance. "Jews lean
were Joos. There are historical reasons for this - look them
up rather than revealing your ignorance. "Joos lean
Republican" ... WTF are you talking about. Where do you
people come from - your knowledge of history is appalling
and dangerous.
\_ Are you judging by numbers or by influence? If by numbers
then can you back up the 'most' claim? If by
influence, was Vladimir Lenin a joo? How about any
USSR Gensec? I say you are full of shit. -- ilyas
\_ Most single digit millionaires are Republican but most wealthier
people are Democratic. There is an amusing article about f*ck you
money and how it influences people's politics in a recent issue
of The Economist. |
| 2005/1/5 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35554 Activity:nil |
1/5 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143400,00.html Playboy to Unveil iBods (and this is on the Fox News headline, no wonder they're the most watched news regardless of obvious political slant). \_ Fox panders to sex all the time. O'Reilly seems to have particular problems with this (which made the sexual harassment case consistent with his character). |
| 2004/12/29 [Transportation/Airplane, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35486 Activity:very high |
12/29 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142867,00.html Laser directed into jet's cockpit and "air traffic controllers used radar to determine the laser came from a residential area". How does the radar determine the source of the laser? They're totally different. Someone please explain. \_ I'm not saying this is what happened, but if these words were randomly formed out of thin air in the mind of some dingbat journalist it wouldn't be anywhere near the dumbest fiction I've read in the news. If you go to http://news.google.com and read various random links, the ones that mention the use of radar as you describe all have *identical* wording, while quite a few do not mention radar at all. That's often a symptom of dingbat journalist syndrome. \_ If they knew where exactly the plane was when it got hit, and they knew what color the laser was, they could figure out how far away it was fired at the jet from, and could then figure out where it was fired from, approximately. \_ What does color have to do with it? \_ Obviously the only reasonable response is to bomb the residential area. How many planes have to fall out of the sky before we let the airlines defend their property? \_ Perhaps they drew a straight line from the tail down through the nose of the plane. The orientation is at the moment the pilots reported being painted. The radar gives the position of the plane. The line intersects with the residential area. |
| 2004/12/28 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35456 Activity:high |
12/28 Ding dong the witch is dead.
\_ Fuck you.
\_ Who? Susan Sontag?
\_ "They white race is a cancer on humanity." Hehe
\_ "The white race is a cancer on humanity." Hehe
\_ "The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean Algebra,
Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches,
Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, and
Ballanchine ballets don't redeem what this particular
civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race
is the cancer of human history."
\_ Hey look! The founder and president of white liberal guilt
club.
\_ Wow, she sounds awesome.
\_ More than that. She was. Nobody who contributes here
regularly is likely to write a single paragraph that
could stand against Sontag. And I don't like her stuff,
btw.
\_ Pfft, you and your Jewish Liberal Left Wing
popoganda. Useful idiots indeed.
propaganda. Useful idiots indeed.
\_ Dude. At least they can spell.
\_ Fixed, happy now, mister anal-gotta-have-it
formatted-to-80-display? Haven't seen a
typo troll in a while.
\_ Yes happy now. And drubbings shall continue
upon further lapses, unless, of course, you
are the psb.
\_ What do you mean by this? Do you mean she was a
good writer, or that she was well reasoned? If
A, that's not at all surprising, if B and the
quote above is really hers, so far evidence is
against you. (I know nothing about her myself.)
\_ Mainly A, though a lot of B. As with many people
who write a LOT, folks tend to echo the zanier
things she said. It would be entertaining to see
how well, say, David Horowitz, held up to the same
sort of scrutiny.
\_ which witch?
\_ huh?
\_ Ann Coulter? Martha Stewart? |
| 2004/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35395 Activity:high |
12/22 So, uh, my O'Reilly watching younger brother is thinking about signing
up for the National Guard. His interview date is today (moved up a
week, and after they called him three times in the space of 15 minutes
to make sure he knew where to go). Anything I should say to him?
\_ Not that this answers your question, but you should go watch the
Beavis and Butthead episode about army recruiting. It's hilarious.
"Today's army rocks!!! We're looking for a few good headbangers!!!!"
\_ No matter how honest a face the recruiter and 'career counsellor'
have, NEVER TRUST A WORD THEY SAY. If it ain't in writing, it's
not going to happen. period. Recruiters are NOT your friend,
though there are limits to what they can say. If they're not going
to give him the job he wants, walk. And sign NOTHING without
reading it first. They have quota to fill in certain jobs, and
they're VERY VERY good at pressuring you into doing stuff that you
don't want.
\_ my dad was a recruiter for a while, the above is
excellent advice! - danh
\_ I second the above advice. My career uscg dad did recruiting.
Meeting quota he found irritating; the pathological lying
made him give up after a couple weeks. -elizp
\_ Thanks guys. -op
\_ "Maybe there's a reason they're so desperate to give you a gun." ?
\_ Yeah. Why sign up for Nat. Guard when you could be in the Marines?
\_ second that. Tell your brother to sign up for the regular
instead. National Guards are being treated as a second class
personnel, doing all the grun work and take all the blames.
\_ Not to mention friendly fire and unarmored vehicles.
\_ Wouldn't it be safest to sign up for the Navy or USAF?
\_ nothing, if something happens to him there will be one less Reddie |
| 2004/12/21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35377 Activity:low |
12/21 News coverage polls from pollingpoint:
http://www.pollingpoint.com/results_111804.html
Computer programmers get some deal of respect from people:
http://www.pollingpoint.com/results_111004.html
\_ The hell is with this sudden respect for farmers? Is this some
strange retro thing?
\_ same people who voted for George W. Bush. 51% of them. Go figure
\_ What the hell is this sentence fragment? |
| 2004/12/13 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35256 Activity:high |
12/13 You probably won't see this on Fox News.
The thing that really caught my eye was the 5,000 deserters:
http://csua.org/u/aao
\_ Their source .. _C_BS News. About as reliable as the female condom
\_ Source = Pentagon
\_ "Dan Felushko, a 24-year-old marine, told the CBS program 60
Minutes this week that he left Camp Pendleton, Calif., and
came to Canada rather than Kuwait, because he felt it would
have been wrong to fight.
"I didn't want, you know, `died deluded in Iraq' over my
gravestone," he said.
According to the CBS program, some 5,000 American men and
women have deserted the military since the war began. They are
largely accused of cowardice back home, but they say they are
acting out of conscience."
Source looks like 60 minutes to me. Not exactly reliable or
agenda-free.
\_ Do you think "agenda-free" news even exists anymore? Just
curious.
\_ Hello. I think pp is probably a typical republican
jive ass motherfucker, but this is the agenda free
news:
http://www.cspan.org
\_ CSPAN IS COMMUNIST PINKO GARBAGE!!!1!!1 YOU CAN
TELL BECAUSE IT'S NON-PROFIT AND RUNS ON
GOVERNMENT MONEY!!!!!11!!
\_ The only talking head I've seen that I believe is
unbiased is Tim Russert. No one else.
\_ You've got your blinders on firm. If you had said
Aaron Brown, you might have had something here.
\_ Is that why he was so easy on GWB?
\_ why are they unhappy? Would they be happier with MP-40 or MP-44? |
| 2004/11/21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35005 Activity:nil |
11/21 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139211,00.html Gun loving Republicans hunters got into an argument and shot each other. 5 Republicans dead. \_ The guy was Hmong trespassing on private property. Hmong have become a Dem. mascot group in this area. |
| 2004/11/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34888 Activity:moderate |
11/14 So Safire is retiring from NYT. I certainly hope they pick another
conservative. Who are the (intelligent, sane, eloquent) conservative
commentators out there today?
\_ he had his old man dementia moments too
\_ OK, I'll grant 'mostly sane'
\_ He's it.
\_ Safire is stupid. George Will.
\_ michelle malkin!
\_ No! Ann Coulter!
\_ I am so waiting for Ann-on-Michelle.
\_ "Michelle! Your strap-on is so LARGE and TAX-FREE!"
\_ Jerry Falwell
\_ That would be a conflict of interest when he gets appointed
to the Supreme Court. |
| 2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34845 Activity:nil |
11/11 Good 'ol FAIR AND BALANCED Fox News, coming to your cell phone soon:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/10/fox.mobile.ap/index.html |
| 2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34480 Activity:kinda low |
10/31 It appears that news on Iraq, OBL, healthcare, education, etc have
very little effect on the public perception of the candidates, esp
those that are protected in the religious belt region of the US.
How about dirt on the candidates? Let's say someone finds a
video footage of GWB in drag/makeup, or an intern sucking his
dick, or something to that effect. Do you think the people in the
religious belt regions would finally change their mind?
\_ Yes, they should all play Dubya flicking the bird 24/7 on
Fox News Channel
\_ Yes, they should play Dubya flicking the bird on Fox News Channel
24/7 |
| 2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34415 Activity:nil |
10/28 Did anyone else notice the constant cutaways to an unnamed US barracks
in baghdad, with US soldiers watching the game, during the World Series?
With the caption "Multi-National Force" underneath what were clearly
only US soldiers? Interesting how the FOX News tilt has made its way
into their SPORTS coverage! And after the game, the first question
they asked one of the Red Sox was something along the lines of "What do
you have to say to the soldiers over in Baghdad?" |
| 2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34413 Activity:nil |
10/28 O'Reilly - Mackris case settled out of court. No details on whether
there was money or how much, nor actual tapes. (It is legal to
record telephone conversations without the other party's knowledge
in New York, which is where Mackris was.)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=peopleNews&storyID=6651265 |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34350 Activity:high |
10/26 so i asked earlier what major media outlets have actually
endorsed bush this time around, besides the washington times
and ny post. I was accidentally watching oreilly last night
and he was touching on this topic too, and said that
the LA Times and NY Times had shockingly endorsed kerry but
that it really didn't matter since no one reads the
NY Times. Then I decided ilyas needs to rape oreilly with
a falafel. - danh
\_ Too squishy. -- ilyas
\_ Out of curiosity, dan, any liberal figures you think need
to be raped with a falafel? -- ilyas
\_ probably that coombs guy just for making everyone look
bad - danh
\_ Who?
\_ I've been watching H&C since they started. I've decided
Coombs is actually a really smart guy and is a real liberal
but he's also honest and has a good heart so he can't force
himself to spit out ridiculous DNC talking points like
Hannity does for the RNC. I think he's a good, smart and
honest man.
\_ I would agree with you, but if he were so good and
smart he would quit or get someone combative enough
to counteract hannity, or quit in disgust. - danh
\_ Most people have bills to pay. It's just a job, not
a religion. I think that's the difference between
him and, well, I won't slam anyone. I like Coombs
even though I disagree with 99% of what he says.
\_ Maybe Andrew Cockburn. Naomi Klein also comes to mind. That guy
on crossfire, too, for being such a shill. !danh
\_ I think the guy on crossfire just plays a liberal on TV.
-- ilyas
\_ Ilya: Why do you hate liberals?
\_ Why do you say 'Why do you hate liberals?'? -- ilyas
\_ My suspicion that ilyas is actually an eliza program
have been confirmed.
\_ Tell me about yermom. -- ilyas
\_ Poor ilyas can never tell when he's being baited.
\_ This is probably related to having no sense of humor.
\_ The LA Times hasn't endorsed any candidate (yet). They have not
since 1972, but there is discussion about doing it this year.
If he were an honest critic, he would mention the Post endorsement.
Maybe he did.
\_ Big shock, the LAT is going to endorse Bush!
\_ Big shock, the Washington Post and the New Republic both
endorsed Kerry!
\_ Andrew Sullivan also endorsed Kerry.
\_ Big shock!
\_ Apparently you know nothing about Sully.
\_ That he puts his sex politics above all else?
Nothing new there. |
| 2004/10/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34293 Activity:insanely high |
10/22 Mann Coulter hit by pies while on speaking engagement:
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/3841599/detail.html
\_ Yeah that's famous liberal tolerance of others. Esp. of
Christians, and anyone else who disagrees with them.
\_ Your pies are so BIG and TAX FREE!
\_ They had the chance to throw pies at Ann Coulter and they only
hit her in the SHOULDER? What a waste.
\_ That'll sure fix her! I'm sure millions of people are now
convinced of the wrongness of her message since two goofballs hit
her with a pie. YAY!
\_ 90+ posts just - like - yours!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1253783/posts
\_ Yes? And? Do you believe that hitting (or missing) her with
a pie has convinced anyone of the wrongness of her message?
\_ Then again, http://pornforprogress.com, watch Ann Cunter get off.
\_ Ann Cunter! Bahahahahhaaha!!! Cool!
\_ Boredcast Message from 'aaron': Fri Oct 22 09:47:37 2004
if only the pies were infected with ebola
Gotta love the sensitive liberals. -- ilyas
\_ Yeah, Compassionate Conservatives wyould have gone for anthrax.
\_ Yeah, Compassionate Conservatives would have gone for anthrax.
\_ See, the difference is, conservatives on soda don't ACTUALLY
wish the pie was covered with some horrible disease.
-- ilyas
\_ For Ann Coulter, perhaps true. For n, where n = any
liberal personality, then patently not true.
\_ Ok. Can you cite an example of a soda conservative
hoping outloud for a horrible disease-ridden pie
hitting some prominent liberal personality (or
wanting a 50-to-1 gangbang, or any of the other
lovely things aaron wished for over the years)?
-- ilyas
\_ Um, I don't think aaron meant people to take the
ebola comment that seriously.
\_ Oh, I see. It was one of aaron's little 'jokes.'
Great sense of humor. Ebola sure is funny.
Anyways, the guy I was arguing with seemed to
think (a) aaron was serious, and (b) conservatives
on soda are guilty of the same sort of thing.
I am still hoping for a rebuttal from him.
-- ilyas
\_ I'm not that guy, but you're right,
conservatives will in large part only say these
types of things using relatively anonymous
accounts on http://freerepublic.com.
\_ The freepers are not conservatives.
\_ What are they then?
\_ Ok, so just to be clear -- you are accusing
soda conservatives of being secretly just
as bad as aaron, it's just that they don't
come out openly and say it. Check. Just
so we are clear. Any proof of this, or
is this projection or assuming the other
side is just as bad or what? -- ilyas
\_ Whoa. How'd we get from "an example"
from your earlier post to "all soda
conservatives"? Nice context shift
there, buddy.
\_ No, I said "conservatives" not "soda
conservatives". Duh. And by this
I mean the subset of conservatives who
post that type of thing on freerepublic.
What part of "but you're right" did you
not understand?
\_ Freepers are not conservatives.
\_ What are they then?
\_ Soda has an interactive forum where you could
discuss aaron's wall comments with him. It is
called wall.
\_ I have no interest of discussing anything
with aaron, he is past my event horizon of
common ground. -- ilyas
\_ But you feel the need to read the wall
log, and post out of context excerpts
from it on motd? Ok.
\_ Sure. I don't want to _talk_ to
aaron. I want to hold him up as an
example of something not to do.
The only defense offered so far is
'but the freepers are just as bad!'
Kind of sad. I would be surprised
anyone on soda from the
conservative side is a freeper.
Certainly no conservative I personally
know. Look at yourselves, liberals,
do you really want to be like this?
-- ilyas
\_ No, I'd far rather be condescended
to by a sanctimonious conservative.
Thanks ilyas, I feel so much more
enlightened now.
\_ I am not a conservative. If
pointing out that wishing
harm on other human beings is
evil, and pleading them to stop
is being sanctimonious,
sign me up. -- ilyas
\_ ilyas just wants to talk to that guy who
thinks soda conservatives openly wish deadly
diseases on liberal figures
\_ I never thought aaron was serious, and I'm
sure conservatives on this forum have joked
about worse than this. Drop the higher moral
ground bit, Ilya, it doesn't suit you. -pp
\_ You're sure? Based on what? Projection?
\_ Aaron's jokes about conservatives have
consistently violent overtones. I am not
dropping any sort of morality card, I am
just staring in wonderment and worry. Are
violent jokes about ethnic groups ok? If
anything, political groups are more
important than ethnic. -- ilyas
\_ Ilya, if you have a beef with Aaron,
bring it up with Aaron. When you paint
all liberals with the same brush, be
careful because the brush paints both
ways. -pp
\_ ^Aaron's jokes about conservatives^ \
freeper's jokes about liberals
\_ Freepers != soda users.
Freepers != conservatives.
Thank you.
\_ There is a soda user who used
to consistently post freeper links.
\_ The pp specified "on this forum".
Please post specific examples.
\_ Yeah, but I'm just saying aaron's
comment did not pop up in a vacuum.
freeper folks have been running
wild (on their forums) for years
now.
\_ Freepers != soda users. You
even say "on their forums" which
is clearly different from "our"
forum here.
\_ Soda users post on Freep.
\_ I would hope that we would
expect better from aaron than
from the average freeper.
\_ I think you'd be wrong
there.
\_ So the motd is just is just
free republic for liberals?
\_ Well, maybe for one liberal.
\_ "I'm sure conservatives on this forum have
joked about worse than this." Example
please.
\_ They're scouring the motd archives right
now. Expect to see something from about
8 years ago regarding Clinton and some
STD and Monica. Or maybe not.
\_ I don't see much reason to be "sensitive" in one's comments
towards Coulter. It's Ann Coulter, come on. Have you seen that
bitch in action? It's really nothing to do with her "politics".
\_ So she is stupid, or evil, or a propagandabot. So let's
wish she gets a horrible disease and dies? You need to take
a deep breath and look at yourself. Attention
Mr. "Don't paint liberals with the same brush" above, this
is probably not aaron talking. The scary thing is that
liberals on soda don't seem to have a problem at all.
-- ilyas
\_ Your generalization of 'all soda liberals' is based on
an absurdly small sample size, and seems to be heavily
biased by your clear political bent and your obvious
siege mentality (or at least it seems that way in your
stubborn insistence to make this generalization). Try
to get over yourself a little bit and realize that the
majority of adults here don't feel the need to prove
themselves to you while still categorically NOT sharing
aaron's sentiments.
\_ When did I say 'all'? You have it in quotes but what
are you quoting exactly? -- ilyas
\_ Hey, aaron is your fringe. He may not represent you,
but it's up to you to say it, and deal with the
negatives people like aaron present for the liberal
movement. -- ilyas
\_ I don't think aaron's anger is attached to a
political attribute. It's just a high level of anger.
In other words I bet there are many with his general
political view but just too apathetic to actually
stay worked up about it.
\_ Well, I'm basically a moderate. I'm a bit south-
west on the left-right-authority-liberty compass. I think
you're overanalyzing and too arrogant to allow for the
possibility that your interpretation of this flippant
excerpt from wall might be different than that of the
person who typed it. I could also compare and contrast
aaron with motd freeper types but I'm getting bored.
\_ Let's imagine a slightly different situation, where a
prominent african american activist got pied, and
someone wished outloud that the pie had ebola in it.
Do you honestly
think that 'he was being flippant' is any sort of
defense? I don't think african americans as a group
should be treated any differently in this kind of
situation from 'conservatives,' 'jews,' 'women,'
'homosexuals' or any other meaningful group. They
are all people. Wishing them harm, or wishing to
beat them up (as aaron did at another time) is not
flippant, it's evil and hateful. This has nothing
to do with a siege mentality, the argument stays
the same even if conservatives were a 90% majority
in the US. If you want to comopare aaron with the
in the US. If you want to compare aaron with the
motd freeper types, feel free. I have yet to find
a single example of a similar kind of thing done
by soda conservatives, even anonymous ones. -- ilyas
\_ Well, one thing we seem to disagree on is whether
Coulter truly represents a meaningful group and
whether animosity towards her is based on her
membership in this group or rather her personal
behavior and attributes. I, personally, don't
have any particular dislike for most "conservatives".
If I thought some black activist was a contemptible
ass I wouldn't feel guilty for thinking so just
because ilyas would brand me a racist.
\_ But would you feel guilty wishing he would die
from the ebola virus? -- ilyas
\_ Bitch? So you have a problem with strong women? Do you
call Hillary a bitch, too? It has everything to do with
1) her politics, 2) your hatred of strong women who could
easily put you in your place.
\_ I call her a bitch because someone i know went to law
school with her and said she was a bitch there. -!pp
\_ I take it you haven't seen her in a live setting. She's
a talking-points bot with a side order of ad hominem.
I said what I mean and mean what I said so fuck off.
\_ So who's the guy who has followed up most of the subthreads with
garbage? motd users want to know! |
| 2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34266 Activity:nil |
10/21 O'Reilly for Dikes!
link:tinyurl.com/4zhxb
\_ SNR lower than motd! |
| 2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34262 Activity:high |
10/21 Liberal comes to O'Reilly's defense, criticizes Mackris! omg!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50050-2004Oct20.html
\_ OMG what? There's nothing to discuss until the facts are out.
Right now we know nothing except her charges yet you assume he is
a guilty pervert. Did you assume the same of Clinton or were you
in the "she's a whore, and you can't rape a whore!" camp on that?
This is still the United States where you're innocent until
*proven* guilty in a court of law. Sheesh.
\_ I took it a little less directly than that. I think the guy
was saying, "If O'Reilly is guilty, which I don't know, the
accuser still looks pretty silly since she repeatedly put
her self back in the position as victim voulentarily."
-jrleek
\_ where do you get that I "assume [O'Reilly] is a guilty pervert"?
\_ Your description of the link. If you didn't mean that, then
please accept my apology for misrepresenting your view. That
is the way it honestly came across.
\_ It's absolutely mind-bending that you can't see the deliciousness
of a man who's made a career out of unsubstantiated ad hominem
being himself the victim of the "guilty until proven innocent"
phenomenom.
\_ Because I don't see that being how he made his career.
\_ Ah. And how do you see it? |
| 2004/10/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34228 Activity:kinda low |
10/19 Turn off any TV! (I want one)
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65392,00.html?tw=wn_story_top5
\_ Best...invention...ever. I wonder if this would banish the
omnipresent FoxNews TVs they have at most US airports now.
[why was this censored, exactly?]
\_ Probably. I want one. That rocks. -John
\_ Never confuse censorship with carelessness.
\_ Because THE MAN wants yout to watch FOX News!!1!11
\_ I understand their logic. Fox is the most popular 24 hour
news channel. Give the people what they want. However,
that doesn't mean that I need other people's bad taste
shoved down my throat while I'm waiting for an airplane.
Note that by 'bad taste," I do not mean this in a partisan
sense. There are plenty of great conservative media outlets.
However, television news is a cesspool and Fox is the worst
of a bad lot - with the possible exception of local TV news,
which often makes Fox look like quality journalism.
\_ I don't care about the video, it's the audio that drives
me nuts. They should do the same thing they do on the
plane: hand out headseats for those who want audio, and
everyone else gets silence.
\_ Sit down among the TVs with Noam Chomsky on a boombox.
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE HEARING ABOUT JENNIFER LOPEZ AND LACI
PETERSON OVER AND OVER AT TOP VOLUME?
\_ BECAUSE I HATE AMERICA!!!!
\_ Very cool. Note that if they catching you using one of these in
a bar in New York or Boston tonight, they will kill you. |
| 2004/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34216 Activity:insanely high |
10/19 Nice job censoring the O'Reilly charges, Bushbots!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris17.html
NWS
\_ Why do you think you were censored by a Bush supporter? I'm a Bush
supporter but not an O'Reilly supporter. That being said, the
charges against him are a setup and probably some are lies. If the
phone conversations really happened, he's done. But the woman's
lawsuit is a joke (see Paragraph 11). And I wouldn't be surprised
if Fox/O'Reilly win the extortion suit.
\_ I really doubt that she would file this lawsuit without tapes
of the phone conversation, but we shall see.
\_ They better have it on clear tape or they're dead. The
quotes in her lawsuit papers make him sound like a stoned
uneducated bus driver in Arkansas. Whatever you think of
him or his show, he is well spoken. The words don't like
like him. However, if it's on tape, then so be it. There
are no O'Reilly supporters. He's simply an opinion guy.
If the charges are true and he goes down, tough shit and
good riddance.
\_ Actually the lawsuit makes O'Reilly sound like a powerful
Republican icon oozing sexual energy, that unfortunately
oozed out in the workplace.
Hey, it happened with Clinton - who's to say Republicans
aren't immune? (Granted O'Reilly never touched her.)
\_ The lawsuit does but go read where she claims to be
directly quoting him. It's just silly. If she has
it on tape, fine, burn him, if not, she burns. Easy.
\_ Clinton's woman was willing.
\_ Jessica Flowers?
\_ Oh, I was thinking of Monica
\_ I think that was Gennifer Flowers. And it was a
decade-long affair.
\_ Paula Jones?
\_ We trashed her enough that it was ok he raped her.
\_ The Miss America chick who did some TV for a while?
\_ What's wrong with paragraph 11? I believe this is not uncommon
in divorce lawsuits, so why not one for sexual harrassment?
\_ The paragraph in question:
"At all times mentioned herein, Defendant BILL O'REILLY was
and is the host and 'star' of 'The O'Reilly Factor.' 'The
O'Reilly Factor' is broadcast on cable television throughout
the United States by Defendants FOX. 'The O'Reilly Factor' is
broadcast on radio throughout the United States by Defendant
WESTWOOD ONE. Defendants FOX, WESTWOOD ONE and BILL O'REILLY
utilize this forum to preach the principles of the so-called
'compassionate conservatism' espoused by George W. Bush and
the Republican Party. The Defendants also use this forum to
preach their belief in family values and to bemoan the moral
decline of politicians and others in positions of power."
WTF does the Bush adminstration have to do with this lawsuit?
\_ "I believe this is not uncommon in divorce lawsuits, so why
not one for sexual harrassment?"
\_ The first half is just declarative. The second half tries
to make him sound like a hypocrite. Maybe it was put in by
an overeager paralegal.
\_ I agree. Lawsuit says: O'Reilly loves conservative
values espoused by Dubya and GOP, but he's a sexual
harrasser!!!
