| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/27 |
| 2007/12/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:48735 Activity:high |
12/3 Media Matter's displays CNN rules for submitting debate questions:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711270007
---
Anyone who wants to submit a question may do so by uploading a video
clip through YouTube. All the videos that are submitted will be posted
on the site. CNN will then choose as many as 50 videos to use during
the debate.
Asked for guidelines on what kind of questions were most likely to make
it on the air, Bohrman said they should be concise -- no more than
30 seconds -- provocative, and creative.
"We're not going to have anything obscene or inappropriate, but I think
we'll get some very inventive questions," he said.
---
Note the conspicuous abscence of a requirement that one be undecided
or a member of one party or the other.
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/k57 (LA Times)
A review by the Los Angeles Times of the debate sponsored by CNN
and YouTube four months ago found that the Democratic presidential
candidates also faced queries that seemed to come from the
conservative perspective. At least two of the citizen-interrogators
had clear GOP leanings.
CNN officials said that in the Democratic debate, as in Wednesday's
Republican encounter, they had not attempted to determine the party
or ideology of the questioners.
\_ How did the discussion go when the Dems refused to debate on Fox
News?
\_ Totally different story. Fox news has made its reputation
(and fortune) by being very anti-Democratic Party. That's not
the same thing at all.
\_ No, they made their rep/money on providing the other side
of the news to the people who felt the rest of the news was
biased to the left. These days FN is pushing the same
agenda as CNN and the rest, but it was fun while it lasted.
\_ "The other side of the news"? Like, "War is Peace,"
"Slavery is Freedom, "Ignorance is Strength," that kind
of thing? What planet do you live on, and what's the
weather like there?
\_ When is MM going to run her correction?
\_ What correction?
\_ For her claim that the GOP did not insert any of their
supporters into the Democratic debate. For her claim that
these people all represented themselves as undecided.
\_ I can't find the claim that GOP supporters didn't insert
themselves into the Dem debate. As far whether they were
"undecided", while that's not a formal requirement, it's
reasonable to assume that someone asking a question at a
debate actually cares about hearing the answer. So if
someone has already decided to openly support a
candidate *not on the stage* what are they doing asking
them questions (and ridiculous ones at that)?
\_ "But the persistent media double standard is obvious
to everyone but the manure spreaders at CNN: Had
GOP candidates somehow been able to insert their
operatives and supporters into a Democratic debate,
and had, say, Fox News failed to vet the questioners
and presented them as average citizens, both Fox
and the GOP would be treated as the century's worst
media sinners." -MM
So by your standards, the numerous GOP supporters
who asked questions during the Democratic debate
should not have done that? When are you going to
condemn them for it? Why is your outrage so
selective?
\_ Well, I didn't care about the Dem debate and so
didn't watch it because I know enough about the
candidates' positions that there's no way I'd
vote for any of them. And yes, had any GOP
activists been outed in that debate, I would have
been just as annoyed. There's a difference
between "conservative questions" and GOP
activists. In *both* cases CNN should have
screened for questions that actually matter to
the actual primary voters. -pp
\_ get a clue.
\_ GOP activists did ask questions at the
Democratic debate, you are just too blind
to see that.
\_ Name em.
\_ John McAlpin, for one. |
| 2007/11/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48637 Activity:nil |
11/14 the kholes on Fox News and http://foxnews.com are pumping this story a a lot today: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311644,00.html without mentioning the 250+ Marines who died in this bombing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing What the hell is wrong with people? \_ Shut up and eat your Freedom Fries. \_ Okay, I'll bite. What is a 'khole'? \_ If you do a bunch of ketamine, you temporarily go into this disassociative zone known as a 'k hole'. It's hard to describe, think of it as being a 2 dimensional being in a 3 dimensional world. That's pretty close. \_ And then Carl Sagan appears. |
| 2007/10/26-29 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:48458 Activity:moderate |
10/26 What is it about the Right Wing and Jews? Will Ann Coulter
be calling for re-education camps next?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html
"... we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say."
\_ In this case it isn't "the Right Wing". This is AC talking as a
politically active socially conservative Christian. You can be
Right Wing and an atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Jew or
anything else. About what she said: shrug. She has books to
sell. This is her thing.
\_ Um, Christians want *everyone* to be converted and perfected.
\_ as opposed to Goys being enslaved?
\_ Seriously, even for an Ann Coulter manufactured scandal, this
one is lame. Only an ingorant idiot would fall for this troll. |
| 2007/10/25-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:48440 Activity:high |
10/25 Lefty enemies of free speech force Horowitz from stage.
http://csua.org/u/jto
\_ not gonna read it. you could have written that headline before
he did his stupid islamo facism week.
\_ Oh, come on. There's video of the nutters on the site. Doesn't
that get your anti-free-speech blood riled up?
\_ It's amazing how all the leftists have plenty of opportunities to
speak, but they seem to be the only ones shutting down speech on
the other side. -op
\_ Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! The blatant disregard for
reality is charming!
\_ So which are you claiming--that leftists *don't* have
plenty of opportunities to speak? Or that they're the only
ones chasing their opponents off the stage?
\_ http://cdn.moveon.org/data/ShutUp_Final_BbandLo.mov
\_ Oh you've got to be kidding me. O'Reilly's show is
hardly a public forum.
\_ Oh, right, and he's "only an entertainer," so
there you go.
\_ You can't see the diff between a staged TV
show where the paid host kicks off a 'guest'
he doesn't like, and a public speech getting
mobbed?
\_ If a bunch of raving lefties stormed the
Fox News HQ and mobbed BO'R, would you
say "Fair play"?
\_ You mean all those people who were arrested for
booing or heckling Bush?
\_ Are you taking your ball with you?
\_ No free speech for fascists!
\_ That was always my favorite line from the Sproul Plaza chanting
idiots.
\_ They may be serious students of the French revolution and
are engaging in a clever word play on "No liberty
for the enemies of liberty!". Or maybe not.
\_ horowitz deliberately sets up shit like this. he's been doing it
for years. gonna ignore him.
\_ If only other people ignored him, rather than chasing him out of
the room, there wouldn't be a problem.
\_ Sure he's doing it for PR but he has a point about the
censorship thing. (And please don't quote the dictionary
definition at me.)
\_ "Your Honor, I did rape the defendant, but look at what the
bitch was wearing!" -- ilyas |
| 2007/10/15-18 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48325 Activity:kinda low 66%like:48324 |
10/15 Reid sucks (yes even in NV) [restored, after someone deleted it]
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/at-home-in-neva.html
\_ Tied with Bush!
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
\_ Except one terms out. The other we're stuck with til he dies
of old age.
\_ If he's as unpopular as op implies, he'll be out at the next
election. Want to make a bet?
\_ His popularity appears to me to be linked to his leadership
position. People see the congress as ineffective, and that
goes to his leadership of it.
\_ Actually Bush is now at 24%, according to Zogby:
http://www.csua.org/u/jqu (WashPo)
But who do you believe, Fox News! which has Bush
at 35% or Zogby which has him at 24%?
\_ I bet he gets re-elected, since he won last time by
26% and he does not face re-election until 2010.
\_ Depends on who runs but betting against an incumbent, any
incumbent, in this country is always a bad bet. That says
nothing about how good our incumbents are and everything
about the process of electing people. Reid is still a
do-nothing. |
| 2007/9/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:47881 Activity:kinda low |
9/3 "We invaded a sovereign nation based on a lie."
http://www.csua.org/u/jfo
\_ BS. Go back to your cage Michael Moore.
\_ You're kind of reaching the bottom of the barrel when
you don't really need to, to get that kind of quote from
the web, I don't think that was the main point of the
article. I think you can find plenty of Republicans
now who would agree that we invaded Iraq for unknown
or disengenous reasons.
\_ Lie != Intelligence Failure
\_ At what point does a willful ignorance and denial of
fact cease to be the fault of the intel provider and
become the fault of the intel receiver? And then at what
point does the refusal to accept fact then become a lie?
\_ If you don't find out the intel is wrong until after
you've invaded then it isn't a lie that caused you
to go in. It was ignorance. So to answer your
question in this context: never.
\_ Okay, now what if you tell your intel people that
you only want intel that backs up your premise? At
what point does willful, active ignorance like that
become lying?
\_ There was a recent Tom Tomorrow comic where he had a dream
that everyone, from the bush admin to the press to the pundits
to the entire staff of the Weekly Standard realized they had
made a terrible mistake and dedicated their lives to living
the rest of their life in exile, obscurity, and penance. That's
exactly what I want.
\_ "My party is Good, the other party is Evil", as seen on Dailykos,
freerepublic, democratic underground, etc, etc.
\_ Oh, no, it wouldn't break my heart if everyone who voted to
authorize went into exile, etc.
\_ Like it or not, the War On Terror has been branded as
Republican thing. Good job branding there guys!
You can make a pretty strong case that all of the think
tanks and pundits and elected officials pushing the Iraq
invasion were Republican. I think pointing out that
plenty of Democrats voted to authorize invading is
a moot point. Bush would have figured out a way to invade
democrats or no democrats.
\_ BS. Go back to your cage Michael Moo yet?"
\_ did you shower between couplings aspo
\_ Not as a rule no.
\_ Does his wife have camel toe? I just found out yesterday that my
sister-in-law does.
\_ Maybe something about having two humps?
\_ So you still think invading Iraq was a good choice? |
| 2007/8/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:47671 Activity:nil |
8/20 Is there a url for Fox News radio online streaming? |
| 2007/7/27 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:47454 Activity:moderate |
7/27 lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxWgRY1I_SI
\_ is there a more sure way to announce that a link isn't funny
than to title it "lol"?
\_ The Youtube video, from Fox News, is about 'lol'. I'm sorry
if I didn't feel like explaining more at the time.
Also, FUCK YOU MOTD PUPPY GUY. |
| 2007/7/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:47422 Activity:nil |
7/25 http://billoreilly.com being investigated by Secret Service http://newsfortheleft.blogspot.com/2007/07/bill-oreilycom-being-investigated-by.html \_ Huh, I guess I don't really see that as a direct threat. Stupid thing to say though. \_ It's mostly just ironic because Bill is currently on television calling certain websites "hate speech sites" because of certain stupid comments made by some of their members. \_ Such as? |
| 2007/7/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:47338 Activity:moderate |
7/19 hey wall cranky conservatives: give Ted Rall a read. Don't
worry, I doubt he will change your mind about anything:
http://csua.org/u/j6o
So now my question is: why do you think this is? Why does the
media listen to the rabid right wing, who are at this point batting
.000, and never to the so-called "liberals," who, because they
based their Iraq war opinions on fact rather than wishful thinking,
were right? Why is that? conjecture about human nature welcomed.
\_ You think Ted Rall is somehow new on the scene? I just read
DK when I want to see that stuff. I get everything all at once
on a single long page on every current topic.
\_ I think for one thing he's mischaracterizing all conservatives as
"radical right Bushists" and you're doing the same calling people
"rabid right wing".
\_ The so-called "liberal" media is owned and controlled by big
dollar corporate interests.
\_ Which still spews out liberal propoganda on a continuous 24x7
cycle.
\_ Uh huh. That is why the NY Times, the Washington Post, the
Atlantic Monthly, Fox News, etc all ran 100% pro-war articles
Atlantic Monthly, Fox News, etc all ran pro-war stories
in the months leading up to the Iraq War. Or is that all
an example of "liberal" propaganda, in your worldview?
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22437
\_ Of course they did. You have no idea why, huh? It is
not the VRWC. It is because everyone in the media, in
government, etc believed the intelligence reports that
going back several years all said SH had WMD and was
involved with AQ. I'm sure the tin foil paranoia thing
makes for a better story though and really gets your
blood boiling. Remember, always assume evil when
ignorance or incompetence will do.
\_ I see I have underestimated the uselessness of the MOTD. not
only are there no comments about this, somehow editors have
attempted to un-ask the question. -op
\_ No, you posted a useless Ted Rall link. GIGO. Everyone here has
too much clue, no matter their political beliefs, to take TR
seriously or waste precious bits downloading his junk. Dailykos
is a much more efficient source if you want to read that side of
things. |
| 2007/7/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:47268 Activity:nil |
7/12 kind of funny
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/07/cavuto_battles_the_health_care.php
fox news daily pundit Neil Cavuto battles the health care jihad
\_ I can't view it from here. What's he say? |
| 2007/7/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:47202 Activity:nil |
7/6 150 roving lesbian gangs in DC alone, says O'Reilly Show:
http://www.glaad.org/action/calls_detail.php?id=4031
\_ Also according to the O'Reilly Show, SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! |
| 2007/7/6-10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:47200 Activity:nil |
7/6 Fox News claims universal health care causes terrorism
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015020.php
MSNBC picks up the claim as well
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015031.php
\_ You're posting a link to a blog that is the same as your subject
line--well okay, it mentions Neil Cavuto. Anything else to add?
Like say, an actual quote that substantiates the claim?
\_ Gee, see that youtube video stream THAT IS PART OF THE BLOG
POST, maybe just maybe that might be proof enough. This whole
"instantly claim there is no proof in an attempt to debunk
the fact that the nutters are in charge of the american right"
bit is getting old. Then again I bet you think global
warming is a giant communist consipracy.
\_ Ah, youtube is blocked at my company, so I didn't even see it.
\_ So what do you think causes terrorism? |
| 2007/7/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:47160 Activity:nil |
7/3 Roving Lesbian Gangs Raping Young Girls
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1860470/posts
\_ freerepublic used to be useful before it was
taken over by zionist jews...
\_ Posting to freerepublic gives you the Gay.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1860470/posts |
| 2007/6/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:47088 Activity:moderate |
6/27 When Ann Coulter calls for an assassination, we talk about it. But
when I say "kill Bush" on motd, I am censored. WTF? -REALLY pissed
\_ How about "We should have killed Reagan, his star wars projects,
and other mess he created when we had the chance."
\_ Oh but she's just "joking," remember? She's just an "entertainer."
Not to be "taken seriously." Whereas here on the "motd," "we"
are all "deadly serious." Mmmmkay?
\_ Advocating the assasination of the president is a felony, and the
Secret Service will at least come and talk to you. Advocating the
assasination of, say, tom, is not. So, "Kill tom!"
\_ Because you're an unknown private individual and a lunatic making
death threats against the POTUS. AC is a public figure (in)famous
for building her public career and persona making outrageous
statements about other public figures and falls under free speech.
\_ Actually she didn't call for killing anyone if you read or saw the
full text.
\_ That's because you don't have 'favored poster' status like our
friend Partha, who can spout about killing his 'political enemies'
as much as he wants. -- ilyas |
| 2007/6/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:47087 Activity:moderate |
6/27 Speaking of Ann Coulter, this little bomb went off recently and
seemed to have gone almost unnoticed. If Chimpy McFlighSuit has lost
even the support of rabidly pro-Bush Coulter, what does he have left?
"But I do sort of get the sense now that there is -- you know --
people reaching across the partisan divide, the country is unified.
Bush really is a uniter because we're all just waiting for this
nincompoop to be gone. I think we all finally are on the same page
on that." -- Ann Coulter on Good Morning America
\_ Didn't you hear? Bush is actually a liberal. Richard Cohen told
me so.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801053.html
http://urltea.com/v9s (washingtonpost.com)
\_ I wouldn't say she's pro-bush. I'd say she's anti-left.
\_ I'd say she's an opportunist looking to position herself for
some sort of relevance once Bush leaves office.
\_ The only thing Coulter is is pro-Coulter.
\_ That would make her just like everyone else which she isn't
or she wouldn't be interesting.
\_ No, most people are not scheming sociopaths. Maybe you
and all your "friends" are but most of us are not.
\_ Sociopath? No, that's just a pointless smear. She
has a thing going where she makes rude snarky comments
and gets paid a lot of money for it. She isn't
running through the streets with a knife or gathering
her army for Helter skelter II. "Anyone I don't like
or disagree with is a raging psychotic!@!@!@!111" |
| 2007/6/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:47082 Activity:nil |
6/27 Ann Coulter vs. Elizabeth Edwards, who is hotter?
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/06/ann-coulter-vs-.html
\_ I don't know, but I sure know who is more ugly. |
| 5/27 |
| 2007/6/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:47081 Activity:low |
6/27 maybe ann coulter should stop wishing for the death
of edwards? bleah.
\_ You forgot calling him a "faggot," taunting him for having a dead
son, etc.
\_ Yeah i kind of gotta draw the line at anne coulter lately.
\_ Lately? You mean there was a point where she was anything
other than a crazed banshee? People always say you should
just "ignore her," but the MSM certainly doesn't so you
have to engage with her at some point.
\_ They don't ignore her because she's entertaining and
increases ratings and thus ad sales.
\_ She didn't. Go find the full text. She says some pretty wild
things but there's no reason to put extra words in her mouth. |
| 2007/4/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:46298 Activity:nil |
4/13 Welcome to Mexico North
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55155
\_ Welcome to Yellow Journalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism |
| 2007/4/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:46292 Activity:nil |
4/13 Republican debate will air on MSNBC. Dems are still pussies and won't
appear on Fox News.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3497.html
\_ Your premise in the comparison is the MSNBC is propagandistic for
the Ds as Fox is for the Rs. Your premise is wrong.
\_ What a moron. Having a D debate on Fox would be an open forum for
liberal thought. If you think FN is propaganda for the right,
why would they have a D debate? And wouldn't having the D debate
there fight the propaganda. No, the reality is the Ds are
pussies and if they win the presidency in 2008, they'll do
everything possible to make it illegal to be conservative.
\_ Okay, so, you're saying you think the Democrats are not
going to have any debates, and then calling them pussies
because they won't debate? Or are you calling them pussies
for not participating in a Fox News sponsored debate? If
they participated in an MSNBC sponsored debate, would they
no longer be pussies in your eyes?
Your "illegal to be conservative" crack makes it clear,
though, that you are utterly useless to converse with.
\_ Do Not Feed The Trolls |
| 2007/4/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46231 Activity:high |
4/7 "These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about
this slaughter in Darfur forever - and they still haven't finished.
The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like
genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?"
--Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=177
\_ If you pay attention to Ann Coulter, you lose.
\_ She's obnoxious but the people getting slaughtered in Darfur
wouldn't tell you they'd prefer to be completely ignored instead
of having AC as their advocate. The last I checked several
months ago, the UN committee on subcommittees on human rights
violations and definitions was still was working on arranging
a time to meet at some time in the far future to discuss the
possibility of defining 'genocide'. After deciding what a
genocide *is* they would then setup other meetings in the
future to decide if Darfur met that standard. And *then* they
would have to arrange a meeting later to decide if they should
pass a note higher up the committee chain on whether or not to
recommend what, if anything, the main body of the UN should say
in a nasty note. I'm not kidding. Darfur: a real genocide
taking place every day right now and no one but AC and her ilk
gives a shit. How sad is that? I didn't read the link (I don't
read AC) but to say we should ignore Darfur because AC is
bringing it up is sickening.
\_ An impressive strawman. -tom
\_ If you read AC's drivel, you would realize how foolish you are.
She is hardly their advocate.
\_ I said I don't read her. Fine, she's not their advocate.
So that leaves no one as their advocate which still doesn't
seem to bother anyone and is still sickening.
\_ not totally sure what you are talking about. I see editorials
and news reports about what is happening in Darfur
in Time, NY Times, now and then in the Chronicle, mostly
in the NY Times.
\_ Anne Coulter "cares" about Darfur because it allows her to put down
the UN. It's like SNL skit where Christopher Walken played the
French embassador during the beginning of the Iraq war where he
said "We aren't pro-Iraq, we're just anti-American"
\_ So you don't like her motives. That's fine. So who *is*
speaking out about Darfur who has motives you like? And why
does it matter *why* she's talking about it so long as it is
talked about and not forgotten? And hey, wouldn't it be nice if
someone actually, well, ya know... *did* something about it? |
| 2007/4/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Computer/SW/SpamAssassin] UID:46179 Activity:low |
4/2 http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=ANN104 Sign up to get Ann Coulter's Weekly Column FREE! (great if you need to spam someone you hate) \_ Why don't you just forward your regular dose of spam to them via procmail or something? |
| 2007/3/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:46047 Activity:kinda low |
3/21 Ann Coulter calling Edward's a faggot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxgVuB3TyaU&NR
Is this a good example of Compassionate Conservatism?
\_ And? I'm glad your political vocabulary goes back ten years.
\_ Got Freedom Fries?
\_ And I'm calling Ann a stupd skanky ho. Does anyone care?
\_ This was in the news cycle, what, 2 or 3 weeks ago? Anything new to
add?
\_ That her adams apple is as big as her balls.
\_ Ha ha! You libs sure like to beat women!
\_ Was it discussed on the motd then? If so, I apologize for
bringing it up again. It was news to me. Someone pointed
me to the YouTube video last night.
\_ Yes, it was on 3/7. Also, learn to use apostrophes--they
don't mean "Warning! Here comes an 's'!" |
| 2007/3/16-20 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45995 Activity:nil |
3/16 Former CIA officer Valerie Plame testifies
http://tinyurl.com/2f87m2 (wmv, http://crooksandliars.com)
link:tinyurl.com/27f39k (mov)
\_ Plame >> Coulter |
| 2007/3/15-20 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack] UID:45987 Activity:low |
3/15 I haven't seen a single freerepublic link this year. What's up?
\_ jblack must have gotten a g/f or something...
\_ It's better that way. Why would you want to?
\_ Jews took over the site ~2004 |
| 2007/3/9-12 [ERROR, uid:45921, category id '18005#6.04625' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45921 Activity:moderate |
3/9 NV Democrats are pussies.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html
\_ Didi's comment is .... interesting.
\_ The ex-debate is no longer worthy of discussion.
\_ Yeah, listening to your constituents makes you a pussy! Thank god
the Republicans are the kind of real men who know what's good for
the rest of us! -dans
\_ dans, what are your political views?
\_ They're difficult to sum up briefly. Buy me a coffee some
time and we'll chat. Also, I find that I am increasingly
less concerned with what an individual believes than I am
with his or her ability to execute effectively. -dans
\_ executing dans sounds like a good start
\_ I am too inimitated to face you but I want to learn
\_ I am too inimitated to face you but I wish to learn
from you. |
| 2007/3/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45914 Activity:nil |
3/9 Cpl. Matt Sanchez, ex-Marine and Columbia University student,
darling of the CPAC crowd, turns out to be a major gay porn star
and escort:
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/03/jeff-gannon-redux.html
\_ Dude, that's so two days ago..
\_ is the "Dirty Sanchez" named after him? |
| 2007/3/6-12 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45890 Activity:high |
3/5 "Are there any journalists at all interested in figuring out why
this is the case? If Coulter is such a blight on humanity, such a
monument to indecency and all that is wretched in our political
culture, what does it say about the political movement that has been
running our country for the last six years (at least) that they
embrace her so enthusiastically?"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/06/cult/index.html
\ "Can't we all get along?"
\_ It is odd that anyone will defend Coulter. She obviously
is just a giant, not very funny lately troll. I don't think
she even believes half of what she says, it's just for effect.
I think Michelle Malkin is fully crazy, Coulter... just
in it for the money, and we'd all be better for it we just
ignored her.
\_ "Can't we all get along?"
\_ It's the same on both sides. How many journalists and Bill Maher
types said they wished Cheney would have died in the bombing? How
many people look at some dumb jerk like Libby getting convicted for
doing nothing and think that justice was done while certain Clinton
associates stuff national security documents in their shorts, stole
them and got a wrist slap and think what he did was no big deal?
It's all just "my guy is good, your guy is evil" nonsense. Do not
look for the man behind the curtain.