\_ Which makes sense if you're trying to
character-assasinate, but not to prove anything about
sexual harassment.
\_ Yes, it's dumb to put it in the complaint, but
I don't think it tarnishes the claim much.
\_ What about this:
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/32244.htm
Does that tarnish it?
\_ heh. Mackris, according to this bartender,
is a drunken slut with the liberal agenda
of taking O'Reilly down.
And O'Reilly, who is married, talks phone
sex with employees.
I'm not putting my blinders on (O'Reilly
isn't the innocent conservative, and Mackris
isn't the powerless angel) - I think it'll
be very interesting anyway. |
| 2004/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34209 Activity:nil |
10/19 O'Reilly Sexual Harrassment Lawsuit (NWS):
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris17.html |
| 2004/10/14 [ERROR, uid:34123, category id '18005#7.38793' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34123 Activity:moderate |
10/14 I'm very upset about the overly right wing slant of Fox
Television and I'd like to inform my friends about it and
to spread the word. Where can I find the chain letter to
petition to either boycott or to watch out for Fox broadcasts?
\_ Hand them a copy of Outfoxed (it's a DVD). It's boring but
disgusting.
\_ Hey, even http://freerepublic.com users hate O'Reilly:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1244924/posts
\_ Why do you read the freerepublic? It's a nuthouse. --cons.
\_ Focus your energy on the Sinclair boycott. |
| 2004/10/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34110 Activity:very high |
10/13 "A Fox News Channel producer sued O'Reilly for sexual
harassment Wednesday,Oct. 13, 2004 alleging her boss had
phone sex with her against her wishes three times."
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=163601
WTF? How do you have phone sex with someone "agianst their
wishes"???
\_ Duh, threatening to sue her unless she submitted to it.
After all, he was her boss.
\_ sue her?
\_ s/sue/fire
\_ Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?
\_ Phone rape? "If you hang up now I'll fire you! Now, about
my huge dick....." Of course, phone sex could be
literal penetration by a phone, which is possible against
one's will....
\_ Owiee!
\_ If you read the complaint, he called her up and started talking
sex and vibrators while masturbating. Fox preemptively countersued
for libel. One argument against her claim is that she didn't suffer
any "adverse employment action". OTOH is she had suffered 'AEA'
Fox could claim it she was just suing for revenge. Also, the
complaint has long quotations by O'Reilly which implies she taped
his phone calls. |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34104 Activity:moderate |
10/13 See what happens when you betray your leader, O'Reilley?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html
Seriously, though, I didn't think it was possible for me to feel any
ickier about O'Reilley.
\_ omfg, why now, when O'Reilly is leaning more moderate
(moderate == getting smart liberals/moderates on the show and
saying "We'll let the viewers decide", instead of dumb liberals
he yells at)
\_ Obviously you know nothing about O'Reilly. I don't like him,
but occassionally watch him. He has never, nor was ever
a conservative. He has always said as much. He is a Democrat
in the pre-1960s vein, like Jack Kennedy.
\_ O'Reilly says he's okay with "traditionalist", but he says
"independent" is more accurate
\_ Can someone tell me what any of these terms mean? What's a
traditionalist, and what were the Dems like pre 1970's?
(Aside from racist and war-mongering.)
\_ On most issues Dems pre 1960's were like the Repubs.
of today.
\_ With a side order of socialism. (LBJ)
\_ Unfortunately today most Repubs, especially in
Congress, also have that trait. |
| 2004/10/10-11 [ERROR, uid:34017, category id '18005#4.94625' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:34017 Activity:low |
10/10 ABC media bias memo commentary:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/31441.htm
\_ I'm sorry, I don't get it. Why post an editorial from the NYPost?
Couldn't find a freeper link on the same subject?
\_ I only listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Sometimes some
NYPost or Ann Coulter. The rest is liberal trash. |
| 2004/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:33882 Activity:very high |
10/1 I'm new to politics, can someone tell me which media favors
which party? I'll start with what people tell me:
Fox: conservative
Washington times: liberal
LA Times: ??
NY Times: liberal
CNN: ??
\_ great troll. not that clever but very effective based on #
of responses
Fox: conservative
\_ FAIR AND BALANCED!
\_ Conservative doesn't begin to describe it. They're a direct conduit
for the RNC.
Washington times: liberal
\_ No. The Washington Times is owned by the Moonies and is very
conservative. You must be thinking of the Washington Post, which is
much more reputable and is fairly mainstream.
\_ Hehehehehehehehehehe. "Much more reputable and fairly mainstream"
is another word for "flaming liberal bias" these days. Is
Reuters mainstream too?
\_ You honestly think WaTimes is on the same level as WaPo for
legitimacy? Can I have some of what you're smoking?
LA Times: ??
\_ Historically conservative even up through Nixon (Harry Chandler
hated the Democrats), but lately moving to the left. Couldn't say
how far left though, but it's by no means a conservative paper
any more. --recently read _Privileged Son_ by Dennis McDougal
\_ LA times editors these days are slanted liberal. There was this
scandal in LA recently when Arnie was running for governor about
the LA times dedicating like 20 reporters to digging dirt on Arnie.
Meanwhile the head editor guy has a quote on record saying how
LA times "doesn't do those kinds of stories" when asked about
why they didn't dig for Davis' dirty laundry when he was running.
Having said that, they do conservative-favorable stories every
now and again, so they aren't as bad as something like Reuters.
-- ilyas
NY Times: liberal
CNN: ??
\_ CNN used to be liberal, but due to trying to compete with Fox News
they have become a bit conservative.
\_ I think Ted Turner selling CNN might have had a lot to do with
their increasing rightward bent, in addition to the Fox effect.
\_ CNN, MSNBC, WSJ, WAPO, LAT, ABC, CBS - all liberal
PBS, NYT, SFX - leftist commies (who hate America)
PBS, NYT, SFChron, Micheal Moore - leftist commies (who hate America)
Washington Times, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh - moderate
The Free Republic, Ann Coulter, Hannity - slightly conservative
World Net Daily, Pat Robertson - True Americans
The Free Republic, Ann Coulter, Hannity - moderately conservative
World Net Daily, Pat Robertson - True American Patriots
\_ I keep thinking that this was intended as satire, but then
I remember there are a lot of people that think like this. |
| 2004/9/28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:33802 Activity:high |
9/28 So Carter says there will be problems with the election in Florida.
This is the same man who certified the Venezuelan election which had
"mathematically impossible" results.
http://davidholiday.com/weblog/2004/08/nitpicking-nytimes-on-venezuela
\_ The Economist published a reasonable analysis of the ven.
election results, and they are satisfied it was reasonably
fair. no i don't have a link. - danh
\_ What kind of file is that?
\_ this is the guy who wanted the peace prize so badly he killed
for it
\_ Here's a better link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4431638,00.html
"Rampersad claimed touch-screen voting machines in at least 500
polling sites produced the exact same number of ``yes'' votes in
favor of ousting Chavez, a result he said was statistically
impossible. He said the supposed finding indicated the machines were
rigged to impose a ceiling on ``yes'' votes."
\- after 49 "yes" votes, they become "overloaded with data" --psb
\_ That's because Carter is an idiot, and should really just
shut-up.
\_ When did Bill O'Reilly get a csua account? |
| 2004/9/20 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:33629 Activity:moderate |
9/20 Classy. Lousiana Democrat headquarters vandalized.
http://csua.org/u/947
\_ Watergate II.
\_ A 3 year old girl?! A sign ripped out of her ... oh wait, sorry.
Only bad things that happen to Republicans are worth getting
outraged about. Carry on!
\_ Don't forget the bullet fired into the West
Virginia Republican headquarters last week!
\_ IT WAS HIS SON! THE TWO PEOPLE LOOK VAUGELY SIMILAR IN A
LOW RES PICTURE ON A BLOG! IT MUST BE TRUE!
\_ LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS IS THE ONLY BELIEVABLE BLOG! ALL
OTHERS ARE FAKE!!!!!!!!1!!!
\_ [all caps rant delete]
\_ You mean all those years that Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage, et al
have been exhorting their followers to attack the traitorous
America-hating liberals are finally having an effect? |
| 2004/9/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:33451 Activity:high |
9/10 Did Bill O'Reilly ever appologize or make a correction/explanation
for his made-up "Paris Business Review" statistic?
\_ No, of course not.
\_ If O'Reilly shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the
world will drift toward tragedy.
\_ If Bill O'Reilly owns up to mistakes, then the terrorists have
already won.
\_ I think Dubya is more eloquent than you. |
| 2004/9/7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:33386 Activity:kinda low |
9/7 In the Krugman v. O'Reilly clip, the latter person goes wild.
He learned his lesson, since in the O'Reilly v. Moore interview,
O'Reilly was calm and the latter person went wild. Subsequently,
Moore learned his lesson and was calm at the GOP convention (making
the GOP delegates look nuts) and in his USA Today columns.
(If you had to ask me, O'Reilly at the time thought it was okay to go
nuts since Krugman said he was a liar -- but O'Reilly realized Krugman
just knew how to push his buttons and was no lightweight either.)
\_ Krugman is just a lot smarter and more in control of himself
that either one of those other guys.
\_ That isn't saying much.
\_ Neither of those guys is dumb. They might both have
some impulse control issues, though. Krugman has
taught at Harvard, Stanfurd and MIT. It would hard
to find anymore smarter and more knowledgeable about
economics. |
| 2004/9/7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:33380 Activity:moderate |
9/7 I'm people will be shocked shocked shocked! by this story ...
The media (in this case FOX news) can legally lie:
My favorite part: "During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are
no written rules against distorting news in the media."
http://csua.org/u/8xy
\_ If the media couldn't lie, how would you allow for satire like
the Onion? This seems like a no-brainer to me. Even aside from
satire, do you really want a precedent of the government punishing
media for saying what they say isn't "true?"
\_ In the case of willful misrepresentation, yes, I am prepared to
live with that. Satire, by its very nature, does not pretend to
be true, and thus would not be subject to these regulations.
\_ and you're willing to let some court decide what is and
what isn't satire? wow. out of curiosity, do you consider
yourself to be a "liberal" or "conservative?"
\_ Actually, courts have to decide that all the time, such as
in libel/slander cases. See the Falwell v. Flynt case.
- !pp
\_ w00t!
\_ The NYT and LAT will be pleased to know that.
\_ In case it's not clear, the reporters are appealing the case. No
news yet.
\_ All the tabloid at groceries store cash registers have been lying
anyway.
\_ You mean Bat Boy hasn't escaped?! |
| 2004/8/31 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33253 Activity:high |
8/31 Michael Moore learns not to rant and plays it cool at GOP Convention.
His column is actually well written, IMO.
http://csua.org/u/8uj (Washington Post)
http://csua.org/u/8uk (official USA Today column)
\_ It's not bad. Aside from the bad statistics he uses to justify
him is own far-left views, he's right. Most republicans aren't
far right. What he's missing is that not being far right
doesn't make them far left either.
\_ Yes, you're so clever. I'm sure Michael Moore doesn't
understand false dichotomies. Go play in the street.
\_ This response was needlessly agressive, perhaps to make
up for the fact that it doesn't actually say anything.
Anyway, yes, I assume Moore knows what a false dichotomy
is. However, understanding it doesn't mmake you immune
to using them. This RINO concept in this column is
basically one big false dichotomy.
\_ I'm not the "you're so clever" guy, but Moore is just
saying there are the small-government Republicans with more
liberal views on social policy (Ah-nold), and there are the
Republicans who are conservative in the social policy
sense. Moore is saying this latter group is not a
reflection of America.
\_ Fair enough. Although Moore also annoyed me with his
useless straw-man arguments.
\_ ... which were? Granted Moore didn't write anything
about how Dubya and friends have a clear, precise,
\_ i guess you're right, "shoot them all" is clear,
and consistent... not too precise though
and consistent policy on terrror, whereas Kerry and
friends do not. Is that what you're annoyed about?
\_ An example "I asked whether women should have
equal rights, including the same pay as
men." Name a promient republican who would say
no to this. I can't think of any. Do you
think Rice makes less than Powell?
\_ ugh, Michael Moore. Can we just stop talking
about this guy? How about this - we'll stop
talking about Moore and you guys stop talking
about Hannity, O'Reilly, and Coulter. --liberal
\_ w00t! Deal! Although it should really
go the other way. I'll stop talking
about Moore, and you stop talkint about
how stupid O'Reilly, Coulter, etc. are.
\_ Moore is talking about the religious right and
the associated traditional family structure.
Not a straw man. But yeah, I do think it's a
stretch -- he would make a stronger case just
to stay with pro-lifers.
\_ It IS a straw man. Being pro-family is
not pro-opressing women. Saying women
should take care of the babies they have
is not the same as saying women who work
shouldn't get a paycheck. That's just
dumb, and I've NEVER heard anyone even
suggest it. Even the Bible is against
that.
\_ No, I say Moore makes a weak argument,
but I still say it's not a straw man.
What's a straw man? "Name a prominent
republican who would say [they favor
policies that would create a situation
where women earn 0.75 cents to the
dollar]." Even if a prominent Republican
did favor this, they would never say so.
What's a straw man? "saying women who
work shouldn't get a paycheck". No one
says that or thinks that, period.
Moore: weak, completely unsupported
argument on women's pay.
You: straw-man king.
\_ Sheesh. Sorry for the hyperbole.
No one says or thinks women
should get paid less for equal
work either.
\_ The Bible says that women should be
obedient to their husbands and their
fathers, not that they should have
equal rights.
\_ The Bible also says, in the same
way, that children should honor
their parents. Saying that means
women should have equal rights is
a mis-interpretation of scripture.
\_ You're either with us or against us!
\_ MM'08!
\_ Funny how he says, "we New Yorkers" when he's always tried to play
up his whole everyman Flint, MI angle in the past.
\_ Meh. He grew up there, worked in the SFBA for a time, and is now
a New Yorker. He's probably qualified to talk casually about any
of those places.
\_ What? He moved?? FLIP FLOP!!! |
| 2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:33170 Activity:high |
8/26 To the guy who was saying "rural people have the same..yada yada"
Try picking up a NYT or FT in the boondocks. Honestly, try it. It's
not a stereotype, people in cities _do_ have access to more
information. That's why they live in cities. And no, I nowhere
implied that they're all smarter. -John
\_ NYT is on the Internet now. You might be surprised at who you find
in the boondocks. I was in rural Alabama once and lots of
people there had lived in Germany, France, and other places.
They were well-traveled and educated. Yes, there are towns full
of yokels but this is true in LA or SF Bay Area, too.
\_ no, this can't be true. they trend heavily republican so they
must be stupid, gap toothed, black teethed, unwashed, uneducated,
morons and raging assholes who won't vote against bush after
seeing F9/11. they don't have newspaper delivery, they don't
have the net, electricity, running water, or sanitation
services. mostly, we allow them to stay in our country so we
have someone to laugh at but we shouldn't let them vote or
express their useless opinions. oh yeah, there's lots of xtians
there who home school their kids instead of putting them in the
superior and well functioning public schools. that alone is
solid proof they're ignorant and should be caged.
\_ Nice attempt at satire, but it just comes across as hateful
and spite-filled rather than funny.
\_ hurts, huh? you'd find it funny if it wasn't self
descriptive. i learned to talk that way right here on soda
\_ Yeah, agreed with the guy above, this really sounds like
the kind of crap soda's Liberal Goonsquad (tm) vomits out.
Yet somehow it's never called spite-filled or hateful.
My recent favorite was aaron wishing liberals could
gangbang a freeper 50 to 1. You can't make that stuff
up. -- ilyas
\_ Ilya, have you ever read freerepublic? Aaron is mild
compared to some of those guys. Also, it is
possible to be both (reasonable && disagree with ilyas).
Anyway, my point above was that if you want to satirize
someone, its far more effective if you can actually be
funny.
\_ Yeah, good job guys, you are behaving slightly better
than folks on freerepublic! *sigh*. -- ilyas
\_ yo, this isn't the free republic. there's only one
person here who reads it and i suspect he posts links
from it just to tick you off. how about you compare
the hateful spite and bile from the left to the other
soda users who have a different political philosophy?
you don't see us posting how you're all stupid ass-
holes and pure evil because of what you believe.
check the mirror. you are the very thing you claim
to hate most.
\_ aaron is the only one I see with the bubbling anger like
that. He at least is not anonymous, unlike Swiftboat
Troll for example.
\_ whatever. read the wall for a daily dose of raw
hatred and poison. flip the targets around and
apply the same words to yourself or your beliefs and
see if you'd find it ugly and vicious and lacking
common decency.
\_ Swiftboat Troll isn't angry though. Stupid, yes, but
not angry.
\_ Well right wingers don't have much to be angry
about as such. After all their party is in power.
They can work themselves up about Michael Moore
though.
\_ Yes, winning is more fun than losing. We had
40 years of leftist agenda bullshit and since
1994 we've taken the country back and we're
not giving it back so easily. Does that anger
you? How dare we fight back?! Bastard evil
Republicans are plotting to win again in 2004!
\_ Tell Ann Coulter and Michael Savage that.
\_ or Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrinch or
Kenneth Starr or Richard Mellon Scaife
or the Coors Family or Richard Nixon or
Chuck Colson or Joseph McCarthy or...
The right-wing has had the monopoly on
vitriolic hate for so long. Its only
now that the liberals are so pissed off
that they are (stupidly) adopting the
tactics of the other side.
\_ Why are you leftists so sensitive,
yet there is tyrant inside everyone
of you?
\_ While I don't necessarily agree with
what you said, I can try to address
a related question 'why do sweet,
emotional people have a tyrant
inside them?' Lewis Carroll in Alice
made up the archetypal Red Queen to
bring this observation into focus.
I think it's the nature of human
emotionality to be double-edged in
this way, which is why the Red Queen's
flip-flops between megaton sweet and
megaton nasty are instantly
recognizable -- ilyas
\_ Who was spitting on returning Vietnam
vets? They weren't Republicans.... |
| 2004/8/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32863 Activity:high |
8/12 So can anyone tell me where the political wingnuts on the motd came
from? I don't remember anyone so nutty when I was involved
in the CSUA (97-01).
\_ I think we somehow gave an account to a pissed off
re-entry veteran student. - danh
\_ Young people are generally apathetic about politics. My theory
is that as the posters to the motd grew older, they became
more interested in politics. As to why they are so nutty,
your theory is as good as mine.
\_ I think the nutty stuff is mostly trolls from people who have
boring jobs with nothing to do most of the day- and the recent
increase is just from post-dot-com-bust-shitty-job-market. From
97-01, people had too much to do. From 01-02, nobody was employed.
Now, people are employed, but don't do anything.
\_ two words: graduate school.
\_ So you think Freeperguy just keeps track of the latest freeps
so that he can troll the rest of us?
\_ http://FreeRepublic.com. Fox News. Not really liking poor people.
That's all you need to create a right-wing "wingnut".
Liberal media. Michael Moore. Not really liking rich people.
That's all you need to create a left-wing "wingnut".
\_ This kind of Red-State/Blue-State thinking is the whole problem.
Reducing people to abstractions doesn't teach you anything about
them. The computer science solution to problems is not always
the correct one.
\_ agreed. i think the average "red state" or "blue state"
person would be horrified by most of the socialist/communist
lefists and ayn rand rightwingers that prevail on both
sides of the political spectrum among geeks.
\_ Hey, someone asked how wingnuts came about, I gave an answer.
Of course there are a lot of non-wingnut left and
right-wingers. Hell, my "I will kill Michael Moore if I
ever see him" younger brother who watches O'Reilly all the
time managed to get his hands on my copy of Starship Troopers
(book not movie): He nows says he's joining the Army as
long as Kerry isn't elected.
\_ Your brother sounds like he really needs a CSUA account.
\_ Rent him the DVD. See if he gets the satire.
\_ He saw that movie 10-20 times already. Apparently
he likes both.
\_ Politics have gotten far more acrimonious since the 2000 Election.
This election cycle has simply built upon that.
\_ Labelling people as a wingnut if they don't agree with you.
\_ Ha. No. |
| 2004/8/10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32815 Activity:nil |
8/10 Lessig makes a good point about weakening fair use rights.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/view.html?pg=5?tw=wn_tophead_6
\_ FASCIST! The fair use rights want to be free! |
| 2004/8/4 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32681 Activity:high |
8/4 Moore altered headlines: http://tinyurl.com/57a5l \_ In other news, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity are ALSO big fat liars! \_ But Moore is fatter than all of them COMBINED! |
| 2004/8/3 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32656 Activity:nil 76%like:32651 |
8/3 Orange alert info pre-dates 9/11
http://csua.org/u/8fl
officials "reported that they had not yet found concrete evidence that
a terror plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under
way."
\_ Okay. What should we conclude from that?
\_ That the orange alert is politically timed?
\_ That the timing is, again, dubious. Old information trotted
out after a major event for the other side.
\_ It's not old information. The files were updated *this* year.
Furthermore, 9/11 was planned for years. So it's NEW
information to us, and the fact that some was originally
planned years ago doesn't simply mean that it might be
outdated, but that it might be close to fruition.
\_ Updated in January. Six months ago. Hello, how is that
news? Are you saying that after all of the intel reforms,
it still takes 6 months to decipher intel?
\_ Be nice to the op. I don't think he's very good at
reading comprehension.
\_ No such thing as facts, only an interpretation of the
facts, huh? Its pretty funny to watch the freepers try
to defend the credibility of Tom Ridge as it approaches
singularity.
\_ What are you talking about? The NYT article
makes it pretty clear what was going on. Just
because the info is a few years old, doesn't
mean it's out-of-date.
\_ No, but it's not news. The announcement is for
areas that are already in an elevated state of
alert. This was yet another "we're still doing
stuff" announcement. Also, by virtue of predating
9/11, any surveillence from then would be more
or less useless because we've changed and improved
the security measures... right?
\_ Hilarious. Every major news outlet is carrying this story in one
form or another...except for Fox News. Their headline is "lady
liberty reopens to public." The story doesn't seem to appear
anywhere on their site.
\_ So there really *is* a news bias?
\_ Informed. Powerful. Huge Penis.
\_ could someone please explain the HUGE, TAX FREE PENIS thing?
what is that a reference to?
\_ In re: Ann Coulter it's a reference to the fact that some
motder(s?) like her and the only plausible reason for
liking a woman who admires Joe McCarthy is that they want
to have sex with a reasonably hot arch-conservative, so
the retort is "Oh! Your penis is so BIG and TAX FREE!".
\_ So you're saying this originated on the motd?
\_ Yeah, I am pretty sure it did.
\_ Nice straw man.
\_ I don't think this means what you think it does.
Use a dictionary. |
| 2004/8/3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32651 Activity:high 76%like:32656 |
8/3 Orange alert info pre-dates 9/11
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/politics/03intel.html
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=US&cat=Terrorism
officials "reported that they had not yet found concrete evidence that
a terror plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under
way."
\_ Okay. What should we conclude from that?
\_ That the orange alert is politically timed?
\_ That the timing is, again, dubious. Old information trotted
out after a major event for the other side.
\_ It's not old information. The files were updated *this* year.
Furthermore, 9/11 was planned for years. So it's NEW
information to us, and the fact that some was originally
planned years ago doesn't simply mean that it might be
outdated, but that it might be close to fruition.
\_ Be nice to the op. I don't think he's very good at
reading comprehension.
\_ No such thing as facts, only an interpretation of the
facts, huh? Its pretty funny to watch the freepers try
to defend the credibility of Tom Ridge as it approaches
singularity.
\_ What are you talking about? The NYT article
makes it pretty clear what was going on. Just
because the info is a few years old, doesn't
mean it's out-of-date.
\_ No, but it's not news. The announcement is for
areas that are already in an elevated state of
alert. This was yet another "we're still doing
stuff" announcement. Also, by virtue of predating
9/11, any surveillence from then would be more
or less useless because we've changed and improved
the security measures... right?
\_ Hilarious. Every major news outlet is carrying this story in one
form or another...except for Fox News. Their headline is "lady
liberty reopens to public." The story doesn't seem to appear
anywhere on their site.
\_ So there really *is* a news bias?
\_ Informed. Powerful. Huge Penis.
\_ could someone please explain the HUGE, TAX FREE PENIS thing?
what is that a reference to?
\_ In re: Ann Coulter it's a reference to the fact that some
motder(s?) like her and the only plausible reason for
liking a woman who admires Joe McCarthy is that they want
to have sex with a reasonably hot arch-conservative, so
the retort is "Oh! Your penis is so BIG and TAX FREE!".
\_ So you're saying this originated on the motd?
\_ Nice straw man. |
| 2004/7/30 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32589 Activity:very high |
7/30 Sandy Berger cleared.
\_ Yeah. Any bets on what page this will make? I'm betting A13 at
best.
\_ But NewsMax says it isn't true! Who do you believe, NewsMax or
the WSJ?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/30/120251.shtml
\_ NewsMax is the standard!!!11!!! Four more yeah!
\_ I believe NewsMax. Berger was always given photocopies, and
never had originals. The WSJ article merely confirms this
widely available fact, and because of this, also goes on to say
that Berger isn't guilty of obstructing the 9/11 commission,
also a widely available fact.
The NewsMax article correctly points out, though, that Berger
did carry out photocopies, and it is also true that Berger took
50 pages of notes, which he was supposed to provide for screening
but did not disclose. The Washington Post is on record as
judging this conduct reprehensible. http://csua.org/u/8e3
-self descrbed traitorous liberal
\_ Plenty of cons claimed he did it to destroy evidence
which is now shown to be preposterous.
\_ If you read the article carefully it says he was cleared by
the 9/11 commission in terms of missing documents. The criminal
investigation is ongoing.
\_ Has it actually been established that he probably commited a
criminal act, and didn't simply violate archives policy?
\_ When the documents are classified, you may be in trouble. |
| 2004/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32547 Activity:high |
7/28 I think someone just used the liberal version of "Why do you hate
America" on me. I was telling a guy I know that I thought Michael
Moore's "would you sacrifice your children?" question is stupid
because Moore can take the correct response of "no, because I don't
speak for my children- they make their own decisions" and say,
"see! see! you said no, you're a hypocrite!" To which this guy
responded with, "So it's okay to lie to go to war?"
\_ Yeah, sounds like it to me. Still not quite as snappy, but close.
\_ Why do you support torture?
\_ Moore is an idiot. In any case, he could do his job a lot easier
by stopping his calling Bush a liar, and saying he's incompetent
instead. As well, Moore should be asking, "If you were President,
would you send America's children to Iraq based on what you knew?"
instead of asking the ridiculous version of the question ("Would
you send your own kid ...").
\_ I think a better response is: so if the UN sanctioned the war
you would then automatically 'sacrifice' your children? As if
it should make a difference.
\_ You're all missing the fucking point. The people Moore approaches
are the ones making the decisions to authorize the use of the
troops, cutting their benefits and danger pay, etc. He has two
\_ Bill O'Reilly makes decisions to authorize use of troops?
audiences with that stunt, those watching through the camera,
and the legislators themselves. The point is not that their
children should be compelled to serve. It's that 1) they might
weigh their decisions differently if they could imagine that
it was their own child, and 2) the poor join up to the military
for the opportunities they see in it while the well off don't.
Moore wants the soldiers lives to be weighed to their worth.
\_ Nice try. Moore just wants to make people look like
hypocrites when they clearly aren't.
\_ Did you even watch the damn film. If you want to over-
simplify it without considering what I just said, I weep
for you.
\_ Someone mentioned a film? |
| 2004/7/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32485 Activity:insanely high |
7/26 Okay, drudgereport is talking about an Ann Coulter article on the
convention being spiked (usatoday says it's postponed since they
asked her to make some changes), but the link is jammed. Here's
the full text:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1178897/posts
"Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are
deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much
like gay men do. ..."
\_ "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing,
hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women"
at the Democratic National Convention." Wow. that's clever.
I guess now I'll have to vote republican, join a baptist church,
and start listening to Rush. She sure makes a convincing arguement.
And I can see why you assholes compare her to Moore. Accusing a
president of decieving the American people about a WMD intelligence
is really a lot like accusing people who dissagree with you of being
ugly.
\_ Your dick is so large and tax free!
\_ So did you post Ann's "insights" for edification purposes or so that
we could mock her? Or are you just trolling as usual?
\_ I posted because information wants to be free. ... and they
have Moore covering the Republican convention.
\_ Best take ever on the RNC was from Chris Rock back in '96.
"I'm at the Republican National Convention...There's a lot of
white people here!"
\_ "Hey Lois, look, it's the two symbols of the
Republican party! An elephant, and a big fat
white guy who's afraid of change!" -Peter Griffin
\_ I ll take an elephant over an ass any day.
\_ You will look odd with an elephant instead of an ass.
\_ How do you know this is actually what Coulter wrote? Don't we
routinely trash freepers here?
\_ Ah, answering my own post, it's the same text at http://anncoulter.org
\_ http://anncoulter.org crashed my browser. She writes viruses!
Evil /<-r@d republica h4xxx0r b1tch! -John
\_ This is worse even than Michael Moore. And that is saying something.
\_ Moore, in his movie, presents cherry-picked facts and videotape,
exaggerating them to a money- and power-driven conspiracy, which
defies common sense.
Coulter, in her article, takes stereotypes and ridicules people
with them, i.e., she posts like a freeper.
\_ Oliver Stone does a much better job of this. I still think
that Joe Pesci should have played Dick Cheney. Now *that*
would have been worth watching.
\_ Coulter is a Repub lickin' (haha!) cheerleader. She knows few
actual facts and attacks using "talking point" material. She
resorts to personal attacks as a general rule. I don't really
feel any particular hatred or anything I just find it kinda
funny. I saw her on some panel on CSPAN and when she resorted
to personal attacks everyone in the room just kinda stared at
her. It only works when she's controlling the discourse.
\_ As opposed to Hannity or O'Reilly, who just interrupt
anyone who disagrees with them.
\_ Coulter is an idiot, like your favorite Al Franken.
\_ al franken's last book was pretty well researched
and managged to often be amusing. coulter's book
was just a big box of unenjoyable uninformative slime.
i'll take al.
\_ Did you listen to his radio show? Talk about unenjoyable
slime... sheesh. |
| 2004/7/24 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:32468 Activity:high |
7/24 I'll see you a Berger and raise you a Shelby:
Republican Senator Richard Selby target of a Justice Department
investigation into leakage of classified 9/11 phone intercepts.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126904,00.html
\_ IIRC, this started after Shelby criticized FBI for faiilure in 9/11.
\_ Not quite the same thing. Berger didn't deny the action. Shelby
does. Berger appears to have destroyed documents, etc. Hang Berger
and if Shelby did it, hang him too. |
| 2004/7/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32444 Activity:high |
7/23 For the conservative in all of us, Michael Ramirez political cartoons
http://csua.org/u/8an
\_ Oh those about Kerry/Edwards being rich are real clever.
\_ Look, it's like the Freepers/Fox News have their own cartoonist!
And he's got an Hispanic name, so the lefties can't touch him!
Lame.
\_ The left has no problem bashing blacks, hispanics or anyone else
on the right. In fact, conservative minorities have been
smashed by many on the left in public forums with terms like
Uncle Tom and "not really black", etc. Because, hey, being a
minority means being a leftist is in your genes, right? Any
brown people who don't stick to the party line must be
ostracized and expelled from the race!
\_ Shut up, white boy.
\_ Bwahahahhahahaa!! |
| 2004/7/21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32406 Activity:nil |
7/21 Oh look. Another WMD "find" debunked. Think Fox News will report it?
http://csua.org/u/8a6 (yahoo news)
\_ Think anyone will report it? LOOK! SANDY BERGER! EVILLLLLL
CLINTON GUY!!!!11!!
\_ In May a sarin shell was found. Anyway, Bush says America and the
world is a safer place now that Saddam is gone.
\_ and if Bush says it, it must be true! After all, he said the WMDs
were there! Oh wait... |
| 2004/7/21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32402 Activity:insanely high |
7/21 Heh, so much for Air America Radio being "doomed"
http://csua.org/u/89v (yahoo news)
\_ Well, that's more of a commentary about O'Reilly's worthless radio
show. -emarkp
\_ But he won the Peabody Prize for outstanding journalism, didn't
he?
\_ Speaking of the worthlessness of O'Reilly, you should really
google O'Reilly and Jeremy Glick.
\_ I'm quite familiar with that interview. I think O'Reilly went
over the top but was basically right, and should have cut the
mic and ended the interview. -emarkp
\_ So what about the followups where O'Reilly repeatedly lied
about Glick's positions? And a year later when he accused
Glick of advocating murder? It was definitely a tale that
"grew in the telling."
\_ In case you couldn't read, emarkp only defended
O'Reilly in that particular interview, not in
general. Therefore your comment does not apply.
emarkp would agree with you that O'Reilly is an
idiot.
\_ You are such a computer scientist. My original
reference was to "google O'Reilly and Jeremy
Glick." This would imply their entire relationship,
not just the single interview.
\_ I guess that was supposed to be
condescending, but I'm not sure why it's bad
to expect people to restrict the subject of
their replies to be <= subject of the pp. Is
it because it makes it more difficult for you
to insult people with completely random
subject matter? Or maybe it's because you
don't have very good reading comprehension
skills?
\_ What about them? I've already dismissed O'Reilly as
either a credible news source or insightful commentator.
I think Glick was an idiot in the interview and is also
worthless. Why would any follow up that made either of
them look like /more/ of a jerk matter to me? -emarkp |
| 2004/7/19-20 [ERROR, uid:32347, category id '18005#8.125' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32347 Activity:insanely high |
7/19 http://www.moveon.org/fox MoveOn files complaint with FTC over "Fair and Balanced" \_ Fox News, you news source for evil. \_ Fox News, your voice for evil. \_ chicom troll? is that you? \_ It's from the Simpsons. \_ no, but i do wish Nazi was a bit more efficient \_ yes! kill all jew! then muslim brother loves us! \_ Very Interesting... But Stupid! The Motd has been reversed \_ It's probably not kchang, but I'm ready for another squishing! So, who is it? \_ I just finnished writing an outraged letter to moveon. I've given a lot of money to those bastards! \_ i think Fox's new ads say "Informed. Powerful. Huge Penis." - danh \_ YOUR PENIS IS SO BIG AND TAX FREE! \_ Moveon should be more worried about their own questionable financial dealings than how Fox News advertises themselves. \_ "Questionable"? You mean George Soros? There's nothing questionable there. Or are you talking about 527 status? or are you just ranting to see yourself type? Moveon is exactly what it says it is. Fox is not. \_ 527 specifically but since you mention Soros, yes, him too. And what ranting? You're the one blowing froth. I'm simply mentioning that a .org with their background should clean up their own backyard before complaining too loudly about a neighbor's. Fox will always be there as long as they get advertisers. Moveon is a 527 which can vanish with the stroke of a pen with all the other 527s which exist only to skirt the campaign finance reform laws. |
| 2004/7/18 [ERROR, uid:32337, category id '18005#7.3525' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32337 Activity:high |
7/18 When Dowd is bashing a Democrat, you know it's over. And for you
knuckleheads who can't figure it out, this is an OPINION piece from
the NYT.
http://tinyurl.com/5kpsz (nytimes.com)
\_ The last time you posted an OPINION piece, someone complained
that you were posting an OPINION as fact. Of course, you
retaliated by claiming that he didn't know how to read.
IIRC, you posted an oped as proof that "BUSH (& BLAIR) WIN
AGAIN". I think you're the knucklehead for not being able
to figure out what someone is complaining about and
retaliating with a completely unrelated insult.
\_ Wow. So the New York Times' stupidest columnist is just as
capable at launching content-free, bubble-headed personal attacks
against Democrats as against Republicans. What a fucking
suprise. This is the same moron who was writing entire columns
about the fashion choices of the candidates during the primaries.
\_ What's over? The world? The pretense that the NYT is a "liberal"
newspaper? What?
\_ When someone starts throwing around the term knucklehead, you
know they've been watching too much O'Reilly.
\_ I say knucklehead quite a bit, and i've never watched an
entire episode of O'Reilly, and, god-willing, never will.
it's something I picked up in the army or perhaps watching
some army character on tv :) -np001 |
| 2004/7/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32333 Activity:high |
7/16 'Marxists' destroy 'New South Africa'
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39450
\_ 'Neoconservatives' destroy 'United States of America'
http://worldnetdaily.com |
| 2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32281 Activity:kinda low |
7/14 Happy Bastille Day!
\_ Tonight on Fox News: Some people say John Kerry, LOOKS FRENCH.
\_ Lance even let them win this one. -John |
| 2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32278 Activity:high |
7/14 Don't ever try to pass off Fox News as "Fair And Balanced"
http://csua.org/u/86m (wonkette, a political blogger)
\_ You're using a blogger site to prove something on the motd? This
is beyond ridiculous. Just quote something off the
http://democraticunderground.com message boards and get it over with.
\_ That John Moody has a good vocabulary: "obstreperous" was new to me.
\_ Doesn't matter, the wingnut crowd will just stick their fingers
in their ears, shut their eyes and go "waaah waaah waaah liberal
media waaah waaah waaah." The scary part is that given Fox's
success, all of the other 24 hour news networks are now
emulating them. The worst part isn't their bias so much as
how they package it as good wholesome entertainment. At least
in soviet russia, people knew Pravda for what it was.
\_ Ummm... The rest of the media IS biased. That's no excuse
for Fox, but I really wish people would stop pretending Fox
News invented the biased news program. It just pisses off
all the liberals who are used to the news being slanted
their way, which is the same reason so many middle american
conservitives like it. "Sure it's biased, but at least
it's biased toward ME now." -jrleek
\_ The liberal media canard has been thoroughly debunked. Its
mostly just a stick with which to beat the mainstream media
to keep them in line. There is absolutely no equivalent to
Fox on the left.
\_ Debunked in your little leftist echo chamber. The rest
of us know the score. Try being intellectually honest
for once. You can't even see it because you're so
partisan. The Fox equiv. is NBC/CNN/CBS/NYT/LAT at the
core and many others with smaller audiences.
\_ Well... maybe KPFA, but they don't reach *nearly* as many
people.
\_ I don't really see the equivalence with KPFA. KPFA
presents itself more as "the Voice of the Activists"
and an organizational rallying point than as a news
source. Fox is more like Inside Edition meets the
World.
\_ They both present themselves as a news source and
provide biased news. Fox is the only one that keeps
claiming to be "Fair and Balanced"
\_ Are you confusing their opinion shows with their
news shows? Yes. I think you are.
\_ Link? That is, a link that doesn't come from farther
left than CNN? -jrleek
\_ I don't buy this "thoroughly debunked" argument. An
older survey (American Society of Newspaper Editors, 1997):
http://tinyurl.com/4c295
Total:
36% democrat/liberal
25% lean democrat/liberal
7% lean republican/conservative
8% republican/conservative
24% independent
A more recent survey (Pew Research Center for the
People and the Press):
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214
"More striking is the relatively small minority of
journalists who think of themselves as politically
conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the
case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are
much less conservative than the general public
(33% conservative)."
\_ Talk to people who actually work in journalism.
Individual journalists have almost no say about what
ultimately appears. This is almost always up to a
publisher or producer or whomever the authority
depending on the medium.
\_ So far I have 2 links showing media bias. I'm
still waiting for the one that "throughly
debunks" media bias. -jrleek
\_ those surveys are about how journalists
self-identify, not about how they report. And
the Pew report you give is very specifically
about how bottom-line pressure is "seriously
hurting" the quality of news coverage. And of
course you've seen the FAIR report, which you're
going to claim "comes from too far left". -tom
\_ You're saying that the political leaning
of the people who report the news
doesn't effect how they report it? I
admire your faith tom. And yes, when a
communist tells me Clinton was a
right-winger, I tend to think his
opinion is too far left. (BTW, that's
hyperbole) -jrleek
\_ First of all, I don't think people are
very good at reporting their political
leaning; the FAIR report asks their
position on specific issues and then
compares that to the national average.
Second, it should be obvious that
the ownership of the news outlet has
more control than the people who report
it. -tom
\_ It's all relative. How else to
determine one's place on the political
spectrum without comparing to other
people? It isn't something that can
be measured like the frequency of
sound.
\_ I respectfully submit that you don't
know much about how publishing or
the news media functions, jrleek. I know
a couple of people that work in print
journalism, which admittedly may differ
from television media in many ways but
not, I doubt, in this respect. Editors
vet everything that goes into print, and
editors in turn are under enormous pressure
to follow general directives about content
and editorial direction from publishers.
People lose their jobs in the industry
all the time over this.
\_ I admit, I don't have much
personal contact with
journalists. My opinions are
pretty much all circumstantial in
reguard to the media. That is,
all the news sources I see, SF
Cron, NYT, CNN, etc. are left
leaning. I've seen right leaning
local newspapers before, but no
national ones. -jrleek
\_ The fact that you consider the NYT
left-leaning speaks volumes about
your bias, and little about theirs.
\_ I like the NYT, mostly, but if
you think it isn't left
leaning you're either waaaaaay
out in left field or just
trolling.
\_ Not to mention the William
Randolph Hearst SF Chron. -tom
\_ Ummm... ok. I guess I
should point out that I'm refering to
left-leaning against the national average,
not the Berkeley average. -jrleek
\_ Do you know anything about William Randolph
Hearst? -tom
\_ I know he's dead.
\_ Tell us how dead guys control the
media Tom!
\_ That's Dead Rich White Males to you!
\_ So I guessed you missed that whole thing where
the Howell Raines-led NYT was basically out
to get Bill Clinton in the '90s with their
Whitewater coverage?
\_ Sorry, yes. I wasn't reading the NYT
regularly in High School. -jrleek
\_ "Out to get" or simply reporting the
biggest news story of the day? Should they
have ignored the Clinton's criminal
activity?
\_ Whitewater criminal? What criminal
behavior was Clinton convicted of
in connection to Whitewater?
\_ Are you suggesting that publishers personally
edit each and every article that goes into, say,
the New York Times every morning, injecting spin
of their own particular flavor? Interesting. I'd
always thought that the articles that go into, say,
a daily newspaper were largely the work of their
authors, with a little editing. The headline is
written by someone else, but not the article.
\_ The owners and editors lean conservative.
And you bet that biases their newspapers.
Are you trying to claim that GE, Westinghouse
and MSNBC are "liberal"? I personally think
that the Big Business owner bias and liberal
reporter bias more or less cancel out.
\_ Cancel out? The person writing the story
is the most important part of it. There are
tens of thousands of words printed in each
paper everyday and you think some editors
are rewriting everything to have a right
slant? That's just nutty.
\_ http://www.fair.org/extra/0405/npr-study.html
Republicans outnumber Democrats 2:1 on NPR.
\_ Conservative think tanks quoted more than liberal:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0405/think-tank.html
\_ I dunno, A lot of the think tank references
I see are written poorly. That's a whole
article on how we're all going to die from
Global Warming, then a little blub at the
end that says "Hertiage Foundation dude
says that he doesn't think this is the
case."
\_ The Myth of The Liberal Media:
http://csua.org/u/86s (Amazon)
How corporations have taken over what used to
once be a free and independent press corp.
\_ The press has always been a business. This is
just plain silly. When exactly was the media
ever "independent"?
\_ On the http://fair.org links: My concern about media
bias is not so much the biases that I DO know -
if they quote the Heritage Foundation or bring on
a liberal commentator, I know what to expect. My
concern is biases I can't see. What is the bias
of the person who writes the news, and what is
the bias of the person who edits it and decides
what gets on the air? Consequently I find the
third link (and also the Eric Alterman book) more
compelling than the first two.
\_ http://fair.org is a raving left-wing group. Just
tiptoe through their archives and count the
number of stories of media being too liberal.
Good luck!
\_ Barry Diller is one of Hillary's closest allies and biggest
contributor. President of ABC advising Kerry on VP selection.
The notion that coorporate leadership can't lean democrat is
nonsense, look at campaign contributions. The media is based
in New York and Hollywood, very left wing areas. Based on
this it would be natural to expect to some bias. Couple that
with the rich Jews it becomes even more obvious.
As for Alterman, I've repeatedly heard him admit on CSPAN
yes the media is biased, but, he then contrives some
bizarre explanation why it doesn't matter. As for Fox, their
prime time viewership is 2 million, compared to 30 million for
the broadcast networks.
\_ Corporate contributions can influence politicians of any party.
The current administration seems to exhibit quite a lot of
quid-pro-quo.
\_ No one said it can't. It just that it doesn't.
\_ Use motdedit, you quished 2 reponses.
\_ Corporations contribute to *both* parties so that they can
receive favors no matter who wins. Even Enron gave money
to the Dems. Your analysis is spot on. The media is
controlled mostly by rich, left-wing Jews who are fiscally
conservative and socially liberal. Liberals go to journalism
school. Conservatives go to business or law school. In
addition to Diller there are Eisner and Geffen among others.
\_ So you're saying David Geffen controls the news media?
You are a funny man.
\_ I didn't write this comment but I think its pretty
obvious Jews control the media, and they are
overwhelmingly leftists.
\_ Media is not the only thing we control, peon. -- ilyas
\_ Music and movies are definitely media that influence
lots of people. Further, I named Geffen because he
is an example of a big, rich, media owner who is also
decidedly liberal. I have no idea why the left equates
"corporations" with "conservative".
\_ I don't equate the two; I think the media is corporate
rather than conservative. -tom
\_ What is the corporate position on social issues?
\_ there is not a single corporate position, but
generally, corporations will not take risky
positions. -tom
\_ In other words they won't lean too far
left or too far right. That sounds right.
So what's the beef?
\_ Racist! Hate Israel, Love Jews!
\_ Oh I get it! Jew bashing is cool as long as you're only bashing
left wing Jews!
\_ Most Jews are left wing, but I didn't see any bashing.
\_ It is just a list of memos from the director of Fox News.
Are you trying to claim that she made them up? |
| 2004/7/13 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32248 Activity:insanely high |
7/12 Yep, Fox News sure is unbiased:
http://home.comcast.net/~tmp123/mm.jpg
\_ Who would bother loading a jpg from a URL like that as 'proof'
of anything. I might as well post freeper links.
\_ I don't watch Fox News, but isn't this a shot from one of their
prime time editorial type shows? Of course that's biased,
that's the freaking point. It's like getting mad at the NYT
because the editorial page says Bush is a doo-doo head.
that's the fucking point. It's like getting mad at the NYT
because the editorial page says Bush is a shit head.
\_ msnbc ?= fox news?
\_ Hey, that's from an MSNBC show. |
| 2004/7/11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32223 Activity:high 71%like:32225 |
7/11 Illegal Aliens are Boosting for Billions, 60 Minutes
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169423/posts
\_ dude can't you find another place other than freerepublic?
i'd take you more seriously.
\_ it's all 60 Minutes stuff
\_ So find some other place that has the article. Seeing 500
nutjobs froth themselves in the comments is just sad. |
| 2004/7/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:31211 Activity:insanely high |
7/7 Kerry's Chinagate - Loral Money Going to DNC
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/7/150106.shtml
1996 campaign finance scandals all over again?
\_ OOOOOhhhh, a NewsMax link! Why don't you post a Drudge link,
a worldnetdaily, and a FreeRepublic while you're at it?
\_ Translation: "Any news source that is not biased to my
political thinking is completely invalid. Do not speak of
them to me!"
\_ Sigh... it is either true or it is not. Attack the truthfulness of
the material, not the source. Attacking the source is weak
and demonstates you have nothing else to say against the
truthfulness of the material and lends it credence. This is
basic Rhetoric 1A stuff any freshman should know.
\_ Nah, they might teach it in Freshman 101, but anyone
with common sense knows you don't argue with a homeless
insane drunk.
\_ As long as he doesn't out any CIA operatives for political
gain. Whoops! Motherfucking wingnuts. --aaron
\_ Anything a democrat does, evil. Anything a republican does,
good. Any questions?
\_ Evil? Or Eeeeevvvviiilllll!!!!! ?
\_ Remember when it was "Motorola, Qualcomm and Loral" in all
the Republican smear pieces? Notice how Motorola is not
mentioned anymore? I wonder why that is.....
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=B09
\_ Tinfoil. Hats. Safety from Martian radio waves.
\_ Follow the money.
\_ I really like the sector plots under Labor, Lawyers, and
Media.
\_ Kerry returned the money from Chung and other foreigners.
But last I checked, Republicans took lots of money donated
from corporate CEOs. Are you guys renouncing that as a
source of fundraising, now? No more Kenny Boys?
\_ Do you honestly see no difference between an american corporation
and a foreign interest?
\_ Schwartz is an American CEO. Loral is an American company.
What is your beef? Are you upset because he is Jewish?
\_ Only conservatives are allowed to be upset about anti
semitism.
\_ No, that's why it was ok for Clinton to take Chinese money
quid pro quo for the most advanced US weapons research.
\_ The Clinton haters have claimed this for years, but
never offered up any real evidence. Do you believe
that Hillary killed Vince Foster to cover up the
evidence of their love crime, too?
\- "I killed Vince Foster, just to watch him die."
\_ The DNC returned hundreds of thousands of
campaign contributions and paid hundreds of
thousands in fines for taking money from the PLA and
Riady. The PLA now has all of our nuclear weapon
designs, when / where do you think they got them?
What do you think 'no controlling legal authority'
was about? Read the Cox report. The evidence
is abundant if you would bother to look.
\_ Correlation is not causation. Any idiot knows
that.
\_ I would classify your behavior and denial as
a neurosis. Poor WJC.. disbarred by USSC
and in his home state, impeached, a traitor,
and hero to anyone except the VRWC. |
| 2004/6/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:31054 Activity:high |
6/28 Amusing how polarized the results are:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/ratings
\_ Propaganda usually is polarizing.
\_ Watching O'Reilly gives you labels.
\_ Bzzzt! I don't watch O'Reilly.
\_ I don't think BOR invented the word "propaganda" or was even
close to first to apply it to Michael Moore. |
| 2004/6/23 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:30969 Activity:insanely high |
6/23 Why Do You Hate America, not a straw man:
HANNITY: (to attorney Stanley Cohen) "Is it you hate this
president or that you hate America?" (4/30/03)
HANNITY: "Governor, why wouldn't anyone want to say the Pledge
of Allegiance, unless they detested their own country or were ignorant
of its greatness?" (6/12/03)
HANNITY: "You could explain something about your magazine,
[the Nation]. Lisa Featherstone writing about the hate
America march, the [anti-war] march that took place over the
weekend..." (1/22/03)
HANNITY: "'I hate America.' This is the extreme left. There
is a portion of the left -- not everybody who's left -- that
does hate this country and blame this country for the
ills of the world..." (1/23/02)
HANNITY: (speaking to Sara Flounders co-director of the
International Action Center) "You don't like this country,
do you? You don't -- you think this is an evil country. By
your description of it right here, you think it's a
bad country." (9/25/01)
\_ It's a straw man. Hannity is a political commentator who gets
paid millions of dollars to be controversial. Hannity does not
read the motd. At best you had 1 random idiot almost 3 years
ago saying anything like that. Get over yourself.
\_ Wow, I never realized how fair and unbiased Fox News was.
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ You know the difference between news and opinion, right?
Hannity has a talk show, not a news show. Grow up.
\_ I liked Orson Scott Card's assessment of Hannity as "relentlessly
dim". He and Rush are a burden we conservatives bear. I wish they
would both just go away. -emarkp
\_ as opposed to the brilliant insights of Orson Scott Card. -tom
\_ But if one conservative says something, that means all
conservatives believe it, right?