\_ Find me one journalist who said "I wish Cheney had been bombed"
Libby got convicted for lying to the FBI. I think it's
pretty clear he did. Now you can debate that he only
did what Bush/Cheney told him and he's the fall guy, but
I still think it's pretty clear he lied to the FBI and
the 'oh i was busy, my memory is bad' defense is a bunch
of horseshitc
\_ If lying was a real crime in DC they'd all be in prison.
They *should* all be in prison, but if the laws are going to
be enforced in a one sided and arbitrary manner then just
don't bother having laws like that.
\_ Lying is not a crime. Lying to an FBI agent about
information that is pertinent to an ongoing investigation
is. Do you really not understand the difference or are
you just being disingenuous? -dans
\_ I'm being intentionally obtuse, actually, to make a
point: Libby didn't commit a criminal act. He
committed a political crime. His crime being that he
was stupid and didn't conveniently forget everything
when the FBI came snooping around. Richard Armitage
who actually released Plame's ID was never charged with
anything because it wasn't a crime. This poor dumb
jerk might go to prison for having a bad memory about a
non-crime. If the FBI came around and quizzed you
about what you had for breakfast 3 years ago and you
got the answers wrong should we send you to the federal
pen?
\_ If I remembered what I had for breakfast 3 years
ago, and the FBI asked me what I had because it was
pertinent to an investigation, and I lied by
feigning forgetfulness, then yes, if the system
works, I would expect a jury of my peers to find me
guilty and I should be sent to prison. Either you
really don't understand the law or you're being
utterly disingenuous. -dans
\_ Wow, that's crazy. No, you should not. Because
the underlying investigation is a crock. When
'Scooter' was being questioned they already knew
who the pseudo-leaker was (Armitage) and he got
convicted for having different memories from some
reporters who had different memories from each
other of the same events. I'm really quite
honestly surprised anyone around here believes in
the absolute infliction of the letter of the law
bearing the full weight of the State without
mercy upon an individual. That's pretty shocking
stuff if you stop a moment to think about it.
\_ So, you're drawing a line between lying to a
grand jury to cover up a crime, and lying to a
grand jury to protect your boss politically.
What was Clinton impeached for again?
\_ Except Libby didn't cover anyone, so your
comparison doesn't work. As far as Clinton
goes, I think he should have been impeached
but not for lying about Lewinski. I don't
care who screws who in DC. They all are as
far as I know or care.
\_ There was no crime to lie about so that
doesn't apply. I think there were plenty
of things to impeach Clinton for but not
over the blue dress. That was just stupid.
\_ Journalists? Find me one journalist for a major paper/news
service that said they wish Cheney had died? And Bill Maher
isn't the headliner at major party gatherings. Bill Maher
doesn't get his ass kissed by persidential candidates.
And your Bill Clinton stuff has absolutly nothing to do
with Ann "faggot" Coulter. Imagine if she had said the same
"joke" about Obama but with the word nigger. Would you be
defending her then?
\_ AC isn't a journalist either. At no point did I defend what
she said. I'm pointing out the hypocritical nature of
political attacks and media coverage. When one hack proclaims
the world would be better if the VP was assassinated, they
say nothing. When a different hack from the other side of
the spectrum makes a hate comment the world is coming to an
end. Libby gets convicted of having a bad memory about
something that wasn't even a crime. He could have just said
\_ Lying to an FBI is agent about information pertinent to an
investigation *is* a crime. Perjury *is* a crime. A jury
of Libby's peers decided that he was lying when he said "I
do not recall." This is how the system is supposed to
work. If you really believe in justice and the rule of
law, by all means, call attention to when the system
fails, but its self-defeating to say "The system failed in
case A so its unjust if it fails in case B." -dans
\_ The system fails because it is designed to. How many
people have lied to investigators, committed perjury,
put cash in their fridge, stuffed security documents in
their pants and nothing happened. Rhetorical question
to you: if those things were done by Republicans would
you be upset about the lack of justice done in each
case? If a Democrat was put up on charges for lying
about something that wasn't even a crime and send to
prison would you be upset?
\_ Sorry I take back my earlier comment from above.
Your use of language is utterly disingenuous.
I'm done here. -dans
\_ No. My questions were rhetorical because I think
we both already know the answers. You're not into
justice but punishment of the political opposition
at any cost to the concept of fairness and true
justice. Using the legal system as a political
weapon is ugly but useful. Your little personal
slap not withstanding, you've added nothing to
show I'm wrong or strengthen anything you're
trying to say.
\_ Dude, it must be scary believing everyone is
out to get you. -dans
out to get you. I am the best ad you are a
out to get you. I am the best and you are a
worm. -dans
\_ Don't append bogus text to other people's
posts. Or at least get the writer's voice
write. I best is a wanker's adjective.
And I wouldn't have said worm, I would have
said wanker. -dans
wanker. -dans
\_ Aw, how cute you took my advice. The
change to my post is a little better, but,
come on, "I am the best"? Don't you think
that's a bit of a clunky turn of phrase?
-dans
\_ No worries, no one thought it was you
anyway. I can disagree with you and
debate with you but I never thought you
were stupid like your wanna-be clone
up there.
"I do not recall" to all questions and got off but was trying
to help the FBI's investigation. Someone else gets nailed
with $90k in their fridge and has an appointment to the
committee on homeland security. Another person stuffs Nat'l
Security documents in his shorts and gets a wrist slap. You
don't see a double standard or just don't care because it
suits your agenda?
\_ What "hack" said that the world would be better if the
VP were assassinated?
\_ Bill Maher
\_ When? Where? It's worth noting that Bill Maher
is a humorist who moonlights as a hack. Compare
to Ann Coulter who is a hack, who, frankly,
can't do funny. -dans.
\_ They're both hacks. Neither is a journalist,
neither is funny, both are public figures who
make money by stirring shit up.
\_ No, really, Bill Maher got his start as a
comedian. You may not find him funny, but
plenty of other people do. The same
cannot be said of Ann Coulter unless you
mean funny in the tragic and pathetic sort
of way. -dans
\_ Well, that's sort of argueable.
Currently, one generally gets left
leaning entertainment on TV, but right
leaning entertainment on the radio.
Most talk radio hosts are basically
comedians. I think that's the
background coulter comes from, so I
don't see why she can't be classed with
Maher.
\_ It doesn't matter how he got his start.
He is not currently nor has been a
comedian for many years and did not
say what he did meaning it as a joke.
His former career is not relevant.
\_ Google "bill maher cheney better dead"
\_ All I got was this post.
\_ It may interest you that far-right wingers
find Coulter funny. As far as I can tell. no
one but far-lefties finds Maher funny. It is
not hard to be funny to these groups,
variations on "Bush/Edwards is a(n)
idiot/faggot." is sufficent.
\_ The day Bill Maher is a headline speaker
at a major democratic gathering we can
\_ How often does his show run? How is
Maher any different than Rush? Is
Rush bad? Why not Maher? And wtf
kind of name is Rush anyway? Who
comes up with this stuff? At least
AC and BM have real names.
even begin to see if he compares with
Coulter (my guess is he doesn't even come
close, Maher is more of an Libritarian
ass than a Democrat ass.) But until then
even trying to equate the two is stupid
and you know it. It's like saying
"See, move on is a bunch of psychos,
some random person sumbited a video
comparing Bush to Hilter so therefore
when a major administration offical
calls anti-war demostartors traitors it's
pro quid pro!"
P.S. If you don't see the difference
between calling someone an idiot and
calling them a faggot, you sir, are too
stupid to have gone to cal. Please give
back your CSUA account.
\_ I see the different between name calling
and wishing someone was assassinated.
You think name calling is worse? Ok.
You are smart. I am dumb.
\_ Dunno about smart or dumb, but you're
still unsubstantiated. Cite, please.
\_ Ann Coulter has called for the
assassination of federal judges
that she disagreed with. Why didn't
you condemn that with the same fury? |
| 2007/3/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:45875 Activity:moderate |
3/5 "Look, Al Qaeda, they could bring a nuke into this country and kill
a hundred thousand people with a well-placed nuke somewhere, OK? We
would recover from that. It would be a terrible tragedy but the
teachers unions in this country can destroy a generation...Well,
they are destroying a generation. They are MUCH more dangerous. You
know, we worry about Al Qaeda, and we should, but at the same
time, let's not let the teachers unions escape."
--FOX NEWS Quote of the week
\_ Quoting who?
\_ Fox News: still fighting the godless commies even after the USSR
collapsed.
\_ It's a totally useless quote without knowing who was quoted and
the context.
\_ It's Neil Boortz, which you could have found with a google.
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/02/20/the_fox_news_war_on_america_teachers_unions_more_dangerous_than_al_qaeda.php
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yojzaw (newshounds.us)
\_ It's the motd. If the OP wasn't trolling they would have
simply said so since they obviously had it in front of
them. |
| 2007/1/7-16 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45539 Activity:nil |
1/11 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16580872 "I love every single one" of Fox News network's correspondents" -condi \_ and how long ago did i point out that condi was a fucking dumbass? \_ Racist!!! |
| 2006/12/19-23 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:45476 Activity:nil |
12/19 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061219/ts_nm/iraq_usa_army_suicides_dc_1 Will Fox News report that the number of homicides is up? |
| 2006/12/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45426 Activity:nil |
12/11 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235767,00.html Fox News commentator blasts Bush. "Denial is the first stage in dealing with death. The president still has to get through anger, bargaining, and depression before he reaches acceptance." |
| 2006/11/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45260 Activity:moderate |
11/8 FoxNews (cable) keeps showing Schwartzegenner's victory party
and not really covering the rest of the election. What's up?
\_ One red spot in an ocean of blue?
\_ I bet you think politics (or got interested) in politics
after Clinton.
\_ Actually I was interested in politics before Clinton
and then I graduated from high school and grew up.
\_ Bah. The Governator is pretty damned liberal for a republican.
A popular centrist getting elected isn't much of a story.
\_ Yet our politics are so partisan. What the Dems should learn
from this election is that being a far left/right idealoge is
a recipe for failure. Unfortunatly, with Pelosi as speaker of
the house...
\_ I can't stand Pelosi. Why give her and her nutjob status
such power? As you say, someone more moderate would be
better.
\_ Pelosi is not a nutjob, unless you define nutjob as
anyone that Rush Limbaugh doesn't like. She is actually
pretty much in the middle of the Democratic Party:
\_ Pelosi is about in the middle of the Democratic Party.
It says much about you and your extremism, that you
consider her a "nutjob".
http://www.csua.org/u/hen
\- i dont know much about pelosi but so far like her
more than i like hillary, or ALGOR ... but right now
i woudl settle for somebody who didnt torture people,
invade countries on false intelligence, appoint
partisan hacks to formerly technocratic civil
service positions, think religion has equal footing
with science as a way to understand the world,
and has some respect for article 1 and artcile 3 of the
constitution, and doesnt think governing is about
sloganeering [cut and run, change hourse midstream,
"i am a constituional orginalist" etc], drag us toward
plutocracy ... i can live with some differences on
immigration policy or afformative action etc.
\_ "But the Democratic caucus has gone so far to the
left that, hell, she's in the middle." She has a
95 ADA rating. No, she's not a moderate at all.
Maybe compared to a communist.
\_ You aren't paying attention. I did not say that
she is a moderate: there are almost no moderates
left, in either party. I am saying that she is
about in the middle of the Democratic Party.
She is as far left as Frist or Hastert are Right.
Do you call these two gentlemen "nutjobs"?
http://www.csua.org/u/heu
\_ Being in the middle of a bunch of ultra leftists
does make her an ultra leftist nutjob.
\_ So you think anyone who doesn't want to suck
George Bush's dick and lick Bill O'Reilly's
ass is a leftist extremist or "ultra leftist"
or whatever it is you want to call us?
\_ isn't an ultra-leftist a communist?
\_ no. not necessarily.
they are self-evidently not communists.
\_ not in name.
ergo they are not ultra leftists.
\_ no. not necessarily.
ergo ppp is a moron.
\_ work on your logic and reading comp.
\_ I actually feel sorry for Lincon Chaffe...
\_ don't. the senate GOP has been voting like robots, and
chafee was never the difference. |
| 2006/11/7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45243 Activity:nil 76%like:45246 |
11/7 Dems take house, senate in play.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh that felt good. --democrat
\_ I was all set to be cautious about this, but Fox News says the same
thing. Oh, what is that feeling? It's the ice breaking off my heart.
What a long, bad trip this has been. --erikred |
| 2006/11/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45176 Activity:nil |
11/5 I'm lazy. I'm watching a talk show host (Glenn Beck) claim
that the draft was created in WW2 because too many
college graduates were joining the armed forces.
Is this true?
\_ Glenn Beck is a fucking conservative installed by CNN to
boost up their ratings by capturing the Fox News demographs
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act
\_ Why would they need a draft if too many people were joining?
\_ If everyone is an officer, who actually does the fighting?
\_ If the whole army is officers, who does the fighting? |
| 2006/11/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45105 Activity:kinda low |
11/02 Wow. Eff'in wow. Anti-dubya radio host Stephanie Miller goes on
Hannity & Colmes. Retiree writes a letter filled with death threats
and expletives to Miller, and leaves his phone number. Letter at end:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3693
Miller calls retiree, and they talk for ~ 5 minutes (nsfw)
http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_1030_sock.mp3
\_ Poll: would you do Stephanie Miller?
\_ This was kind of stupid and there was nothing in it NSFW.
\_ How is this nuthead guy any different than our very own motd nuthead
who said Ann Coulter should be jailed and/or gassed?
\_ Poll:
Would you do Ann Coulter?
Hell Yes:
Yes:
\_ Does a Dirty Sanchez count?
No:
Hell No: ...
Would you do Stephanie Miller?
Hell Yes:
Yes: .
No:
Hell No:
Who?: .
\_ sorry, but miller hearts keith olbermann
http://www.stephaniemiller.com/content/view/579/71
\_ I doubt ann coulter reads the motd. i think ann coulter
should be mailed to Iran.
\_ non-anonymity and a 5-minute mp3 recording of the convo?
\_ so anonymous threats are ok? ok, sure.
\_ reading comprehension++
\_ reading comprehension++, try again
\_ so anonymous threats are ok? ok, sure.
\_ There is a huge difference between venting and noone in
particular and telling the person you are venting at that they
should be killed. If you can't understand that you are either
intentionally being stupid or you cheated to get into Cal.
\_ I see. So how do you know this nut guy wasn't venting? He
doesn't have a motd to vent on and is likely low tech. Just
how many psycho killers are giving their real info out to
their victims? Either you're both friggin nuts or you're
both just venting. I see no difference just because the tech
is different.
\_ Cause he sent the letter TO HER. See the difference?
\_ Nope. Who was he supposed to vent to if not her?
\_ this guy is a moron, hopefully an undergrad, which
is excusable (even for Cal).
\_ because we know education = smart!!! or maybe
anyone who disagrees with you is just a moron
by definition? god forbid you should actually
come up with anything worth saying smarter than
a very lame and weak minded personal attack
cop-out. that might require real intelligence. |
| 2006/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45089 Activity:high |
11/01 "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The
lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers
enlist. Their choice in life; prison or the military. Some will
have to die in the support of our cause."
Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03
\_ Ah, making quotes up again.
\_ Actually, no, but thanks for playing.
\_ Then you can support the claim that she wrote that?
Seriously, after doing some searching, I can find no source
for this except a random blog or two. It smells like an urban
legend.
\_ According to this page, it was Madonna who said this
http://iammadonna.oracleswar.com/2006/08/never-underestimate-power-of-me.html
\_ No, that page says Ann Coulter said it.
\_ Actually, it says "Ann Cuntier". Don't know if they're
the same.
\_ Yeah, I think people like Ann Coulter are exactly what
is wrong with this country, but I cannot find any
evidence she actually said this.
\_ She is not what is wrong with the country. She is
merely a symptom. When politics turns into smears
and extreme polarization, you get AC types on both
sides cashing in. She didn't cause it.
\_ The fact that you cannot find any source for this is
all part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to cover up
the tru7h about the "hundreds" of war crimes committed
by the Bush BrownShirts against dissents. The Bush
BrownShirts have removed all negative statments made
by members of The Cabal in an effort to keep you from
discovering the tru7h. -fmulder
\_ I believe! I believe!
\_ I'll accept that AC is a fool who should never be elected to
anything if you'll accept that John Kerry and those who supported
him in 2004 should never be elected to anything.
\_ Only if you'll accept that anyone who actually supports AC is
dangerous and probably criminal and ought to be in jail.
\_ Sure. No one 'supports' AC. She is a noise maker who
writes books for the freeper crowd for cash. But no I can't
support sending her to jail. Maybe in China that flies but
we still have free speech in this country and she has broken
no laws I'm aware of. Remember that silly old thing about
not agreeing with you but willing to die for your right to
say it? Oh, nevermind.
\_ get real. What Republican ever said that? Only
the liberals ever did... you're going to be screwed
once I get ahold of you. Even the liberals won't be
able to save you.
\_ What Republican? Do you *really* have no idea
who I was paraphrasing? Damn... Is the state
of education really that poor today? And I'm
going to be screwed? Is this like a school yard
"I'm going to beat you up" thing?
\_ You *do* know that Voltaire was a liberal,
right?
\_ What about him? I hope you're not saying
you're going to send him around "once you
get ahold of" me to beat me up. ;-)
\_ Please. If you're going to condition your acceptance with
silly clauses about including anyone who supported Kerry,
you've already propelled the conversation out of the realm
of reason. Let's take this to its conclusion: gas Anne
Coulter and her ilk.
\_ "I don't like what she says so she must die". When
that becomes an acceptable idea in this country held
by anyone not in some psychotic extremist group then
the whole democracy+freedom experiment thing is over
and failed as well. |
| 2006/10/27-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45011 Activity:moderate |
10/27 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/27/dixie-chicks-advertisement-nbc Tell us again about how liberal the media is. \_ http://csua.org/u/hbe \_ [URL without comment deleted] \_ http://csua.org/u/hbe (example of liberal media bias) \_ Don't call them Brownshirts. \_ What a progressive blog, sterilize anyone that doesn't agree. Where are all the people that that the freepers are nuts? \_ http://tp.org is run by the Clinton crowd. It has a specific agenda. It is not an independent political site. Think of it as the semi-official organ of the "third way Clintonian Democrats". \_ Umm, do words mean different things to you than other english speakers? Are you insane? What the fuck? \_ "Anyone who still talks about the liberal media should be sterilized. They are clearly too stupid to breed." I'll let everyone decide what that means independently. \_ If you think that's even remotely on the same level of outrageous as the freeper bullshit you, well, are too stupid to breed. \_ Just because the freepers are nuts doesn't make it ok for this site to say someone should be sterilized for having a different belief. Take a step back, a long breath and try to justify a comment like that. It can't be. It certainly isn't a 'progressive' thing to say unless the word now means 'closed minded and vicious'. \_ Take a deep breath, step back, and remember that no one is actually advocating the surgical or chemical sterilization of people who post to the Free Republic's forums. The statement is one of hyperbolic outrage. This is not the same thing as Ann Coulter calling for the the murder of USSC justices, although in a way it is, because no one with an ounce of sense believes anything she says anyway. \_ So when a lefty says something vicious and stupid it is just hyperbolic outrage. When anyone on the right says something they're evil and need to be sterilized. Ok. Got it. Nothing like a double standard to help rationalize away those logical inconsistencies. \_ No, it's still vicious and stupid. It's just that those of us with sense know to take it as what it is: hyperbole. Same with Ann Coulter, really, only it's everything she says, not just those choice little nuggets. \_ Is this a hoax? This would be the first time I've seen any media outlet anywhere (except maybe Fox News) have trouble "disparaging President Bush." \_ They don't want you to know this. Shh. -John |
| 2006/10/26-30 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:45002 Activity:moderate |
10/26 "If Hitler hadn't turned against their beloved Stalin, liberals would
have stuck by him, too." --Ann Coulter
OMGWTFBBQ!
\_ Just out of morbid curiousity, what's the theory behind "liberals
liked Hitler"?
\_ Not that you should ever take Coulter seriously... but her
liberal baiting crowd usually claim that liberals
would have sided with Stalin. This Hitler thing
sounds new. Maybe she's still ironing it out in the
draft of an upcoming book.
\_ Nazism is short for National Socialism. Everyone knows that
the liberals would like to deploy national cradle to the grave,
the liberals would like to deploy federal cradle to the grave,
let the welfare state take care of me and insulate me from the
invisible hand style socialist policies. This means Liberals
must like national socialism. Since Hitler was a proponent of
national socialism, Liberals like Hitler.
invisible hand style socialist policies. This means that if
the liberals took control, we would have socialism nationally.
Socialism national, is the same as National Socialism, when
Socialism nationally, is the same as National Socialism, when
you turn the words around. Thus Liberals like National Socialism.
Since Hilter was a proponent of National Socialism, and Liberals
like National Socialism, Liberals like Hitler.
Since Hilter liked National Socialism, and Liberals like National
Socialism, Liberals like Hitler.
\_ Yes, and the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is run
by the Democrats, too. And the Republicans, I guess.
by the Democrats. And the Republicans too, I guess.
\_ That's Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Thanks for
playing.
\_ Why the heck do communist countries always have
"democratic" or "republic" (or both) in the name,
anyway?
\_ I am telling you, it's the Judean People's Front.
\_ I am telling you, we're the Judean People's Front.
\_ Instant legitimacy. Since "republic" and "democratic"
imply election by and support of the populace,
any efforts made against the Party thus become
efforts against "the people." It's the 20th century
equivalent of Divine Right of Kings. The fascinating
thing is watching the PRC straddling the line
between the 20th and pre-20th centuries through
the "republic" wording and PR stories that obviously
reference the Mandate of Heaven (i.e., all goals met,
crops abundant, weather mild, etc.). --erikred
\_ "Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?"
"Fuck you! We are the People's Front of Judea."
\_ I agree is completely STUPID, but that is the rationale
I have heard. I'm also told that some democrats wanted
to stay out of WW2, but I've never seen any facts to
back that up.
\_ Uh? There was a large isolationist movement. If you
looked for facts you'd find them. It was no secret.
\_ The isolationist movement was largely Republican.
\_ Stupidity's unfortunately no legal grounds for retroactive
abortion. -John |
| 2006/10/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:44815 Activity:kinda low |
10/13 Air America files for bankruptcy:
http://tinyurl.com/ydmfdx (cnn.com)
\_ From Sep 14: "If Air America had filed for bankruptcy every time
someone rumored it to be doing so, we would have ceased to exist
long ago," Jaime Horn, a spokeswoman for the liberal talk show
network, said in a statement. "It may be frustrating to some
that it hasn't happened."
http://csua.org/u/h76
\_ Don't let reality kick you in the ass on the way out:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013062airamerica1.html
Air America ceases to exist. Thanks for the yucks, AA.
\_ You misunderstood my post. I was just pointing out that they
were denying the bankruptcy rumor as they were preparing to
file.
\_ Liberals don't want to listen to annoying blowhards on talk radio!
Who'd a thunk it?!
\_ I think the second part may be more important than the first.
The portions of AA I've heard were abysmal. I'd rather put a gun
in my mouth than listen. -emarkp (And I can't stand Rush,
Hannity, O'Reilly, or Savage even though I'm conservative.)
\_ Is there any talk radio, political or not, that you like?
\_ Yep. Out of Sacramento, Armstrong & Getty (6-10am) KSTE 650
and KNEW 910 and Tom Sullivan (1-4pm) KFBK 1530. Out of
LA, John and Ken (3-7pm) KFI 640 and John Ziegler (7-10pm)
also on KFI. All shows are streamable. -emarkp
\_ Oh, and all the above shows have free podcasts.
Nationally I like Glenn Beck. Podcasts of the other
stations:
http://www.910knew.com/pages/podcast_podbridge.html
http://www.kfbk.com/cc-common/podcast.html
http://www.kfi640.com/cc-common/podcast.html
\_ Yes, but the difference is that Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage,
etc. apparently have found an audience of conservatives
that DO like to listen to annoying blowhards.
\_ So I drop my car off for service. The TV is blissfully off
for all of three minutes before a 50-something female
customer shows up, turns it on, and starts hunting for the
Fox News Channel. I know because she repeated like 4x
"Where's Fox News? How do I get Fox News on this thing?"
Sigh.
\_ Fox News: "We don't make idiots, we just entertain them"
\_ Liar. You don't have a car. You're a conservative
troll posing as a well educated and erudite liberal /
moderate / normal person. But we've seen through you.
\_ Really? Then how do you explain NPR?
\_ More boring than anything else. As biased and content free
as Fox News, but with the gritty taste of unsweetened bran
cereal with skim milk, with some ground up vitamins mixed in,
so it feels like news.
\_ Um, content-free? Try actually listening to NPR.
\_ No, thanks. I've heard enough. I'd rather memorize
another 50 digits of pi than listen to NPR. Booooorrrrrr
rrrrrriiiiiinnnnnggggggg. Stupid humor, biased news,
poor journalism, shitty music, annoying dull-voiced
pompous ass DJs, and non-stop whinning about money
in spite of the fact that they're better funded that
just about any college station, all of whom provide
better content. Fuck NPR.
\_ NPR has its moments, but frequently it's extremely
pompous and tiresome. There really isn't much in
the way of consistently good, unbiased broadcast
radio that I've heard so far, but then again I have
a really short attention span. -John
\_ O'Reilly and Savage are not the equivalent of NPR, but thanks
for trolling anyway. At least the above poster is even in
the same ballpark when he compares it to Fox News. |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:44691 Activity:low |
10/6 http://FOXNews.com - Internal Poll Suggests Hastert Could Devastate GOP http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,218043,00.html "'The data suggests Americans have bailed on the speaker,' a Republican source briefed on the polling data told FOX News. 'And the difference could be between a 20-seat loss and 50-seat loss.'" ... Hastert refuses to resign: http://csua.org/u/h4a (Yahoo! News) \_ Hastert looks like he eats 2 or 3 sticks of butter per day. \_ So do the assholes who are probably going to re-elect a republican majority in November. \_ Are you sure the elections are honest? There are a lot of unanswered questions about the polls. Maybe you mean the minority who are going to rig the elections to put the republican majority in. \_ Oh, c'mon. Just because 90% of Diebolds campaign contributions dollars have gone to Republicans and their machines seem to have been designed with hacking as a feature not a bug doesn't imply an bias. as a feature not a bug doesn't imply a bias. |
| 2006/10/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:44681 Activity:kinda low |
10/4 YouTube run by liberals who censor conservatives?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqvHK2CPB4&eurl=
I guess they learned from Google.
\_ Weren't she abused by liberal leaning parents? Is this her way
of exacting revenge?
\_ I believe I see Michelle's email in this video, can anyone
make out what it is?
\_ yeah, I'm sure there was nothing hateful or racially offensive
coming from Michelle Malkin. -tom
\_ Here's a link to the censored video. Decide for yourself.
http://csua.org/u/h48
Or do you just like to categorize a source and dismiss it? Oh,
yeah, that's the typical strategy when you can't rebut the
claims.
\_ Michelle Malkin doesn't make claims, she spews invective. -tom
\_ That's it? That's all you can say? The woman has been on
TV a zillion times and wrote a number of books yet she has
made no claims? Ooooookaaaaaay!!!
\_ Hey, it works for Coulter.
\_ So? Ronald McDonald has been on TV a zillion times and
written a number of books. Has he made any claims? Or
has he simply been a PR symbol?
\_ If you can't tell the difference between a hired
actor/PR figure and a political commentator....
Or maybe Ronald wrote and spoke a lot about current
and historical hot topics and I just missed those
days in class?
\_ If the difference between a hack and a political
commentator is whether you've been on TV and
written (or had ghost-written) screeds, then
we truly are living in a Warhol world.
\_ And people say that Malkin is close-minded.
\_ And she is. Do not confuse the close-mindedness of her
detractors with any vindication of her own close-
mindedness.
\_ The closed mindedness right here at home is so much
more tasty than some random tv personality.
\_ thankfully http://youtube.com is there to save me from being forced to
view material i may not be able to handle.
\_ Yeah! Why do they keep deleting my Prussian Blue posts?!?! |
| 2006/10/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:44624 Activity:moderate |
10/2 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/20/141615.shtml Karl Rove says there will be an "October Surprise" to help GOP candidates. What do you think it is, and how effective do you think it will be? \_ Karl Rove is brilliant and understands that election is never about issues but instead, personal characters. Having that said, I will bet $50 that the October Surprise will most likely be reports of certain Democrats saying bad things about God, or going to prostitutes, having affairs with interns, or anything of that sort. The average American doesn't care about the number of deaths in Iraq or Iran having nukes. The average American cares more about Jacko molesting children and such. \_ This is absolutely true, but I would classify Rove as sociopathically brilliant, not generally brilliant. He's got the morals and ethics of a cockroach: survival/domination at any cost. \_ If he's a real sociopaths he'd know he's lying. But in reality he believes he has high morals and ethics. By supporting the R party he's getting rid of evil homosexual that's polluting America and such. So no, he's not a sociopath. He really believes in the righteous cause. \_ His stepfather, whom he considers his real father, is openly gay. Rove has never demonstrated an emotional reaction to any of the things that moral Republicans seem to object to. Also, sociopaths quite often describe themselves as highly moral or ethical people because they understand that other people seem to give them more if they do so. \_ I'm thinking "terrorist assassination attempt". For effect, Bush wrestles the guy to the ground shortly after his shirt is shredded by the guy's katana. Oh, did I mention the terrorist is also a ninja? Cuz he is. \_ A democratic rep will resign in disgrace after his emails and ims to a 16 year old male page are published, and the entire minority leadership who have been covering for him for years give up their leadership positions under massive pressure. Oh, wait... \_ Bombing Iran within five days of the election, combined with large-scale vote fraud. It'll work. \_ I predict that Karl Rove will admit that everything's his fault, that he was acting alone, and will then resign via a shotgun to the mouth. In mourning yet righteously angry at being deceived, Bush will sweep the GOP to victory by pulling out the troops. Oh, and NewsMax will feature a column by Rush on how nobody liked Rove anyway. \_ Bombing Iran within five days of the election, combined with large-scale vote fraud. It'll work. \_ Err...Watch the news much? \_ replace Condi with Baker as sec state? \_ They're going to use Fuax news to transmit Karl Rove's mind warping hypnotize beam to convince the entire country Mark Foley is really democrat. Foley is really democrat. It already worked to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. |
| 2006/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:44472 Activity:kinda low |
9/20 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2465303&page=3 "Brilliant. I think he did a good job as president ... Had a little problem with the fucking honesty deal. And that gave me pause. But his presidency was successful." -O'Reilly on Bill Clinton \_ The invisible hand needs to give O'Reilly a spanking. --the invisible hand \_ What the hell is the invisible hand and why is it post so much? \_ What the fucking hell is the invisible hand and why is it post so much? \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand Those who pursue their own selfish interests also promote the good of their community through a mechanism called "the invisible hand. For example, Enron execs and the War the fucking good of their community through a mechanism called "the invisible hand. For example, Enron execs and the fucking War in Iraq have helped countless individuals to become millionaires. The invisible hand theory is popular amongst free-market believers like the Reagan and amongst free-market believers like the fucking Reagan and Bush worshippers. \- see URL for berkeley connection to "rigorizing" the invisible hand: the fucking invisible hand: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/01/05_debreu.shtml \_ It's like a Swiss Army knife. It lest you make fun of the motd's wingnut libertarians, make random mastrubation references, and bizzare threats all at the same time! references, and bizzare threats all at the fucking same time! |
| 2006/8/17-23 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:44051 Activity:kinda low |
8/17 District Judge strikes down NSA eavesdropping program:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit
Order (and subsequent Notice of Appeal) can be found as:
/csua/tmp/NSA_Order.pdf
/csua/tmp/NSA_Appeal.pdf
\_ Ok, the clock's ticking...how long will it be until a prominent
Republican advocates killing judges again?
\_ Ok, it's been more than 24 hours. Who has said that?
\_ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26236-2005Apr4.html
As with Falwell's statements supporting the 9/11 terrorists,
there is weasel room, but it's clear where these people stand
if you take off you really listen to them. I'm guessing the
same tool who ends up responding to this post saying that
he's "not really justifying the murder of judges" will be one
of the tools who claimed that Falwell was not siding with
the terrorists after 9/11. People like you will end up
destroying this country if you are not stopped or don't
change.
\_ Ann Coulter, who else?
http://tinyurl.com/k3uwu
\_ She is an entertainer, not a prominent Republican.
Try naming a prominent Republican. It's been several
days now and the total is zero, of course.
\_ She is prominent in the sense that she stands out
because she is blonde, thin, and female, which is much
different than your typical fat, bald, ugly middle-aged
guys who make up the majority of the Republican
gene pool. -Michael Moore
\_ Michael Moore is a Republican? Go figure... I never
knew that.
\_ Mihael Moore isn't bald. But Rush Limbaugh is.
\_ Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, too. I'm
still waiting to see a prominent Republican
who called for death for this judge. it's
been several days now.
\_ you're mincing words. Ann Coulter is
both prominent and Republican. Which of
those words do you disagree with? -tom
\_ This is a sophomoric argument unworthy
of a Berkeley graduate. Any freshman
English major could tell you that words
formed into a phrase mean more than the
individual words apart. I'm not
mincing words, but you are trolling.
Go turn your degree back in at Sproul
or University Hall immediately.
\_ You are dismissing the fact that
the placement of aggressive
talking heads like Coulter and
Limbaugh on national media (billed
as commentators, not entertainers)
is part of a very intentional
conservative/Republican strategy.
-tom
\_ Who says they are commentators and
who placed them? Someone planted
RL at a small radio station almost
20 years ago planning for his take
over of conservative talk radio
today? I don't know how AC
describes herself but if you had
ever listened to the RL show you'd
know his byline is "here to educate
and entertain you", not "comment on
political stuff".
\_ Placing? No one "placed" either
of them. Now you're just being
ridiculous and conspiratorial.
\_ Read "Don't Think of an
Elephant." -tom
\_ He shoots! He misses!
You're a troll and a
conspiracy theory lunatic.
\_ tom's a lot of things, but
he's not a troll. big tip:
trolls don't sign their
names. better hunting
next time.
\_ signing doesn't save
one from being a troll
but ill just go with
conspiracy theory
lunatic since you're
ok with that.
\_ You know, it really
doesn't lend any
credibility to your
claims when you're
the one coming
off as a ranting
irrational lunatic.
irrational poster.
\_ If facts are
irrational then
so be it.
\_ Darn Al Qaeda activist judges who hate America?
\_ No judge (or judges) can stand in the way of the NSA defending
this country.
\_ Cuz that whole constitution thing is "quaint"
\_ What happened to the left's "living document" theory of the
Constitution? Or does that only apply when inventing new
rights or limiting others that the left likes?
\_ Welcome to a non-binary world, where we can have a
"living document" that changes to accommodate progress
while continuing to protect the citizenry from its rulers.
\_ All things in this world are limited, even the constitution.
\_ why do you hate america?
\_ America! FUCK YEAH!!! -T.E.A.M. America World Police
\_ what about executive privilege?
\_ Nah, that shit is unlimited. -George Fucking Bush
\_ Who will defend us from the defenders?
\_ Second Amendment, Defender of the Rest (seriously).
\_ You have to trust someone in order to live in society.
\_ Certainly, but that can still be a trust based on
supervision and accountability.
\_ I find your lack of faith ... disturbing -- Darth
Cheney
\_ Wrong Darth: link:csua.org/u/gpc
\_ Why does this Judge hate freedom?
\_ Because some things are worth fighting for. -William Wallace
\_ You mean LIKE FREEDOM?!?! -Mel Gibson #1 fan
\_ You mean like FREEDOM?!? -Mel Gibson #1 fan
\_ It doesn't matter. They're going to keep doing it no matter what
any court says. All hail King George! |
| 2006/8/6-10 [Consumer/Camera, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:43925 Activity:nil |
8/6 Blatantly doctored photo of Beirut on yahoo news:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060805/ids_photos_ts/r3101797657.jpg
\_ 404
\_ Hmm, they took it down. It was a Reuters photo, there are
small cropped versions here.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html
\_ Here's a link to the first draft: http://csua.org/u/gmj
\_ A detailed column about it: http://csua.org/u/gmk
\_ After this, Reuters is no longer accepting work from that
photographer. It's stupid, because the altered image actually
doesn't add anything besides looking fake:
\_ Reuters is no longer accepting work from that photographer.
It's stupid, because the altered image actually doesn't add
anything besides looking fake:
http://www.leftandright.us/index.php/site/reuters_faking_photos
\_ That is a totally bogus assertion. How dare you accuse someone
of doctoring, altering, or spinning something to further a
political agenda?!? -Michael Moore & Ann Coulter
\_ Of course there's no difference between two paid political
hacks making big bucks being annoying and a news service used
around the world that is supposed to have "journalistic
integrity", but I wouldn't expect a motd troll to "get" this.
\_ Oh, like when Michael Moore suggested that the best way to
deal with a conservative is with a baseball bat, or when
Michael Moore endoresed the assasination of public figures
he dissagreed with? Oh, wait, that never happened. I hate
Michael Moore, but you, sir, are a fucking idiot.
\_ What does MM have to do with Reuters spreading Hezbollah
propaganda verbatim? Nothing. I was going to ask wth
you're talking about but it really doesn't matter. Carry
on with your nuttitude.
\_ What is your definition of "spreading"? When is a full
retraction and apology enough?
\_ The same definition as everyone else uses. A full
retraction and apology is quaint and some what cute.
How about they stop serving up Hezbollah propaganda
as unvarnished truth and actually, ya know, maybe
investigate something and stop showing severe bias?
Then they'd have nothing to apologise for. Trust
is earned, not granted and they've blown it big
time on more than one occasion. |
| 2006/8/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Recreation/Celebrity/MarthaStewart] UID:43874 Activity:nil |
8/2 Why is FoxNews so obsessed about Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart?
Everytime I go to their site, articles of Jacko and Martha are in
proximity of their headline news. It's almost as if news about Jacko
is as important as our glorious war in Iraq.
\_ Because everyone loves a good freak show. -Jerry Springer |
| 2006/8/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:43866 Activity:nil |
8/2 Ann Coulter vs. Adolf Hitler, can you tell the difference?
http://www.giveupblog.com/hitlercoulterquiz.html
\_ This is not a fair comparison.
\_ I got 11 right.
\_ As much as I dislike Ann Coulter, this is pretty dumb.
\_ 10 right it was challenging
\_ Yeah, I did Ann, but not Adolf. -proud American
\- i got 13 of them ... it's really a matter of picking out the
hitler quotes ... he's probably a better writer :-).
speaking of "it sounds better in the original german" ...
http://www.cafepress.com/ipa_politics.14449333 |
| 2006/7/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:43785 Activity:nil |
7/24 Who Killed the Electric Car is a liberal propaganda, just like
most of the media out there. Boycott all liberal
propaganda now! -conservative
\_ Speaking of rabid right-wingers who didn't get enough approval from
their daddies, did anyone else catch the East Bay Express look at
Michael Savage, nee Weiner? Fascinating look at the development of
psychosis. --erikred
\_ Uh, that was a liberal playing at being what he thinks real
conservatives are like, like most of the motd 'conservatives'.
Welcome to the echo chamber.
\_ If you mean op, well, yes, no kidding, got it the first time.
If you mean Savage, the man's to the right of Limbaugh.
\_ Eh, Limbaugh is a Republican shill, Savage is a nut
case. I don't think they're really comparable on the
1-D right/left spectrum. -real conservative
\_ I'm note sure a 1-D right/left spectrum does anyone on
the spectrum any justice. The social/economic 2-D chart
seems a little more useful, but even that's limited.
\_ What would be the third "D"? Nutty-sane?
\_ How come conservatives get to have so many more
prominent windbags? You guys have Savage, Coulter,
Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. All we've got is
Michael Moore. Noam Chomsky doesn't count 'cause he's
just boring.
\_ Because the conservatives have a 40-year head start
on defining the terms of the debate. Read
"Don't Think Of An Elephant." -tom
\_ You meant to say, "spent 50 years as the minority
party so they had to think about what they were
doing wrong and change". Now the new minority
party needs to do the same. This has nothing to
do with word games and "the terms of the debate".
It has everything to do with core philosophy and
world view. You can't redefine away core beliefs.
\_ Have you read the book? It's about getting
your ideas out there, not about changing
words. -tom
\_ Yes, I mean op. Limbaugh is actually really dull. I'm not
sure why even people who agree with him listen. Savage is
funny as hell. He has a much better show. And make no
mistake, these are all 'shows' (Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity,
etc).
\_ Agreed on the show aspect. I've found O'Reilley to be
sharp, funny, and almost humble when interviewed on
The Daily Show.
\_ We must have watched a different Daily Show interview.
He started out polite for about 30 seconds, but rapidly
devolved into being a complete ass. (as in compared
to other guests who don't agree w/ Jon on various
issues)
\_ Wow, in this clip (http://csua.org/u/giu he's
just plain awful. I'll see if I can dig up an
older, more reasonable clip.
\_ Well, here he's a little more reasonable, but
only just: http://csua.org/u/gix
\_ Wow, thanks for pointing out the Savage article. I didn't know
he had a concealed carry permit. Guess I am glad I didn't slug
him when I saw him standing in front of 101 California. |
| 2006/7/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:43753 Activity:nil |
7/20 Can we arrest Ann Coulter already?
http://csua.org/u/gho
\_ obIfYouPayAttentionToAnnCoulterAnnCoulterWins
\_ Get a Dem elected Pres. and then get her to joke about that.
\_ That darned 1st amendment...
\_ Sure she can *say* the NYT is the devil, blah, blah, blah, but
intentionally setting off security measures by sending white
powder, just to be a bitch? That's gotta be worth a civil suit
at least, if nothing else to pay for wasted time. And with all
the anti-terrorism laws, it may even be worse.
\_ So, she was probably just "joking," but I have no
problem with her being brought in for questioning over
that sort of "joke." |
| 2006/7/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:43567 Activity:kinda low |
7/5 Coulter plaigiarizes, nobody cares
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001051.php
\_ http://www.nypost.com/photos/news07022006004a.jpg
Oh holy crap. I take it back when I said she was
"passably attractive" Eww. (Sorry, I'm a face man)
\_ Which has what to do with anything?
\_ I read the things she 'plaigiarized'. No one cares because that
doesn't fit the definition. But don't let facts get in your way.
\_ Coulter [anything], nobody cares. -John
\_ Her book sales dispute that.
\_ OK I'll rephrase, nobody who matters cares. -John
\_ Re-rephrased, "only people who think like me matter", but
I don't think you meant to say that.
\_ Straw man exposed and knocked down. Nobody with any
significant mental capacity for differentiated
and analytical political thought buys the kind of
claptrap she writes. Her political persuasion aside,
it's low quality pseudo-intellectual self-affirmation
for the "America, FUCK YEAH" NASCAR crowd. And maybe
you're right, I should have worded my point differently.
The mob of the lowest common denominator does matter.
I'll use "fucking morons" instead. -John |
| 2006/6/30-7/5 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:43543 Activity:low |
6/30 This photo of Ann Coulter was at the top of http://drudgereport.com today. link:tinyurl.com/h2hu7 (akamai.net) \_ It's funny how a woman that's passably (objectively) attractive can begin to look so foul just by reading what she's written and said. \_ Light is faster than sound. This is why some people appear brighter until you hear them speak.... \_ I've never understood why people think she is attractive. She just spends a lot of time on how she looks, that's way different from attractive. Almost anyone not ugly can spend too much time to look good for a camera. That's not beauty, that's craft. \_ She's thin and blond and reasonably photogenic. I think that's enough to qualify as "passably attractive" \_ She's not thin, she's bony. And her fact looks like a grinning skull. I still say if you met her in person you'd be amazed how much worse she looks. There is a ton of effort being made to make her look good on camera. \_ She's reasonably attractive in the candid photos of her, like the one of her at the softball game: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050425/gallery/index.html \_ She looks like a reasonably passable transexual: http://www.csua.org/u/gb6 \_ The woman's neither particularly attractive, nor is she ugly. The word is average, there are many others far nicer-looking than her, and not as ugly in their style and opinions. What's the fascination? -John \_ No doubt. There's so much to criticize about her. Why, then, do her critics focus so much on her (at least average if not better) looks? \_ what planet are you from? In our society, women are judged first on their looks, regardless of their talent or accomplishments. -tom \_ True in many cases, no doubt. However, in hers, I'm willing to discount this because it's pretty obvious that she wants to present herself as someone for freeper geeks to drool over (to compensate for her obvious deficits.) -John \_ Except that she actually looks fairly good and people want to insinuate that she looks like a man. This is a case of her politics actually influencing the perception of her appearance. I think she's offensive and not very bright, but she is physically reasonably attractive. Why not attack her politics if it's her politics that lead to assinine comments about her appearance? It's like saying that GWB looks ugly. It's neither accurate nor relevant. \_ Once again, what planet are you from? -tom \_ If she was judged first by her looks more people would probably like her. \_ Again: she's average (at best.) -John \_ Laura Ingraham >> ACOULTER ... although she looks sort of lesbo on her Iraq trip. |
| 2006/6/2-8 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:43261 Activity:low |
6/2 "O'REILLY: And in Malmedy, as you know, U.S. forces captured S.S.
forces, who had their hands in the air. And they were unarmed. And they
shot them down. You know that. That's on the record. Been documented."
... unfortunately, the Malmedy massacre was SS forces murdering 70+
U.S. soldiers told to stand in a field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malm%C3%A9dy_massacre
Clips of O'Reilly making this claim 8 months ago and again last week,
and his despicable response to a Fox viewer pointing out the error:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-OReilly-Malmedy.wmv
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-OReill.mov
Fox News rewrites the transcript (search for "documented"):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197635,00.html
\_ You can't blame O'Reilly for that. Sometimes he just forgets
which side he was on.
\_ So O'Reilly is a knuckle head. What about it?
\_ It's the solidness of the case. Basically he repeated something
verifiably wrong that had U.S. soldiers herding unarmed German
soldiers into a field and executing 70+ of them with automatic
fire, his response to the correction was disgraceful, and you
have black-and-white evidence http://foxnews.com is covering it up.
\_ Ok, so O'Reilly was wrong and covered it up although the
person below says it is uncovered now. Again, so what?
O'Reilly is a commentor and rabble rouser, not a news
reporter. He has no obligation to tell the truth or get
anything right. He is an entertainer. Were you equally
upset at Dan Rather's "false but accurate" statement or
was Dan ok because you wanted to believe the report despite
actively falsified evidence? I don't get where you're trying
to go with all this.
\_ Another conservative with disdain for the
"reality-based community." -tom
\_ Rush Limbaugh is the one who said he's an entertainer
\_ "I don't get where you're trying to go with all this."
Man, if that doesn't sum up willful ignorance, I don't
know what does. Nice attempt to work in a "Fair and
Balanced" attack tactic by bringing up Rather. Still,
no cookie.