\_ How often do you hear conservatives vocally reject what
Hannity does? If you don't want his bullshit to reflect
on you, you have to say so. And I'm not talking about
random people on the motd. I'm talking congressmen...
\_ I wouldn't expect a high-placed politician to bother
responding to a nutty media figure, regardless of their
political affiliation. What I might expect is some rebuke
from a more sane conservative media figure, such as
Bill O'Reilly. (Did I just use 'Bill O'Reilly' and 'sane'
in the same sentence?)
\_ BOR isn't a Republican. Why would a Republican like
Hannity care? Why would a non-Republican feel the need
to 'correct' Hannity?
\_ Rush Limbaugh got a special award from the Republican
Congress in 1998. So not only do they not refute
him, they hold him up as an example.
\_ I wonder how many of you Rush haters have ever
actually listened to him for more than 5 minutes
total.
\_ How often do you hear liberals vocally reject what
[Micheal Moore/NY Times Editorial page/Al Franken/other
left-wing Media idiot does]? If you don't want his
bullshit to reflect on you, you have to say so. And I'm
not talking about random people on the motd. I'm
talking congressmen...
\_ Al Franken is more of a comedian who likes to satire
wacko Republicans like Bill O'Reilly. I wouldn't
really say he's a propagandist. People like Rush
and Ann Coulter, on the other hand, ARE serious and
their audiences do take them seriously
\_ Al Franken is a comedian like Rush is a comedian.
They are both entertainment figures. You can't
dismiss and disavow your looney while pegging the
other guy's with theirs.
\_ Most of the time when a "left-wing Media idiot" says
something that's controversial, it's Unsavory, uncouth or
in poor taste, but not factually wrong or an ad-hominem
attack. Moore's "Bush is a liar" stuff may not win the
left any points, but it is true.
\_ Uhm, but it isn't. Whatever.
\_ Uhm, but it isn't true. Whatever.
\_ I like your equation of a humorist, a propagandist, and
the editorial page of the NYTimes. None of them are
really related at all except in your little mind.
\_ It's not bigger a strech than equating Hannity,
Rush, and Coulter with all other conservatives.
You realize Rush considers himself an
entertainer/humorist? Hamnity probaly considers
himself an editorializer... etc. Since the point
was to emphasize the sillyness of your accusations by
applying them to the left as you apply them to the
right, I would say my post succeeded beautifully.
\_ Uhm, okay. I guess you have a different definition
of "entertainment" and "humor" but in my book
Rush ain't either one.
\_ Ummm... did I say anything about what I
consider humor or entertainment? No.
Re-read post. "Rush considers himself an
entertainer/humorist[.]" Now explain to me
where it says in there what _I_ think of
Rush.
\_ Well, if you took it in context instead
of picking out individual senetences, you
were commenting about how unfair it was
to lump people like Rush, BOR, and Ann
as a single group. What purpose did your
sentence (the one commenting about how
Rush sees himself as a humorist) serve other
than to prove that he shouldn't be lumped
in with other Republican lunatics like
BOR and Ann Coulter?
\_ The point being that they're all
different types a lunatic, silly. It
may surprise you to know, I don't
like ANY of those 3. SURPRISE! If
you want context, why don't you read
the whole discussion? |
| 2004/6/18 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:30898 Activity:insanely high |
6/18 WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
What's the matter. Are you sick of people using the one quote
you have against liberals and turning it into a joke?
\_ What quote? I didn't even know it was against liberals. I never
"got it". You toss it around at random so it never means anything.
\_ Are you fucking blind? "Why do you hate America?" is the most
overused attack either on the motd and in the FoxNews media.
That, followed by "Why do you support terrorists?"
\_ On the motd it isn't an attack. It's just spewed around at
random. Maybe you thought it was some bit of cleverness. I
am simply stupid because as I already said, I never got it.
I've *never* heard the line from any Fox media outlet or
any other place in the world outside the motd. Has the motd
become a Fox media outlet?
\_ This post, just one week after 9/11:
9/19 Another one for the America haters
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3ba89ffd1b40.htm
\_ That's it??!! A single motd post from 9/19/2001 with a
freeper URL? *That* is the source of all america
hatred??
\_ No, I'm not talking about the source of all
"america hatred" but the accusations of others
hating America when they never admitted to it.
Go do your own homework. I'm not going to look
up all the motd entries for you. But just in case
you're too lazy, here's another one
7/4 Happy 4th of July! (even to you America haters)
\_ WHY ASK WHY? |
| 2004/6/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:30702 Activity:insanely high |
6/9 Orson Scott Card talks about Media Bias (and admits his own)
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-05-30-1.html
\_ The only so-called 'media bias' is the fascist right wing owned
nutters who have stolen our first amendment rights and are in
cahoots with bushco to destroy the rest of our rights. Well, except
for the second amendment which is the only right you never really
had. That right is the only one reserved for States, not
individuals.
\_ Is there a right to wear a tinfoil hat?
\_ Not enumerated in the Constitution but generally speaking,
you have the right to wear a tinfoil hat so long as you are
not causing needless harm to someone else which seems
difficult to do by merely wearing a tinfoil hat. So, yes.
\_ But if you craft your tinfoil hat to focus the sun's rays
so as to be a weapon, that's not permitted, unless it's
covered by the second amendment.
\_ The Second Amendment doesn't actually cover anything.
It's the only "Right" in the Bill of Rights that
provides no rights. So no worries! Wear your laser
hat without fear of violating the SA!
\_ Your tinfoil hat violates my first amendment right
to freely practice my religion of worshiping your
giant bald skull.
\_ It's still bald. It just has a tinfoil hat on
it, the second amendment still provides no rights
and your first amendment rights are in full effect
so we're doing ok.
\_ The founders thought to grant rights to 'states'?
\_ No, they thought to grant specific powers to the Fed, the
rest of the powers to the states and all of that is over-
ridden by the bill of rights which is for the people, except
for the second amendment which doesn't grant any rights to
anyone at all.
\_ Come on. Even George Will and William Safire understand that Fox
News is a right-wing propaganda machine. You hear all the time
about researchers being fired from Fox for not toeing the Murdoch
line. You don't hear about this crap at the so-called liberal
media outlets. Given the supposed saturation of the market by the
liberal media, you'd think someone would step forward.
\_ Personally, I'm not as enamored with Fox News as he is, but
can you argue that that articles he details are not
examples of media bias?
\_ they are *individual* examples of biased *articles*. He makes
no attempt to generalize them to "the media", other than to
say things like "on Fox News, and only on Fox News, we get
television reportage that gives us at least two sides of
every important issue." This statement alone is reason to
discount the entire article. -tom
\_ Can you disprove his statement? I doubt it. Unlike you,
I watch Fox, CNN, and a few other 3 letter news stations
so I have a basic upon which to comment. Unlike you. Fox
does a fair amount of rah-rah USA! but it gives the bad as
well. Watching the other stations you'd think this was
Stalinist Russia and the end of the world was near.
\_ Did you read the end of the article?
\_ you mean where he follows up that statement with one
about how fanatics are convinced they're in sole
possession of virtue and truth? Yes, I thought it was
quite amusing. -tom
\_ could someone remind me why anyone cares about what I
have to say about anything? -tom
\_ CFR (Call For References) on this. Where have George Will and
William Safire stated that Fox News is a "right-wing propaganda
machine"? -emarkp
\_ could someone remind me why anyone cares about what Orson Scott Card
\_ You won't get a reference because they never said any such
thing.
\_ could someone remind me why anyone cares about what Holbub
has to say about anything? -tom
\_ I think he says interesting things. I don't always agree,
but he's usually interesting and he expresses himself well.
Also, his articles usually result in more interesting things
on the motd, so I post them.
\_ and you blow away edits while doing that. good job. -tom
\_ Wasn't me, dummy. I use motdedit. A bunch of posts
were erased, and I replaced mine, because I keep what
I post around in case someone erases it. You get a
twink point.
\_ Anyone who counts tweak points needs to grow up.
\_ Fox News prime time: ~ 1.3 million
CNN prime time: ~ 0.9 million
broadcast news prime ime: 30 million
Extremely well documented (liberal) media bias on guns:
http://www.johnlott.org
He was on cspan a week ago but unfortunately segment not available
online.
\_ bias against guns isn't liberal, it's intelligent.
\_ that's biased! Besides, guns aren't the problem, they're
perfectly safe until people get involved. We should be
banning people, not guns!
\_ Ban evil! -- ilyas
\_ John Lott has been caught making up data on many occasions.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott |
| 2004/5/21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:30347 Activity:high 55%like:30342 |
5/21 Bill Cosby gets it. NAACP Mfume and Shaw do not.
http://csua.org/u/7ee [newsday.com]> (shortened)
\_ What a shock. A self-made millionaire understands real life,but
leaders of a group motivated to maintain victimhood dosen't.
\_ I don't think Bill gets it, I think he is being arrogant.
Everyone has their own way of talking in the right setting.
You don't talk the same around your parents, as you do your
friends, or at work. There's nothing wrong with slang in the
right setting. Besides, once slang is accepted in the
mainstream it no longer sounds ghetto. Take for instance,
"it's all good". 10 years ago you'd never hear White professionals
utter that, but now it's quite common. Cosby needs to get offof
his high-horse, he sounds like a sell-out.
\_ Slang is fine at home but not in business. I don't care if
people speak pidgin, ebonics, English, Spanish or Martian at
home. But use standard English if you want to interact withthe
rest of US society.
\_ Business is not some monolithic White Republican thing. Is
black slang appropriate if you are a rap A&R person? Of
course.
\_ White people have white trash who we make fun of. If
you make fun of black trash it's racism. Hoookay...
(Or in this case, since Cosby is black he's an Uncle Tom)
\_ If you're black and you make fun of black trash it's ok.
Generally, it's tacky to poke fun at race if it's not your
own.
\_ I'd say it's tacky (but fun) to make fun of your own race
but it's mean-spirited and possibly racist to make fun
of a different race.
\_ AP's version of the evening differs from NewsDay and WorldNetDaily.
Quelle shock!
http://csua.org/u/7eb
\_ Neither account claims to be comprehensive. This is new?
\_ you're right, it's not new that NewsDay takes quotes out
of context in a pathetic attempt to push their own agenda.
Hey, you want to post another link to an ice flow study
as "proof" against global warming? -tom
\_ The AP version is shorter and has clearly cut out or
mischaracterized the less "PC" Cosby lines. You've got it
all back asswards, as usual.
\_ Tell us another one, Unka Tom! |
| 2004/5/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30260 Activity:very high |
5/17 Time Magazine reviews "Fahrenheit 9/11":
http://csua.org/u/7c1
\_ Wow, before reading this I predicted to myself, "I bet Time
gives it a great review, while desperately trying to spin his
sad excuse journalism. Remember, it's not libel, it's "Hard
Hitting Journalism." Man, I must be a prophet or something.
\_ Ever heard the expression "people see what they believe?"
\_ Yep, sounds like Michel Moore to me! But seriously, read
this time "review" and tell me that's not exactly what it
says.
\_ I have not seen it either, but I have decided on the basis
of no evidence whatsover that it is trash. In fact, I don't
even need to see it, since I get all my opinions straight
from Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I don't know why Time
magazine is even still allowed to stay in print, it is so
obviously run by terrorist loving America haters.
\_ You have a village of people who only tell lies. You ask
them about politics. They make a documentory...
\_ Ummm.. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Just to make it clear for
you, the fact that I think Michel Moore is a partisan
liar, doesn't mean I don't also think Rush Limbaugh is a
partisan idiot. I just predicted this "review" would be
Time giving Moore a blow job, and I was 100% right. Does
that pickle you?
\_ Your words scratch the backs of my eyes.
\_ My feet hurt... with DESTINY!
\_ You killed my fish!
\_ why do you think he's a "liar"?
\_ Just like Rush, he puts his personal political
agenda before any kind of truth. He twists facts,
figures, and statments to make his "documentories."
\_ yawn, all of us should rent his movie, Bowling for
Columbine, which I still haven't seen, and form
our own opinions.
\_ Moore is a lot closer to PJ O'Rourke than
Rush Limbaugh. -tom
\_ Moore seems to see himself as a world changing
moving and shaker and opinion maker of some
great importance. Rush is first and foremost
an entertainer and sees himself as such. You'd
know that if you'd ever actually listened to
his show.
\_ Moore makes movies, and has for a long time,
and all of them from "Roger & Me" have tried
to have a humor/satire approach, and they've
all basically addressed aspects of "big
greedy corporations" and their politician
cronies. Rush runs a political talk show
with constant commentary on everyday
politics and unwavering support of Repubs
and attacks of Dems. Your assessment is
exactly reversed.
\_ BZZZT! I was talking about how they
see and talk about themselves. I said
exactly that. Try again. The political
talk show host primarily calls himself
an entertainer. The movie maker makes
himself out to be a world changer of some
importance. (That was the recap for the
semi-literate among us).
\_ do you have any idea what distinction I'm
making? -tom
\_ tom, no one cares what you're making.
\_ Have you ever actually seen any of his movies?
\_ I was sick that day.
\_ On an unrelated note, this is the first time I've seen a popup that
got past both Opera and Firefox. (Though Opera's "block all popups"
stopped it.)
\_ It's not a popup _window_, just a stylesheet layer.
\_ I can't find the word "window" in my comment. I _can_ find
the word "popup" in the source for the page.
\_ I like how none of you possibly might have considered the idea that
this is a _film review_, and thus is simply one person's subjective
opinion about its quality as a _film_. Even _Triumph of the Will_
is considered a classic simply by virtue of its qualities as a film.
Maybe if the movie was an incredibly gory retelling of the
crucifixion, that would have occured to you?
\_ It really burns the Right that the film has generated so
many extremely postiive reviews from so many people already.
\_ bah. they're used to moore. wait till next week when every
dingbat thirteen year old in middle america starts asking
his or her parents about catastrophic climate change.
then we'll hear some whinning from the motd brownshirts and
their ilk.
\_ Not really. It's standard liberal media anti-Bush rhetorical
self love. We're used to it. Why do you think we're
especially 'burned' by yet another example of the exact same
thing we get flooded with every day by your PR division?
\_ As usual, not a single real criticism of Moore's skill as
a filmmaker or polemicist, just bitching about the
non-existent "liberal media."
\_ I've posted tons of evidence of the liberal media. The
better the links and the more detailed my criticism of
your drivel, the faster it gets deleted. Go vote for a
self proclaimed war criminal and feel good about it.
\_ Which of course is par for the course on the motd for
both sides. Moore is a lying bastard and a raving
nutcase, of course, but he can tell the Big Lie better
than most (including Franken, et al). Conservatives
have the embarrassment of Rush to deal with as well as
others. On the motd discourse is dead, and sound bites
rule. It won't stop until it comes down to knives. |
| 2004/5/11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:30171 Activity:nil |
5/11 If it's a freerepublic link, call it a freerepublic link.
\_ congenitally stupid twit
\_ I think you mean "congenitally". --oc |
| 2004/5/11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Health/Eyes] UID:30147 Activity:insanely high 50%like:12375 |
5/10 Work safe. Humiliation cartoon.
http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/05-11-04.jpg
\_ While not denying your cartoon has a point, I'm shocked by the
apologists coming out of the woodwork talking about a double
standard, that "the terrorists" can use torture but we can't,
boo hoo hoo. Of course there's a double standard! We're Americans;
we know better than that, we are better than that. We're the most
powerful nation on earth, we're singlehandedly defining right and
wrong militarily, and the Limbaughs and O'Reillys of the world
are saying that our troops were just having a good time, that it was
ok to beat and humiliate helpless prisoners. THAT's disgusting.
\_ Some useful questions to think about:
(a) Is torture ever justified (another phrasing: are you a
utilitarian)?
\- you are clouding the issue by introducing utilitarianism.
\_ Like the mighty squid. A true utilitarian should have
the balls to look at torture and shrug. -- ilyas
\_ A true utilitarian would want to see the cost-
benefit analysis before signing off on torture.
\-utils dont ness distinguish between the source
or distribution of the benefits. like "i enjoy
torture" vs "to save the children" --psb
Past experience (South and Central America)
suggests that torture has a very limited benefit
and serious longterm fallout. Don't confuse
utilitarianism with sociopathy.
\_ It depends on who you torture, why, how, and who
would care and how much if it got out.
\-yes but a ultilitarian would not necessarily
require it be for some important national purpose.
interesting litmus test for would be utilitarians
say sufficiently high TV ratings would do it in
some conceptions of utilitarianism. --psb
\_ holy shit! that is brilliant! thank you! you
have given me the next great reality tv idea. i
can't thank you enough! this is why you have a
motd fan base.
\- "Torture TV" is a standard hypothetical that
comes up in critiques of util. In fact one of
the other "standard hypos" involves torture
of a spy in wartime. Also relevant to this
is the notion of norm setting [see rule util,
and the questions, should you chop up a sick
person in a hospital to save 5 people with
transplanted parts]. But even defenders of
util in the war torture example would ack
you have to be sure you have the right guy
and that he has somethinof a spy in wartime. Als
o relevant to this
is the notion of norm setting [see rule util,
and the questions, should you chop up a sick
person in a hospital to save 5 people with
transplanted parts]. But even defenders of
util in the war torture example would ack
you have to be sure you have the right guy
and that he has something to say. You may
wish to read B. Williams [ucb, dead], or
Taking Rights Seriously. --psb
\_ Ok, so I haven't read anything on util.
philosophy. It's still great and needs to
be done! The People Demand Entertainment!
I think it'll be something like you get more
money the more torture you choose to suffer
but if you break you lose all the money you
earned to that point. That's good for about
3 seasons before it gets a little stale and
needs to get spiced up a bit.
\_ I find the 'conventional' conception of
utilitarianism hard to stomach as is. I am just
pointing out the current situation as an
interesting litmus test for would-be utilitarians
here on the motd. What if there were no
pictures, and the mental torture was done
professionally? Would it be ok then? I have
some difficulty saying 'yes.' -- ilyas
\- issue now clouded.
\_ I'm not a utility, but torture is justified if
a guy clearly knows some stuff on which lives
depend and doesn't talk. That leaves a lot of
you something important.
room for abuse though since they don't really
know who might know anything. So I'm not happy
with a generic "torture everybody just in case"
setup. I don't imagine that would be be of
much utility anyway.
\_ Nonononono, you don't torture them "just in
case. You torture them primarily _because_
it is fun and also because they might tell
in other news, i heard J. BENTHAM's head fell off. --psb
\- Auto-Correction: Head was procured in a scrum.--psb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham
\_ is it strictly a utilitarianism question? is
withholding medication a prisoner needs torture?
is withholding drugs? is withholding illegal drugs
ok if you're a doctor and you're trying to wean someone
off drugs? is withholding also ok if you're a drug
lord teaching someone a lesson? how about if you're
trying to convert the prisoner from some other cause?
would it matter if the "other cause" is islam or
some cult with a messiah figure, 7 wifes, and 20
children living in a shack in texas?
(b) Is physical torture 'worse' than psychological torture?
\_ Some is, some isn't. There's a whole lot of ways to
permanently fuck up someone's head while barely touching
them.
\_ There are four lights!
(c) Is the defining moral characteristic of an act the _effect_
or the _attitude_? -- ilyas
\_ Hi, thanks for coming forward. We knew you enjoyed it.
\_ I have no unsigned posts on the motd at the moment.
I don't even remember the last time I started a non-CS
thread. Thanks for playing. -- ilyas
\_ Whoever is trying to argue with Ilya, don't bother.
Its like arguing with concrete, and about as
enlightening.
\_ actually, I like to see ilyas post. he's almost
elevated himself to Fan #1 status.
\_ Well, you either take my word for it, or think I am
a liar. I don't mind either outcome, really.
-- ilyas
\_ it looks like you missed a joke of some sort there
\_ Has O'Reilly actually condoned or excused the bahavior? Or is
this just another dig at conservatives in general? (I *have*
seen Rush's comments BTW, but no reference to O'Reilly). -emarkp
\_ I haven't seen/heard O'Reilly say anything like calling it
fraternity hazing but it is convenient for some people to just
lump all the opposition together and pin all of them with what
one of them said.
\_ If you've never seen an Imperialist cartoon, this is one! |
| 2004/5/6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:30055 Activity:high |
5/6 What's UN hiding?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119116,00.html
\_ If you're gonna troll, you have to find a halfway believable
news agency.
\_ This is no troll you you half-wit. Do you think the U.N.
Doesn't have anything to hide? Like most
Americans, this story is probably not the kind of thing
you have the attention span to pay attention to.
\_ Show me something you didn't find on foxnews or freepnet,
and we'll go from there.
\_ Fox News is a believable news agency. Their editorial page is
right-leaning, not the straight news.
\_ I guess if you believe that you'll believe anything. Anyone
who reads, say, the NYTimes even casually will notice the
editorial bias in the regular news. On the right wing side,
the same goes for the WSJ in recent years (tho before 1995
they were a little better about it). The "wall" between
hard news and editorial doesn't really exist.
\_ I should have put a sarcastic smiley in of course. My
point was this is what people keep saying about the NYT,
yet no one describes NYT as not being "halfway believable".
\_ Bias is an inherent part of human nature, I think. The
key is get your news from lots of sources and take
everything with a grain of salt.
\_ http://www.fair.org/activism/white-house-vandalism.html
Fox News reports or wholly fabricates stories about departing
White House staffers
http://csua.org/u/77c Fox News makes its own news by unmasking
Richard Clarke.
\_ Massive corruption of course. |
| 2004/5/4 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:29998 Activity:high |
5/4 Paul Krugman beats out Anne Coulter and Molly Ivans for
"most partisan" http://www.lyinginponds.com
\_ ok please point out the insanity in a krugman column,
take for example http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/04/opinion/04KRUG.html
\_ He's MAKING SENSE. Clearly he's insane.
\_ Extreme partisanship is the New Way. With the country so heavily
segregated along political lines (google for the demographics on
this), partisanship sells and Jimmy Carterish (or, for you
Republicans, Rockefellerish) politics are down the drain.
Also, the Democratic contenders (and in fact, Coulter herself)
would all be kicked out of the top ten if they included talk
radio rather than just syndicated columnists downloaded off the
web. Not to mention every second of Fox News.
\_ Molly Ivins, not Ivans. Sometimes Molly "I can't get two facts
right" Ivins.
\_ With a moron for a target, she doesn't have to.
\_ What is truth? Truth is optional when the cause is worthy. |
| 2004/5/3 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:29973 Activity:high |
5/3 Disguising freerepublic links by using IP addresses is totally
cheeseball.
\_ Here is the "unbiased" source of the essay:
http://www.hughhewitt.com
It is sort of like Ann Coulter, but not as coherent.
\_ Oh boo hoo it was an email from a Lt. in Iraq - the humanity!!
Why are you leftists such pussies?
\_ Why are neocons so deceptive?
\_ Because they are LYING, BACKSTABBING JEWS! |
| 2004/4/30-5/1 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:13499 Activity:nil |
4/30 Media on torture back in 2001 (nonfree article is on nyt but here is
a free link)
http://www.refuseandresist.org/newrepression/110501torture.html
For development since, google Dershowitz (Chutzpah) with torture.
Although the pictures coming in are not pretty, it's hardly surprising.
We should do a better job of catching those who are distributing
the pics since they obviously are trying to disrupt our job there.
\_ Sure, let's start arresting and stringing up journalists
we don't like. That would be par for the Neocon course. |
| 2004/4/27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:13414 Activity:nil |
4/27 Interesting little article on early (18th century) terrorists.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38200
\_ OMG! WTF? LOL! Worldnetdaily, heh.
\_ 1) They're pirates, not terrorists. 2) There's an article on the
Library of Congress site that does a better job of outlining the
conflict:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjprece.html
\_ You're wrong too. Pirates are people who copy CDs, instead of
meekly paying out for everytime they scratch the original disc.
\_ Piracy : robbery on the high seas
\_ *laugh* yeah right, like the *only* mp3s you have are either
from copyright free sources or replacements for cds you
scratched. that's sooo believable. |
| 2004/4/14 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:13194 Activity:insanely high |
4/14 MOTD Thread Life Rules (Amended):
Let's set some rules on what gets to stay and what gets deleted.
1. Hours from 12 midnight - 8 a.m PST do not count as time passed
2. All threads get to stay for 8 hours at minimum
3. Threads with no new information added for 4 hours can get deleted
4. Rule 3 does not apply to threads degenerated into mutual name
calling, but Rule 2 still applies
5. Threads over 100 lines can be deleted after 12 hours overriding
Rule 3.
6. Informational threads like job openings or CS related questions
get to stay longer.
7. freerepublic links are all immediately deleted
8. Threads in which the OP is refuted will mysteriously disappear.
Comments welcomed
\_ Usually, the entire thread does not degenerate, it just gets
vitriolic and useless branches. The suggestion is to prune
those. Yes, it's not quite algorithmic, and requires some
judgement, but such is life. Sometimes the rest of the thread
is worth keeping for a while longer. -- ilyas
\_ Judgement? We already have that algorithm. It is called bulk
censorship. It doesn't work.
\_ All I am saying is that if there is an (overall useful)
thread, with a useless and/or vitriolic branch, you just
delete the branch. It's easier for 'censor/janitor/Victor-
the-cleaner', too. Of course, this entire conversation is
useless, since no one will really follow any of these, and
we will go on as before. -- ilyas
\_ how do i get the secret motd point?
\_ There is no secret motd point. Stop asking about it in public.
\_ Citizen, such questions endanger Alpha Complex and could
indicate treason and possible infiltration by commie mutant
traitors. Are you a commie mutant traitor?
\_ NERD!