\_ I'm not being willfully ignorant. You haven't addresed
anything I've said. The guy is an entertainer. He's a
clown, just like at Ringling. His job is to entertain
and collect advertising dollars. Why do you care if he
makes boneheaded or out right factually incorrect
statements? He isn't anyone of any importance. He is
nobody. A nothing. Zip. Nil. Nada. Clown. Zero.
\- should we take away the press passes of anybody
associated with oreily/fox news? should we remove
their right to have their sources protected?
[this is more food for thought than a reply ...
i think it's an interestign question why a "serious
blogger" might have less journalistic protection/
rights than a "journalist" from an "celebrity
tracking" show.
\_ O'Reilly? Sure take away the press pass. Fox?
No. They have a slant like all news orgs but
they're still a news org, like it or not.
\_ Look, O'Reilly is broadcast on FOX News.
If he is intended to be entertainment,
they shouldn't broadcast him on a news
station. Jon Stewart isn't on CNN. As
long as they present his program as a news
show, on a news network, he has a
responsibility. And even if he's only
entertainment, he has a human, moral
responsibility. -tom
\_ When Rupert Murdock started Fox News he
said he would revolutionize the format of
broadcast-- it was unnecessary to make a
clear distinction between news and
commentary.
\_ Small point, there is no journalistic shield law.
\- small point: there are by-state Journalist
Shield Laws. More than half the states have
something. Including CA. Clearly it's not an
absolute thing, like if testimony is needed
in somebody elses criminal trial etc.
in somebody elses criminal trial etc. BTW,
worth looking at the recent WENHOLEE case.
\_ Right. I should have said "federal JSL"
There is no "right" to protection of sources.
There is a tradition of journalists protecting
sources by facing the brunt of punishment
themselves
\_ I care because he's being packaged as news instead
of entertainment. The entertainment version of BOR
is Stephen Colbert.
\_ No sane person thinks hes a new guy. His show
isn't packaged like a news show. What about him
is packaged as news and not talking head?
\_ Hint: You don't have to be insane to be
uninformed.
\_ fyi, http://foxnews.com changed the transcript back as recently as an
hour ago, but I can tell you that the site most definitely had
the fake transcript up at noon. -op
\_ for completeness, U.S. soldiers did execute about 22-23 SS prisoners
in Belgium and not in Normandy, although the "hands in the air"
description is most often used for Malmedy. the person interviewed
described it as a matter of necessity, a stealthy night withdrawal
with three panzer divisions nearby.
http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=82142
here's a longer description of Malmedy, where it's also suggested
that killing the U.S. soldiers was a matter of necessity:
http://www.historynet.com/wwii/blmassacreatmalmedy
Unfortunately, I don't see how shooting kids in their PJs, etc.
was a matter of necessity. -op
\_ There's a massive difference between the massacre of POWs
("matter of necessity" is pretty fucking rich, "matter of
convenience" would be much more accurate here) by the
Waffen-SS at Malmedy and the execution of the German
captives of Operation Greif as spies (they were wearing U.S.
uniforms.) -John
\_ So, do you think we should be able to summarily execute
any Iraqi "insurgents" who dress up as police or
military? What about dressing as civilians?
\_ I'm not John, but yes. If they are out of uniform then
the Geneva Convention should not apply.
\_ http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/06/bill_oreilly_sc.html |
| 2006/5/30-6/3 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43221 Activity:nil |
5/30 Bush: World record perch catcher, liar, or really, really not the
kind of guy you want to go fishing with?
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/05/bush-tells-german-paper-he-caught.html
\_ Obviously, you don't realize that Bush cured blindness and
other things. People in certain parts of the country worship
him like the next Messiah.
http://www.buzzflash.com/mailbag/2002/11/14_Bush_Messiah.jpg
\_ Or option 4, something translated incorrectly from the original
report in German.
\_ Very plausible. The words for "bass" and "perch" are close
in German.
\_ queuing German John to confirm this.
\_ dumme scheishe, German John isn't a real German and his
German is probably not even that good.
\_ Erm, I have no clue, I prefer tuna. -John |
| 2006/5/28 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:43210 Activity:nil |
5/26 Look, Fox News finally got it right:
link:csua.org/u/g0r |
| 2006/5/14 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:43049 Activity:nil |
5/14 Check out the Adam's apple on that brownshirt:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605110016 |
| 2006/4/22-25 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:42804 Activity:nil Cat_by:auto |
4/22 More proof that Bush's special tax cut is stimulating the economy:
http://foxnews.smartmoney.com/smallbiz/inthetrenches
\_ Because clearly, Fox news is a more reliable source for economic
information than literally hundreds of respected economists both
in academic and practical roles who all agree the supply-side
economics was and is a complete and utter load of garbage.
jblack, seriously, were you dropped on your head as a baby? Does
it amuse you to troll the motd with badly sourced, badly reasoned
swill? Do you think you're convincing people to come around to
your point of view, if so do you have any evidence that this
approach is working? -dans
\_ Fuck you. If you had any knowledge of my mother's delivery
condition, you'd realize that's in remarkably poor taste.
\_ That's messed up, man. -irony guy
\_ WHoa whoa, easy on the meth!!! Take a chill pill. The guy
you're blaming on hasn't even been unsorried:
jblack:x:13096:100:Justin Black:/home/apollo/jblack:/csua/adm/bin/safesorry
You have a lot of anger. Are you still pissed at tom because
he made you look like a total idiot and a nut case? Has it
been embarrasing? What did the shrink say? Do tell.
\_ Do you appreciate the irony of tom making anyone look like an
idiot and a nutcase? -dans
\_ About as much as I appreciate the irony of you making
anyone seem well-adjusted and rational.
\_ Coming from a random anonymous troll who, odds are, has
probably never met me, that's pretty ridiculous. -dans
\_ s/foxnews/www/ ... happy now? It's not foxnews. The article
doesn't prove what op asserts anyways. Just that some people
have lots of money to blow. Which we knew anyways.
\_ Sometimes it helps to read an article before responding to
it.
\_ Agreed. dans' brain has been classified as: small
\- you must pay me 5 cents.
\- why? what is the ramification for not doing so? ok thx |
| 2006/4/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:42684 Activity:kinda low |
4/5 http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/chldprn/fladoyle32806cr2.html Dept of Homeland Security Deputy Press Secretary Brian J. Doyle charged with 23 felony counts involving Internet pr0n, Bill O'Reilly style telephone conversations with a detective posing as a 14-year-old girl. I knew I recognized his name from somewhere ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service \_ Remember, the reason that we need to stop bitching about all this Civil Liberties crap is because the people who work to protect our nation's security are 100% trustworthy! Checks and balances are for blocking Congress' power, not executive power. Oh, and atheists.. remember, they're neither citizens or patriots. \_ People who don't believe in fairy tales cannot be fully trusted. \_ Maybe you missed the core concept here: he got caught and busted not protected and excused. You want checks and balances, you got them. This guy is now in jail. What more could you want? I know ebing knee-jerk is more fun, but really. \_ And you miss his core concept. He's saying we _actually do_ have to worry about our civil liberties and abuses thereof is that people like this are in the machine. His argument is not with you. His argument is with the president and his "Trust me" argument. That this guy was caught doesn't make the system any more trustworthy. Funny fact: Do you know he's the third DHS employee in the last three months arrested for sex-with-children charges? \_ Oh no, I understood his point perfectly. You again miss mine. People are people. Any system will always have fuck heads like that guy in it. That's why we have other people looking for people like that and when they're found they get tossed in prison and never get put in any position of trust ever again. What system could you possibly create that wouldn't require some level of trust of the people who run it and would magically pre-filter fuck heads out before they commit a crime? In this case there was no victim because he was caught and filtered before he found a *real* 14 year old girl (as far as we know). And now he's a dead man and rightly so. The system worked. I see no problem here. \_ I, and the previous poster, are not saying "we need to/ can make the system trustworthy." We are speaking to the President's claim that his actions (warrantless wiretaps, extraordinary rendition, et.al.) are implicitly trustworthy. As you say, the system worked to catch this guy. What we're talking about are the systems that have recently been constructed that don't have the necessary checks. \_ you missed the big one: label someone as "enemy combatent" and lock them in torture chamber somewhere in Egypt/Pakistan and doesn't allow Red Cross to examine them :p \_ That's right every system will have fuckups and criminals and power hungry bastards which is why when Bush starts talking about the "unitary executive" and being able to ignore any law Congress passed because he's on a never-ending quest to rid the world of terra, and ignore any court oversight too, people start to worry about "the system" no longer policiing itself worry about "the system" no longer policing itself properly. |
| 2006/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42549 Activity:nil |
3/30 what do people think about the British memos supposedly
saying Bush/Blair were thinking of ways to fake cause
for invading Iraq in case we didn't find WMD quickly?
Excuse my poor English. I'm talking about these:
http://tinyurl.com/eabyg
I don't know where the original NY Times story is.
Just for laughs I looked around on Fox News . com for the story
but I can't find it.
\_ What?! Are you saying the NYT and Foxnews are the same since
neither has the story?
\_ No, not at all. I doubt it was ever on Fox News. Please
prove me wrong! The NY Times article is now behind
their paywall.
\_ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183689,00.html
I typed "blair memo" into their search engine. It was the
first link. You sure tried really hard, huh?
\_ I guess your brain uses different buckets for the
hashes, i didn't think of that since there seems to be
secret BLAIR memos coming out every other month.
anyway I don't want to imply Fox News is a bunch of
scum sucking administration sycophants. I am surprised
at the lack of public outcry. I know we've been
debating whether Bush made up shit when invading
Iraq but the memo seems pretty damning.
\_ Hey that is a DIFFERENT blair memo. See, a new
shocking one comes out all the time! Please read
the above urls again. My BLAIR memo has Bush
suggesting we paint a plane in UN colors so Saddam
would shoot at it and then we can invade in
retaliation.
\_ As I said before it was overwritten: it should be
no surprise that there are multiple memos on the
same topic between the leadership of two close
allies on an important issue.
\_ Well, Dubya doubted Blix would find the WMDs, but he was sure that
Saddam had them, so he attacked in March '03 to prevent Blix from
not finding them longer. |
| 2006/3/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:42427 Activity:high |
3/25 Vermont AP bureau chief abruptly fired for what appear to be overtly
political reasons: http://csua.org/u/fc2
This is hands down one of the most chilling pieces of news I've seen
in a long time. I originally found about this from Dan Gillmor's blog:
http://bayosphere.com/node/1877
Gillmor is a highly respected journalist who left the San Jose Mercury
News to make the ideals of Citizen Journalism he laid out in his book,
"We The Media," a reality. I consider Gillmor to be a very reliable
source. -dans
\_ Uh... no. AP chief fired for reasons currently only known to
AP and him. You may trust Gillmor but he's only able to quote
unnamed 'sources'. Public statements from professional journalists
should maintain a higher standard than we do on the motd. For all
you know he got fired for pissing in someone's morning coffee. You
don't have any information beyond third+ hand rumor and suspician.
\_ What part of ``appear to be'' don't you understand? English,
motherfucker, do you speak it? Can you read it? -dans
\_ So what? He got fired. Big deal. There are thousands of journalism
majors currently working at your local Starbucks who can take his
place.
\_ Preprending "appears to be" isn't sufficient cover for the
next line, "This is hands down one of the most chilling
pieces of news I've seen in a long time" which makes it
clear this isn't an "appears to be" to you but you're taking
as fact and expect the rest of us to take as fact as well.
Just an FYI, take it as you will, "English, motherfucker, do
you speak it?" as a response makes you look like a ranting
moronic junior highschool level child. It adds nothing to
the conversation. It doesn't score you any points. It's a
complete waste of bits at best. And it never brings the
level discourse *up*. We can all go to various http://myspace.com
quality communities and message boards if we want that level
of discussion.
\_ Seriously, your comments indicate that you have the
reading comprehension skills of a fourth grader. When I
write, ``This is hands down one of the most chilling
pieces of news I've seen in a long time,'' the use of the
personal pronoun `I' indicates that the statement is *my*
opinion, and *not* a statement of fact. You clearly don't
understand this. Clearly, you cannot read English well.
In order to help you, I found this helpful workshop
provided by the BBC to educate you on personal pronouns:
http://csua.org/u/fc4
Furthermore, I signed every post I made to this thread
showing that I stand behind my words. You don't. You can
call my comment mean and nasty, but you can't call it
childish. Childish is throwing an anonymous temper
tantrum when someone forcefully points out that your
previous anonymous post shows poor reading comprehension
skills. This is the motd. Nobody put a gun to your head
and forced you to respond to my post. If you don't want
to be criticized, either don't post, or write your posts
and argue your points so well that there's nothing to
criticize.
P.S. When did we elect your anonymous ass to the position
of Arbiter of MOTD Behavior? I missed that vote.
-dans
\_ So what? Newspapers are a business. Business make decisions.
Sometimes the decisions are based on politics. That is the
way the world works. Besides, its not like there is anything
worth reading in a newspaper besides the comics and Fry's ads.
\_ This so has to be a troll. I cannot believe anyone is this
stupid. ilyas, is that you? No, can't be ilyas, no talk of
sentient stars. -dans
\_ Well, its only 1/2 a troll. I only look at two things in
the newspaper, the Fry's ad and the comics. Some days I
even skip the comics (other than Fox Trot, its not like
any of the comics can really compete w/ Penny Arcade).
\_ Coool! -dans |
| 2006/3/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:42420 Activity:nil |
3/24 Ann Coulter mouse pad:
http://home.comcast.net/~bernievision/Coulter_Mouse_pad.jpg
\_ Her nuts look kind of weird. |
| 2006/3/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Recreation/Travel] UID:42403 Activity:low |
3/24 http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0322061cheney1.html \_ his requests are quite modest, no? the requirement for TV tuned to fox news is very funny :p |
| 2006/3/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42392 Activity:very high |
3/22 Leaders of the muslim faith
"Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside
Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces
so there's nothing left."
\_ Link?
\_ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188903,00.html
\_ No, no, CREDIBLE link.
\_ quotes are always credible regardless of source
\_ Au Contraire, Mon Frere! The NYT is an excellent example
of a place that not only gets quotes wrong but gets the
most basic story points and often the entire story wrong.
Foxnews doesn't have nearly as poor a record of this as
the NYT but they're still just people. However in this
case I don't find the quotes out of character with other
things we know.
\_ I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people
in this world would say that NYT is one of the most
respected news organizations in the world. Only
right wing political freaks would dare to discredit
that. You want to say Fox News is more respected than
NYT? Try passing that by the typical educated
American.
\_ The pp didn't say it wasn't respected. He
criticized their accuracy. cf the recent Saturday-
edition retraction about their identification of
"the man in the hood" in Abu Ghraib.
\_ This isn't an opinion poll world wide about news
quality. It is a fact that the NYT has a really
poor track record for several years now (that we
know of). Respect and opinion has nothing to do
with it. You want to say that the NYT has a great
track record for fact checking? Try passing that
by the typical educated American. Call me whatever
names you'd like. That doesn't change the facts.
When you're doing nwes and claim to be "all the
news thats fits to print" you damned well better
get it right, especially when you're doing hit
pieces. Anything less leaves you open to valid
criticism for being a propaganda organ instead of
a news organisation. -pp
\_ So are you simply referring to the Jayson Blair
scandal? Or do you take equal issue with their
blatant pimping of the Whitewater "story,"
their huge flubs on WMD reporting, and the
whole mess they've gotten themselves in over
Plamegate? Or is inaccuracy in reporting only
bad when it's against conservatives?
\_ At what point did you decide what my politics
are? The fact is the NYT has a really shitty
record re: accuracy in reporting the last
several years. I could be anything from
ultra liberal to arch conservative and the
facts would remain unchanged. I am not a
part of the facts. I merely state the
publicly known. I note you haven't yet
actually addressed my point which is that the
NYT's accuracy is in the toilet. Thanks.
\_ It's pretty obvious that if you're
criticizing the NYT over Fox News, we
can safely assume where your political
leanings are. Fox News makes no attempt
\_ No you can safely assume that I was
on topic with the thread noting that
the NYT has a bad track record for
accuracy and that at least in this
case, we have no reason not to believe
the foxnews quotes were anything but
genuine. Anything more is just your
personal bias coloring the situation.
Not everyone here has a political axe
to grind. Some of us actually care
about the truth and more to the point
are sickened by hypocrites at places
like the NYTimes. At least fox doesn't
pretend to be much more than op/ed
with a wink to objective news. Quite
the contrary, anyone defending the
integrity of the times is much more
likely to be the one unable to see the
truth. The NYT has no integrity. And
while we're here, why would you assume
that only a conservative would attack
the NYT? Could it be because the NYT
has shown over and over that they can't
report anything like objective truth
without inserting their agenda? Even
if they were able to do so, they still
continue to screw up like a bunch of
Daily Cal quality amateurs pretending
to be journalists. When it is hard to
tell the difference between the op/ed
page and the news pages, all is lost.
\_ In case, you've forgotten,
journalism has always had its
roots in placing checks on
government. "muckraking",
"investigative journalism" are all
aimed at bringing out the truth, and
obviously our current president
has a problem with the idea of truth
and likes to bend it.
And really...
you dont think NYT was there
covering Clinton and his scandals?
\_ I'm ok with muckraking. In fact,
I love muckraking. I can't
stand hypocritical self
righteous and *inaccurate*
muckraking. If the NYT got it
right I'd be their biggest
supporter and renew my daily sub.
\_ What grievous errors did they
commit (and not correct) that
you just can't forgive?
I suspect "getting it right"
may mean "supplying the facts
I like".
\_ You'd suspect wrong. They
'correct', sure, after
being busted by someone
else and dragging it out
and doing a page 18 mini
blurb hidden behind the
ad for shoe deodorant.
\_ You didn't answer
my question. I continue
suspecting...
\_ Answered your
question. It is the fact that they never fess up to anything until
someone else busts them on it and then the correction is grudging, duh.
Suspect all you want, you have yet to do anything but attack my
integrity when the NYT's is a matter of public record. This is the
exact issue we're been discussing but on a micro level. Instead of
looking at the NYT's facts, you have decided you like the NYT's
message so it's ok they're a bunch of wankers. You don't like my
pointing out their flaws so I become the one with flaws. I'm sorry
the NYTs has a long public track record of screwing up and only
correcting or retracting after being forced into it (a la Dan and
the "forged but accurate Bush papers") and you consider that ok.
Where as you don't like the Fox op/ed slant on the world, therefore
anything they say is automatically bad for you yet you are unable
to provide an example of them screwing anything up. It is your own
suspicians and bias that colors the truth and prevents you from seeing
the reality of the situation. Go ahead and have another shot at my
character without responding to my core point and then we can stop.
I've tried to take you seriously but you refuse to respond in kind.
\_ I asked you for examples. You should be able to come up with
at least one. You haven't "pointed out flaws". You've made a
claim. You haven't backed up that claim.
\_ From Jason B. to WMD coverage to falsely identifying the Abu
photo victim to the one they had a few days after that fuckup
and a few others along the way. I'm not going to prove the
sky is blue, I don't have to but there's 3 specific and 1 more
from a few days ago I can't recall the details of. NYT = teh
suk. Thanks for the chat but I'm now really truly done here.
I'm going to delete this whole thing later today to save
precious bits if someone else doesn't first.
to hide that they are a right wing
organization and are headed by one of
Bush's distant relatives, if I remember
correctly. NYT, and other news
organizations like CNN, at least try to
apply the traditional news models of
being unbiased. So if you want to talk
about being a "propaganda organ", you're
looking in the wrong direction.
As for accuracy, NYT at least tries for
it, and admits wrong when its news isn't.
I have never seen Fox News do that,
but that's prob because Fox News gives
mostly opinion pieces anyway.
\_ "we cannot find security." GWB, SotU.
\_ Hey, a real martyr in the Christian tradition.
\_ I like how the cleric calling for the execution of the Christian,
no matter if he's labelled "insane" or not, is labeled "a moderate".
no matter if he's declared "insane" or not, is labeled "a moderate".
What, you don't believe in OUR invisible all powerful deity? You
must be insane!
\_ This illustrates a point made in "The End of Faith", namely that
religious moderates provide "cover" for religious extremism...
even across faiths. Do you think Bush is going to say "you
shouldn't use religion/holy texts to guide your courts"? Of
course not. But he should.
\_ Which is why we'll never win the war against islamist
extremists as long as those fuckers are in the white house.
This global conflict centers on the two things this
administration is more incapable of speaking truthfully about
than anything: religion and oil.
\_ What's the truth about oil?
\_ That 1) the peak in production is imminent (might
be now, prob right around 2010, 2020 if we're
insanely lucky) and that 2) this fact is the main
driver behind our foreign policy, for example,
invading Iraq.
\_ I'm actually reading the book right now. It has some good
points but also long rambles about ethics. |
| 2006/3/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:42258 Activity:kinda low |
3/15 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597017/posts Freepers respond to news regarding death threats to SCOTUS judges Ginsburg and O'Connor \_ And once again the conservatives on the motd are quiet. \_ of course they are. They're too busy reproducing more babies and home schooling their children so that they'd be exposed to the right teaching instead of libural's lefty edukashun. \_ Some of us cannot understand the motivations of the wakkos who would threaten the life of a judge, esp. a USSC justice. Only thugs and criminals would do this. BTW, I can't understand the whole thing about referring to foreign cases being bad: I mean CJ Marshall used to refer to KB/QB cases frequently. foreign cases being bad: CJ Marshall used to refer to KB/QB cases. \_ I thought Justice Kennedy was Mr Foreign Case dude? Unless that's in the Freeper page. I don't equate rational conservatives with freerepublic so I'm not reading the URL, they all live in a trailer park in the Salton Sea or some other horrible place and need somewhere to vent. rational conservatives with freerepublic so I'm not reading the URL, they all live in a trailer park in the Salton Sea or some other horrible place and need somewhere to vent. \_ O'Connor, Ginsburg and Kennedy have all written opinions where they cite to foreign decisions that are in accord on a particular issue. Against my better judgment I read the URL and it had something about citing foreign cases as on reason to kill these justices. |
| 2006/3/8 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42139 Activity:nil |
3/8 Stupid political trolls deleted. Bush=idiot. We're mostly liberal
on motd anyways and we get the message already. Please take the
same message to freeper and newsmax and similar trash sites. Thanks. |
| 2006/3/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42083 Activity:high |
3/2 Recent news articles show that income decreased for average
Americans, +$1mil home sales surged by 24% from 2004 to 2005,
home school trend is going up up and up, 2 newly appointed
conservatives, Patriot Act nenewal, Fox News rating going up,
Free Republic & National Review subscription going waaaay up, etc.
It appears that conservatism is stronger than ever, despite all
the distractions from Iraq, Katrina, Enron, Cheney. So I'm
curious. Besides whining, what are you liberals gonna do
about it? -liberal troll
\_ Buying remote land and the needed supplies to get off the grid.
\_ I'm not sure that all the things you cite really add up to much
besides trolling.
\_ Is this graph going up or down?
link:csua.org/u/f4y [alexa.com]
\_ I wouldn't base anything on alexa's information
link:csua.org/u/f4y
http://csua.org/u/f4z
Fox News continues to slide.
Bush at 34% approval.
I could go on, but I won't.
\_ YOUR own little liberal world is the internet. But you're
forgetting the sales of Bible and the CB radio (internet
for the Red State folks who can't afford computers), both
are going way up. Face it, conservatism and hickism are growing.
\_ Off your meds again today? Watch out for those black
helicopters.
\_ Hey! That's someone else!
\_ Don't Black Helicopters pollute the air and require
oil subsidies and where people who shouldn't be allowed
to drive a big wheel tailgate in the right airlane get
Black Helicopter Driving licencses? RAWR!! HELICOPTER
CULTURE!!! RAAAWWWRRRR!!!!1!!!one FUCK YOU!11!!!
\_ Nope. Sorry. Not going to bite today. I am pretty
much at peace with the world. If it makes you feel
any better, you can read my flying car rant from the
motd archives:
http://www.csua.net/~kchang/motd/?entry=38770
\_ I see you might have gotten the dosage correct
today. My, my the wonders never cease....
much at peace with the world. |
| 2006/2/15 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41874 Activity:nil |
2/15 Ann Coulter, felon
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/celebrities/content/local_news/epaper/2006/02/15/a2a_josecol_0215.html |
| 2006/2/15 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41867 Activity:low |
2/15 Cheney (finally) takes responsibility:
http://csua.org/u/ezl (sfgate.com)
"You can talk about all of the other conditions that exist at the time
but that's the bottom line and . it was not Harry's fault," he said.
"You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and
shot my friend."
\_ How ironic that he would only talk to Brit Hume.
\_ why is that ironic? Brit is straightforward, honest looking,
and above all, handsome. He is a gent and appeals to a lot
of people in the midwest/south who relate to him well. Do
you rather want to see squirly looking Alan Colme?
\_ Alanis Morissette, is that you? How is it ironic?
\_ He made his big apology to the one high profile journalist
guaranteed not to ask him any tough questions. He might as
well have gone on Larry King. It's an "accountability moment"
with no accountability.
\_ That's not ironic at all.
\_ Not ironic, but it certainly further cements Fox's rep as
the Administrations Press Corps.
\_ That's a wee bit much. Hume is conservative personally,
but will criticize the administration. Is Jon Stewart
the official DNC press?
\_ Oh please. Show us an example of ol' Brit
criticizing the administration. |
| 2006/2/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41864 Activity:nil |
2/15 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060214/ap_en_tv/tv_cheney_jokes Dick Cheney jokes. Look at the sources. This is more proof all media source except Fox News are filled with liberal trash. Everything except Fox is unfair and unbalanced. \_ Whoa. Comedians tell jokes?! SHIT! What'll we tell the CHILDREN?! Actually, comparing fox "news" with a late night talk show seems almost fitting. \_ I'm pretty sure Jon Stewart would have laughed just as hard at Gore shooting someone. "Robot now armed!" \_ Yeah, no one ever made jokes about Clinton. |
| 2006/2/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41863 Activity:low |
2/15 Ann Coulter, felon
http://csua.org/u/ezo (Palm Beach Post, url shortened to appease
self-important person below)
\_ First they came for the overly-long urls, and I didn't speak
up, because I wasn't posting overly-long urls. Then they came
for the yermom jokes...
\_ The convention of shortening URLs benefits everybody.
You spend and extra 3 units of energy to shorten and in
turn 10 people save 2. That's the same reason you should
add a substantive comment to your URL rather than a naked
URL or a "comment" like "cool" or "heh" or "check it out".
\_ Just letting it go beyond 80 is fine for most people. How many
people are honestly stuck with only 80 columns? (and how many
of those are actually copying and pasting the links?) I don't
mind formatting posts in general but for urls, maybe those who
who have a problem can do that work, or feel free to ignore.
\_ It's not about being 'stuck' with 80 columns. That's
the standard. You could write your sentences right to left,
too, and still be understood, but most people would be
annoyed with that.
you don't ,dude _/
!me oppress |
| 2006/2/14 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41843 Activity:high |
2/14 Boredcast Message from 'danh': Tue Feb 14 09:46:50 2006
I would so love to butt fuck her until she collapses into a puddle of
incoherent mush. what is it about ann coulter that elicits a desire
for ANAL sex over other kinds of sex? does she exude ass-hunger?
\_ No danh, it means you're a rapist.
\_ You realize he's quoting someone else, right?
\_ Is that you, ilyas? Anyway, he didn't say anything about it
being non-consensual.
\_ It's because she's a transvestite.
\_ She doesn't eat enough fiber.
\_ She's already a pile of incoherent mush. |
| 2006/2/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41644 Activity:nil |
2/1 Yes, we can all read the foxnews link below.
[Random drivel nuked]
\_ who is jblack #1 fan? |
| 2006/1/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41566 Activity:low |
1/27 Coulter Jokes About Poisoning Justice
http://csua.org/u/est (sfgate.com)
\_ feels similar to a muslim cleric who claims islam is peaceful
yet calls for jihad against America |
| 2006/1/16-18 [Reference/Celebration, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41393 Activity:nil |
1/16 "AP Poll: Blacks Likelier to Celebrate MLK"
http://csua.org/u/emy (Yahoo! News)
Excuse me. We need a poll to know this?
Tomorrow's AP headline:
"AP Poll: People likelier to wear thick clothing during winter"
\_ Define "celebrate". Do they put up a tree?
\_ "Jews more likely to celebrate Yom Kippur"
\_ "Muslims more likely to celebrate Ramadan"
\_ "Catholics more likely to feel guilty"
\_ "Geeks more likely to do geeky things"
\_ "AP most likely to put out stupid polls"
\_ "Fox News run by twatfaces"
\_ Real Daily Cal headline "scientist studies universe"
\_ no. it's "multiverse".. ask jet li |
| 2006/1/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41247 Activity:nil |
1/5 http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/05.html#a6586 Former National Mine Academy director blames Bush administration's lax policy on mine safety (leading to failure to close mine) for men's deaths "Hannity: You want to turn this into a political thing ... Spadaro: No, I'm telling you what the truth is." \_ We don't want to play the "blame game". Let's move forward! \_ I thought we established that the miners died because Sharon divided God's land? Was it something else? \_ Let's move forward also means "let's make all the regulations strictly voluntary because corporations always do the right thing" |
| 2006/1/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41245 Activity:kinda low |
1/5 BTW, the O'Reilly vs. Krugman exchange did happen on Russert's show. A
conservative's analysis is that O'Reilly proved Krugman to be the liar.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200408090930.asp
Full transcript of the exchange can be found:
http://pkarchive.org/economy/TimRussert080704.html
\_ Donald Luskin is not a useful data point on anything.
\_ When I read it and the full transcript, his comments appeared to
be on target. So actually he is. And you're simply wrong.
\_ Bob Somerby's breakdown: http://dailyhowler.com/dh081004.shtml
Luskin only makes sense if you think O'Reilly is an honest
debater/knows what he's talking about.
\_ And here I thought we're keeping an open mind about things.
\_ About ideas. Not liars.
\_ It depends on what the meaning of "disastrous" is
\_ I don't get his logic.
O'Reilley says "Krugman said X in this book"
Krugman says "I never said X in the book"
This article then digs up a New York Times column where Krugman
says X. Um, weren't we talking about a book here? What does this
prove exactly?
\_ It depends on what the meaning of X is.
\_ No it doesn't at all. If I say "I never said X in this
book I wrote" it's not the same as saying "I never said X"
\_ Okay, please identify what X is.
\_ IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT X IS.
\_ unless, of course, in your "I don't get his
logic" post, you have incorrectly used X, X,
X, when it's really something like X, X, Y; or,
if you really wanted to get into it, the whole
exchange probably involves about 4-6 letters.
\_ Whether X matters depends on whether you care
about substance or form. Let's try an
example. Let's say Bush says in a radio address,
"I lied when I said I had intelligence about WMD
in Iraq." Later, Kerry says, "Bush said in a
televised address he lied when he said he had
intelligence about WMD in Iraq". Now, the Bush
supporters might say Kerry was wrong, and they
would be right, since Kerry said televised
address instead of radio. But most people might
think that the mistake is trivial, and it's the
content of Bush's address that is of substance.
Who you think is wrong probably says more about
your politics than about the discussion.
\_ Normal people would say Kerry mispoke, he
meant radio address, but otherwise, yes,
Dubya did say he lied.
The example does not fit the Krugman-O'Reilly
exchange, though.
\_ Perhaps this says more about your politics
than about the discussion. Screw where
Krugman said it, but what is X?
exchange, though. This is the exchange:
O'Reilly: You said X.
Krugman: I did not say X.
O'Reilly: You said Y.
Krugman: "Nope." (probably on Y, but maybe
X or some mishmash of the two)
Luskin shows evidence that Krugman wrote Y in
a column, when Krugman really wrote Z.
X = deeper recession
Y = disastrous for the economy
Z = a major drag on the economy
It matters not whether it's a newspaper column
or book, because, like I said, normal people
don't care.
\_ Now, this is a different description than
was given above (you introduced Z, which
is new). To keep using your variables,
it seems that Y > X ~> Z. Without exact
quotes, I think it would be hard for me
to figure out how how similar X is to Z.
Do you have the exact quotes wrt X and Z?
\_ Thanks for Z. Do you have X too?
\_ hey you two, rtfurl.
\_ To find X, integrate Z wrt Y.
\_ Actually Z was: "Aside from their cruelty
and their adverse effect on the quality of
life, these cuts will be a major drag on
the national economy... it's clear that the
administration's tax-cut obsession isn't
just busting the budget; it's also
indirectly destroying jobs by preventing
any rational response to a weak economy."
\_ yeah, the last part of Z about the
destroying jobs does match with what
Krugman was saying to O'Reilly:
destroying jobs, not having "disastrous"
effects or causing a "deeper recession"
\_ yeah, the last part of Z does match
with what Krugman was saying to
O'Reilly: destroying jobs, not having
"disastrous" effects or causing a
"deeper recession"
My conclusion: Krugman was right.
O'Reilly and Donald Luskin are both
wrong. See X, Y, Z above.
\_ From the Somerby URL: why does this sound like soda motd?
"O'REILLY: Hey, Mr. Propaganda, you ought to take and do your own
research, pal, and stop taking the left-wing garbage and throwing it
out there for the folks.
KRUGMAN: What have I said that's false?
O'REILLY: Do your own research!
KRUGMAN: Come on."
\_ Why does all this seem to me, as a person who is really neither
involved nor interested, as really fucking petty and irrelevant?
Somehow the phrase "get a life" springs to mind." -John |
| 2006/1/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41233 Activity:moderate |
1/4 Full of crap? http://mediamatters.org/items/200601040009 We report, you decide. \_ Well, he was right about the nativity thing, so that makes him about 50% full of crap. \_ "Right"... He pulled a report from the echo chamber. Note that the other stories in the wapo article took a similar route. \_ The unfortunate part is that 50% hit is probably pretty good for talking heads. \_ "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Just for the sake of full disclosure, of course. Which by the raises an interesting question in my mind. Would we be just as receptive to quotes from a conservative research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting liberal misinformation in the U.S. media? Moot question in this case, of course. \_ Um.. heard of http://factcheck.org? \_ http://Factcheck.org isn't conservative. Now, Media Research Center is. \_ Media Research Center doesn't "analyze and correct". It just says "look at what they say! bias bias bias!". MediaMatters does some of this, but is closer to factcheck than mediaresearch is. \_ The spin and media control exhibited by the Dubya administration dwarfs that of any past presidential administration.</opinion> \_ I always wonder when people say stuff like this (not re Bush specifically, but any statement of the form "the mostest ever") what their qualifications are, and, if they actually considered their qualifications, whether they would still make the same unqualified comments. \_ bush is the worst president ever \_ I always wonder, when someone attacks an individual making a statement, whether they personally think the statement itself is accurate or not. \_ I wouldn't know. I haven't made a study of historical presidential control of media. I would have said "an incredible amount of" or maybe qualified it with "that I've known". That's all highly defendable. But "dwarfs that of any past"? That seems to require a lot more study and thought. So would you tell us how you reached the "dwarfs that of any past" conclusion? That begs for a run down of each past president's relation with the media. Care to start with Gorgeous George and work your way down? \_ So, all in all, if we weren't talking on soda and you were talking with a good friend of yours who wanted your honest opinion, would you say the original statement was accurate or not? If not, how would you qualify it? \_ "I wouldn't know. I haven't made a study of historical presidential control of media". I think also said how I would have qualified it. If you can back up your claim facutally, I would love for you to share your findings with us, starting with Georgie Porgie. \_ Let's say your good friend then asks you, knowing what you know, or perhaps your gut feeling, what's your impression or opinion then? \_ "I wouldn't know. I haven't made a study of historical presidential control of media". I don't do ungrounded hyperbole. I take it that you don't have any factual basis, and your claim is in fact ungrounded hyperbole? of historical presidential control of media". I don't do ungrounded hyperbole. I take it that you don't have any factual basis, and your claim is in fact ungrounded hyperbole? \_ Your friend says, "C'mon ... you don't have any opinion? It's not like you're submitting an article to a scientific journal." \_ I'd tell him he's wasting my time. I'd also say that if we were more worried about the truthfulness of our statements and less about hyperbole, perhaps our civic discourse would be more productive and civil. \_ Fair enough. I respect that viewpoint. that I've looked at". I certainly would never say "dwarfs that of any past". would be more product and civil, which would be nice. \_ Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and countless others have been screaming bloody murder about the "liberal media" for decades now. Not to mention the numerous conservative non-profits like the Hoover Institute, The Scaife Foundation and the Cato Institute. The Cons have been playing the refs for years, it is past time liberals started doing some of the same. \_ "Peabody, Pea Soup, Peanuts-- they're all prestigiou awards." -BO'R \_ "Peabody, Polk, what's the difference?" -BO'R |
| 2006/1/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41231 Activity:moderate |
1/4 Holy crap. I never knew Letterman was such a tool. O'Reilly's a jerk,
but Dave just dismisses fact with "I don't believe you". Nice
interview Dave.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/04.html#a6571
\_ You're confusing "fact" with "editorializing"
\_ No, when Letterman said "I don't believe you" O'Reilly had just
noted examples where Christmas imagery, etc. was censored. Those
were facts reported in the AP, etc.
\_ Sorry, I hadn't watched the whole segment. I didn't realize
"I don't believe you" was a direct quote from another part
of the interview. But still, you think this shows letterman
as a tool? To me it shows he's a busy comedian without enough
time to have read and fact-check O'Reilly's entire list of
"proof" of a war on Christmas. If he was sent the story,
I'm sure his reaction would be the same as mine: "Well, that's
silly.. But really, war on christmas?"
b.t.w., A few of O'Reilly's (and others') facts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901802.html
http://tinyurl.com/cu6lo (washingtonpost.com)
\_ O'Reilly didn't say there was a war on Christmas. -emarkp
\_ Not in the interview, but that's been his line for the
last two months. Ergo the "how have your holidays been"
line getting a laugh.
\_ I haven't watched his show for quite a while.
However, what he said on Letterman's show was:
"There is a movement by politically correct people to
erode traditions. And this Christmas tradition is
the most cherished in the country." -emarkp
\_ Before you added this URL (shorten it please) I added the
one below that also debunked the "silent night" claim.
Also, while your link criticizes O'Reilly's statement about
red/green on his show, he corrected himself on Letterman's
show. -emarkp
\_ You gotta love "60% of what you say is crap." That sounds
like about the right ratio to me.
\_ Never watched O'Reilly myself, since I gather it's mostly
crap. But does anyone here actually watch enough O'Reilly
to know it's mostly crap, or is this just some urban
legend?
\_ Yes, I watched O'Reilly. It's mostly crap.
\_ Would you say the Letterman interview is
representative of O'Reilly crap, or is O'Reilly's
show worse (normalizing for the length of the
interview vs. the show, of course)?
\_ Let me give you my definition of O'Reilly crap:
O'Reilly summons dumb liberals to his show and
beats the crap out of them. Usually with facts.
\_ So he picks low-hanging fruit and it's not
fair? That isn't quite the same thing as
crap.
\_ It is to me. Krugman v. O'Reilly is better,
and the show would be less crappier if he
took on as many people like that as
"low-hanging fruit".
Otherwise it's like the Jerry Springer
show for the college-educated (and less
the near-physical confrontations).
\_ I have yet to see /any/ liberal on these
shows discuss facts. Including Krugman.
\_ Cf. Get smart moderates/libs on the
show. Also, Krugman wasn't on
O'Reilly as far as I know; they were
on Russert's show.
\_ Is "fair" interviewee ~= O'Reilly,
or interviewee > O'Reilly, or
interviewee = smart?
\_ What makes you think Krugman v. O'Reilly
is fair? We need a handicapping system
like horse racing or golf.
\_ O'Reilly used to be interesting, but he's now all about the
cult of O'Reilly. And he's a scumbag (the sexual
harassment case). But the things he claimed in this
interview as facts were solid. And Letterman blew it off,
unable to make a coherent point. [Addendum--looks like the
"silent night" lyrics issue is not what some conservatives
have said it is. http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=1387602]
-emarkp
\_ Letterman's a comedian. If he were a news analyst by
profession, you might have a point.
\_ Then maybe he should shut his pie hole or if he's
going to be a jerk to his guests he shouldn't invite
them on. -emarkp
\_ Not exactly AP, but I believe it happened, and the library
people allowed Baby Jesus, et al. back in the nativity scene
a day after the first http://worldnetdaily.com article.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47767
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47788
\_ I don't find an AP article on the manger scene, but there
are plenty of reputable sources with the story. See
http://csua.org/u/ehw for some.
\_ Local paper, Local TV, and Washington Times.
I agree that this nativity thing happened, as
characterized.
\_ I really dislike O'Reilly, but Letterman seriously screwed up
that interview. O`Reilly comes off as likeable and honest, and
Letterman comes off as an ignorant tool. That's pathetic.
\_ I don't know. O'Reilly always comes off as seriously misguided
and fooling himself, to me. Letterman comes off spot on
intuition wise, if not fact wise. (Yes, I acknolwedge it is
lame to not have facts.)
\_ I would guess that's only because you agree with
Letterman. Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone
who is not familiar with O'Reilly. (If such a person
exists) To paraphrase Letterman, "I'm not smart enough
to know the facts, and I've never seen your show, and I'm
not familiar with the subject we're talking about, but
you're wrong." WTF?
\_ Yes, I agree that Letterman screwed the pooch for
uninformed viewers who don't know who O'Reilly is and
are inclined to believe there is a war on Christmas.
viewers who aren't familiar with O'Reilly and who are
inclined to believe there is a war on Christmas.
\_ ...in other words, the sort of folk likely to tune in
to O'Reilly in the first place. Unless, of course,
they're turned off by his brusque shouting on a
comedy show? |
| 2006/1/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41198 Activity:very high |
1/2 It'€™s the demography, stupid.
http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/its-the-demography
\_ Wow, what in inchoerent racist screed. I salute you sir.
\_ What's racist and/or incoherent about it? Did you have
difficulty understanding it?
\_ Just off the top of my head, the equation of Western genes
with Western culture. --!pp
\_ Except it doesn't do that.
\_ Just pulling something out at random: "Radical Islam is what
multiculturalism has been waiting for all along." It reads
like Ann Coulter or Joseph McCarthy, but less coherent. --!pp
\_ You haven't answered my question. And what is wrong with
that sentence? You seem incapable of formulating an
explanation of your ideas.
\_ Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that
you're not just trolling. Probably a bad assumption,
but anyway...an example of an equally specious argument
from the other side of the political spectrum would be
something like, "Abortion clinic bombings are what
Christians are all about." Even that doesn't really
do it justice, since at least in that case some of
the bombers were (nominally at least) Christian.
[I said something much more imflammatory after this
in response to your last sentence, but then I realized
that was a bad idea and self-censored. ok tnx]
\_ You're not really doing a good job explaining
yourself here but from what I can tell you are
misinterpreting the article. As regards that
sentence, it refers to the possibility that
"multiculturalism", in equally accepting other
cultures, is susceptible to accepting a culture
which, in the author's opinion, is "bad" ('radical
Islam'), and which he notes is not politically
correct to judge and talk about as such. Note that
I could come up with various criticisms of the
article myself but yours aren't valid IMO. The
author knows that attacking multiculturalism (and
Muslims... since he implies that the "radical"
and intolerant brand of it is large and becoming
more widespread, even in Europe) is against the
mainstream and will antagonize people like you.
I'd like to see you actually explain yourself
however instead of dumbly shouting racism in
response (which the author also expects). The
two main "asshole" opinions of his are 1. "western
culture" is superior and should be acknowledged
as such and 2. "Islamist" culture should not
be tolerated. While these cultures are associated
with certain races they do cross racial boundaries
as is mentioned.
\_ I'm not the person who shouted racism. Give it
a rest.
\_ There was a specific accusation of racism. Please
post example(s) from the article to substantiate
the characterization of "racist screed". If there
are no specific example(s), please retract the claim
of racism.
the bombers were (nominally at least) Christian. It's
not that the article is difficult to understand, it's
that it's not saying anything of substance or
trying to construct any kind of coherent argument.
It's just a rant. Political arguments can be more
than just opinionated rants, ya know - or did you learn
Rhetoric 101 from Michael Moore?
\_ If you hadn't noticed, I said "!pp" in my first
post. I didn't say anything about racism - the
article is too incoherent to express an idea
that well-formed. It's possible to talk to more
than one person on the motd, ya know.
\_ 1. That some post-4 was signed "!pp" does not
not imply that the unsigned post-2 was also by
the same or some other "!pp". 2. Nevertheless
you are in a thread branched off the claim
that the quoted article as "racist screed".
3. "Racist" has a specific meaning, and
incoherence or speciousness does not mean
racism. 4. I take it that no one is able to
defend the original claim that the article is
racist.
\_ I take it that you're not able to counter
the claim that the article is incoherent,
and based a combination of strawman and
ad hominem argument.
\_ Please present examples of ad hominem or
strawman arguments from the article.
\_ I already did. Do I have to spell it
out for you even more carefully?
\_ You didn't mention why you thought
it was ad hominem or strawman.
\_ It sets up an argument against
a concept called
"multiculturalism," but doesn't
define it in any meaningful
way, other than perhaps guilt by
association with a conservative
buzzword that is used as a
hammer to beat liberals (see
also "political correctness").
I guess it is left as an
exercise for the prejudices of
the reader, but this nebulous
definition then allows him room
to assign all kinds of supposed
motives to a movement which he
has not defined. It's the old
"Liberals love terrorists,
you're a liberal, therefore you
love terrorists" argument.
\_ Are you reading the same
article? The one I'm half
way through and still reading
focusses on demographic
math, not knee jerk
conversative vs. liberal
bullshit. It seems like you
stopped on page 5. Down
here at 60 of 71 screens,
I've got 55 extra screens of
demographics I don't think
you bothered reading.
\_ So I can write whatever
bullshit screed I like,
so long as I attach a
bunch of demographics to
the bottom of it?
\_ So you didn't read it.
Ok thanks for letting
us know.
\_ What sort of
rational argument is
it that assigns
beliefs to a group
while providing not
a shred of evidence
that this belief
exists? His
argument is based
entirely on quotes
from one English
baroness, hardly
a government
authority nor a
good standin for
the "liberal
multicultural"
bogeyman his entire
article is ranting
against.
He does mention some poll purporting that _/
like 60% of Muslims in Britain would like
Sharia. (can't be bothered to look at article
again.)
\_ Thanks. I had forgotten about the 2020 Project.
\_ Looks like jblack finally figured out people won't delete his
links if he posts the direct link instead of the freeper discussion
link.
\_ Looks like the hosting service censored it.
\_ I'm guessing it was the Mark Steyn article of that title:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760
\_ The WSJ editorial page! Shocking.
\_ While WSJ is one fine newspaper, which counts me as
as a daily reader, it's editorial page has been pure
trash as long as I can remember. - motd stock fanatic
\_ "There will only be very few and very old ethnic Germans and
French and Italians by the midpoint of this century. What will
they leave behind? Territories that happen to bear their names
and keep up some of the old buildings? Or will the dying European
races understand that the only legacy that matters is whether the
peoples who will live in those lands after them are reconciled to
pluralist, liberal democracy?"