\_ is a commie mutant traitor one of the following?
a) someone betrays a commie mutant organization;
b) a mutant betrays commie;
c) a commie mutant that betrays a non-commie organization
\_ Only commie mutant traitors would pretend not to know
what a commie mutant traitor was. Please fill out
this 10-4-Y-6 in triplicate and submit it at your nearest
termination booth. Have a happy day citizen.
\_ Off to the food vats with you, vermin!
\_ Maybe it's time for a game of motd nomic?
\_ I thought we were playing nomic. Why else would people continue
to play the Hitler card?
\_ RACIST!
\_ RACIST!
\_ Gnomes of Zurich!
\_ Gnomes? Zurich?! RACIST!
\_ Boysprouts! |
| 2004/4/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:13094 Activity:nil |
4/8 While we're at it:
CNN: U.S. suffers more casualties, gaining ground
Washington Post: Insurgents Fortify Control
NY Times: U.S. Vows to Retake 2 Southern Cities in Hands of Militants
LA Times: General Sees Prolonged Insurgency
Fox News: Operation Resolute Sword Under Way
Boston Globe: Shiite militias control three Iraqi cities
... You could say it's the liberal media being liberal and CNN
portraying things in a positive light; you could say CNN is
distributing the news from White House press releases. I suppose the
truth lies somewhere in between.
\_ CNN is a joke - they are getting pounded in the ratings and I
suspect they think they can get the viewers back by trying to
be more like Fox. |
| 2004/3/30 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:29886 Activity:nil 60%like:12909 |
3/29 What's the typical way to represent the GOP brainwashing in text?
\_ +-------+ +---------------------------+
| start |---------0------> | more Fox News and Freeper |
+-------+ +---------------------------+
\_ state transition table...
\_ What do you mean by brainwashing? Everything they say is true. |
| 2004/3/30 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12935 Activity:nil |
3/30 Condoleeza Rice had a green monochrome CRT at her desk. retro cool?
\_ All the white cabinet members have at least CGA graphics.
\_ Even as parody that was in pretty bad taste. But, I guess
that's the idea of satire (if anyone these days could
remember the definition.)
\_ I'm not so sure about the bad taste, considering the real
life not-trying-to-be-funny bs that's been flying around.
There was a clip on the daily show last night of Bob Novak
asking a guest if he thought that Clarke was coming forward
now because he didn't like Condoleeza Rice, a black woman,
as head of national security. The guest was so shocked that
he asked him to repeat the question.
\_ Bob seems like he would be a perfect Monday night
football commentator
\_ Ann Coulter was the first to bring this up. Scary stuff.
\_ Sounds like they're taking a page from da Ali G Show.
"So, Richard, why do you hate black people?"
\_ Haven't the Republicans been complaining for 40 years
whenever the Dems try to play the race card? I guess
it just goes to show you that the Republicans can
be just as idiotic and craven when given the chance.
\_ More evidence that political language tends to migrate
from left to right.
\_ No, it just goes to show that there are partisans on
both sides of the aisle. Partisans of both major
parties should be exposed as useless groupthinkers. Bad
behavior in one group doesn't excuse bad behavior in
another.
\_ isn't it fun when the tables are turned? |
| 2004/3/26 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12871 Activity:kinda low 66%like:11465 |
3/26 What liberal media?
http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm
\_ Right. That was pathetic. |
| 2004/3/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12848 Activity:low |
3/25 No fox news isn't biased or anything... Aside, I'm outraged that Fox approached the White House with this background briefing tape. According to McClellan, "it was Fox News who yesterday came to us and said they had a tape of this conversation with Mr. Clarke." If that's true, then a news organization that was included in a briefing with the agreement that it was on background -- that is, with no quotes and the briefer not be identified -- approached a source's former employer and offered to give up apparently conflicting words that the employer could use against the source. (I read the transcript. It's not particularly contradictory, frankly, and can easily be read as how Clarke characterized it.) This is a major journalistic no-no. When I was at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, we were taught to go to jail before you give up your sources. And you sure as hell don't approach someone you're supposed to be covering and offer to help them out against someone. http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000711.php \_ The briefing isn't a "source". It isn't confidential and he is a former public servant. At the time he was a public servant and he is now testiying about important public matters. I want the truth, not alligator tears about Clarke and how his reputation is now tarnished and his book sales might drop. I'm not too impressed with the quality of education provided by the CsoJ. \_ How dare you question Pravda? \_ Why do you hate America? Why do you hate yourself? \_ Remember, it's ok to reveal a CIA operative, but don't you dare make the president look bad! \_ w00t! \_ Hey Columbia J-School Grad, when did you go? \_ Most journalists are stupid twits. |
| 2004/3/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:12761 Activity:moderate |
3/19 Taiwan's President narrowly escapes assassination:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3550517.stm
\_ there are indications that it was staged by him and his campaign
staff. President Chen is trailing behind polls and he is doing
everything he can to win the 20% swing voters' vote
\_ urlP
\_ http://www.csmonitor.com/earlyed/early_world031904a.htm
\_ There is no actual information in this post whatsoever.
For that, you have to tune to reports from Taiwan. (It will
hard to get any decent news about it in English. Every
American news organization already equate DPP = democracy =
must be potrayed postively all the time.) There are various
pecularity, such as the hospital where Chen was sent after
\_ There are no indications in this post. For that, you
the "assasination" was visited by Chen's security detail
for mysterious preparation *before* the "shooting," and the
have to tune to reports from Taiwan. There are various
pecularity, such as the hospital when Chen went after
the "assasination" was visited by Chen's security detail
for preparation *before* the "shooting," and the location
of the bullet fragments and shells.
location of the bullet fragments and shells, etc.
\- #t
\_ I am not the poster above but after what happened in Spain,
this is a very natural thing to do, esp. with Mr. Chen's
(and his wife's) bribery scandal getting bigger and bigger.
Of course, this does not prove that he staged it, but really,
at this moment the only persons who can gain from an
"assasination" attempt are Mr. Chen's family and team.
\_ So you think scrubbing out the pro-splittist party chief
is of no benefit to the mainland??
\_ It wouldn't be wise to assasinate now, or ever. Chen
is not more separatist than many others in his party or
even outside his party. He is an opportunist who is
\_ so you believe he had himself and his vp shot
because he has some petty bribe scandal
brewing? thats just nuts.
using this issue as a vote-getter. If he goes, more
radical people are ready to replace him. He has in fact
become sort of a liability for the separatist cause.
\_ A liability? Say what? How do you figure that?
\_ His (or his wife's) bottomless appetite for
bribe.
\_ so you believe he had himself and his vp shot
because he has some petty bribe scandal
brewing? thats just nuts.
\_ So is DU the proper liberal counterpart to FreeRepublic, or are
we still waiting for the Bolshevik Daily to achieve extremist
parity?
\_ The democraticunderground is a respectable site. Freepers
are frothing insane lunatics.
\_ A bian a bian, go go go.
\_ This is a non-sequitur.
\_ When come november, we should expect an assassination attempt?
\_ No, but after Spain got wobbly you can expect a terrorist
act to kill a few hundred people. Something flashy with
pizzaz.
\_ Is the KMT really the remnant of Chiang Kai Shek's Koumintang party?
Those guys were a bunch of thugs...
\_ Well, the DPP (the party of President Chen) is the
reincarnation of the Taiwanese Communist Party, the TaiCom.
\_ A bian a bian, go go go. |
| 2004/3/15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:29870 Activity:nil |
3/14 1971: Kerry negotiates with Viet Cong for US surrender...
from the Congressional Record
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1097828/posts
\_ Think about how many more US lives we could have saved if
we'd pulled out four years earlier.
\_ Tell that to South Vietnam, which was free for 2 years,
and the millions of Cambodians slaughtered by Communists.
\_ Cambodians? Cambodians were mostly slaughtered
by the Khmer Rouge, which the Vietnamese overthrew
not long after South Vietnam was no more.
\_ Khmer Rouge were formally known as the
Communist Party of Kampuchea. Saloth Sar and
his coterie established their Marxist
credentials in Paris and Eastern Europe.
North Vietnamese were Communists aligned with
the Soviets.
\_ all patriots need to read the following masterpiece by a blonde hot
kinky conservative knockout and you will get a hard on exposing
the true faces of liberals around you -- http://tinyurl.com/2vx63
\_ Just out of curiousity, does anyone think Ann Coulter is
anything but psychotic? "Liberals relentlessly oppose the
military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag, and national
defense..." Does anyone truly believe any single portion
of this sentence? -scotsman
\_ w00t! |
| 2004/3/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:12661 Activity:very high |
3/15 No, really.
Just out of curiousity, does anyone think Ann Coulter is
anything but psychotic? "Liberals relentlessly oppose the
military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag, and national
defense..." Does anyone truly believe any single portion
of this sentence? -scotsman
\_ disclaimer 1: I am not a conservative.
disclaimer 2: I don't read Coulter, Franken, Moore or the rest of
the moron brigade publishing books of a certain kind.
It seems like your objection is to Coulter lumping _all_ liberals
with those liberals who do oppose "the military" etc. It does seem
a little unfair, but I remember a conversation we had recently where
you did the same thing with conservatives and the
ultra-religious-right. -- ilyas
\_ Actually, no. I don't think there are any liberals except the
anarchists and the naive that "oppose the military". I think
we all recognize the need for a strong military. And I'd like
to see a transcript where I lumped all conservatives with the
religious right. --scotsman
you did the same thing with conservatives and ultra-religious-right.
\_ <ilyas> although it's a little disingenious to lump pat with
conservatives in general
<ilyas> that's like me yelling "LIBERALS WANT TO INSTITUTE
MAXIMUM WAGE!"
<scotsman> the conservatives have lumped him in with
themselves
So naturally, the conservatives lump Mr. Buchanan with their
mainstream, but the liberals are far too smart to lump their
extremist shriekers with their mainstream, right ben?
-- ilyas
\_ Do you have the rest of that discussion? I admit that was
really ... poorly played on my part. BTW, someone overwrote
specifics of this sentence or that partial out of context quote,
it is your whole ultra-left world view she's talking about. i find
an edit to my previous post. I didn't mean for it to be
so heavy handed. --scotsman
\_ yes, absolutely. you're so far left and so blinded by your
beliefs and closed minded that you seem to actually believe that
someone with a different view from yours must be psychotic. you
are *exactly* the sort of person she's always railing against so
of course you can't see yourself in it. it isn't about the
specifics of this sentence or that partial out of context quote,
it is your whole ultra-left world view she's talking about. i find
\_ Nice dodge! +10 points.
\_ post the full quote in context and we'll talk about it.
i would never ask you to discuss a partial "..." pseudo
quote. it's ridiculous to ask.
\_ I posted plenty for an easy google. It's out of her
introduction, and requires no other context. -scotsman
it funny that the left calls the right evil and psychotic and a
bunch of other things which are all pure ad hominen whereas the
right spends their time saying the left is wrong and exactly how
so. if you'd ever actually read coulter or listened to rush or
saw hannity's show or a long list of others you won't find the
sort of outrageous "everyone who doesn't think like me is insane"
and "i can't believe anyone else could possibly believe this stuff"
agenda that you're pushing. have a cookie, it's the only one i'll
feed you today.
\_ The first half of my query was obviously hyperbolic to set the
tone. I'm glad you bought it. --scotsman
\_ *laugh* wow you are *sooooo* clever! just because you signed
your post doesn't mean you're a) not a troll or b) have
anything to say worth responding to. you did manage to waste
about 2 minutes of my life responding but it was worth it to
get this final ridiculous reply. why bother posting at all?
now that i know you're a troll-who-signs i wont be feeding
you anymore.
\_ See, the thing is, if you buy Coulter's line, then
dialectic between the left and right is meaningless
(which I am not yet cynical enough to believe). --scotsman
\_ Perfect example of Coulterism in action! Attack the questioner
without answering any of the charges/questions. Bravo! That
Coulterite! God forbid you should back up your "yes,
absolutely" with any reasoning.
was unexpected and perfect. --blind motd liberal freak
\_ It was all answered. go read it again. what does "yes,
absolutely" mean to you, trollboy? sheesh. it's right there
for god's sake. are you really that stupid or really that
blind?
\_ More ad hominen attacks! Excellent! Keep piling it on,
Coulterite! God forbid you should back up your "yes,
absolutely" with any reasoning.
\_ OP didn't ask for any reasoning, only if anyone
ridiculous degree, which has caused this country to become
extremely polarized, and THAT is a real problem.
believed Coulter. The answer was given immediately
and with no waffling. It isn't ad hominen if I've
already answered your questions in full and *then*
insult your intelligence or integrity. i'm done. i've
fed you enough cookies. twice you've added nothing
and ignored my replies despite giving you full answers.
\_ the whole premise of the thread is idiotic anyway.
whether anyone here likes it or not, her books are
bestsellers, which means that lots of people like
her enough to buy her books, which presumably
means they don't all think she is psychotic.
\_ she sells books because she's hot.
\_ ok then why is rush popular? he sure as hell
isn't hot. he's a fat ugly froggy bastard.
\_ Her books consist of repeatedly setting up straw
men and knocking them down with unresearched
one-liners. She has poor writing skills. The real
laugh is to catch her in a live appearance, where
she's not ruling the forum. She's not capable of
reasoned discourse at all.
\_ fine. i agree. that's not the point, though.
the premise of this thread is that it's up
for debate whether *someone* doesn't think
she's a psycho idiot. While that someone
is not me or you, that there are many such
someones is not an open question.
\_ Actually, the question was "Does anyone
here believe any part of that sentence?"
At least the reasonable part... --scotsman
\_ re-read your own post.
\_ Think for a second. Is "Anne Coulter
is psychotic!" a reasonable statement,
or is it trollbait? The statement
that she made is thoroughly
indefensible and patently false. But
calling her psychotic is very clearly
hyperbole. --scotsman
\_ Both extreme left and right demonize their counterparts to a
ridiculous degree, which has caused this country to become
extremely polarized, and THAT is a real problem.
\_ She's not psychotic. She comes from a long tradition of gaining
popularity through giving voice to peoples more base impulses
and thoughts - she has counterparts on the left, though I think
she may win in the "over the top" department (Joe McCarthy a hero?!)
Just another symptom of how cartoonish and idiotic our politics
have become. That said, I think she also scores on novelty
factor because she looks like barbie and spits vitriol.
\_ This deserves the "Well Said" Award of the Day.
\_ AC's book is revealing. It will inspire a new generation of
patriots who will cleanse this country of any and all liberals once
and for ever! She is the mother and pin-up of all true
conservatives.
\_ http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10087 |
| 2004/2/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:12346 Activity:nil |
2/21 Just a rumor at this point, but...Wife of Texas Governor divorcing him
because...she caught him in bed with another man, the Secretary of
State?!
http://austin.indymedia.org/newswire/display/15577/index.php
\_ If you scroll down, they also accuse Bush of extramarital gay
affairs. It's like Matt Drudge...only on the left. The only
difference is when leftists spread obvious bullshit it's treated
as such, but you fucking rightwingers believe whatever Drudge
feels like making up this week.
\_ Drudge has an excellent track record. He's been wron exactly
once and got sued for it. He pulled the posting the same
day which is better than the NYT has done. It's easy to sit
here and toss around vague and unsubstantiated accusations
but the fact remains that drudge has an excellent record.
\_ Didn't Drudge break the Lewinsky story?
\_ Drudge is a mouthpeice for right wing smears. Some of them
turn out to be true, but that doesn't make him any less of
a mouthpeice. His basic problem is that he heavily promotes
stories for which he has no second source to confirm, and often
with a questionable source to begin with. As for the Texas
story, likely not true, but his wife IS divorcing him.
\_ As always its the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, right?
\_ Drudge differentiates between rumors and true stories. He
leaves it for the reader to decide instead of media
sources like the NYT which print a brief mea culpa after
years of publishing false stories.
\_ False stories? Besides Jaysun Blair, can you back this
up? Woops, I didn't think so!
\_ Idiot. Go read the god damned thing. It's chock
of retractions, errors, slanted word choice,
misleading headlines and editorial dressed up as
news. I'm not going to respond to your trolling
ignorant ridiculous nonsense anymore.
\_ Ha! As usual not a single real fact. And at
least they print retractions when they make
a mistake, unlike Drudge.
\_ Wow. You just argued that Matt Drudge's journalistic
integrity trumps that of the New York Times'. Are you
stupid or just a troll?
\_ Not author of comment but:
Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts
the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted
http://csua.org/u/64e
The Gospel According to the New York Times: How the
World's Most Powerful News Organization Shapes Your Mind
and Values
http://csua.org/u/64f
New York state of mind ~ A Navy officer's encounter
with The New York Times
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/978483/posts
The Times' Designated Man in the Street
(Coulter outs Times)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927766/posts?page=1,50
Just How Gay is the New York Times? Ask Richard Berke
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/913302/posts
The Times has not endorsed a Republican Pres.
candidate for 40+ years.
It's publisher was a very active anti-war protester
during Vietnam.
\_ So apparently you don't understand the difference
between having an editorial viewpoint, which is
ethical and reasonable if you state it outright,
and silently shaping your output to promote a
certain viewpoint, which is not. Compare, say,
Fox News to the New York Times. And just to
show this isn't a conservative/liberal thing,
the Wall Street Journal presents a consistently
conservative editorial viewpoint, but is
ethically on par with the New York Times and
both have vastly more integrity than Fox News.
\_ The NYT does not state outright that they're
left wing and their _news_ stories are
biased in that direction. They silently
shape their viewpoint in every run.
\_ But the NY Slimes maintains it has no
bias; yet they don't limit opinion to the
editorial page. Compare the
audience of Fox News to the nationwide
broadcast news programs:
~3 million to 30+ million for the
networks. And yet Jennings and Rather
maintain they are independent
journalists.
\_ Christ, learn to use an apostrophe'.
http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
\_ The very idea that the NYT is neutral and
doesn't slather every story with bias is
painfully obvious. I've subscribed for
years but not because it is neutral in any
way. I understand what I'm reading. Do
you? Are you even a daily reader? |
| 2004/2/10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:12192 Activity:nil |
2/10 Hahaha, even O'Reilly is turning against the pResident:
http://csua.org/u/5xf
\_ [OP typo corrected]
\_ That was no typo.
\_ I was being kind.
\_ At least he is (very belatedly) living up to his promise from before
the war. First it was two months, then three, then four, then six.
Still, I'm impressed. I'm sure you'd never get even that much
\_ Well, Rush was high as a kite on some serious dope, you gotta
cut him some slack.
\_ Sigh, why is this such a big shock? I've been telling you on the
motd for a looong time that Republican != conservative and that
Bush is no conservative. Jesus, here have a cookie, live it up.
--conservative
\_ It's a shock because O'Reilly is extremely egotistical, and to
see him sacrifice some pride for the sake of his word is quite
refreshing.
\_ Oh, well yes O'R is an egomaniac but he's a fun egomaniac.
\_ O'Reilly is much more skeptical about the Bush administration,
yet he blames the CIA? |
| 2004/1/12 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11753 Activity:nil |
1/11 Watch 60 minutees tonight at 7:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
\_ But no, we can't trust this "liberal" biased media. Oh no. We
must listen to Hanity and his Fox News buddies.
\_ Even O'reily says the President should apologize for
over-selling the WMD threat.
\_ We should take care of every two-bit dictator in the world.
\_ We've taken very good care of them in the past. |
| 2004/1/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:11730 Activity:nil |
1/9 The final word on the O'Reilly-Jeremy Glick interview:
http://www.frankenlies.com/glick.htm
\_ look at the name of this website
\_ See... They must have known Glick's position before his appearance.
O'Reilly pulled him on to make what he thought was a point. Instead
of being polite, he turned belligerent. It's his show. It's his
responsibility to set the tone. This is what the flack is over.
He's a waste of airtime and should hang up his mic.
\_ Wow! It's like the having the motd on a website! And about half
as relevant!
\_ You learn ad hominem well, grasshopper.
\_ So did the website author.
\_ damn, I thought you wrote "Jiminy Glick" and I got all excited
\_ me too |
| 2003/12/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Recreation/Media] UID:11550 Activity:nil |
12/20 Fox News bought DirecTV
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/tech/main589655.shtml |
| 2003/12/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11478 Activity:high |
12/16 Orson Scott Card demonstrating yet again why I can't stand his books:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004435
\_ What, because he doesn't agree with your politics?
\_ jesus this guy is free associating left and right and labeling his
drivel as fact. i thought ender's game was ok though.
but maybe he thinks enders game actually happened.
\_ His politics have never made sense. He calls himself a Democrat
for some bizarre reason, but his actual opinions are a synthesis
of Ayn Rand, the Old Testament, and the Wizard of Oz. I can't
stand his books for almost the same reason - even when he's
making a good point, he doesn't have the courage of his
convictions. For instance, check out his statements about
the meaning of Enders Game - he's the only one in the world who
seems to think its not anti-war. He's also made some really
bizarre statements vis-a-vis the "Peter" character and the
subject of child abuse.
\_ Maybe he doesn't like the way people define "anti-war."
It never suggests in the book that humans never should
have fought the buggers at all, just that they shouldn't
have eradicated them. It the humans hadn't defended
themselves in the first two wars, it's pretty clear
that the human race would have been destroyed instead,
for almost the same reason.
\_ No, it doesn't suggest that humans shouldn't have eradicated
them. It and the sequels show that under the circumstances,
the humans had to fight "us vs. them" because there was no
way to communicate and negotiate. Indeed, the lesson is to
use force last of all, but when you use force, use
overwhelming, overpowering force so that the enemy never
stands up again. That's the lesson Ender learns over and
over again.
\_ This is somewhat changing the subject but...
Someone told me the Wizard of Oz was a book/movie about
communism, but aside from the fact that the midgets live in a
Potemkin Village, I don't see it. Anyone have any insight?
\_ The Wizard of Oz is a godless Communist screed. And not
only that, but flouridation is an insidious Communist plot
to suck out and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
\_ Hoping for a serious response on motd... silly me.
\_ A serious response would be called for if it was a
serious idea.
\_ It's not about communism, it's about a political
movement in the late 1800's known as populism. Its
very pro-populism. Google on it.
\_ Specifically, the Wizard of Oz is a character re-mapping
of the political figures central to the Silver Standard
controversy. My understanding is that it only became a
popular children's story by accident - though this sort
of thing happens more often than you'd think.
http://paws.wcu.edu/mulligan/www/oz.html for one
summary.
\_ Oh jesus. You can do this with any book. This is like
the guy that had the pet theory that the Harry Potter
books were an allegory promoting Libertarian thought.
\_ Did you actually do any research before this
statement, or are you just talking out of your
butt again?
\_ I read your article. This sort of allegory is
bunk unless directly claimed by the author.
A little googling will show you that many
scholars have many wildly different allegorical
interpretations of Baum's book, which just shows
how ridiculous it all is. I'm sure you can
find a way to show that, say, Terminator 3 is
an allegory for the women's rights movement.
That doesn't mean you're any more correct than
the person that says its an allegory for WWI.
\_ The 'Harry Potter supports Libertarian throught'
idea seems dodgy, but the Harry Potter books do
contain many thinly veiled references to Britain's
pervasive class system that would be lost on most
folks living on this side of the Atlantic.
\_ Look we are war. We will be at war with terrorism for at least
a couple of generations. Anyone who questions President Bush
during a time of war is a traitor and terrorist sympathizer.
Any questions?
\_ I didn't know Ann Coulter wrote to the motd! Go Ann! *drool*
--Ann Coulter #1 fan
\_ "Oh my god! Your cock is so BIG and TAX FREE!"
\_ Hi ilya. You can't get over that one, can you? Sticks
with ya. --lye
\_ wasn't ilya
\_ Yeah, lye. How could you soil my good name like that?
My polite indignation knows no bounds! -- ilyas
\_ Consider it humbly withdrawn. Not that I have any
reason to believe anything that anyone says on the
motd. --lye
\_ Gee lye, do you have a hangup about people lying?
\_ No. I always lye. --lye
\_ He doesn't address Bush's WMD justification for attacking Iraq.
Lamer. |
| 2003/10/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:10869 Activity:moderate |
10/30 memo from Fox News staffer on whether they are
really 'fair and balanced.'. I guess it's not any
new information but it's interesting:
http://poynter.org/forum/?id=letters#foxnews - danh
\_ "For the staffers, many of whom are too young to have come up
through the ranks of objective journalism, and all of whom
are non-union, with no protections regarding what they can be
made to do, there is undue motivation to please the big boss."
Oh yeah. Objective journalism like the LA times who refused
to dig dirt at one point on Davis because claimed they don't do
that to political incumbents. They also had more than 20 (!?)
people working on digging up dirt on Arnie. Objective journalism
my ass. Fox is tame by comparison. They actually let people
lean both sides, as long as one side doesn't get the last word.
\_ Are you trolling? This is patently false.
\_ If you are referring to the LA Times story, it was all
over the news here in LA. Too bad it didn't make
national (or even state) news... Actually one wonders
why not... A bloody LA times reporter confirmed the
20+ figure.
\_ I think he referred to the "fox lets people lean both
sides" falsehood. About the dirt-digging, well I have
no knowledge of that but I'm not concerned. Davis has
been in politics a long time and dirt is out there.
Arnie on the otherhand declared candidacy just weeks
prior to a recall election, and therefore any dirt
would be very timely and informative.
\_ That 'falsehood' was a quote from that Fox-bashing
article posted above which started this thread,
you know the article you probably didn't read...
If that's bias, we need more bias in the media!
\_ Attempting "moral equivalency" between LA times and Fox News
is ludicrous. Are you really comfortable with the level of
systematic, intentional bias creation in that memo?
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2003/10/index.html#001768
\_ Actually, we need less of both. I'm sure people would laugh
at you if you said "Fox is tame by comparison".
\_ Why should they laugh at me? I believe bias in media is
unavoidable. What we need is less hypocricy by people
denouncing sins of which they are guilty themselves.