Ah, the old "pure" Germans, French, and Italians fallacy again.
Run, little fearmonger, run!
\_ Nicely pulled out of context. He's talking about culture, not
DNA based racial characteristics. But you knew that.
\_ so why did he keep mentioning about "races"?
\_ because, duh, those "races" already have the modern
western democratic culture he's talking about.
\_ huh? if the key thing is culture, why does he
mention about races? he needs to make up his mind
what he thinks the crisis is.
\_ Are you being purposefully dense? It's specifically
about the influx of Muslims from Algeria et al who
allegedly resist western culture. If it makes you
feel better, try coming up with a better word to
differentiate the predominant "native" populations in
those countries. "Races" is proper usage even if it
triggers little kneejerk alarms in your mind.
\_ Races is the right word, and racist is the
proper description of the author. Why are you
so against the use of the term "racist"? Do not
let the PC cops define what terms you can or
cannot use. You should be proud of being a
racist.
\_ Who said I was against the use of "races"?
Learn to read. Look how stupid you are.
\_ Where did I say that? Are you stupid?
\_ Wow, you made so many edits to your
post I replied to an earlier revision
and now you claim you never said it.
It's in mehlhaff's archive. And I never
stated my own position on the subject
so have no basis to call me racist.
But all you're concerned with is
winning your little motd battle.
Why should people be proud to be
racist BTW? And again, this whole
useless diversion is completely beside
the point; you haven't shown that
anti-radical-Islam is racist. I'm
done with this thread.
\_ Yes, I haven't finished writing,
and you started spewing invectives.
\_ So, what does "self-extinction
of the races" has to do with anti-
radical-Islam? Extreme Wahabism
is a problem that stretches all
the way to Indonesia and the
Phillipines, and is a global
problem and threat to many,
including the 90% of muslims who
do not subscribe to it. Do tell us
how would a mis-characterization
of it as a threat to the survival
of the "European races" help?
\_ Yes, I haven't finished writing,
and you started spewing invectives.
\_ And similarly, racist is a proper description
of the author. Why are you so against use of
the term "racist"? It's not necessarily bad,
depending on what races you belong to.
so against use of the terms "races" and
"racist"? Do they trigger little kneejerk
alarms in your racist little brain?
\_ As I understand it the point was
1. multiculturalist tolerance
allows it to grow, 2. demographics
indicates it may become the
dominant Eur. culture. That's where
the "races" come in (under the
suggestion that these groups aren't
acculturizing to western standards)
Unfortunately we have to spend
pages of motd on the irrelevant
subject of racial purity.
\_ As I understand it, the
author is just using extreme
Islam to spread fears and
push his right wing agenda.
What's the point of mention-
ing New Zealand and
Australia's birthrate, for
instance. Do these countries
have a large muslim
population? I don't think so.
\_ Oddly enough, a friend is
dating a Persian chick from
Australia. Anyway, 2.3%
Muslim in Australia. Muslim
population growing by 40% a
year, versus 5.7% for Aus.
population as a whole.
Projecting that growth rate
linearly (so this is obviously
a simplistic and wrong
calculation), in 10 years
~1/3 of Aus. will be of the
Muslim faith.
Another example:
"Pigs are valued assets and sleep in the
living room in rural China--and next thing you
know an unknown respiratory disease is killing
people in Toronto, just because someone got on
a plane. " Talk about being irrelevant. It's
so obvious that the author just wanted to do
some "liberal"-bashing, throwing in jabs against
environmentalists, feminists, etc. I don't
understand how anyone reasonably intelligent
can fail to see through the facade unless he
has his own agenda himself.
\_ Oddly enough, a friend is
dating a Persian chick from
Australia. Anyway, 1.6%
Muslim in Australia. Muslim
population growing by 40% a
year, versus 5.7% for Aus.
population as a whole.
Projecting that growth rate
linearly (so this is obviously
a simplistic analysis), in
10 years ~1/5 of Aus. will
be of the Muslim faith. I
am too lazy to do the research
of NZ, but if Kiwis and
Islamic Kiwis are similarly
(un)fecund, the results should
not be so different. Thus is
the power of compounding.
Perhaps you shouldn't be so
sure of things you are so
sure of.
\_ I question your 40%
a year figure. Source
please.
\_ Mea culpa. I misread
in haste. It was
actually "40% in
five years, while the
Australian population
as a whole grew by 5.7%
in the same period."
http://csua.org/u/ehj
So it will be 2.9% in
10 years and 4.8% in
20 years.
\_ Since when is German/French/Italian a race?
\_ Would you deny they are ethnicities? Why wouldn't they
be races? dict race
\_ Is Chinese a race? American? How about Nigerians?
Is that a race? (Ob. I happen to know a family of
Chinese-Nigerians.)
\_ Ya know, being smug doesn't help you win arguments.
\_ Less pulled out of context than his Toynbee quote. Toynbee
would have had no use for the shrill Mr. Steyn:
"We intend to modify the violence of the fight, and to
prevent the weak being trampled under foot." -AT
\_ Then his point is doubly worthless, since the great unwashed
masses that stream into Europe and America are greater
converts to secular capitalism than most native Europeans.
\_ That's an interesting claim. While I can see a claim
that *some* immigrants are more capitalistic than the
existent population, I have trouble believing all or
even most would be more capitalistic. Do you have a
reference for the claim, or is this just invention?
\_ I agree with this article. For instance, the Great Chinese
Civilization is superior to the backward cultures you find in
Southeast Asia, or the stone-age buddhist cult culture you
find in Tibet, or the violent Islamist culture in northwest
China. We should always civilize them and not become
lazy and primitive like their backward cultures.
-gcc (Great Chinese Chauvinist)
\_ Some of the "facts" listed in the article are total bullshit,
for example the claim that the Club of Rome book Limits to Growth
predicted oil, natural gas, etc., would run out in the 1990s. The
Limits to Growth said no such thing. They just said that you cannot
grow consumption of a finite resource indefinitely, and they
theorized that many extracted resources would run out within 100
years ... Which is 2070, not 1990. They identified as oil as the
years ... Which is 2070, not 1990. They identified oil as the
first resource to no longer be able to be extracted more quickly
(peak). All they did was take the current reserves of each
resource, multiply it by 5 to account for new discoveries and
apply a yearly growth of x% and see how long the resource will
last ... Limits to *growth*.
\_ Apparently this is a common mistake re the Limits to Growth.
See "Plenty of Gloom" (Economist 12/18/1997) for example.
http://csua.org/u/eh8
Your own characterization of Limits of Growh is equally
misleading. In fact, the Limits of Growth presented 3 possible
scenerios. Scenerio 1 assumes status quo and presents the 550
billion barrel quantity. Scenerio 2 doubled that to 1.1T
barrels, and scenerio 3 5x'ed the 550B barrels. So in fact it is
true that 1 scenerio of the 3 presented in Limits of Growth
predicted the exhaustion of oil in 1990. Obviously scenerio
1 is wrong. Current world reserves is around 2T barrels I
think, so scenerio 2 is probably off. I think scenerio 2 calls
for exhaustion of oil by 2015. The jury on scenerio 3 is still
out. Fortunately we should all still be around to see even
scenerio 3 of Limits of Growth vindicated or discredited.
Again, I must say I find the general level of mischaracterization
of information (and sometimes outright deliberate deception)
both else where and on MOTD to be disappointing.
\_ OBTW, given the existence of Fischer-Tropsch et al, scenerio
3 is almost certainly also incorrect.
\_ Come to think of it, a claim that Limits of Growth predicted
the exhaustion of oil in 1990 is strictly true, and a claim
that Limits of Growth "said no such thing" is completely
false. Shameful. |
| 2005/12/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41089 Activity:kinda low |
12/20 Freepers confused about intelligence design decision
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543993/posts
\_ Oh Jesus! Now we have leftists reading and posting freeper
links. It was bad enough when confused pseudo ultra right
wingers posted that crap. People have mostly stopped posting
from ultra left wing garbage sites. Can we please stop posting
from the ultra right wing garbage sites now, too? Please? We
don't *have* to mimic the rest of the web's trash here.
\_ What ultra left wing garbage sites did you object to?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com? The guy that broke the Duke-stir
story?
\_ Three days later, still no reply. That is what I thought.
The New York Times is "ultra left wing garbage" to the
Freeper crowd.
\_ Oh Jesus! Now we have leftists reading and posting freeper
links. It was bad enough when confused pseudo ultra right wingers
posted that crap. People have mostly stopped posting from ultra
left wing garbage sites. Can we please stop posting from the
ultra right wing garbage sites now, too? Please? We don't *have*
to mimic the rest of the web's trash here. |
| 2005/12/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41083 Activity:kinda low |
12/19 "The round-table with the vice president came after hundreds of troops
had gathered in an aircraft hangar to hear from a mystery guest. When
Cheney emerged at the podium, he drew laughs when he deadpanned, 'I'm
not Jessica Simpson.' Shouts of 'hooah!' from the audience interrupted
Cheney a few times, but mostly the service members listened intently.
When he delivered the applause line, 'We're in this fight to win. These
colors don't run,' the only sound was a lone whistle."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543165/posts
\_ Uh, hello jblack?
\_ Is there a reason why you are posting this as a link through
freerepublic when in fact the actual story itself is from
SFGate? Seems like a rather convoluted way to post a story.
BTW, the part you excerpted is not part of the freeper excerpt,
but is part of the main article.
freerepublic when in fact the actual story itself is from SFGate?
Seems like a rather convoluted way to post a story. BTW, the part
you excerpted is not part of the freeper excerpt, but is part of
the main article.
\_ You get two links for the price of one!
And you desensitize the freeper-link-deleter.
As for your BTW statement, you get info that people may not
notice unless they click through twice.
\_ Plus, you get your daily dose of Freeper rants! |
| 2005/12/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41020 Activity:kinda low |
12/14 I just saw a link posted on http://crooksandliars.com and I thought I'd ask motd about it: http://csua.org/u/ebc Mostly I was just wondering if people supported hate crimes legislation. I'm very much a liberal, but there seems to be something silly about punishing people differently based upon what was in their head when they committed the crime. Really, is one murder different than another? Do we want to punish people for what they think? \_ I am an ultra liberal, but in this regard, I don't buy this 'intent' logic. Let say if a guy raped a woman. His defense could be something like he was drunk at the time and thus get a less severe penalty. WTF? we are rewarding people who are not responsible for their actions? \_ Uh.. How exactly does your example relate to the discussion? \_ Well intent does matter in determining whether some acts are a crime or not, but I agree that it's pretty silly and basically amounts to extra crimininization because of the offender's politics. -another liberal \_ I think that using intent to punish people different for the same effect does make sense in most cases. A person who plans out a effect does make sense in many cases. A person who plans out a crime and executes it may pose a greater threat to society as a whole vs. the person who gets caught up in the heat of the moment and overreacts. Almost anyone can misjudge a situation and overreact, while few sit around and plan crimes. The fact someone overreacted once doesn't necessarily imply that they would do so again (though it is suggestive of this; hence the need for incarceration and post release monitoring). The effectiveness of incarceration as a means of correction on those who act w/o a plan may be greater b/c many of them feel regret over their actions and may take steps to prevent the recu- rrence of a similar action. rrence of a similar situation. In addition, the person who gets caught up in the heat of the mo- ment might have made a mistake re the need to defend themselves or others, so they could have a partial (or complete) excuse. This is generally not the case with those who execute a pre-existing plan. [ In the context of hate crime legislation - I think that the existing law are sufficient to punish hate criminals, so I don't really see the need to pass these law. I think that many of them will get passed b/c legislators don't want to look insensitive ] existing laws are sufficient to punish hate criminals, so I don't really see the need to pass new laws. I think that many of them will get passed anyway b/c legislators don't want to look insensitive. ] |
| 2005/12/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:40917 Activity:moderate |
12/7 http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBR6D00.html Once again the left proves they don't believe in free speech. \_ So these students were agents of the government threatening Ann Coulter with jail or worse for speaking? Free speach does not mean what you think it means. \_ Fuck you. \_ See? \_ Fuck you. \_ The left has no tolerance for rants, hate speech, and stupidity. And you sir, are full of rants and stupidity. Sign your name. -i hate stupid people \_ "Sign your name". Neither of you signed. How are you any better than the OP unless being a hypocrite is a good thing? The motd is a weird place. \_ Uh oh, someone didn't RTA. You and the OP are both off on what happened there. Why bother posting links at all? \_ I can't find a single example of hate speech in the article. Would you care to quote something? \_ "No free speech for fascists!" --chanted on the steps of sproul my freshman year. Winners of that year's "clueless" award. \_ '"I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am," Coulter told the 2,600 people at Jorgensen Auditorium.' Of course she loves it; it must be a rare opportunity. \_ stupid is as stupid does! |
| 2005/12/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:40861 Activity:nil |
12/5 Wow, the new motd ID system is pretty interesting
http://csua.com/24/?incr=1
\_ Ah, now that's interesting. It looks like pseudonyms to
consistently identify a single user, so you can track multiple
respondents in a thread, etc. If it works (it won't) that's pretty
neat and a nice improvement over the old system. -emarkp
\_ That's hilarious. -mice
\_ Interesting |
| 2005/12/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:40860 Activity:nil |
12/5 I think this O'Reilly exchange is pretty funny. Partialy because
I saw a similar one the other day.
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19470 |
| 2005/12/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:40846 Activity:kinda low |
12/3 Oh the irony!
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512020005
\_ As always:
http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com
\_ What value could the opinion of someone with a URL like that
possibly have? If I wanted High School level ideas, I'd go
visit a High School.
\_ whereas Ann Coulter is teaching grade 6.
\_ doesn't help this other guy any. if she's that stupid,
just ignore her.
\_ It's not an "opinion," it's just fucking hilarious. Go get
a sense of humor.
\_ why would i go to a site with a name like that? im sure
we just have a different idea of whats funny. do you
laugh at "yermom" jokes too?
\_ I've read it, and it's not hilarious. It's just kinda
sad.
\_ It says more about you than Coulter. Coulter has serious
problems. The guy who wrote this has worse problems. A
person who read it and found it funny has even worse
problems. Seek help.
\_ The last one's bullshit. You can find humor in it
without "needing help." Twit.
\_ Ok, I went and read it. It was just boring. There
was maybe one half decent line in it but otherwise
it was sophomoric trash. The followup comments on
the first page or two were all one liners going
off about how brilliant it is but it just isn't.
I'm happy to leave it at "your sense of humor is
remarkably different than mine". Ask yourself
this: if the same piece were written with different
names and reverse political point of view would it
still be "fucking hilarious" for you or the other
commenters? I doubt it.
\_ Sigh. When you have to explain humor, it's no
longer funny. The joke works *because* someone
as nonsensically rabidly anti-liberal as Ann
Coulter could only be this driven if she had as
huge a well of repressed feelings as this satire
purports. No, it wouldn't work if it were Michael
Moore and some Young Republican because we all
know lefties are perverts anyway (that, and the
imagery would be terribly unsettling). Yes, the
website and its title are puerile, but yes, it's
funny.
\_ Puerile: yes. Funny: nope. It's only funny
if you spend more than 10 seconds a year
thinking about Ann Coulter and you share a
sense of humor with the typical 16 year old.
"He said 'puerile', heh heh heh!" Not funny.
Anyway, Ann, Moore, and all the rest are super
rabid because it makes them money. If you
seriously believe they're that rabid in real
life in private, I've got a bridge for you. |
| 2005/11/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40619 Activity:nil |
11/16 The Dilbert 2005 Weasel Awards http://csua.org/u/e0x \_ Stupid. As usual. |
| 2005/11/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:40486 Activity:nil |
11/8 When is Fox News going to offer the O'Reiley Show and Sean Hannity
programs for 99 cents on iPod? I need portable Fair and Balanced
programs to periodically cleanse myself from pervasive liberal trash
like CNN ABC CBS NBC PBS that I'm surrounded by every day. Also
it'd be nice to send an iPod preprogrammed with Fox News to my
little brother in Iraq to cheer him up, to remind him why he's there.
\_ I'll sell you an icepick you can use to clear those filthy
liberal voices out of your ear.
\_ I'd doubt that would happen. I can see podcasting complete with
ads, but then they would have to figure out how much to charge
for the ads and draw up contracts. Directed sales. Like butter!
\_ hey, don't joke about users' siblings in Iraq |
| 2005/11/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:40484 Activity:nil |
11/8 Analyst says Wilson 'outed' wife in 2002
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242
There are now multiple witnesses stating Wilson 'outed' his
wife well before his mission to Africa.
\_ Slight problem... take a look at
http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/11/08/vallelyAndWilsonFoxAppearances.html
The two were never on on the same day. Not only that but Wilson
wasn't on at all until many months after this outing supposedly
happened. And when that last little tidbit came out the "analyst"
changed his story to match the dates better.
\_ This message brought to you by our good 'ol jblack
\_ Does jblack belong to the Berkeley College Republicans?
\_ http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-rebuttal
\_ Wow, that link doesn't address Vallely's claim at all! Thanks
anonymous motd link poster! -emarkp
\_ Vallely's claim was limp to begin with, even if true.
The outing occurred with Novak's column, which has a
significant (and partisan-activist) readership.
\_ Ah yes, the standard partisan response. "Your claim is
false! And even if it isn't, it doesn't matter." Thanks
for playing. -emarkp
\_ Actually, I never said his claim was false.
\_ "even if true"
\_ != "Your claim is false!", which is a declaration
indicating certainty
\_ Waitasec. A retired Major General says he heard Wilson talking
openly about his wife being a CIA agent in the green room at
Fox News? THAT's your evidence? Where are the multiple witnesses?
\_ You aren't willing to take any statement by a Major General
as the aboslute truth? You've obviously never served.
\_ I'm withholding judgement until I hear what BUD DAY thinks. |
| 2005/10/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40299 Activity:low |
10/27 Does anyone else believe this BULLSHIT that Miers withdrew?
A much more likely sequence of events is Dubya's people hinting they
would no longer mind, and actually prefer it. Miers, ever loyal,
obliges, and they spin it as Miers withdrawing to Dubya's opposition.
\_ Well duh, were you born yesterday?
\_ sorry, reading too much freerepublic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510152/posts
"Withdrew herself?"
"Yes. Letter from her." ...
"It was the right decision, and I respect her greatly for making
it." ...
"Miers took one for the team"
\_ The surgeon general has determined that reading too much
freerepublic may be hazardous to your comprehension of
reality.
\_ Actually I think Bush is stubborn enough to have kept her at least
through the senate hearings. Did you read Krauthammer's column? He
pretty much presented the scenario that happened:
http://csua.org/u/dum -emarkp
\- just out of curiosity why does it matter if she jumped or
was pushed? i mean i can understand curious speculation but
you seem to be OUTRAGED.
\_ ??? It'd be better if she was pushed, i.e. GWB came to his
senses. How do I appear to be OUTRAGED? -emarkp
\- I am referring to the OP. I dont know if you are the OP
or not.
\_ Odd. I was responding to the OP--you responded to me.
I don't know why I'd respond to myself. -emarkp
you (mr "BULLSHIT" OP) seem to be OUTRAGED.
\_ Odd. I was responding to the OP--you responded to me. I
don't know why I'd respond to myself. [and why you keep
deleting this instead of fixing your followup to be to the OP
is a mystery] -emarkp |
| 2005/10/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Recreation/Media] UID:40221 Activity:nil |
10/21 So, is anyone going to go see Doom?
\_ Maybe on DVD. My freshman year at Cal ('94-'95) we used to
talk all the time about the rumors that someone was creating
a Doom movie. I can't believe how bad it looks after all
these years of thinking about it.
\_ Wait, do you mean you have some idea on how a Doom movie
could be good?
\_ Heh, good point. Well, at least I wouldn't shoot the
film in fps format. That looks ridiculous.
\_ Umm, actually according to the "Rock" on the Daily Show
last night, some scenes ARE shot that way.
\_ Umm, that was his point.
\_ oh gawd, the trailer was painful
\_ My favorite critic line on Doom is "It's Aliens for dummies"
\_ "The only downside is that you can't use cheat codes to
reach the end of the movie."
\_ WorldNetDaily thinks that Doom is anti-military, anti-
Christian and neo-nazi:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46980
\_ Wow. I was on the fence, but now I'm going to have to go see
a matinee tomorrow. |
| 2005/10/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:40000 Activity:nil |
10/6 Looks increasingly like US has had its first suicide bomber.
OKC Ch 9:OU Suicide Bomber Attempted Stadium Entry/5 Others
Involved, Ticket to Algeria Found -jblack
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1497375/posts
\_ Oh, you mean aside from those dozen-odd guys who rammed a bunch
of planes into things a few years ago? -John
\_ I assume he meant "home grown."
\_ This is a much more complete run-down, with links for all his
facts. http://www.zombietime.com/oklahoma_suicide_bombing
\_ they are now saying it was remote controlled and, though this
is old news, the guy tried to buy ammonium nitrate |
| 2005/9/29-10/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:39930 Activity:nil |
9/29 Ann Coulter and freepers have trouble processing that Pat Tillman was
pro-Kerry, against Dubya and the Iraq War, and wanted to go after Osama
in Afghanistan
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/28.html#a5149
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493046/posts
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/25/MNGD7ETMNM1.DTL
\_ Where's emarkp to tell us that this is all a hoax and can be easily
done with green screen special effects?
\_ NO NO!!! IT'S NOT TRUE!!! LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
\_ Search your feelings. You know it to be true.
\_ Pat Tillman is now my hero, I only admired him before all this new
info.
\_ I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning.
\_ GO PAT! GO! |
| 2005/9/29-10/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:39928 Activity:nil |
9/29 http://tinyurl.com/dn73w When confronted with the fact that Pat Tillman was against the war in Iraq (but for Afghanistan), a fan of Noam Chomsky, and a Kerry supporter, Hannity and Coulter just ... deny it can be true. \_ Was he a Kerry support when Kerry voted for the war or when he was against it? \_ probably he became a Kerry supporter when he saw how dumb Dubya was, and Kerry's competitors for the DNC nomination started dropping out in March. \_ Didn't Dubya do better in college than Kerry? \_ Didn't Dubya lose the entire city of New Orleans? \_ Yup, but his brain didn't improve much after that \_ Didn't Dubya lose Osama bin Laden? \_ Yup, but his brain didn't improve much after that, no matter how much coke and alcohol he consumed. \_ Oh yeah, Media Matters. A nice unbiased source. I heard that Pat and his mom didn't agree about the war. So unless his mom's account is corroborated, I wouldn't buy it either. \_ See the video. See the http://sfgate.com article quoting multiple sources indicating what Tillman thought. \_ Are you channeling O'Reilley, he said "Why don't you just ask Castro!" when Krugman referenced media matters. And yes this info comes from multiple sources, I just thought media matters summarized it well. \_ Another win for the reality based community. \_ This is the same Pat Tillman that the left called an idiot and published a lot of other nastiness about, right? So now he's a hero? What would Cindy say about Pat? She says this country isn't worth fighting for. Pat, our new hero, said it was. This is "nuance"? And no, I don't actually care either way. I just find the whole "we'll believe both sides of anything twice before breakfast as long as it might have political agenda value" amusing. \_ Links, o contentious one. The Left showed you theirs, now show yours. \_ Links to what? A Cindy quote? Sheesh, it's everywhere. The sky is still blue, don't make me find a link for that, too. Anyway, like I said, I find it amusing. I don't actually care. This is not the sort of thing elections are won and lost on. No one cares what Coulter or Hannity say. They're media figures, not policy makers. And for certain, *no one* with a pulse cares what the freepers have to say. For kicks, I went to read the freeper link. Still the same type of one-liner no-content types as years ago, the last time I read it. OTOH, no one cares what Cindy says either. It's all a big circus on both sides missing the truly important issues. What color should we paint the shed? \_ Yes the left was bashing Tillman for being a mindless patriotic drone -- but that was the EXTREME left -- just like the EXTREME right bashes Kerry and Cleland for their service to this country. I always admired Pat Tillman for leaving behind a fortune and fighting for this country, I didn't know what his political views were back then but I'm happy to have found out they are very close to mine. \_ So, I'm with you on this, but I have to say that Coulter and the Freepers are EXTREME right. Or, more to the point, they're idiots. -!pp \_ Well yeah, but they get a heck of a lot more media coverage than any extreme left wing idiot I know. \_ Really? I always thought Micheal Moore, and Tom Tommrow were doing ok. Sheehan too. \_ Never heard of Tom Tommrow, but perhaps you substitute Al Franken. -moderate \_ When was the last time either one was on the cover of Time magazine? \_ Ted Rall started the Pat Tillman is a stupid moron thing. http://asmallvictory.net/archives/tr040503.html Yes, I e-mailed him the http://sfgate.com article a few days ago. \_ Ah, thanks. I was wondering how anyone could forget that glob of stomach churning bile. \_ While Ted Rall is a moron, remember these were in response the offical story, one that was quite a bit different from the truth. \_ I don't really see why that makes the comic less vile. \_ Comics can be vile, but still be well-drawn and funny. Ted Rall is neither well-drawn nor funny. |
| 2005/9/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Finance/Investment] UID:39851 Activity:high |
9/24 http://tinyurl.com/atl2o A Housing Crash Will Soon Hit America -- Find out Sir John Templeton's Advice and Prepare for the Coming Catastrophe \_ When? When?! \_ John Snow is in Beijing pressing China to revalue RMB again. If Snow gets what he wanted (40% increase in RMB value), we will see how fast housing market crashes. \_ I am an economic fool. How is a 40% increase in RMB going to cause the housing market crash? \_ 40% increase in RMB value will whipe out all trade surplus China has with USA. Consider that China is running trade deficits with virtually all nations except USA, this means China won't have spare cash to buy a billions of US treasuries a month. US 30-yr bond need to raise interest rate to attract investors, and morgage rate is tied to 30 yr bond... \_ 40% is ridiculous and won't happen, but if it does, it means inflation since walmart, etc. will have their costs increase, and inflation will force the fed to keep on raising rates, supposedly. The other factor is how the asian central banks react to a currency revaluation of say 10%. I guess the reasoning is that once PRC allows revaluation, the other asian central banks won't be under as much pressure to keep buying US treasuries to keep their currencies just as cheap. This will force the US treasury to increase its rates in order to continue attracting money to service US debts. \_ This is just one big long fucking ad. Why show us this? And most people agree that the housing market's in a precarious state right now, but predicting exactly when it'll blow, or if it'll deflate with a hiss instead of a bang, no one can do, including "Sir John Templeton". --PeterM \_ I believe the income vs. mortgage ratios are still lower than the last 2 times housing got thumped and even then all that happened was a 20% drop followed by years of decreased _growth_ back *way* above where it was. When I bought 5-6 years ago, I thought it was high then but was simply tired of being a rental victim. I feel bad for all the folks who have been bitterly waiting for some giant corrective event that is simply unlikely to happen to any large degree. If housing prices dropped in half because of all the risky loans all choking at the same time, all you'd really see is those houses being bought up at auction by people who do have money and can afford to rent at a loss for years until incomes/rental prices catch up. The sky is not falling. Even a 20% drop in housing would simply put prices back 6-18 months (depending on location) which is still higher than when people started screaming bust. Going in after some not-yet-happened 20% drop would be worse than having bought in 6-18 months ago at the same price since in the meantime the angry renter would have lost all the rent money, have a higher interest rate, started owning later in life, and suffered the extra stress and bitterness to get a house further away from their ideal location. I didn't read the link and didn't see a point given the title. Anyone hyping their stuff with "...Prepare for the *C_O_M_I_N_G* *C*A*T*A*S*T*R*O*P*H*E* !!@@!!@1111" doesn't deserve a click. \_ Well, I bought a house, just not in CA. (Buying in CA would have been silly since I live in NM.) Regardless of what you said, I still think that housing is in a precarious state, and that there will be some sort of correction, but I've no clue whatsoever when/how bad, and no one has any such clue. --PeterM |
| 2005/9/23 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:39840 Activity:high |
9/23 Donahue vs. O'Reilly
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/21.html
\_ In this video, Donahue triumphed. He was very assertive and
did not get verbally bullied and out-screamed easily like the
others. It was very brave of him to go to the OReilley show.
\_ You've got to be kidding. Donahue's "opening statment" was pure
Sheehan spin, ignoring the (legitimate) criticism of some of her
loony comments.
\_ The transcript doesn't have "I want to cut your mike" part
from O'Reilly. The transcript doesn't lie, so this must mean
that the left wing propaganda media ADDED fake O'Reilly voice
to make him look bad!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170195,00.html
\_ huh, he said that in the Donahue interview as well as Glick's?
\_ Yes, watch the video. He like saying that when he's on the
defensive.
\_ I can never see Donahue anywhere now without seeing Phil Hartman's
impression of him.
\_ Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard, but Phil Donahue is a sad parody of
himself. Calling the war unconstitutional, telling O'Reilly that
he just wants to appear "tough" by having a war, telling O'Reilly
that "you wouldn't send your children to this war", and calling
O'Reilly "Billy". What a piece of work. -emarkp
\_ Interesting. I consider myself an independent. It's how I
registered. I am overall a fiscal conservative and social
liberal. I think both guys made valid points and also
conceded points. Neither really addressed the other's most
important concerns. It seems that liberals think Donahue
somehow showed up O'Reilly. Do conservatives think the
opposite? I don't really share either opinion, which is why
I guess I'm an "I". FWIW, I am starting to despise the left
as much as the right and I voted for Clinton (2x), Gore,
and Kerry. I just hate Bush that much more. However, give me
a better choice and I'm not voting "D". --dim
\_ Yeah, I'm an "I" (recently) too, but conservative. I believe
the Iraq war was the right thing to do. I also believe there
are legitimate concerns about the war, but Donahue was just
being nutty and condescending. -emarkp
\_ It's showmanship. They both probably went backstage
afterwards and smoked a joint and had some scotch.
The hosts of these shows go over-the-top to attract
ratings. You get the feeling they could have a really
interesting and insightful discussion if they wanted
to, but American viewers won't watch that. |
| 2005/9/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:39730 Activity:nil |
9/17 NO congressman misuses rescue resources:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1123495&page=1
\_ Look, Jefferson is Democrat and black. This is a story for
freerepublic, not motd.
\_ Mmmm.. fuck you, troll.
\_ Why does it matter which party he belongs to?
\_ Or the color of his skin?
\_ Because anyone who criticizes anyone other than white
Republicans on the motd is ridiculed and/or harrassed.
\_ Yeah, I see lots of ridicule and harassment in
this thread. -tom
\_ Right, and because it didn't happen in *this thread*
that means it's never happened and pp is a moron.
\_ Oh, I wouldn't say ridiculed and harrassed. We just
have no interest in discussing the foibles of the good
guys. We'd have pages of discussion if Jefferson were
a Republican.
\_ Horse shit. If some Republican no one had ever
heard of did something marginally unethical,
it wouldn't even be posted to the MOTD. If it
was Delay or Santorum, that's a different thing. -tom
\_ Horse shit yourself. If this was a Republican,
your panties would be in a bunch calling for his
resignation and you know it.
\_ Ask UC administration why the color of someone's skin matters. |
| 2005/9/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:39563 Activity:nil |
9/7 National Guard preventing media coverage of New Orleans aftermath.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8045532/#050907c
\_ The National Guard is under the control of the LA Governor. Take
this kind of story to freerepublic.
\_ And I'll bet somehow, it's Clinton's fault. |
| 2005/9/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:39542 Activity:nil |
9/7 Olbermann to the rescue:
http://media.putfile.com/OlbermannSwings (Windows Media, Worksafe)
\_ Liberal rant alert! Liberal rant alert! After watching this
trash in its entirety I need to watch Fox News for an hour to
cleanse my mind.
\_ s/trash/truth/ ; s/cleanse/pollute/
\_ For the most part he's completely right.
We haven't seen this much coordinated spinning in ages.
What else is going to save Dubya's ass? |
| 2005/9/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:39522 Activity:nil |
9/6 http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050905/cm_huffpost/006844 My mother always told me that when a person dies, one should not say anything bad about him. My mother was wrong (regarding Rehnquist). \- No matter what you think about CHITCHENS, you have to admit this is nicely phrased ... --psb \_ What are you talking about, that essay is by alan dershowitz - danh \- i am talking about the quote below: \- it's possible AD also re-quoted the same samuel johnson quote but CHITCHENS is quoted below and i have heard CH repeat the same quote slightly differently phrased in an interview. What are you talking about? A man is not on his oath, said Samuel Johnson, when he gives a funeral oration. One ought to try and contest the underlying assumption here, which condescendingly excuses those who write nil nisi bonum of the dead. |
| 2005/9/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:39478 Activity:nil |
9/3 "The political blame game is a waste of time."
"This is caused by the local politicians. They built a casino
bought a private plane and failed to do anything else."
Fox News fightings back. Fox News Reports, You Comply.
Click *Video:Blame Game* on http://www.foxnews.com now. |
| 2005/8/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:39078 Activity:low |
8/10 For those who don't trust http://worldnetdaily.com, here's cnet's account of Google blackballing cnet. So does that make Google about the same as as Putin? http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet \_ No \_ Well, with respect to the media at least they are. "We don't like what you print, so we're not talking to you anymore." \_ So Google is arresting its critics and having them tortured? Cool, can I work there...? \_ there's nothing that says they have to talk to everyone. I've always wondered about why people talk to 60 minutes... do they think it's going to be all rosy and peachy? If they were blocking cnet stories on http://news.google.com I'd be more worried. \_ no, Putin is more open than google. |
| 2005/8/8 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:39045 Activity:moderate |
8/8 jblack, nice try, but no cigar. Let me give you a hint. The type and
the duration of your command has absolutely no bearing on whether
they're detectable or not. I CAN SEE YOU! Surprise surprise! Take
your trash elsewhere, or better yet, sign your name and we'll
gladly leave your trash around.
\_ Fuck you and die, you censoring shithead. The *reason* I hate
fascist fucks like jblack is that I don't want them to turn America
into the kind of country where people can't post stuff freely on
a public message board without it being deleted by some
self-appointed thought police. You suck.
\_ ironic, isnt it? or perhaps it isn't ironic at all. *that*
would be ironic. ;-)
\_ lafeable response. ha ha.
\_ The joke here is that, of course, the above is anonymous trash.
\_ Those who have the power determine what is trash and
what is not. You sir, have no power on soda.
\_ Huh, there's a power structure on soda?
Does r00t get all the ladies / himbos?
\_ I have no idea why jblack is even bothering to try to hide his
name. AFAIK he's the only one here who reads freerepublic, so
everyone knows it's him posting anyway. On the other hand,
from jblack's point of view, this censorship campaign has to be
the best thing ever. It's making 'liberals' look like
hypocritical dickheads WAY more effectively than those
freerepublic posts ever did.
\_ There's one stupid person waging this pointless war. It doesn't
reflect on anyone other than that fucktard.
\_ I find that to be typical. One person's posts often get
needlessly characterized as some sort of contingent. Just
like the anti-Arab frothing after 9/11.
\_ I read freerepublic almost every day -moderate/liberal
\_ Really? Why? I've never seen much there that couldn't
be found easier someplace else with less drivel. Unless,
of course, you go becuase you think the drivel is funny.
\_ I knew a guy who lived in Lothlorien who used to get
incredibly stoned, pig out on vegan snacks, and troll
Freerepublic for hours at a time. --lye
\_ I got the http://peacehall.com link from there.
But yeah, mostly I look up "wedge" issues just to see how
freepers handle it. It is true ... if there's one thing
I've learned, these folks are very black/white. They get
confused by things like Roberts' pro-bono pro-gay work,
Peter Jennings dying, and Dubya pandering for the
Latino vote. |
| 2005/8/8 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:39039 Activity:nil |
8/8 Hahaha
"The real issue, of course, is that Novak has a long history of
bullying and abusing lower-level employees, whom he terrorizes with his
angry outbursts over such vital areas of newsgathering as how to pop
his popcorn just so, or like when he reduced a former colleague of mine
to tears when he asked here how many Jews her family had transported
to the death camps (this woman was of German ancestry)."
http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/08/oral_sadist_suf.php
\_ Yeah, how many did her family transport? Damn Germans. -jew #1!!
\_ Not enough.
\_ Why should we believe what "DC Media Girl" says?
\_ Because she's Clara Frenk
\_ http://www.outfoxed.org/FeaturedInterviewees.php#Frenk
(For those who, like me, still didn't know who she was)
\_ Which doesn't mean squat to me. Where has the claim been
corroborated, or is this merely another anonymous source?
\_ Oh for fuck's sake. It's just gossip, illustrating a
general point that Novak is known amongst the DC press
corps as a total flaming asshole. |
| 2005/8/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:38945 Activity:nil |
8/2 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050802/ap_on_hi_te/fox_in_myspace From Fox News to the Internet, Rupert Murdoch is dominating media. Now, all your anti-Murdoch messages beyong to us. |
| 2005/7/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:38726 Activity:low |
7/20 Ann Coulter really doesn't like Roberts
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3acj.htm
Roberts' "footnote to a 1994 law review article that said: '... In the
interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out
that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily
reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United
States.' This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s
acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, 'hey, I never said the guy was
innocent. I was just doing my job.' ... Finally, lets ponder the fact
that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever
saying anything controversial. That's just unnatural."
\_ Ann of Green Goebbels doesn't like him? Shocker!
\_ She's probably just trying to get him elected. ("Ann Coulter doesn't
like him? Quick, vote him in!")
\_ Exactly, my first thought was "maybe he's not a rightwing nut" --
if Coulter doesn't like him. He seems to be a reasonable choice
from everything I've read/heard.
\_ I also heard that floating Edith Clement for two straight days
was a Roveian plot to take the Dems by surprise with the real
nomination.
\_ My guess is that Coulter is gearing up for the "I told you so" in
case he pisses off the base later on (Souter). If he's more to the
right than Thomas, then everyone will forget Coulter's original
article and will be latching onto her new article, "See!! He's a
fucking genious and he agrees 100% with us so that makes us all
geniuses! America needs more real men like John C. Roberts!1!"
If you have the "loyalty" of Coulter's fan-base, it's always
win-win. -op
\_ More to the point, this is precisely why Bush nominated him: he'll
stir up enough controversy that we'll forget about Rove's
involvement in treason.
\_ Yeah, that's precisely it. -- ilyas
\_ I say it's a great side effect that protects his old buddy and
general, not the main reason. He could have nominated Janice
Rodgers Brown if he really wanted to see and break the
filibuster. Then again you could say Dubya created enough
goodwill nominating Roberts that people would stop being so
pissed off and forget about Rove. Side effect.
The main point is that Roberts could be the next Rehnquist,
and this could last for decades. (I'm not saying there's
something necessarily wrong with that, don't read too deeply.)
\_ Ah, unless he's saving up Rodgers Brown to replace Rehnquist.
\_ We know that he rushed the nomination to get the press talking
about something else, but I can't imagine a less controversial
nominee. We will start talking about the Plame thing again
once Fitzgerald starts issuing indictments.
\_ Speaking of Ms. Tax Free Dick, she's been accused of plaigarism:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/coulter_caught_cribbing_column_720
\- look, ann COULTER's "objective function" is to distinguish
herself from the pack of her ideological brethren by saying
extreme and freakish things. these weird women who have
watermelon sized breast implants arent under any illusions
they are attractive ... ann COULTER like those other freaks
is in fact putting on a freak show. i suppose in both cases
they find "true fans" on sloda. |
| 2005/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38378 Activity:moderate |
6/30 Is there any better way for http://cnn.com to downplay the deaths of 16 U.S. SOCOM and Navy Seals than to title it: "Bodies recovered from Afghan crash" (cnn.com) Also compare to International Edition link for http://cnn.com. Besides having a different lead, http://edition.cnn.com even has this: "Bush nets career-low TV audience | 9/11 link slammed". \_ Um, the chinook went down like three days ago. There was lots of reporting then. They finally got in to see the crash site and recover the bodies. \_ Yeah, but reporting then was "fates unknown". Think of it like this: When three or more U.S. soldiers died in a single incident, what kind of coverage did you see then? Compare to the http://cnn.com title. \_ Look, I'm all about criticizing poor media coverage, but in this case, I think you're kneejerking. \_ I really don't think so. 16 U.S. soldiers dead in a single incident. This is normally big news, and it was small-medium news a few days ago on Day 1 of reporting. You can also compare it to the network TV news web sites. \_ Haha, is CNN the new Foxnews? -- ilyas \_ The general wisdom is since 9/11 they've been getting pounded by Fox News and they want to do something about that. Anyway, there is a difference between http://cnn.com and CNN (cable TV), with the former being more easily measurable. IMO, http://foxnews.com has been more "balanced" than http://cnn.com. Har. \_ General wisdom sure is smart. -- ilyas \_ I don't know about that, but in this specific case, general wisdom likely matches core truths. \_ [deleted], let me explain how this works. 'General wisdom' is explaining an 'observation' (which may or may not be valid), with a theory which is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, for all practical purposes. This theory can't 'match' anything. -- ilyas \_ Your definition of general wisdom is strict, and by being strict suits your argument well. Sorry, but that's all I'm going to discuss on this particular topic. To objectively measure this, you could ask intelligent people of neutral political leanings, "What do you think of the sentence, 'The general wisdom is since 9/11 [CNN has been] getting pounded by Fox News and they want to do something about that'" (without any tone inflection or suggestion that anything in particular is wrong). I'd also ask that you refrain from using my name if I don't post it. It's not very nice from my perspective, especially when I have tried to be civil in this discussion. Thanks. \_ Right, it's the fact that my definition is too strict, not the fact that this is just a conspiracy theory which nobody can possibly confirm. -- ilyas \_ What is this conspiracy theory I adhere to exactly? \_ You should meet his brother, Lieutenant Knowledge! |
| 2005/6/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:38308 Activity:nil |
6/27 "If you look up 'last throes,' it can mean a violent last throe,"
Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week." Violence may escalate, he said,
because insurgents "have so much to lose between now and December."
"Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years," Rumsfeld
said on "Fox News Sunday." |
| 2005/6/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38294 Activity:nil |
6/24 Bush's War, Myths and Reality, on Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160556,00.html
\_ Why isn't this posted on The Free Republic yet? |
| 2005/6/21-25 [Science/Space, Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:38234 Activity:kinda low |
6/21 What is the most overrated book you have read?
The #1 overrated book of ALL TIME is: ZatAoMM
\- BTW, many of the 1star AMAZONG reviews are enjoyable
to read and are small compnesation for this ass book.
Notice the two themes: 1. the author is *actually*
insane 2. feel sorry for the son.
\_ anything by Jack Welch
\_ The Bible. Delete this again and the thread dies.
\_ Beloved by Morrison
\_ The Bible. I still don't understand why, given that the whole thing
is translated anyway, the English versions always have to have such
awkward language and style.
\_ Beloved by Morrison
\_ I really enjoyed it. --scotsman
\_ Cyptonomicon. God that book sucked. -aspo
\_ Yeah, I'm glad I'm not the only one who hated that book. Is
everything by Stepherson that bad? A friend thinks I should
read Snow Crash. -jrleek
\_ I think everyone who went to Cal should read The Big U.
It's a satire of American college life. I think Stephenson
went to BU, but a lot of the stuff is amazingly familiar.
\_ snow crash wasn't too bad.
\_ seconded
\_ snow crash is good. Zodiac is short and
amusing.
\_ Zodiac's his only book with an acutal ending.
\_ The Name of the (stinking) Rose. Blah blah blah blah blah -- SHUT
UP ALREADY AND TELL A STORY. Whew. Glad to get that off my chest.
\_ What, you don't like vicissitudes?
\_ Atlas Shrugged
\_ Anything by Ann Coulter
\_ The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Heinlein
\_ The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
\_ SICP. (ok, just kidding)
\_ Dianetics.
\_ The New Testament. But the old testament is wicked cool.
\_ Design Patterns
\_ Abelson & Sussman. Ugh. -John
\_ E_TOOSHORT
\_ Design Patterns
\_ The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. Look, fuckhead who keeps deleting
this, I am entitled to my opinion. If you don't agree then say
why, don't just censor me.
\_ Trouble with the motd is you are interacting with some
serious idiots. Either you get censored repeatedly or you
can't even delete some 4-day old dead threads without them
getting restored. Maybe by the same idiot.
\_ The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
\_ Stupid additions were deleted. You do not understand the
question, although not as badly as the people answering
"The Bible" or "Anne Coulter". I had hoped you would have
realized that after a couple of selective deletions, but
it looks like you are beyond being reached. |
| 2005/6/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:38180 Activity:nil |
6/17 Bill O'Reilly's Videogate
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000195.htm |
| 2005/6/15-17 [ERROR, uid:38133, category id '18005#30.115' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:38133 Activity:nil |
6/14 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159459,00.html Pro-Democrat, somewhat Republican bashing article on Fox News. It appears that Fox News is leaning left for one reason or another. \_ http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm You don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows. \_ An article here or there hardly makes up for what appears on Fox's cable channel live, 24/7. I don't see a significant shift here. -- ulysses \_ Or maybe your assessment of FN is just wrong. \_ Or maybe neither of you know who Martin Frost is. \_ http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Martin_Frost.htm |
| 2005/6/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:38058 Activity:nil |
6/9 Texas justice:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159033,00.html |
| 2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:38008 Activity:nil |
6/7 Good Intentions Gone Bad - last thoughts on Baghdad
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8101422/site/newsweek
\_ The world would be better if the US media didn't hate America.
\_ Obviously, you don't watch Fox News, the most loved and watched
news in America, except in the West Coast and New England. |
| 2005/5/31-6/2 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37905 Activity:nil |
5/31 I've noticed weird things in the past few months where Fox News
does a 180 and writes unpatriotic op-ed. Why is this happening?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157960,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157948,00.html
The first one says US has a long history of bad judgements
(war) and the second one criticizes US and its citizens.
\_ Reverse psychology
\_ They can see which way the wind is blowing and are trying
to get ahead of it. |
| 2005/5/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37766 Activity:kinda low |
5/19 Ha ha. http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180008 Media Matters cracks me up. Glenn Beck's motto is "half the politics, twice the comedy". The quote they have from him is during a bit about "what you would do for 50 million dollars" because of Dave Chapelle's problems. The quote was entirely tongue-in-cheek. I've put an mp3 of the whole thing in /csua/tmp/beck_choking_moore.mp3. -emarkp \_ Hahahaha, those whacky conservatives, always threatining to \_ Hahahaha, those whacky conservatives, always threatening to kill judges or beat up liberals or blow up the New York Times. What a great sense of humor you guys have. Hahahaha. \_ Whatever. Listen to the clip. http://MediaMatters.org did *not* put it in context, and it proves how ful of crap the site is. -emarkp \_ Threatening to kill your political opponents is just not funny. Does Jon Stewart ever do this? \_ Listen to the clip. Heaven forbid you judge someone in context. \_ I will listen to it later, when I am not at work. \_ soda {158}% ls -l /csua/tmp/beck_choking_moore.mp3 -rw------- 1 emarkp wheel 13222106 May 19 13:56 /csua/\ tmp/beck_choking_moore.mp3 \_ Permissions fixed. Sorry 'bout that. -emarkp \_ Not having researched this, it appears to me that you are looking very hard to find problems with http://mediamatters.org, when in contrast, it's not very hard to find serious problems with Dubya. \_ No, Beck mentioned it on his show, and I checked their site to verify it. \_ Oh, and the http://mediamatters.org article says he has 6 million listeners. That's incorrect--he has 8 million. \_ Check out the Conservative "Accuracy In Media" crowd for fun sometime. \_ Oh, I'm sure there are partisan R's twisting the truth like crazy too. -emarkp \_ It doesn't pretend to be an unbiased sorce, just a liberal media watchdog, like all the Conservative media watchdog groups out there. It is better than the vast majority of them, if you ask me. But then again, I am liberal, so I would say that. |
| 2005/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37727 Activity:high |
5/17 The L.A. Times editorial board sure is weird on the filibuster issue
http://csua.org/u/c3q
\_ "Because the filibuster is at heart a conservative's weapon"
!?!?