\_ They should just change the slogan of Fox News to
"The Patriotic News Channel" and be done with it. That's
more accurate for what they think they're doing.
\_ But it's not "patriotic" when a Dem is prez.
\_ yes because republicans are patriotic and dems are
sleazy commie traitors.
\_ You're in the wrong camp: it's the libs who yell
"hypocrite" and the cons who scream "unpatriotic."
Get your slogans right. |
| 2003/10/30 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:10864 Activity:nil 52%like:10852 |
10/30 This was funny enough to repost. Fox News threatens to sue Fox:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1073216,00.html
\_ I'm convinced that Fox News' idiotic lawsuit agains Al Franken
was a publicity stunt to increase revenue for both the publisher
of the book and the news station. There are only so many people
in the media industry after all, and the idea that people making
fun of Fox News actually hurts them is absurd. Hell, i'd never even
heard of Fox News until prominent progressives started attacking
them. |
| 2003/10/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:10854 Activity:very high |
10/29 This Paul Krugman guy sounds like a commie.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16730
\_ Krugman rocks, despite the impending denunciations and
accusations of hating America that are sure to follow
in this thread. Thanks for the link.
\_ There won't be any followups because no one reads zero context
links or cares about Paul Krugman.
\_ My my, very presumptuous aren't you.
\_ Whatever. The only thing going on now is us bickering
about why others aren't bickering over the URL. The fact
that no one has read it and commented on it makes it clear
I'm right and you're, well, just being yourself.
\_ Obviously you weren't around last night before the thread
got extirpated.
\_ No, I wasn't. I don't sit here 24x7 talking about Paul
Krugmna's latest article.
\_ It may come as a shock to you, but not everyone cares
about you.
\_ There. Thread was requested. Thread was restored
-anonymous motd uncensorer
\_ And how did they come to power? Through
"the increasing manipulation of the media
and the political process by lavishly funded
right-wing groups. Yes, Virginia, there is a
vast right-wing conspiracy," he concludes.
I think rather than denounce him, I ll just laugh at him.
-- conservative
\_ Fox News.
\_ How fair and balanced of you.
\_ I think this is really funny. Whenever someone wants
to talk "right wing conspiracy" in the media they
ALWAYS say Fox news. Errr.. what about NYT? ABC,
NBC, AP, and UP, and every other news source? The're
all extremely left wing. One news station makes a
conspiracy, huh?
\_ umm... "extremely left wing!?!?" Are you kidding me?
Holy shit. you _really_ need to wake up and think a
bit objectively. None of them dared criticize
Bush until recently. The _most_ they could be
is a little left, if that. But "extremely?" Stop
reading crazy ass neo-con rags and start thinking
for yourself.
\_ A conservative who is getting screwed in the arse by a
huge budget deficit and loving every minute of it?
\_ I am not getting screwed in the ass. I am getting my
taxes back. At any rate, the government needs a constant
deficit as an incentive to become more efficient
(much like a corporation needs constant scarcity).
Without scarcity or deficits, neither governments nor
corporations have any need to innovate or solve
problems elegantly and cheaply. They will simply expand.
-- conservative
\_ Nah, more likely they will just do another "read my
lips no new taxes" to solve the deficit problem.
Under Clinton, with a budget surplus, number of
government employees and government spending
both decreased according to the WSJ.
\_ Think about it, who wants to work for the gubmint
when times are good? What for?
\_ gubmint? is that the racket Junior is running?
Minting the country's future away with lots of
IOUs?
\_ Your logic is flawed.
\_ Brilliant. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate?
\_ Under your logic, Iraqi government should be the
most efficient government on earth, as it is drawning
with debt, so much so that USA is asking Russian, and
French to forgive their debt... why?
\_ You are confusing necessary and sufficient
conditions. A cash starved government is
a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for
a small, effective, workable government. A
government flushed with cash always results in
corruption and inefficiency, simply because
there is no incentive for a government to produce
anything, as it is not driven by profit like
a business. However, more than just a shortage
of funds is needed for a government to be good
(things like a tradition of democracy, rule of law,
etc).
\_ Nah, more likely they will just do a "read my lips
no new taxes" to solve the deficit problem.
\_ unfortunately, his voice doesn't have much influence in terms
of policy. |
| 2003/10/16 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:10657 Activity:nil |
10/16 That whore Coulter is at it again!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20031016.shtml
\_ I hate Coulter, and think she is an evil stupid bitch.
That being said, the above column is the first thing
I've ever read by Coulter that I agree with 100%.
\_ I love Coulter, (though she has said some evil and bitchy
things) and this is one of many(most?) columns that i don't
agree with 100%. 1.) liberals rarely claim to have
no morals. They are easy targets for the label
"hypocrite" see, fore example The ex-governor and all the
liberals that hoped to replace him.
2.) She quotes Rush then says "[What should he have said?
that drugs are GOOD?]" NO, the part that is
hypocritical is the part about SENDING THEM "up the
river" You don't have to be pro-drug use to support
decriminilization. Jeesh.
Now that being said, the general point that liberals cream
their pants every time a con. gets caught moraly weak and
that it's not nec. wrong to espouse strengths that you
yourself may not have, are all good. And there's no doubt
that Evan Thomas (like most writers for Newsweek - or Time)
is a complete moron and hack. but overall it is not one of
her best articles. -phuqm
\_ The problems come in when those pundits use there moral
base to launch attacks at opponents (e.g. draft dodging
pot smoker hippy clinton), and then showing themselves
as hypocrits. These people must be held responsible on
both sides.
\_ She has absolutely no point. Hypocrisy _is_ the great sin
in politics. If a majority elects you in, knowing your foibles,
you have a true mandate. If you don't practice what you preach,
I really don't want to hear your damn preaching. --scotsman
\_ Is that really her picture? Looks fairly hot!
\_ she is fairly hot. -phuqm.
\_ http://www.anncoulter.org/images/webimages/annblack.jpg
\_ Yeah, always thought that was the only reason she really
got anywhere - all the ultra right wing sexually frustrated
dudes get all worked up imagining themselves giving it to
her from behind. "Oh! Oh! Your cock is so big and
tax-free!"
\_ http://www.architectureink.com/tirade/coulter.htm
\_ Um. Wow.
\_ It's a poor b/w picture. I remember her showing
skin once on Politically Incorrect
\_ = good or bad? hot or not?
\_ page doesn't load.
\_ Yes, Coulter is hot but you know she only gets air time because
she's hot. She has nothing to say. We should ignore her. We all
know she's just another Eeevvvviiill BushCo Conspirator!!!
\_ Ann Coulter needs to eat a sandwich. She looks like a crack
junky to me. |
| 2003/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10563 Activity:nil |
10/9 Just like we told you all along: Republicans are misinformed about
the world. Fox News is part of the reason why:
http://www.rense.com/general42/werep.htm
\_ I like Republican bashing as much as the next guy, but I don't know
if that study proves causation. I think its just as likely that
one might be more willing to watch Fox News *because* you are
misinformed or deluded.
\_ I want a study comparing the perceptions of those who watch Fox
vs Al-Jazeera. |
| 2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:10426 Activity:nil 83%like:10412 |
10/1 WND FOUND!
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34881
Take that, you liberals!
\_ how many different times have they claimed simaller things?
What about that strange boat that was uspopsed to be floating
in the gulf FILLED with WMDs? What about all those WMDs that
that turned out to be fertelizer?
\_ Judging by the other stories on the site, this paper's not
the most credible thing around. Let's see what the story looks
like when reported by a more respected source.
\_ Saying "$60 million in chemical weapons" is stupid. Joe Sixpack
is supposed to go "OOH SIXTY MILLION THAT'S A LOT", but how much
is that? A pint of sarin? Is there a "commodity market" where we
can convert this into real information instead of bullshit money
numbers? This reminds me of the news stories about drug seizures
with absolutely ridiculous dollar values in them. --aaron
\_ Isn't that what about 20 mp3's are worth according to the
RIAA lawsuites?
\_ top headline on http://worldnetdaily.com
"'Baby Samuel' speaks before Senate panel
Remarkable photo showed boy's hand
reaching from womb during surgery "
\_ You've got to love their book promotion:
"Who really killed JFK?"
\_ We can do without leftists posting from known crap sites pretending
to be something else. "Take that, you liberals!"? WTF conservative
would *ever* say something so infantile? The insult is not that
you'd do such a lame job pretending to be a conservative but that
you see as us being that stupid. If we were as stupid as you would
like to think we'd have Darwin'd out decades ago. Go post your
own pro-lefty trolls. You'll note no conservative replies
attempting to defend this nonsense. You're just masturbating the
other leftists. --real conservative
\_ This is the funniest post all week. Thank you!
\_ uh, yeah thanks, whatever, I'm also the anonymous motd comic
\_ You have obviously not spent much time on the Free Republic
website. But hey, you gotta admit that it was a good troll.
\_ I visited and rejected free republic. They're mostly not
conservatives, which is a philosophy, but haters no different
than the spewage on the motd from the leftists here. --rc
\_ And there's no spewage from right wingers here? Are you
blind or just willfully ignorant?
\_ I said nothing of the sort. Don't put words in my
mouth. Read what I said and stop making false
assumptions. Or just learn to read. |
| 2003/10/2 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:10412 Activity:nil 83%like:10426 |
10/1 WMD FOUND!
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34881
Take that, you liberals!
\_ how many different times have they claimed simaller things?
What about that strange boat that was uspopsed to be floating
in the gulf FILLED with WMDs? What about all those WMDs that
that turned out to be fertelizer?
\_ Judging by the other stories on the site, this paper's not
the most credible thing around. Let's see what the story looks
like when reported by a more respected source.
\_ Saying "$60 million in chemical weapons" is stupid. Joe Sixpack
is supposed to go "OOH SIXTY MILLION THAT'S A LOT", but how much
is that? A pint of sarin? Is there a "commodity market" where we
can convert this into real information instead of bullshit money
numbers? This reminds me of the news stories about drug seizures
with absolutely ridiculous dollar values in them. --aaron
\_ Isn't that what about 20 mp3's are worth according to the
RIAA lawsuites?
\_ top headline on http://worldnetdaily.com
"'Baby Samuel' speaks before Senate panel
Remarkable photo showed boy's hand
reaching from womb during surgery "
\_ You've got to love their book promotion:
"Who really killed JFK?"
\_ We can do without leftists posting from known crap sites pretending
to be something else. "Take that, you liberals!"? WTF conservative
would *ever* say something so infantile? The insult is not that
you'd do such a lame job pretending to be a conservative but that
you see as us being that stupid. If we were as stupid as you would
like to think we'd have Darwin'd out decades ago. Go post your
own pro-lefty trolls. You'll note no conservative replies
attempting to defend this nonsense. You're just masturbating the
other leftists. --real conservative
\_ This is the funniest post all week. Thank you!
\_ uh, yeah thanks, whatever, I'm also the anonymous motd comic
\_ You have obviously not spent much time on the Free Republic
website. But hey, you gotta admit that it was a good troll.
\_ I visited and rejected free republic. They're mostly not
conservatives, which is a philosophy, but haters no different
than the spewage on the motd from the leftists here. --rc |
| 2003/9/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:10292 Activity:high |
9/22 To counter my own reference for Clark yesterday. Here's a real
soldier's opinion of him.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738
\_ worldnetdaily is not very reputable
\_ Says you. I respect Hackworth because I've read his books and
followed him in the news. He's very principled and is always
watching out for the safety of our soldiers.
\_ notice that worldnetdaily not being very reputable is
independent of how principled Hackworth actually is
\_ Hackworth said on the 3rd week of the Iraq war that it
was going badly. He also interviewed Boorda to point the
CNO took his own life. I know he means well, but sometimes
he's little out there.
\_ And the editorials posted yesterday were?
\_ BUT ANONYMOUZ POSTZ ON THE MOTD SHUR ARE!!
\_ But anonymous posts on the motd sure are!
\_ mo'e dan wo'ldnetdaily, t'be sho' nuff
\_ zee svedeesh cheff is mure-a repooteble-a
thun uny ooff yuoo!
Bork Bork Bork!
\_ True, but they're usually pretty down on dems. This is
bizarrely refreshing.
\_ ok, this column has robert e. lee as graduating #1 from west
point, but i've heard from so many other places that he was
#2 in his class. who was #1 if he wasn't?
\_ Charles Mason was #1, Democratic lawyer, NY newspaper editor,
Iowa chief justice. Robert E Lee was highest ranking cadet,
so he beats Mason in terms of "chain of command" rank, thus
"highest ranking" but not "graduated first in class".
\_ mo'e dan wo'ldnetdaily, t'be sho' nuff
"highest ranking" but not "graduated first in class".
\_ ok, good to know. thanks. |
| 2003/9/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/HateGroups, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:10272 Activity:nil |
9/20 They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the
Enslavement of Whites in Early America
http://csua.org/u/4em
\_ hi freak, the author is one of those tin foil hat types, and
not the good kind. I tend to almost immediately cast into
the wastebasket any author who uses the phrase
"The Jewish question".
http://tinyurl.com/o4j5 - danh
\_ and even more great stuff: link:tinyurl.com/o4kk - danh
\_ sloppy dan. The author didn't use that phrase, the reviewer did.
and your other link is just a list of other books written by the
guy. so what? Anyway, are you trying to say that there were no
debtor indentured servants/slaves in america? go look up how and
why the state of georgia was formed. why be so conservative,
dan? what if some or even all of what this guy is saying is
true? have you done counter-research to show any of it to be
false or you just "know"?
\_ google for "michael hoffman" and "jewjitsu" - danh
\_"The Scientist and the Gas Chambers In the mid 1990s Germar Rudolf
was a researcher at the Max Planck Institute and a doctoral
candidate in chemistry at the University of Stuttgart.
His life changed radically, however, when a defense attorney
hired him to furnish expert testimony and forensic samples
from "homicidal gas chambers" at Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration
camp. When Rudolf reported that according to his rigorous
chemical analyses, no one had been gassed in those "chambers," ".
Maybe you can get together with freerepublic guy and
throw-all-the-palestinians-into-Jordan guy and form a boy
band.
\_ Why should I rely on the ramblings of a nutcase?
Plus I think forcibly marching over the ocean entire
populations of Africans to America probably resulted
in a lot more harm as a whole to african americans
then indentured irish potato farmers. Before you blow
a gasket I don't support reperations, in my little
Berkeley bubble and on campus the subject doesn't come up.
I don't think it's a subject that gets a lot of
discussion in the bay area but maybe I don't listen
to KSFO enough. - danh
\_ danh, stop using vi to edit the motd. you overwrote my
post below in posting your material above.
\_ sign your fucking posts. --me-user
\_ lol. There are so many _reliable_ sources discussing the
cruelty and inhumanity of indentured servitude that we do not
_need_ to rely on the rantings of one crackpot with an
anti-reparations agenda. Just because a broken (analog)
clock is right twice a day, we need not assume that it is
correct in any other way. So, yes, indentured servitude did
happen and did affect thousands of whites in Colonial and
Victorian America. Let them file their own claim to
reparations from the UK. This in no way "makes right" the
West African slave trade or the subsequent harm it caused to
African Americans.
\_ This has nothing to do with reparations. We were talking
about whether or not what the guy's book said happened
really did or not. I'm glad to see you agree with the
author because it's true and you'd look silly to disagree
on this point. Some tangent about reparations for blacks
has nothing to do with anything. It is perfectly ok to
talk about bad thing X happening to people X(1) without
diminishing bad thing Y done to people Y(1). It isn't even
necessary to mention Y or Y(1). Different topic.
\_ Just a dumb question, why should I be held
accountable financially for what my ancestors may
or may not have done 200 years ago? -John
\_ how about you are held accountable for any
wealth you inherited that was created by
the actions your ancestors may or may not have
done 200 years ago.
\_ Erm, I'm not. Nobody is. -John
\_ What hogwash. If you want to assert that there was such
a thing as indentured servitude, point us to an
encyclopedia. No one disputes this. What is being
disputed is the authenticity of the source as anything
but a white-power propagandist. Hell, if I write a
book in which I assert on the one hand that the freezing
point of water is zero degrees celsius and that the Earth
is hollow and populated with the armies of the Gnomes of
Zurich on the other, you're still free (and damn near
obliged) to point out that I'm a kook.
\_ That's silly! Everyone knows the Gnomes of Zurich
live with John, under the mountain. |
| 2003/9/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:10198 Activity:nil |
9/14 is there a used/2nd hand bookstore in the bay are that buys
back technical/computer/sysadmin/oreilly books?
\_ bet you can unload them on craigslist pretty easily. And cut out
the middle man...
\_ does anybody still use /csua/pub/books ? |
| 2003/9/4 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:10069 Activity:nil 53%like:28046 |
9/3 This is probably really old, but still entertaining for O'Reilly haters
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pundits/bill-oreilly
(work-safe)
\_ How could it be old if it's referring to August 2003?
\_ eh, I was confusing it with the Glick interview. Anyways,
here's the complete transcript of that.
http://wienerboard.com/thread.php/id=11534&page=
and a sound file
http://www.littlemeanfish.com/media/oreilyfreakout.mp3
\_ Oh yes, and if you had any respect for Al Franken, it went out the
window in the incident listed there. Al went over his time limit by
5 minutes. He spent 6 minutes slowly telling the story of the
Polk/Peabody mistake. Granted, O'Reilly should have owned up to the
mistake, but the event was a pile-on. The so called 'moderator' was
fawning over Franken and Ivins. It was disgusting. (Especially
since Ivins has so much trouble with facts herself.)
\_ Um, hello. Franken is a comedian, and doesn't paint himself
as any more than that. O'Reilly claims to be a "Fair and
Balanced" journalist under the fair and balanced purveyance of
Fox News. Which has been more truthful? It wasn't a pile on,
as you claim. Indeed, if you listen to the cheers of the audience
for O'Reilly during his time, it's astounding that Franken was
able to speak as long as he did. You know why? Because he's not
trying to be something he's not, and people recognize that
honesty. --scotsman
\_ but I get a sense that Franken himself knows he's a nut.
O'Reilly on the other hand ...
You could also say, "Even a nut can make O'Reilly look stupid"
\_ But he didn't make O'Reilly look stupid except to those who
already think he is. He looked like a petty cretin. And when
O'Reilly pointed out that Franken's claim of O'Reilly's "lies"
was a pretty weak one, and did he have another shot to take.
Franken responded by asking O'Reilly where he grew up, in town
A or B (apparently claiming that O'Reilly had made two
different claims previously). O'Reilly responded quickly that
he grew up in the A region of town B. It was pretty sad for
Franken, really. This is the guy who called Ann Coulter a
bitch several times in his book. Really classy.
\_ It was "Levittown" and "Westbury". The difference is
East Palo Alto vs. Atherton. There is no "Atherton" region
of East Palo Alto. There is no Westbury area of Levittown.
\_ O'Reilly claimed the show he was part of had won a Peabody.
It never did. Not only that the award they DID win was
won after he left the show. How is that weak?
\_ O'Reilly's references to an award for the show was a
response to criticism of *the show*. His response: "we
won a Peabody" referred to the show. He should have
properly said "they" rather than "we" and "Polk" rather
than "Peabody." However, I routinely refer to past
employers as "we" rather than "they"--it's just a slip of
the tongue. It's not as big a deal as Franken was making
it out to be. Though O'Reilly should have owned up to
the mistake and apologized instead of trivializing it.
However, he was being called a liar in front of an
unfriendly crowd, so I can understand his being a bit
flustered.
\_ O'Reilly had made the Peabody claim before then too.
It was just that this was the first time someone
called him on it.
\_ http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/peabodyfacts1.htm
Shows a previous example that is precisely the same
context--someone criticizing the show, and O'Reilly
defending it by referring to awards. He screwed
up, and should be more open about it. But it's not
a big deal.
\_ And Ann Coulter is the woman who claimed that the press
wasn't making enough of the fact that the 9/11
hijackers were Middle Eastern Muslims. Was anyone
besides her not clear on the issue?
\_ Ann Coulter is such a bitch. This is the woman that
says her greatest hero is Joe McCarthy, and that all
liberals are guilty of treason against the United States.
Al Franken is great - finally a liberal Rush Limbaugh.
\_ Al Franken doesn't make shit up.
\_ You may need to read up on Joe McCarthy, and why she
says that before you dismiss the statement out of
hand. (Oh, and BTW, Coulter routinely uses hyperbole)
\_ So what you are saying is that if you agree with
someone they can do no wrong?
\_ No, and I don't know how you concluded that.
\_ Because you dismiss out of hand the use of
hyperbole. And McCarthy really was quite
the Nazi-lovin' bastard.
\_ READ UP on McCarthy? The man ruined lives
and created a politically oppressive fog that
stifled ordinary Americans from even
discussing politics, all to further his own
petty career. Hyperbole or not, there are a
few people that are simply not heroic, for
any reason.
\_ Did you read this from a primary source or are
you simply parroting what you've been told?
Seriously--I've heard these hand-waving claims
for quite a while, but once I actually
investigated it and read primary sources, I
can't believe all those claims.
\_ Venona proved McCarthy was 100% RIGHT. Of
course, some knew this all along. But
as always, the left if full of 'useful
idiots', to paraphrase Lenin.
\_ Actually, I thought O'Reilly was a pretty smart guy,
two or three years ago. |
| 2003/9/4 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:10064 Activity:nil |
9/3 Rather than resorting to personal attacks maybe you should articulate
why Coulter's and O'reilly political beliefs are wrong. Attack the
ideas not the people.
\_ how about the same for Franken. His thesis, apart from all the
partisan wrangling is very simple. He points out some very specific
examples of certain people lying. And from that, O'Reilly, and
indeed the FNC can't help themselves from lobbing a pointless lawsuit
filled with nothing but ad hominem against him. Attack the ideas...
--scotsman
\- i think a lot of people are claiming those two are assholes.
i.e. they are quite upfront about attacking the individuals.
in some cases, the idea-person distinction is blurry ... i dont
think it is useful to distinguish between say DAvid Duke, the
racist, and David Duke, the minor politician with racist ideas.
--psb
\_ Nice logic, so Oreilly and Coulter are equivalent to
to Duke (who BTW was for most of his career a Dem).
I think you might want to reconsider who you
consider fanatical - usually the left exhibits more
restraint before invoking the race card.
\- i'm making two points: 1. most people are consciously
attacking the people and not the ideas. 2. sometimes
this is not unreasonable or it is relevant. i think
the sarcastic "nice logic" applies to your positing
the "equivalence". usually the right doesnt accuse
me of being a leftist. and to be accused of being
a fanatical lefty ... well is that an attack on the
man or the idea? i think "fanatical" applied to the
person. so if i were to at this point call you a
hypocrite, i suppose i'd be attacking the man too.
--psb
\_ I'm not really interested in tautilogical
persiflage. Perhaps we'd agree the quality
of criticism reflects depth of thought. I don't
have much more to say. |
| 2003/8/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:29494 Activity:high |
8/26 Invaluable history on the First Amendment
Justice Rehnquist's Dissent in WALLACE V. JAFFREE (1985)
Read this is you are intellectually honest.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts
\_ most ironic freeper quote of the day, from the comments on the link:
"Now, we're on the edge of the judiciary taking over. Obviously, we
can't let this happen. We need to resist, protest, make loud noises
and, most of all, elect conservatives who will appoint and approve
conservative judges."
\_ Shrug. No different than the left thinks and say everyday in
far more public forums. -- (I)
\_ There is this great theocracy known as 'Iran' you
are free to immigrate to, have fun. Anyway the above
opinion was the dissenting one, why do i waste my
time responding to the freeper guy, goodbye - danh
\_ I read freep, but I disagree with anything that resembles
a theorcracy. Religion should only be a matter of faith.
\_ LOL you don't even read the link. I would characterize
your behavoir as partisan emoting. And you call yourself
a (computer) scientist - rational indeed. -op
\_ And you obviously took exactly what you wanted to from it.
Find Luis Gonzales's comments. Some of the most cogent on
the page (more so than Rehnquist's). Simply looking at the
context in which this _DISSENTING_ (you do know what that
means, right) opinion is presented should tip you off to
the deceptive attitude of the initial poster. --scotsman
\_ The Court refused to enforce the 14th
Amendment for 90 years - is the per curiam
in those cases equally legitimate? -op
\_ My name is Bill O'Reilly -- I'm intellectually dishonest, so I
can't read that. This is the no-spin zone! -bill
\_ WTF does O'Reilly have to do with *anything*?
\_ Minority Opinion, thank the Goddess. How you freepers would wail
and scream if some pagan tried to put a statue of Pan up
in a government building, using government funds. This is
nothing but an elaborate rhetorical attempt to justify
forcing your beliefs on others.
\_ If the Framers of the Constitution were all pagan, and
most of America today were pagan, then they wouldn't have
a problem with a statue of Pan.
\_ The 10 commandments don't advocate a state religion. They are
simply Judeo/Christian tradition. The same tradition this
was founded on. Would you have them remove "In God We Trust"
from our currency? Does it really matter what's on it? |
| 2003/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:29469 Activity:high |
8/26 Some Nietszche for the day:
"In our youthful years we respect and despise without that art of
nuance which constitutes the best thing we gain from life, and, as
is only fair, we have to pay dearly for having assailed men, and things
which Yes and No in such a fashion. Everything is so regulated that the
worst of all tastes, the taste for the unconditional, is cruelly
misused and made a fool of until a man learns to introduce a little
art into his feelings and even to venture trying the artificial: as
genuine artists do. The anger and reverence characteristic of youth
seem to allow themselves no peace until they have falsified men and
things in such a way that they can vent themselves on them --- youth
as such is something that falsifies and deceives. Later, when the
youthful soul, tormented by disappointments, finally turns suspiciously
on itself, still hot and savage even in its suspicion and pangs of
conscience: how angry it is with itself now, how it impatiently rends
itself, how it takes revenge for its long self-delusion, as if it had
blinded itself deliberately! During this transition one punishes
oneself by distrusting one's feelings; one tortures one's enthusiasm
with doubts, indeed one feels that even a good conscience is a danger,
as though a good conscience were a screening of oneself and a sign
that one's subtler honesty had grown weary; and above all one takes
sides, takes sides on principle, against 'youth'. --- A decade
later: and one grasps that all this too --- was still youth!"
(Beyond Good and Evil, 31)
\_ "I'm a politician. My job is not to nuance." --GWB
\_ URLP.
\_ It's not a direct quote. I'd post a link but it's all Ann
Coulter and the UCB republicans explaining how the quote is
actually a good thing.
\_ Oh great, a pagan fag.
\_ Are his writings online anywhere in a semi-comprehensive format?
\_ So, pretty much he's saying young people aren't old enough to
understand that the world isn't black and white and this leads to
poor decisions and some people never get it. Thanks for burning
an entire packet telling us the obvious. Deep.
\_ blah blah blah. |
| 2003/8/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:29242 Activity:nil |
8/5 Definitely work safe:
http://www.larryflynt.com/national_prayer_day.html
Go Larry! Larry Flynt for governor!
\_ amen. if lived within 100 miles of LA, i'd go. |
| 2003/8/3 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29225 Activity:high |
8/3 Good news, Bush will live for 4 more years.
\_ You win this weekend's "non sequitur motd comment" award. Don't
spend it all in one place!
\_ You obviously don't read the news very often.
\_ ok, i just looked at the newyork times, cnn, foxnews, bbc
and slashdot, and i still have no idea what the fuck you're
talking about. must be part of that liberal media conspiracy.
\_ *sigh* It was in an article on CNN. Although you might
have to, like, think, dude. Like whoa. |
| 2003/7/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:29157 Activity:insanely high |
7/28 There are stories of pilots from communist countries defecting to
other places with their planes (N Korean Mig-15 to S Korea, Soviet
Mig to US, Chinese Mig to Taiwan, etc etc). Are there stories of
pilots defecting TO communist countries (e.g. U.S. F-16 to Soviet,
etc etc)?
\_ Just about 1 month ago there were rumor about couple F-16 from
Taiwan defected to the mainland China.
\_ by "rumor" do you mean article in the People's Daily? I
wouldn't trust the Chinese state run media to tell me the
fucking weather.
\_ looking at how we have hyped up to the iraq war, i think
our 'free' media isn't much better either. I use to think
otherwise, but now I am fully convinced our government gets
to decide largely what they want to feed us. no better than
the state run media in china, period.
\_ I wouldn't trust the Republican run US media to tell me
the fucking weather either.
\_ How could you not trust such Fox News tickers as these:
... Pointless news crawls up 37 percent ... Do Democrats
cause cancer? Find out at http://FOXNEWS.COM ... Rupert Murdoch:
Terrific Dancer ... Dow down 5000 points ... Study: 92
percent of Democrats are gay ... JFK Posthumously joins
Republican Party ... Oil slicks found to keep seals
young, supple ...
\_ Why Republican? Why not just say SATAN! or BIG BROTHER!
Or THE MONSTER UNDER THE BED! If you think our media is
right wing biased, you're *really* far left on the spectrum
like the nutters writing the SF Guardian who call the
\_ after 1989, there's no more point in defecting. Let me as you
this, where do you think the future is, China or Taiwan?
SF Chronicle right wing and rag on Feinstein for being a
Republican shill. Sometimes the answer lies within....
\_ If you don't think that the media is corporate
dominated, you have the most serious case of tunnel
vision imaginable. corporate != republican, exactly,
but the big media companies serve business interests
in a way that is unprecedented both historically and
in comparison to other countries
\_ well said!!
\_ that's fine and all and I don't disagree that news
has become big business. however, it is no more
republican than Senator Feinstein. If you meant
to say 'corporate' then say corporate. btw, where
exactly do you think the democrats get hundreds of
millions of dollars every election cycle? hint:
it isn't small donors sending in their $5 each.
\_ Actually in Dean's case (the man with the most
money so far) the majority of his money comes
from small donations. Yet another reason Dean
is The Man. -aspo
\_ http://billmon.org/archives/Dean table.gif
\_ Mostly people from the west have more sense than that but in the
last 50+ years there have been a tiny number of defections but I
don't know of any that included planes. It would've been a huge
PR coup for the communists and you'd know about it.
\_ we'd know about it because the american media loves to distribute
the propaganda of other countries? this isn't BBC. this is CNN.
\_ How many reports of tapes sent to Al-Jazeera, or Iraqi
press conferences did they re-broadcast? -John
\_ Some would say too many. It's more fun to think we live
in a Big Brother controlled State then in reality. I
think these people imagine they're some sort of freedom
fighters, fighting the good fight against the oppressive
Bush controlled CIA run CNN or something. The
information wants to be free or something like that.
\_ no, it's not fun. it's just the way it is. try
comparing domestic news against news broadcast in
europe and you'll know what i'm talking about. i'm
not saying foreign news is better. i'm saying that
US media as a whole makes a LOT of editorial choice
about what to broadcast and it's not what is
happening everywhere in the world.
\_ I do. And EU news makes editorial choices as well.
You seem to prefer those editorial choices and
find them personally preferable to US editorial
choices (in the maintream news media). That is
your personal choice and does not in any way make
EU news superior or more accurate or less biased
than US news. You simply prefer the EU bias over
the US bias. That's all mostly about how they
report the news. As far as your point about certain
stories never getting reported at all, it isn't due
to a grand conspiracy. It is simply because the
average American doesn't give a crap what's going
on in the next county, much less another part of
the world. If it sold ads and newspapers they
would be printing it. They are as you pointed
out earlier corporate controlled and thus have
profit as their primary motivation.
\_ http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/Defections.html
According to this site the were a lot of China->Taiwan defections
until 1989. What happened after 1989, the Taiwanese start to
shoot down all the defectors? Or did the Chinese government
threatened to kill the family members of the defectors?
\_ A single random plane flying in with the pilot screaming into
his radio on a known frequency, "don't shoot! im defecting!" is
not going to be shot down. Family killed? That's more likely.
\_ "4 July 2003 Two Indonesian F-16s intercepted US Navy F-18s ..."
I think our Top Guns should now learn dog-fighting against our
own fighter jets besides the MiG's.
\_ the US Airforce estimates that in a total combat, the
aircraft attrition rate would be one F22 raptor vs four
F16s. So as long as we own F22s, it's ok.
\_ Note that the F22 also costs about four times the price
of an F16 (well over $100 million a piece).
\_ Intercepted only means they were in the area and threatened
to shoot them down. It doesn't mean there was a dog fight
and the F18's lost.
\_ yeah, it means "we see you". there are no dogfights
unless both guys run out of missles before reinforcements
arrive from the nearest airstrip/carrier. they should
fire before enemies are even in eyesight now.
\_ Taiwan is a dead end. Hence no defection anymore.
\_ A dead end in what sense?
\_ I think that an American did defect to Russia in a plane. Once. I
STFW and couldn't find the story, though. --dim
\_ This sounds vaguely familiar but I can't recall the details
either. I think the Republican Corporate Controlled CIA run
Evil USian Media is to blame for brainwashing us! ;-O |
| 2003/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:28873 Activity:high |
6/30 RIP Katharine Hepburn:
\_ How DARE you be intimidated by me! Screw the gays and the
republicans and the trolls and the freepers and and and. This
is sad. :( -John
\_ so is foxnews. -- not being sarcastic or disrespectful
\_ Gay Republican Freeper Trolls (GRiFT) unite!
\_ incidentally i was completely unsaddened. except for the usual
brief moment of being reminded of death in general |
| 2003/6/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:28774 Activity:high |
6/19 So what do you think of Ann Coulter? She has a book at #3 on Amazon
titled _Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on
Terrorism_
\_ She's smart and not bad looking.
\- laura ingrahm is better looking --psb |
| 2003/6/15 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:28734 Activity:nil |
6/14 The Times' Designated Man in the Street (Coulter outs Times)
http://newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/6/12/110035 |
| 2003/4/11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:28092 Activity:high |
4/11 Saw a poll somewhere. U.S. people think our greatest threat is:
1) North Korea (~39%?)
2) Iraq (20 something percent)
3) France (7%)
4) China (5%)
5) Liechtenstein (17%)
6) Swaziland (pi%)
\_ 5) Liechtenstein (17%)
6) Swaziland (pi%)
\_ France? How did it get in this poll?
\_ Dubya should end every speech with "And France must be destroyed".
\_ Can you post the source please?
\_ saw it as a news bulletin at the bottom of screen on fox news.
\_ Threat may not be purely militaristic. |
| 2003/4/10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:28054 Activity:high |
4/9 Just seen in a newspaper (USA Today? SJ Mercury?):
FoxNews has largest share during war, then CNN, then MSNBC.
\_ Old news.
\_ U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A!!!
\_ Although I've been a Fox news guy for a while I think the NBC
coverage was better overall than Fox, CNN or Al Jazeera. I think
someone at NBC is finally 'getting it'. |
| 2003/4/1 [Recreation/Food, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:27943 Activity:nil |
4/1 If pigs could fly ...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24691
\_ Then everyone would have to worry about falling pigshit?
\_ I was wondering about WorldNetDaily before. Having read
the the boilerplate "threatening letters to our writers will
be forwarded to the FBI" at the bottom of that article answers
every question. Idiots. |
| 2003/3/31 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:27921 Activity:kinda low |
3/30 Last item on this link demonstrates the evil that is Fox news:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55511-2003Mar30.html
\_ And tells you how absolutely biased everything else on TV
is.
\_ And tells you how absolutely biased everything else on TV is.
\_ I watch Fox news because they are unbiased and 100% for the war. |
| 2003/3/25 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:27832 Activity:insanely high |
3/25 Freedom of speech at work
http://csua.org/u/b84
\_ You know how you say "Fox News" in Arabic? "Al-Jazeera."
\_ If anything, Al Jazeera is one news agency which really
worth respect. It was being attacked by all fronts in the
Middle East, and it's unfortunate that US has join the rank
when the freedom of speech no longer serve their interest
http://csua.org/u/b85
\_ Thanks, that was good to know.
\_ The basic problem Americans have with Al Jazeera is its
tendency to emphasize Palestinian suffering over its
suicide bombers: "They blow themselves up because the
Jews give them no hope" rationalization. But that's what
the viewers want.
\_ well why do you think they blow themselves up?
extreme boredom?
\_ get clue: it's brainwashing.
\_ what, you don't think blowing themselves up is done
out of hopelessness? Who are you?
\_ see above. there are plenty of people with less hope
in the world and none of them are blowing up kids in
pizza parlors and dance halls. |
| 2003/3/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:27623 Activity:insanely high |
3/7 "Man Arrested for 'Peace' T-Shirt" -- an URBAN LEGEND!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/859373/posts
\_ things like the use of the "[sic]" not as a correction of usage
but as an insult is why rational people will never take
but as an insult are why rational people will never take
http://freerepublic.com seriously
\_ In case you haven't noticed all the articles there
are links from sundry mainstream news media. The only
thing user contributed content is the comments. For
example this article was from the Wall Street Journal.
So in your view, the WSJ and NYT have no credibility?
\_ but the poster added [sic] after the line where the
WSJ called the men gentlemen. That makes the poster
look like an idiot.
\_ What I commented on, the "[sic]," was not in the
deposition, it was added by the user who submitted
the story. Why are you trying to change the subject?
\_ Ok, I was mistaken and lazy and this is from the
WSJ. But it's just these types of sometimes subtle,
usually not, pieces that end up being submitted to
http://freerepublic.com and being further disseminated.
Pieces that come to people's attention by this route
are highly suspect, at least to me, be they from the
WSJ or NYT.
\_ what's a libaral publication at par with the credibility of
http://freerepublic.com? Salon? I guess what I'm asking is: how far
to the left to you have to go to acheive a similar amount of
(un)credibility? ... just trying to get a better gauge of
accepted politcal beliefs. - running for office (j/k)
\_ Salon is hardly the liberal counterpart of freerepublic.
The counterpart would have to be of the weekly world news
ilk.
\_ Salon is dead / dying.
\_ despite the persistent and gleeful schadenfreude
from freepers, Salon will probably survive the
latest round of doom predictions.
\_ http://indymedia.org
\_ ding. We have a winner.
\_ http://nytimes.com
\_ funny how the nytimes is loved and scorned in equal
meassure by both the right and the left
\_ http://cpusa.org
\_ So who was that I saw on O'Reilly?
\_ Did you even bother to read the article?
\_ Yes, but I was hoping that someone wouldn't be that much
of a bald liar. Also, it was more fun to answer the
question than respond to the article. |
| 2003/2/25 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:27527 Activity:high |
2/25 MSNBC cancelled Phil Donahue! It's because the company is owned by
a mega corp conglomerate that's only interested in pushing their
right wing agenda on the country! It has nothing at all to do with
his shitty ratings. Nothing!
\_ i still think Fox News is owned by a bunch of hate mongering
right wing fuck monkeys.
\_ and a good thing too or we'd have to put monkeys on the
endangered species list and get a forced breeding program going!
save the fuck monkeys!
\_ #1 Fox News. BTW, consider not mongering hate against the
"hate mongering right wing fuck monkeys!"
\_ Dude, that guy was still on TV?! |
| 2003/2/22 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:27492 Activity:high |
2/22 http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/01/19/bubba All you academicians watch out! Suspected Terrorism >>> Tenure. \_ Who is this Bubba guy (Name sounds familiar)? \_ Ok, this ASSHOLE DJ used to be on live 105, and he did the "Charlies Pizza" sketch where he like basically makes fun of chinese accents. So he goes to florida, and tries the sketch there, and of course ppl there don't get it because they've never really seen a chinese person before. So now he's being mr. howard stern wannabee. \_ Googling for Sami Al-Arian brings up more info. \_ Computer Engineering Prof. \_ No shit sherlock. Would you whine if "Suspected Murderer >>> Tenure", too? Yeah, let him keep poisoning campus because ya know hey, he's got tenure so he can do anything! Just because he's helped known terrorist orgs, its ok, he's got tenure! Get out of the ivory tower before it's too late! \_ I would whine if "Suspected * >> Tenure". Why should suspician of anything get someone fired from their job? <insert comment about McCarythism here> \_ News says they got really good stuff on Al-Arian off phone taps using the Patriot Act. Racketeering/conspiring to murder/providing material support for terrorists. Not looking good for ACLU when you can bust a Real Kriminal with an Ashcroft/Republican measure. \_ noone in the ACLU ever said those tactics were *inneffective*!! The point is that they violate privacy and civil liberties of every citizen, including people "suspected" of anything. If sufficient evidence was gathered about this guy in legal ways (read: in a manner consistent w/ the Bill of Rights, etc) then of course he should fired, convicted, jailed, whatever. \_ Since I distrust the *liberal* news media, I would wait until I learn more about these evidence. There are 2 issues here. 1) Is a person sympathetic to a cause that is linked to violent struggles automatically guilty of a crime? Even though the U.S. criticizes other countries for doing that, it itself resorted to this whenever it perceives a threat, even though such threats had been rather minor compared to \_ Since I distrust the *liberal* news media, I would wait until I learn more about these evidence. There are 2 issues here. government. For some mysterious reason, the U.S. has almost unconditional and unrequited devotion to that government. 1) Is a person sympathetic to a cause that is linked to violent struggles automatically guilty of a crime? Although are many countries out there very willing to suck up to the the U.S. criticizes other countries for doing that, it itself resorted to this whenever it perceived a mortal threat, even though such threats had been rather minor compared to those facing other governments. 2) In this particular case, the cause and the struggle was directed against a foreign government. For some mysterious reason, the U.S. has an almost unconditional and unrequited a devotion to that it. There is nothing wrong with this necessarily, but it is so taken for granted yet both unspoken and unspeakable. There are many countries out there eager to ally themselves with the U.S. and this country is not even one of them. |
| 2003/2/9 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:27350 Activity:nil |
2/8 Fuck you and the Bill O'Reilly horse you rode in on. |
| 2003/2/4 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:27295 Activity:high |
2/3 Here is your smoking gun:
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5921220%5E663,00.html
\_ Is that for real? How often do you read
"Australia's biggest-selling daily newspaper"?
\_ A couple of times per week, since it tends to get high rank
on google news.
\_ Anytime my controllers at the FreeRepublic tell me to. |
| 2003/1/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:26958 Activity:very high |
1/01 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/01/politics/01DEMS.html This entire thing truly amazes me. The Dems have TV, Hollywood, cable, prime time news, and all but 2 of the major newspapers. Everything *except* radio and Fox news. If they honestly and truly believe their problem is lack of access to get their message out and if only they had their own Rush then they'd get more votes then they're doomed. They can't possibly truly believe what this article says they do. Democrats, please tell me, is this article bullshit or do Democrats *really* believe this stuff? --baffled conservative [why do you keep deleting this? it's a real link from a real news source with a real question. and yes i'm going to keep restoring it.] \_ yes, some people are stupid enough to believe that the media is a giant conservative conspiracy, just as some people (like you) are stupid enough to believe it's a giant liberal conspiracy. \_ The major media channels are owned by GE, MS, Viacom and Vivendi. All tilt heavily Republican. Your notion that the Dems control the media just shows how self-deluded you really are. \_ We were always at war with Oceana. \_ Like I said its all about the vast right wing consipracy out to get me and my husband - Hillary \_ Because conservatives tend to overstate the "liberal bias" of the media. Having a few liberal views makes one an Evil Liberal, while having a few conservative views do not make one an Evil Conservative. The ranking of All Of Media Is Liberal stems from the conservatives' marketing their brand of thinking as True Conservatism(tm). There is no other brand. To disagree is to not be a TC and thus must be liberal. The thing is that most TCs do have some liberal POVs but don't express it. \_ There's no disputing a clear bias on issues like gun control and abortion rights, where the positions of liberal and cons are fairly clear. Overall the bias may be minor, but on some it is extreme. \_ Which makes all of their POVs automatically Liberal. It's the Cons's self-pitying victimization that irritates me. |
| 2002/12/28 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:26932 Activity:high |
12/28 BLACKS HAVE LESS RIGHTS THAN ANIMALS?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/812778/posts
I don't know why you liberals keep deleting this. I guess you
just can't debate the subject on it's merits, eh?
\_ Your URL doesn't even match your trollicious message.
\_ I had never read a freerepublic link posted on the motd
until now. If most articles are as brainless as this one,
I'm surprised people even bother posting this crap. It's
just some incoherent whining about Trent Lott resigning
mixed with some other stuff.
\_ a large fraction of the freerepublic links are reposts
on freerepublic of AP articles. i've even seen poeple post
freeper links as a "reply" to some mainstream news link
i posted only to follow it and find a reprint of the same
danm article. i guess people to do it to piss off knee-jerk
liberals who like to get pissed without bothering to follow
the link. hey, it's cheaper than a movie, and you don't have
to leave your terminal.
\_ They're not liberals. They're leftists. "Open minded" as in
part of the meaning of "liberal" isn't in their character.
\_ neither word has any really useful meaning. Read
Orwell's "Politics and the English Language."
\_ While true that this is hardly the most well written article
I've read from freereepublic, he does raise an interesting
point about hate crimes. ie, why can people be charged
with thinking a certain thought while the perfom a crime?
That's no just invading freedom of speech, that's invading
freedom of THOUGHT. Always struck me as strange. |
| 2002/12/23 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:26890 Activity:insanely high |
11/22 Homeland Security: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/monahan1.html \_ Wow. this made me feel physically ill. \_ How ill did 9/11 make you feel? -ax \_ 9/11 has nothing to do with this. This is incompetence in the highest degree. Airport security is a sham at best. \_ Airport security is about "feeling" same and "appearing" safe. Its not about being safe. The problem is that most people prefer the perception of security to actual security. \_ and terrorism is about "appearing" unsafe. even after 9/11 it's much safer to fly than to drive. more americans have died from cars than all the wars in american history, yet cars are percieved as normal and people will refiuse to fly for the slight risk of something happening. the fundamental problem is that people are fucking idiots. \_ 9/11 was repulsive, but this is equally repulsive. If the response to terrrorism is to nullify the bill of rights then the country we live in is no longer America. "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." \_ Where does it say in the constitution you are guaranteed the right to air travel without search? Plus, comparing this to 9/11 is saying breast groping is equal to 3000 deaths. I've had by chest groped, I don't think they are equal.-ax \_ This single incident is representative of the thousands of similar occurences in airports nationwide that go unreported. Each violation of the rights of the individual by the state is fundamentally wrong. If you think that the appropriate response to 9/11 is to forgo the rights of the individual (as enumerated in the BoR) and let the state do whatever it wants to the citizens then you don't understand the essence the American Experiment. \_ " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." It says it right there. \_ You agreed to be searched when you voluntarily entered the airport to fly. You could have not flown and then you wouldn't have been searched. That sounds reasonable to me. -ax \_ what was that someone saying about people being fucking idiots? \_ It is not at all saying they're the same. But you tell a mother that endangering her baby's health is worth the "increased security" this purportedly provides and she'll smack your ass, and rightly so. --scotsman \_ Choosing to fly while pregnant is a big risk, if you really cared about your baby, you wouldn't fly while pregnant. My wife isn't. -ax \_ you're letting someone immigrate out of your wife's womb? shock! dismay! \_ While I agree with this, some people don't have a choice and in America one has a reasonable expectation to be secure in one's person and property against search (Amd. IV) \_ The Fourth Amendment was already shredded during the "war on drugs." How many times do you think this and far worse indignities were perpetrated on poor people in America in the last 30 years? The only difference this time is that a middle class reporter's wife is getting groped. The chickens have indeed come home to roost. \_ I don't support the war on drugs. But I once had hope that we could recover from it and restore the constitution without bloodshed. Now it seems the only way to take back America is in the way the way of the founding fathers. \_ Zero Tolerance, baby. Love it or leave it. \_ I love America. In America such things should not happen. \_ Have you guys heard of martial law? When you are at war, your rights get modified. That is a sacrifice every American is expected to make for the good of the country. Guess what, if we win the war, you get your rights back. If we lose, you don't. -ax \_ Wow. You really, actually believe the Bushies intend to give you your rights back if they "win". That's just...I mean, I don't even think Ann Coulter or one of them would make that claim. \_ Ok, no one gives up any rights, and the terrorists keep crashing planes into our buildings until the government collapses, and the terrorists now rule the U.S. Do you think you have a bill of rights then? People just assume the US lives forever. Did you ever think it might get killed off someday? -ax \_ This is the same excuse that we heard during the "war on drugs." This war is the same: defined so that it is unwinnable, thereby justifying a permanent state of emergency. \_ I asked this once before and people called me a pedant or whatever, but I'll ask it again. Did Congress actually declare war on something? Or can we be under martial law just because the President calls a police action a "war"? -geordan \_ One last question, for those of you unwilling to yield any of your rights under any cirumstance, are you willing to serve your country in the armed forces in a time of dire need? -ax \_ I would bet there are very very few people who are "unwilling to yield any of [their] rights under any circumstances." You're polarizing the discussion, thus undermining your point. I personally think that all politics has been distilling down to exactly this distinction: for what are you willing to sacrifice which liberties. Also, I would be willing to serve in homeland defense, but not in an armed forces dedicated to economic protection on foreign soil for the sake of a few very powerful people. --scotsman \_ Polarizing the argument is the point. My point is that the majority of people commenting don't care enough about this country to make ANY sacrifice for it. Your constitutional rights are guaranteed by the ability of the US government and military to maintain the soverignty of our nation, not by simply stating them in a motd. The constitution would be meaningless if instead of bearing arms against foreign enemies, our founding fathers sat around debating endlessly against those taking action because it might infringe on their "rights". -ax \_ exactly how is a pregnant white woman from L.A. a "foreign enemy"? -tom \_ She might have had exploding breasts!! -ax :) \_ There's plenty of criticism here. What's the solution? Do nothing? For those who are so quick to poke holes in the current strategy, what's yours? -ax \_ Kick the shit out of our enemies so they are afraid of us again. Nothing is served, or stopped, by fucking up our lives. \_ I don't see any problem which is solved by lying on police reports in order to be able to arrest American citizens and threaten them with felonies for no real reason. The question is not how to "solve" the terrorism problem, the question is, what real purpose is served by such gestapo tactics? -tom |
| 2002/12/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:26842 Activity:very high |
12/16 Ollie's Army Takes Grenada, Again
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2002/45/ma_152_01.html
I can't imagine a ship I'd much rather see come down with a
Norwalk-like bug.
[deleted and restored-- guess it's not just the lefties doing
the censoring, eh?]
\_ Maybe it was deleted because it's such an obvious troll? Since
when is anything about Ollie news? Link from the center and right
that get deleted are from main stream/leftist news sources. This
is noise from motherjones for christ's sake. Hardly main stream
or unbiased. They make ABCCNNCBSNBC look right wing.
\_ gee, the freerepublic links are never obvious trolls
\_ Straw man. You're ignored what I said. I'm glad that
frereper links get killed. They're stupid. You also purge
standard main stream/leftist links.
\_ How this a "straw man?" You do know what that means, right?
\_ Sure do. Do you? How is it not? I never once said
anything about freeper crap. Freeper crap is troll
fodder and everyone here except the freeper poster would
easily agree on that. I'm talking about mainstream
links on real news items that get censored because
certain lefties don't like to see real news that doesn't
fit their world view.
\_ Aw, does the widdle right-winger not like leftie news posts?
Suck it up....
\_ I don't care. Just be aware of the difference between
propoganda and biased drivel and real news. When you figure
out the difference, you can take off your debate training
wheels and say something worth the bits required to store it.
\_ You've obviously mistaken MotherJones for a news outlet.
Mother Jones discusses and critizises and opines on the
news. They have journalists on staff and as contributors.
But I don't think anyone would be willing to claim that
they are trying to be a "fair and unbiased news source".
They embrace and trumpet their agenda far and wide.
--scotsman
\_ Exactly. Same shit as the freepers.
\_ Except that motherjones actually attempts to include
historical context and hard facts. If you had
compared to, say, the Economist, your statement might
have some weight. |
| 2002/11/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:26666 Activity:high |
11/28 http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021129-3530784.htm Fox news continues to gain audience share while all others lose. What can we do to save the American people from themselves?! Anyone with common sense should be able to easily see that Fox is just extremist right wing nutter propoganda while MSNBC is a bastion of fairness and neutral reporting. We must save MSNBC so the truth can be heard! \_ right. by the logic of the editorial , it's not propoganda because it's got so many viewers. By this logic, neither is the People's Daily: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/other/about.shtml |
| 2002/11/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:26566 Activity:very high |
11/15 how do Freepers like the Left Behind books?
\_ What a "Left Behind" book? --!freeper
\_ Bunch of religious-oriented action/adventure type novels
apparently written around the apocalypse. Lots of hype in
the press around it recently. I read some excerpts, and the
writing quality is pretty abominable (as opposed to most other
action/adventure type novels). I think it's mainly a case of
targeting content at a certain demographic group, i.e. giving
the plebes what they want to read. -John
\_ I'm a Christian. I'm one of the ones who gives money to
the Church (from an earlier topic). I do not like the
"Left Behind" books: that kind of apocalypse story
doesn't interest me and I agree the writing quality
stinks. The movie version's got Kirk Cameron, so it's
gotta be good, right?
\_ conservative != christian necessarily.
It's a political ruse used by the left.
\_ bullshit. The reason the two have been lumped together is
that the vocal, annoying christian minority, the kind that
loves the left behind books, is overwhemlingly republican.
Add to that the fact that the current repblican leadership is
practically wallowing in it's fundieism and it becomes hard NOT
to link the two. -aspo
\_ A implies B does not mean B implies A. Did you graduate?
From Cal? I already knew they'd let any idiot in but do they
let any idiot graduate?
\_ Well said.
\_ Not really. Not even if you're grinding the same axe.
\_ Neither Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Howard Stern, Dr. Laura,
nor Larry Elder, are Bible believing Christians. Is banning
partial birth abortion so evil?
\_ Look, I'm not saying if you are conservative you have to
be a christian, raving or otherwise. I'm saying the reason
many people equate the two are because of the actions of
a very vocal and strong compenent of the republican party,
the party most people associate with conservative values.
Don't blame "the left" for this misconception, blame those
that have wrapped fundementalist christian agendas into
the republican party line. -aspo
\_ "most associated" by who exactly? the leftist agenda
driven pseudo mainstream press? yeah thought so. Just
how much acid, pot, and whatever does it take to get to
where you are now? just curious.
\_ the term partial birth abortion is pretty inventive,
go read http://csua.org/u/599 . yes i realize
i have no hope of influencing the poster of the
above. - danh
\_ if partial birth abortions are so rare and so necessary
than would you object to a ban on PBAs except in cases
where it is medically necessary?
\_ so you're just the secularly righteous type?
\_ True atheist (not the nutty religion hating type) and true
conservative here. We exist. Thanks for noticing. -!op |
| 2002/11/15-16 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:26554 Activity:moderate |
11/15 three words: tucson, sex, fest.
\_ Huh?
\_ google.
http://csua.org/u/588
\_ Let me guess. You found that link on FreeRepublic, right? |
| 2002/10/23 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:26292 Activity:nil 50%like:25609 |
10/22 [ automatically generated freerepublic URL deleted ] |
| 2002/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:26059 Activity:very high |
9/30 which aspect of libertarianism are you upholding by deleting
motd threads you don't agree with? fucking asshole hypocrytes.
\_ Huh? It isn't a libertarian deleting motd threads they disagree
with. Most of it is a single big gubbmint liberal.
\_ Riiiiiight.
\_ I've been keeping track. I know who has been naughty and
who has been nice.
\_ It is probably not a libertarian, but a cranky Republican. Post
something critical of Bush and see how fast it gets deleted.
\_ i was refereing to a specific thread which was deleted the
instant it became insulting to libertarians.
\_ Look fools, I'm telling you I keep track and it has nothing to
do with who was getting slammed. Anything not interesting to
this particular person gets deleted the instant they see it.
\_ oh, yeah? who is it?
\_ Not, I post articles critical of Bush from
freerepublic all the time that are deleted.
Conservatives do not need to censor because their
ideas are superior and defensible under the
scrutiny of facts. Look for example, at the level
of discourse in any Democratic / Socialist
event or protest.
\_ can you name a single political perspective
whose posts do not get constantly deleted by
idiots on the motd? censoring idiots clearly
come from all points on the political spectrum
on the motd(or they just don't give a shit
and like to delete.) some censors call themselves
liberal and some call themselves conservative,
but they all have thing in common: they are
cowards. |
| 2002/9/23-24 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:25983 Activity:very high |
9/23 http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29032 Where's a bleeding-heart liberal when you need one... \_ fool, it's okay because Black people are doing it \_ that's an interesting, sad story, and has popped up in the mainstream press, i'm not even going to make fun of you for posting news from World Net Daily. The pathetic attempt at the beginning to link 'enviro tree huggers' in this country to the Zimbabwe government is kind of funny though, what do they have to do with it? \_ PointerP to mainstream press about the wholesale slaughter of animals (including endangered species) in Zimbabwe? \_ Why would you make fun of him for posting from the WND? Are you ragging on it because you think the content is false such as "my baby is an alien" stories from the tabloids or because it has a conservative slant which is contrary to the leftist slant you're used to seeing from the self proclaimed mainstream? \_ Like so: because Mugabe is taking land from the white farmers and the whites knew it was coming, they didn't bother to plant anything this season. Without enough food, people have gone into the animal sanctuary areas and killed lots of animals for food. There's no real link. She's just pointing out the tree hugger types only whine about small local NIMBY issues and don't say anything about mass slaughter of protected animals somewhere else presumably because they think it's a-ok to take the white's land and land redistribution (to your family and cronies) is a good thing even if the consequences are starvation for everyone and dead animals in the sanctuaries. \_ what's wrong with whining about small local issues? do you live on the moon? I think presuming that "left leaning hippies" are a-ok with killing white people over land is presumptious. [rude interuption moved] \_ The problem is when you set aside your principles of "justice, fairness, and hey maybe let's not starve the entire country", in favor of some oddball ideal where land redistribution (to your cronies and family) is more important. \_ I don't know about Zimbabwe's case, but land redistribution is about justice and fairness. \_ Taking someone's land away and giving it to someone who doesn't know how to farm it--how is that just, fair, or even compassionate? \_ Why do you assume land redistribution necessarily mean giving the land to someone who doesn't know how to farm? \_ How do you learn to farm except by farming? The investment made by the current farmer in time and learning is lost. Historically any resource redistribution by government has been from the people who have a resource and know how to manage/use it to novices. Do you have a counterexample? \_ Ever heard of tenant farmers, who don't own the land but are employed by or pay rent to landlords? Sometimes, it's the land lords who have no idea of how to farm. You really need to study some history. Try history of Russia, India or China. Or closer to home, the South before the Civil War. \_ Land redistribution is good. No land redistribution in South America. That's why they remain fucked up countries forever. Land redistribution in Japan, Taiwan, Korea, that's why they became successful countries. It has nothing to do with white or non white. Stop playing the race card. \_ You have no clue what's going on in Zimbabwe. They're not redistributing the land. They're stealing it and giving it in whole to Mugabe's family and top 100 (or so) leading cronies in the military and government. That's not land redistribution in the way you mean it, my communist friend. And I didn't play the race card. That's something people from my part of the political spectrum don't do. \_ That communists do land redistribution does not mean land distribution equal communists. Get your facts straight. Land distribution when done right and under the right circumstances is good. Communists kill landlords, and also they collectivize farms and destroy market system for selling farm produce. Those are bad. So please don't label me a communist, thank you. I don't give a fuck what political spectrum you are from. As far as I can see both the right and the left play the race cards. Do you have a habit of labelling anyone who disagrees with your political views a communist? \_ bullshit, if white people where doing the killing and maiming you would want to send the military, but since it black people, it's okay. \_ I don't condone killing and maiming, but land redistribution itself is good in principle. Are the killing and maiming verified? From the reports I have read, there are some white farmers refusing to leave their land, and people are waiting to see if they will be arrested. \_ Read some newer reports. People already have been kicked off their land, beaten, raped, etc. Yes, it is verified. The land went to Mugabe's family and the top ~100 cronies in his government and military. \_ It is not land redistribution that is the problem, it is that Mugabe is an idiot and a thug. -!OP \_ Yes, well that's true enough. \_ More people would be outraged if more people knew. Instead, we are being inundated with stories like the mom who beat her kid. \_ That's the "mainstream press" in action. Bread n circuses. \_ Yeah. What's the big deal with parents beating kids? I was beaten by my mom all through my childhood. Now I'm an adult and I still think it was an effective way to discipline kids. |
| 2002/8/16 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:25586 Activity:nil |
8/15 All I asked is for advice about the mold in my
bathroom, you elitist freerepublic assholes
\_ I'm the only one who posts freerepublic links,
and I just logged in at 6:15, so you have the wrong person.
\_ Freerepublic is the only source of news for me!
\_ http://www.google.com/search?q=household%20mold
This is a serious post. I have a mold problem in my
bathroom, too. My wife and I clean it with a water/bleach
solution frequently.
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/670455/posts
I bet you even voted for Clinton!
\_ If it's on a tile surface or in the grout, there are antifungal
sprays you can get which work pretty well--bleach should help,
but I've seen stuff that works better. If it's on a painted
surface, you'll want an 'antifungal emulsion', which is a sort of
paint that prevents the stuff from regrowing. Kill the mold first
with a few applications of the aforementioned anti-mold crap, then
paint over it a few times, voila. I believe there are also
sealants for both tile/grout and walls/ceilings which will let you
clean the mold off more easily and which make it harder for it
to grow, but I haven't tried them. Your fundamental problem is
most likely poor ventilation, or a wall/ceiling leak somewhere,
though. -John |
| 2002/7/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:25440 Activity:high |
7/29 A question for you married alumni: have you become more conservative
since you graduated, started working, and got married (or had kids)
even? (assuming you were liberal before):
yes:
no: .
\_ Marriage had no effect. But going to Berkeley did. I entered Cal
as a blank slate. All the political stuff was totally outside my
entire universe before entering college. I came to Cal. I was
inundated with leftist propoganda. I listened. I analysed. I
became aware. I eventually registered Republican and vote that way
at every election now. I don't agree with the entire (R) platform.
A lot of it is a load of crap but less so than what the left wants
to do. I think talking with BH was the turning point for me.
\_ I came in left and UC Berkeley made me much less left for
basically the same reasons. I've since moved away from campus. I
live and work and volunteer in West Berkeley now and my politics
have been drifting back to the left working with the community
here. It was the frickin' indoctrination that sucked.
\_ More responsible and financially conservative, yes. My politics
haven't changed- although I'd encourage Pat Buchanan to build the
wall twice as high now that we are post 9/11. -ax
\_ Woo woo! GO PAT GO!
\_ i was republican when i first went to Cal and when i graduated
i was still a republican. now (6 years after graduating) i'm
still a republican. i guess my political views haven't changed
at all. -uctt
\_ I came to Berkeley center-left, but watching Tim
Russert smirk the night of the 2000 election and reading
Freerepublic I am now hard right. How could I have been so
stupid? BTW Bush is increasingly a disappointment.
\_ Bush has always been a disappointment. --dim
\_ I hope you're a troll. The freepers aren't real republicans or
real conservatives (not the same thing). They're a bunch of
whacko extremist freaks. They're the right's unthinking
counter part to the left's unthinking Berkeley/San Francisco
counterpart to the left's unthinking Berkeley/San Francisco
whacko extremist freaks. I've yet to hear an extremist from any
part of the spectrum that didn't turn my stomach. And no I'm not
a wishy washy undecided middle-grounder either. |
| 2002/7/5 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:25282 Activity:high |
7/4 One does not see this from the Post often:
Thank You, America
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16621-2002Jul2.html
\_ I love July 4th. It's the one day each year I don't have to read
or hear anything from the Hate America goons.
\_ Do CSUA conservatives just assume that anyone who doesn't
have the non-sensical "READ FREEREPUBLIC AND GO TO TEXAS
YOU FUCKING COMMIE LIBERAL" attitude is automatically
"anti-American"? |
| 2002/5/12 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:24799 Activity:very high |
5/12 More unbiased reporting from the NYTimes
"A Faulty Rethinking of the 2nd Amendment"
... observe the author get eviscerated
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/focus/news/682165/posts
\_ and the Free Republic is the last bastion of unbiased
journalism, right? your act is getting so tiresome
\_ Umm, there is no pretense of journalism on
Freerepublic - it is a message board where much
of what is published in the media is
critiqued. But no worries, as taught at Berkeley
we all know conservatives are evil mean bigots.
\_ Being a Berkeley Liberal, I appreciate most
true conservative values: States Rights,
true Conservative values: States Rights,
conservative. However, yes, most conservative
Individual Freedom, and being Fiscally
Conservative. However, yes, most conservative
people I meet happen to be intolerant and mean.
\_ Most conservatives are pretty nice and
tolerant. It's just the ones in Berkeley
(and particularly those in CSUA) are wacko
nutcases and not very bright.
\_ as opposed to the leftist whacko nutcases
of the CSUA? a whacko nutcase who never
leaves his computer terminal and has a
god complex because he manages a unix
cluster is a pain in the ass wether he
reads Marx or Freeper.
\_ did you kill a drifter to get an errection. |
| 2002/4/30 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:24639 Activity:nil |
4/29 Where do I find one of these automated freerepublic URL generators
that post to the motd? |
| 2002/3/7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:24052 Activity:moderate |
3/6 hey freerepublic guy, what do you think of bush's
kowtowing to the US steel industry? - danh
\_ it's utter berkeley! the sacrifice of morals to take a stance
on some issue clouded by stupidity!
\_ How so? By refusing to pick up the steel industry tab? I'm not
the freeper guy, btw. The steel industry is incredibly pissed off
that the feds won't pick up their pension debts. What are you
talking about?
\_ Isn't this about Bush being able to claim that he stood
by steel workers and reaping the political benefit of being
loyal to supporters while at the same time being fully aware
that this will be shot down by the WTO?
\_ and trying to balance that against the votes he'll lose by
driving up durable goods prices...
\_ I think danh is talking about steel tariffs to protect the
uncompetitive steel industry. Freeper's are split about it.
- jeffwong
\_ Well it isn't free competition if the competition is being
artificially boosted by their own tariffs and government
subsidies. It's hard for a company to compete with the
entire tax base of a foreign nation.
\_ It's not always the government. It's cheaper labor and
better "tax incentives," and product dumping by the
competition. The fun part is that the foreign companies
can get around the US tariffs by selling to Canadian or
Mexican companies to ship to the US. NAFTA prevents the
tariffs being imposed on them. |
| 2002/3/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:24027 Activity:very high |
3/5 I miss Berkeley and the whole "free speech is only for people who
think like us" mentality. Especially when it's a bunch of racist
thugs screaming it the loudest.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020305-21028866.htm
\_ i can never remember if the post or times is the Moonie
mouthpiece, it all looks the same in lynx, anyway
\_ The Washington Times is a front for the Moonies. Their first
editor quit in a public press conference saying such.
\_ Uhm, where is there anything moony related in this article?
Did you even read it or is this the standard motd knee-jerk
anti-WT noise spewing forth again?
\_ I am responding to his question which one is Moony crony
\_ Which still has nothing to do with the article.
\_ I can read that dipshit, I'm answering the other ?
\_ It has to do with the credibility of the source.
\_ The WT is definitely the Fox News of newspapers. However,
Berkeley's reaction to that militant Israeli and the city
council's reaction to Dean putting remarks on her web page
regarding the antiwar resolution support the claim. Free
speech is reserved for the liberals, in the minds of some
in this city.
\_ NY Times good. Washington Post good.
NY Post a joke. Washington Times a joke.
\_ What's wrong with Fox News? Fox >> CNN >> M$NBC for decent
reporting. CNN has reporters all over the planet so they
get stories out first but otherwise they're crap.
at the end of this article:
Last spring, conservative writer David Horowitz's speech
about reparations ended abruptly when a member of the audience
yelled at Mr. Horowitz for placing an ad in the campus
newspaper critical of the idea of black reparations.
Which is incredibly misleading. The whole point of
horowitz being on campus was to talk about his ad,
and I think he fled abruptly just so that he could claim
later that evil berkeley liberals forced him out of
Berkeley (which he did). - danh
\_ Were you there? There was a problem with his ad?
I'll give you an example - have you compared the
amount of time threads from liberal sites stay
up on the MOTD vs conservative. I have
deliberately posted both to see.
\_ yes I was there. horowitz's ad campaign was a giant
scam, reperations for slavery isn't that hot of an issue,
but college newspapers all over the country were
suckered in by it, the most visible case was the daily cal.
i get the feeling that the major newspapers are getting
all of their info about the mecha vs cal patriot
fight from a really biased reporter inside of the daily
cal and they're not going around checking with any
sources, but i can't prove it. whichever daily cal
reporter who keeps mentioning the cal patriot and
the horowitz talk in the same articles obviously
wasn't actually there and is asking only the cal patriot
about what happened at it. - danh
\_ I hate the Daily CAL!!!! total POS - rory
\_ what a shock--URL's intended to piss off intelligent
people get deleted!
\_ Leftist URLs dont piss off intelligent people. They
appeal to us for their humor value. --conservative
\_ freerepublic URL's appeal only to morons--it
become.
has nothing to do with their politics.
\_ Ask yourself why the military is
overwhelmingly conservative.
\_ Nice argument. Conservatism is good
because people in the military are
conservative.
\_ I was once a empathic liberal.
Eventually, you realize that
culture not predicated on
responsibility and self-reliance
is doomed to destroy itself.
You wake
up and realize how screwed up
most of our institutions have
become. Life really is black
and white.
\_ Bill Clinton - self-reliant,
self-made man. George Bush -
daddy's boy.
\_ It's not about an idiot like Horowitz.
\_ why am i the only person who ever signs their name around
here? damn. -danh
\_ Because you are the only person in this debate
saying anything worth putting one's name behind.
(yes, i know it was a rhetorical question)
\_ Because it's the motd and it doesn't matter *who* is
saying a thing, it matters *what*. The issue of *who*
only clouds the topic with personal attacks (as always).
Knowing who posted something doesn't make their point any
stronger or weaker. Posting one's name is merely an
option most choose not to take.
\_ ok that's a valid point. i just think it's funny
every other post is unsigned! - danh |
| 2002/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:23747 Activity:nil |
2/1 Patriot registration:
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/patriot/index.asp
\_ Lest any of you conservatives take this seriously, note
that this is http://whitehouse.org not whitehouse.gov
\_ You know what I really hate? I hate how those stupid conservative
constantly wrap themselves with the flag, writing bills like
USA Act or PATRIOT Act. Give me a fucking break.
\_ I like the choices for "Fox News is fair, balanced..."
\_ I prefer http://www.whitehouse.com |
| 2002/1/10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:23515 Activity:nil |
1/9 [ Yet another freerepublic URL to conclude a logical fallacy ] |
| 2002/1/10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:23514 Activity:nil |
1/9 > grep freerepublic /home/digital/mehlhaff/tmp/motd,v | wc -l
39
> grep nytimes /home/digital/mehlhaff/tmp/motd,v | bin/w -l
19
Now, don't give me that bullshit that freerepublic articles
are less biased and more well written then the New York Times.
Stop spending all day googling/drudgereport-surfing for
freerepublic articles and get back to work. |
| 2002/1/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:23471 Activity:nil |
1/4 http://www.lucianne.com Top two entries about Buddy The Dog. I'm deeply saddened. (there's even a freerepublic connection here for you freeper fans!) \_ Here I will save you the trouble: "Horse sheet!" he writes. "Buddy was just another prop for photo op's, and served his purpose well. The liberal/socialist bought into to 'Clinton family values' story, but Socks & Buddy were merely appendages that served their masters political aims. After serving, they were summarily cast aside because they no longer served any purpose. (Sir Edmund) Hillary and Bubba are both narcissistic sociopaths who manipulate both people and animals for their personal gain." Yep, that's it folks. This is what conservatives do in their spare time, make up things they imagine the Clinton's might have done, and then slap themselves on the back for being so clever. You are all pathetic little sheep. |
| 2001/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:23343 Activity:nil |
12/21 Ann Coulter: Attack France! (It's at least worth reading
before you delete)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/fr/593954/posts
\_ Is this supposed to be funny?
\_yep. Not only supposed to be, but is.
\_ Nope. Not funny. It is like a bad Saturday Night Live
skit that never ends. Not one laugh in it.
\_ How on earth does this woman stay syndicated?
\_ because some people aren't dumb humorless liberals.
\_ They are stupid shit-kicking half literate rednecks?
\_ ... although I think Ann missed one very important point,
France bought Iraq's war debt from Kuwait.
- original poster |
| 2001/9/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:22580 Activity:high |
9/21 Does anyone know anything about Ann Coulter? She makes Jesse Helms
and Pat Buchanan seem liberal.
\_ "Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from
Arabic countries leave."
\_ It's "Arab countries". Where did you learn English, Coulter?
(I just like insulting someone who *I guess* probably likes to
insult other people who don't speak perfect English.)
(I just like insulting someone the way *I guess* she probably
likes to insult other people who don't speak perfect English.)
\_ Ya, and the fact that Afghans (and Persians, for that matter)
aren't Arabs/Arabic also seems to be overlooked.
\_ What's the point of stipulating "Persian" instead of
Irani/Iranian? Iran is the correct and current name.
\_ URL please. Ann is usually pretty damn intelligent, though it
seems this event is really bringing out the moron in everyone.
\_ http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/welcome.shtml
\_ I know Partha has a crush on her.
\- nah, i think LI used to be more attactive and I like
Judy Woodruff and the old Maureen "be gentle, it's my first time"
Dowd more. I think AC is saying ridiculous things becsuse it is
tunring her into a newsstory. it's like bill mahr "complaining"
about the publicity and the controversy. ok tnx --psb
\_ oh my god, ann coulter is that funny looking blonde i keep
seeing on tv shows. She should go on Howard Stern.
\_ What about James Rubin's honey?
\_ This already made it to the motd before but I find it far
more offensive: "We should invade their countries, kill their
leaders and convert them to Christianity." |
| 2001/6/11 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:21480 Activity:nil 72%like:21479 |
6/11 Global warming, without liberal bias.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b24b074026b.htm
\_ But freerepublic is raving right-wing lunatics!
\_ play golf instead: http://www.electrotank.com/lab/minigolf.html |
| 2001/6/1 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:21400 Activity:very high |
5/31 Is there anyone else who find O'Reilly books to be poorly organized?
I often find myself spending lots of time hunting for details in
big, poorly named chapters like "The Gory Details".
\_ yes.
\_ no.
\_ maybe.
\_ so.
\_ no, but since I'm playing hard to get, I really mean yes.
\_ Censored comment restored: O'Rielly quality has gone down
considerably, while SAMS and McGraw-Hill have increased
quality to the point where they are all more or less equal.
Given the latest trends its only a few years until O'Rielly
is really shitty and SAMS and McGraw-Hill are useful.
\_ yeah, yeah, blah, blah. who cares. |
| 2001/3/14-15 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:20779 Activity:high |
3/14 Must-see TV this week was Bill O'Reilly being confronted by Star
Jones on The View regarding his successful pursuit of Jesse Jackson.
The ladies on the panel had been provided with crib cards of
background notes which they shuffled helplessly as he patiently
explained. The salary for Jackson's mistress? 150,000 tax free
dollars. The look on Star Jones face? Priceless.
\_ Someone tell me their girlfriend/wife recorded this?
(note: this is not the standard assumption that there are no CSUA
girls, just a vain hope that csua girls don't watch the View). |
| 2000/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:19797 Activity:nil |
11/16 Foxnews reports Broward has recounted 45 of 600 precints. Gore+7.
It's over. Math only gets just so fuzzy....
\_ Don't have cable, is it gore ahead by 7 or gore got 7 more
votes?
\_ Gore gained an additional 7. Gore still down overall. |
| 2000/2/17-18 [Health/Disease/General, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:17536 Activity:low |
2/18 http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/adoldrug hahaha. \_ And this is funny because....? I suggest adding this to the "Things I Find Funny" section of your resume. You'll go far. |
| 1999/10/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:16734 Activity:moderate |
10/19 The Unofficial Guide to LEGO(r) MINDSTORMS[tm] Robots(c)
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/lmstorms
Mmm.
\_ Uhm yeah whatever. I'll build a robot to control my in-car
mp3 player. |
| 1999/2/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:15428 Activity:nil |
2/16 The O'Reilly book you always wanted
http://www.shmooze.net/~cmv/porn.php3
\_ how do we get this into the http://amazon.com top 100? |
| 1999/1/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:15278 Activity:moderate |
1/21 How do I setup a news server? I've downloaded innd and I have root.
\_ #include <extremelackofclue.h>
\_ Yes, but it wasn't necessary to actually state this.
\_ install innd (read the innd manpages)
convince someone to send you a newsfeed (usually involves paying
them not-insignificant amounts of money). Theres a not-bad
o'reilly bookk on news server administration. I'd suggest you
look at it, as running a news server is not a trivial task. -ERic
\_ Definitely not a trivial task...But it isn't too expensive.
$250/mo tops, depending on who do you get the feed from. -leblon
\_ $250/month is a not-insignificant amount of money to down
load porn and warez. |
| 11/23 |