\_ When you filibuster, you are by definition, blocking change
and preserving the status quo. It comes from the older
definition of Conservative, one who tends to resist change
and prefers to keep tradition.
\_ It's an interesting argument. They're arguing that the demise of
the filibuster promotes a liberal agenda in the long term. That,
throughout history, the filibuster has been used primarily by
conservatives to block liberal legislation. They do have a point.
Republicans blocked more of Clinton's nominees via filibuster than
Democrats have blocked of Bush's nominees. The LA editorial board
is actually pushing the argument that the filibuster should be
disallowed on all Senatorial bills, and that the filibuster causes
a 51% majority requirement on bills to become a 61% super-majority.
\_ The cloture rules, as written, make it obvious that you need
61% to pass bills in the Senate. It is reasonable to assume
that the people who wrote the rules wanted it that way for a
reason. -tom
\_ I see your point, but I wonder if a 51% majority is really a
healthy number for passing laws that affect our entire nation.
\_ That's another debate altogether. The founding fathers
thought that it was. Otoh, some interpret the founding
fathers' wishes as wanting the Constitution to be a much
more fluid, living document of laws, and thus, perhaps
the present acrimony means that a comfortable majority of 51%
is no longer enough. But this is all speculation.
\_ None of Clinton's judges were blocked by filibuster.
\_ Now now. No fair actually using facts. These people redefine
filibuster to support their argument. They can have their
reality.
\_ And the R's don't redefine terms constantly? The over-
riding story they've been pitching is that nominees deserve
an up or down vote. As many of them participated in deny-
ing such votes in the past when the balance of power was
reversed, they are hypocrits, pure and simple. I believe
that it's excellent to have the filibuster available for
appointments because it encourages compromise. You want
your people through, you convince more than just your side.
And it's a very notable point that the vast majority of
the nominees have been confirmed already.
\_ By "these people" I didn't mean D's. I meant people who
don't give a damn about truth or consistency, but only
care about the R or the D. Are there people like that
with R's? Yes.
\_ They used another procedure which allowed them to block
appointees. A procedure which has seen been changed so
that can no longer be used. Even many Republicans called
it a "filibuster" so you can understand the confusion.
And there were attempted filibusters of Clinton nominees,
just unsuccessful ones. Or is it only wrong if you
are successful?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503160004
\_ Ah yes, that left-wing http://mm.org
\_ Ah yes, the shoot the messenger approach. When you
can't deny the facts, tar the presenter.
\_ Hey I learned this from the best liberals.
\_ Most liberals I know are more than willing to
change their mind when presented with
verifiable facts, myself included. The same
cannot be said for most conservatives I know.
As intelligence increases, this distinction
breaks down.
\_ Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha!
\_ Hint, your bumper sticker arguments are
probably neither verifiable nor based
on facts.
\_ Most liberals I know are the same way.
The very definition of the word liberal
includes openness to change. Perhaps
you hang out with the wrong liberals,
or perhaps the only "liberals" you are
familiar with are the ones you hear
about on Fox News and Michael Savage.
\_ "When people think, Democrats win" -Bubba
\_ e.g.?
\_ WorldNetDaily, freepers, etc.
\_ Ha ha ha, liberals, right.
\_ Is there anything in that article or my statement
that is incorrect as opposed to inconvenient
to your interpretation of the world?
\_ "In fact, Republicans filibustered several of
then-President Clinton's ambassadorial and
Justice Department appointments in the 1990s and
attempted to filibuster Clinton's judicial
nominees." Patently false.
\_ Did you read the whole article? Do you doubt
the Washington Post's and New York Times'
reporting on Senate dealings?
\_ You mean the 85-12 vote to cut off an
"attempted" filibuster? Doesn't sound like
a filibuster to me. No, I don't trust this
site to accurately quote the sources, and I
don't trust the NY Times period. The Post
is iffy.
\_ You're really not worth talking to.
\_ Name a Clinton appointee who was
filibustered. Go for it.
\_ Did you read the article? Sam Brown.
For judicial nominees, as the article
says, there were a number of attempts
at fillibustering his nominees. There
were also a number of others that never
went to a committee hearing because they
blocked them procedurally.
\_ I'm unable to confirm Sam Brown
anywhere else. Can you?
\_ How 'bout the congressional
record?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r103:E08JN4-62
\_ Nope. The house is not the
senate, and considering how
people seem to redefine
filibuster, this isn't
acceptable.
\_ You're a fucking imbecile.
\_ You've got to be kidding
me. Wait...does the next
line go "I know you are
but what am I"?
\_ To believe that the
sources offered are
tricking you, you
would have to be
dangerously unbalanced
or mind-bogglingly
stupid. Either way,
you're not worth
talking to.
\_ I don't believe
they're "tricking"
me. The quote I
found yesterday had
a R senator saying
that stopping
someone in
committee is a
filibuster. Just
having the word
'filibuster' isn't
enough.
Also Henry Foster for Surgeon
General in 1995. Let's see
if your researching skills are
better on him.
\_ Okay, I can verify that. Which
explains the R's limiting the
claim to judges.
\_ After they applied the claim
in general...
\_ So, as the person says
below, are these filibusters
only "wrong" when they
succeed?
\_ So your position is that it is moral to
attempt a filibuster as long as you
don't succeed? Only successful filibusters
are immoral and unconstitutional?
\_ It's seriously fun watching Frist try
to make this maneuver.
\_ I've no position on the "morality" of a
filibuster. I'm for getting rid of it
entirely.
\_ So you admit the Republicans are
hypocrites, but you support them
anyway.
anyway. Did you have the same
opinion about the filibuster when
Clinton was in office?
\_ So.. you want the senate to be the
house with fewer people...
\_ The filibuster and size aren't the
only differences between the house
and senate. And if you distrust
the house, should we eliminate it? |
| 2005/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/Asia/India] UID:37691 Activity:nil |
5/15 17 dead in Afghanistan, and now Newsweek apologizes.
http://csua.org/u/c2q
\_ Woohoo! Go newsweek!
\_ uh oh, they're gonna lose subscribers, just like CBS. GO FOX NEWS!
\_ They are owned by the Washington Post. They are responsible
for Admiral Boorda's death. |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37658 Activity:nil |
5/12 http://mediamatters.org/items/200505100002 "Fox News general assignment correspondent Major Garrett quoted Republicans who asserted that Texas Supreme Court justice Priscilla Owen, nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, is the first judicial nominee to be filibustered who received a unanimous well-qualified ("WQ") rating from the American Bar Association (ABA). But Garrett failed to note that blocking WQ-rated judicial nominees is hardly new." So the correspondent correctly notes the historicity of the filibuster, and Media Matters criticizes him for not mentioning "blocking" of candidates. Yeah, real solid criticism there. \_ Why are you cutting the quote? "... is hardly new. Republicans blocked 10 of President Clinton's appeals court nominees who received unanimous WQs. Denied even hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, these nominations never left the committee for full Senate consideration." Oh yeah! You == The Stupid. http://Mediamatters.org == Got it Right. \_ No, media matters apparently doesn't understand the difference between "filibuster" and blocked in committee. \_ Do you accept or not accept the observation below: One can state a standalone fact without further context and, while not lying, be misleading. \_ Of course that's possible. Proving intent is harder. At any rate, in this particular case, FN has addressed the filibuster vs. committee issue at length (at least on the one FN show I watch). \_ Do you accept or not accept the observation below: One can make a factual statement that is misleading, even when not intending to mislead. \_ Is the filibuster the only tool used to block appointees out of sheer partisan venom? If not, then why focus solely on the filibuster? |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37657 Activity:nil |
5/12 http://www.fair.org http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=2 Search for Fox WMD. 85% of the Fox viewers think that there's WMD and only 16% of the other news think so. That is just one small example. FYI, it also reports that CNN and other liberal media are unfair as well. Basically, ALL news source suck, some more than the other. \_ And what do you conclude from those numbers? \_ And in other news, CBS has apparently hacked up an interview to make the interviewee say what they want. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010443.php \_ The world is not about United States. The world is about... THE WORLD. That's why I balance spotty and biased U.S. News sources such as liberal LA/NY Times and red neck Fox News with other news source, such as European Daily, Japan Times, and Al Jazeera. I'm serious about the last one. To really understand the world, one needs to temporarily detach oneself from his/her cultural roots and try to understand and even empathize from all perspectives. I don't mean you should become a suicide bomber or burn American flags, but at least try to think the way they think. Unfortunately, this is too much to ask from your average Yankees (with IQ below 90). \_ Average IQ is less than 90? \_ Average IQ is 100, although in the past few decades it's been rising steadily. And I don't think average American necessarily have average IQ. More tests are needed, obviously. http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm \_ First off, the average IQ is just that, the measure of the average IQ of a cohort. Therefore, the average American has an average IQ by definition. If you mean that the average American has a lower IQ than the average XYZ country, then that's another story. You can't say that the average American doesn't have an average IQ, that's like saying the average American doesn't make an average income. Second, IQ only measures a very finite quantitative subset of reasoning skills. Just because you have a high IQ doesn't mean that you have a high EQ or that you are more intelligent in things which the test does not measure for. Trying to correlate IQ with politics is one of the dumbest exercises around. You might as well correlate favorite colors with politics or favorite foods with politics. \_ Who are these people? They even have problems w/ the Newshour. |
| 2005/5/12 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37651 Activity:high |
5/11 "A photographer witnesses the devastating aftermath of six Iraqi
children whose parents [who were mistakenly identified as
insurgents] were shot before their eyes by U.S. troops" Pretty
awsome gory graphics, here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7818807/site/newsweek
\_ God. That child's terrified face. Thanks. Now I won't be able
to sleep.
\_ if only they can make first person shooter games as graphical as
this... that'd pretty AWSOME. Blood splat, children crying, head
blood gushing out. It'd be a great seller.
\_ Stupid left-wing propaganda. Regardless of the violence, lack of
infrastructures, and shortage of necessities of life for the
Iraqi civilians, we're bringing freedom to their country!
FREEDOM!!! -conservative
\_ Is the URL outdated? I see a picture with caption "Bomb victims:
Bodies lie outside a hospital in Hawija, the northern Iraqi town
where a suicide bomber killed dozens of job applicants waiting
outside a police and army recruitment center on Wednesday"
\_ Bottom right, "Photo gallery with audio".
\_ The article at that URL--is that news or opinion? And people say
Fox News is biased....
\_ It's a columnist. Information and analysis from an author.
God, you people are fucking clueless.
\_ So..just like Fox News?
\_ If you want "just the facts, maam," follow AP articles.
If you want the facts placed in a context, be it social,
historical, political, etc., follow columnists. If you
want to see the context that Bush wants it in, watch Fox
News.
\_ So the bias of this article is okay, but that of Fox
News isn't?
\_ I have no problem with "bias". Bias is inevitable.
I have a problem with people who limit their
curiousity to the point of myopia. I also have
a problem when the "just the facts, maam" reporting
isn't just the facts. Fox's bias in their analysis
is not a problem in and of itself. Their penchant
for flat out lying and failing at fact checking is.
\_ You asserted that FN is a puppet of the Bush
admin. Now you're complaining about its facts
beging wrong. Can you substantiate the claim
either that FN is a pawn of Bush or that FN has a
higher rate of error than other news
organizations?
\_ Here's a collection of John Moody memos showing
a disturbing trend of ... shaping the news to
flatter the current administration:
http://csua.org/u/86m
\_ A blogger quoting "Outfoxed"?!
\_ Do you question the validity of the
memos?
\_ Yes. Prove that they aren't simply
pulled out of someone's ass.
\_ I've wasted enough time on your
stupid shit. Wake the fuck up.
\_ Got it. When confronted for
facts, you have none. Got it
loud and clear.
\_ How do you go through life
rejecting any piece of
information that doesn't fit
into what you've decided is
"right"? Do you have no
intellectual curiousity at
all? I'm curious as to what
else in this crazy mixed up
world you believe in against
all empirical evidence? I
gave you facts, and you said
someone pulled them out of
their ass. Believe whatever
the fuck you want.
\_ Why do you reject FN as a
news outlet based on a
single source?
\_ 1) I didn't reject FN.
I said, effectively,
that they editorialize
in their news, and give
you a perspective that
lines up with the
current admin's
desired context.
\_No, you didn't say
that.
\_ Go back and read
what I wrote.
\_ I did. You
didn't say
that.
_/
"If you want to see the context that Bush wants it in, watch Fox
News."
\_ Which you have yet to prove.
\_ Tell me how that statement "rejects FN as a news outlet"
\_ Non sequitur. I didn't say that statement means what you say
I said it means.
2) It's not based on a
single source. It's
from personal
observation, and from
commentary in numerous
locations from people
who follow these things
more closely than you
or I ever could.
You're asking me for
a dissertation on the
motd. Fuck off.
\_ Numnerous people who
say "everyone knows
FN is biased".
\_ You're utterly
hopeless. Facts
are not untrue
just because you
don't like them.
\_ Then why do
people reject
FN as a news
source when FN
has its facts
right?
\_ Now who's
making
claims
without
backing
them up?
And here's a link to Media Matters' backlog
of Fox missteps, misstatements, etc.
http://csua.org/u/c13
\_ A left organization.
\_ Yes, so?
\_ So how much does Media Matters watch
CNN?
\_ Look for yourself, dumbfuck.
\_ Thanks for clarifying that
you're an idiot.
Take them with as much salt as you like.
David Brock was once a Scaife-funded
journalistic hitman, but apparently decided
he wanted to be able to sleep at night.
And I won't post it again, because it's been
posted too often, but the PIPA study that
showed those who got their news primarily
from FN were far more likely to be misinformed.
\_ A lefty group that doesn't understand cause
and effect. None of these compare FN with
(say) CNN or CBS.
\_ I never said anything about CNN or CBS.
\_ Examples. I asked you to prove that
FN was worse than any other news
organizations.
\_ Prove to me that they're up to par.
\_ Hey dumbass, you made the claim
that FN has problems, you
provide the proof or shut up.
\_ So they drove towards a checkpoint after dark. When they were
ordered to stop as is customary done after dark, they didn't slow
down even after warning shots were fired. What do they expect?
I think they deserve a Darwin Award.
\_ But the Arab media won't report any of these. They'll only say
American GIs shot at innocent unarmed Iraqi civilian family and
killed the parents.
\_ It means the checkpoints are set up in a way such that it's
acceptable to have some collateral damage as long as the
American soldier is okay. Nothing wrong with that, right?
\_ No. It means the checkpoints are set up in a way such that
it's acceptable to have some collateral damage, when
someone doesn't follow orders, as long as the American
soldier is okay.
\_ "orders" in this case refers to bullets flying over
your car?
\_ well stuff like this is bound to happen unless
it's very clear there's a checkpoint ahead. if some
Iraqi dad driving his little car with fucking 6 kids
packed in the back like some clownmobile in the
evening and suddenly there's gunshots, maybe he's
not the brightest bulb but maybe you don't think
that calmly or well in such a situation either...
\_ So, was it very clear there's a (U.S.) checkpoint
ahead?
\_ What! The foreigners are imposing rules on the natives and would
shoot them if they don't comply??? |
| 2005/5/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37637 Activity:nil 57%like:37626 |
The uncensored messages below this line is a SIMULATION of what motd would look like if it was run by moonbats with an overblown sense of their own wittiness. \_ What the fuck is a moonbat? It's self apparent that it's not funny so what is it? \_ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moonbat&r=f |
| 2005/5/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37609 Activity:kinda low |
5/10 http://csua.org/u/c02 (ifilm.com - wear headphones) Chris Rock in: How Not to Get Your Ass Kicked by the Police Courtesy of http://freerepublic.com and "Police used Taser on pregnant driver" link on http://drudgereport.com. \_ Okay, that was great. Where was that from? Is there more? \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1400021/posts \_ And on Fox News today, "Taser Guns Used As Abortion Device" \_ No no no. I mean more Chris Rock, and is there more video where that came from? \_ that's really old. freerepublic my ass. |
| 2005/5/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37598 Activity:kinda low |
5/9 Can this be happening? Fox News reports gay/straight men's brain
responses differ. "It is one more piece of evidence ... that is
showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said an expert
on brain anatomy. I'd expect this to be on CBS news, but it is coming
from a source that is suppose to assert that there is no global
warming, that there is WMD, and most importantly that gayness is a
choice (totally curable via religion). What's happening to Fox News?
\_ Maybe if you watched Fox News sometime instead of just hearing
about it from your moonbat friends, you wouldn't be so
confused.
\_ How is this moonbat? I thought one of the main arguments
against fundie nutcase "keep the homos away from our children"
frothing was that "you don't become gay, you are gay." That
would imply a difference, no? -John
\_ Huh? I was just saying that, for the most part, Fox just
reports news. So it's not really a surprise when they...
report news. The editorial shows are where things get
wacky.
\_ Yes. However Fox blurs the line between editorial and news.
They advertise their editorial aggressively during prime
time or whenever there's plain news. Then they make a
smooth transition from news to editorial, and do it so
well that average Joe's don't even realize they've stopped
watching news. Unlike other news they don't even
call their editorial "opinion" or "editorial." They call
it Talking Points, The Asman Observer, etc, and then
tag the word "The most watched news, fair and balanced."
Lastly, even when they present news from regular sources
like AP, they re-word it in ways that fit in their model.
For example, whereas CNN/NBC/ABC would say "Bush Visits
Iraq", Fox would say "Bush Spread The Word of Freedom in
the Middle East." It's subtle and hard to detect when you
only read one news source, but you can definitely see
it when you start reading a diverse source of news.
Lastly, during editorial, they stick in good looking men
like Brit Humes to represent one side, and then a small
weakly Colmes boy to represent the other, and call their
entire network "Fair and Balanced." This is fine because
other broadcasters do it as well, but at least they don't
advertise it as Fair and Balanced, because that's BS. No
news source is ever fair and balanced.
\_ Are you kidding? Is there any news source that doesn't
claim it's fair and balanced regardless of reality?
\_ I haven't seen CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN advertise that
they are fair and balanced. Please provide a
link. -tom
\_ I don't recall having seen CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN
admit that they are biased. Please provide a
link. -jrleek
\_ Read it again; pp said they all "claim to be
fair and balanced." That's a positive
assertion for which proof should be available.
(If true.) -tom
\_ Plenty of news sources wear their bias on their
sleves. La Repubblica is the official Communist
Party organ in Italy, for example. It is much
less common in the US, granted. |
| 2005/5/6-7 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37553 Activity:high |
5/6 Political bias at google continues. Gave $463,500 to Dems, $5,000 to
Pubs. Not good now that we know they're going to act as a news filter.
\_ short GOOG
\_ Fuck you and die.
\_ I am confused by this grammar. Did you intend to prepend
this with "I will?"
\_ "Fuck you" is a sentence by itself, and "die" is a request;
I'm just joining them together. Maybe "Fuck you; die" would
work better.
\_ May you be fucked and die.
\_ As opposed to Fox. Given that you have such a choice of news
sources out there, any number of which probably share your
political views, where on Mars do you live that you think anyone
somehow owes you news in any format/with any slant whatsoever?
You don't _have_ to read what you don't like to hear. -John
\_ Fox News is a news/opinion station. I expect bias there as well
as CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. Google is supposed to be a bunch of
algorithms. Now they're working on grading news stories (which I
hope would point out errors so I can get facts and make my own
opinions), and I'm concerned their metafilter algorithms will
have a political bias.
\_ Google is positioning itself to be an internet media company,
much like Yahoo. Very very few companies will ever exist
as 'a bunch of algorithms' and continue to be not only
profitable but capable of real growth. While I appreciate
profitable but capable of real growth. While I appeciate
your worldview, it strikes me as more than a bit naive and
ingenuous. Google isn't supposed to be anything but a
profit oriented venture targeted toward an audience that will
will bring in profits. Welcome to the new reality where the
line separating news source and news provider is increasingly
blurry (not to mention the distinctions between internet,
media, and news).
profit oriented venture targetted toward an audience that will
will bring in profits. Welcome to the new reality where
news source and news provider are an increasingly blurry line.
\_ I doubt if "just as biased as Fox" would be considered a
worthy goal to strive for.
\_ Well done, A+. Now find me an unbiased news source. -John
\_ Show me one person without sin. Does that mean one should
not strive to lead a virtuous life?
not strive to be good?
\_ Actually, I think that the Newshour is not bad since
they mostly let the people talk about the issues and
let you draw your own conclusions.
\_ Stop using it then. Stop using the Internet, too, since it
was developed at Berkeley and Stanford, both well known liberal
universities.
\_ Who cares? No one is forcing you to get your news from google.
You can still go and get your news from some other site. If
this bothers you so much why don't you set up your own news
agregation site that is "fair and balanced"? |
| 2005/5/4 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37519 Activity:high |
5/4 Google's liberal bias:
Ad that ran: http://www.rightmarch.com/images/Google1.jpg
Ad that was rejected: http://www.rightmarch.com/images/Google2.jpg
\_ Good. It's about time we have a counter weight to Fox News which
has permeated to a majority of Americans.
\_ seconded.
\_ Gee, and I thought the way to fight bias was with fact, not more
bias.
\_ Clearly you don't watch much television.
\_ anyone familiar with recent news cannot equate
pelossi with delyy's scandals
\_ Great reasoning! I must agree in the face of that.
\_ If they were really biased, they wouldn't have accepted their
pro-DeLay ad either. |
| 2005/4/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37370 Activity:kinda low |
4/26 Islamic scholar convicted his political activity. url not shorteded
because it is kind of interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050426/ap_on_re_us/terror_paintball
\_ I am skeptical of their use of the term "islamic scholar". This
guy just finished a phd in computational biology. They cite no
evidence that this guy is any kind of actual religious scholar
or leader of any kind beyond his circle of freinds from paintball
and the internet. I'm guessing the word "kingpin" is from some
dipshit prosecutor who wants to be a star.
\_ Yeah, that "political activity" is called treason. And not
just the Ann Coulter version, that's the real deal.
\_ Yes, this is treason. The word has almost lost its real
meaning because it is constantly being abused by Bush
war supporters that claim anyone that disagrees with
them, like that jackass LTC whose blog was posted in the
motd yesterday. Reporting accurate, but unhappy, news about
events in Iraq is not "treason."
\_ Yeah, everyone who who misused the word treason are
\_ Yeah, everyone who who misuses the word treason are
traitors!
\_ I'm not suggesting letting this guy go free, but how is this
different from the militia groups that seem to get a free pass?
\_ According to the Michigan Militia group, they exist to protect
Americans in case our government/military becomes corrupted.
\_ Since when do militias get a free pass? |
| 2005/4/20 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37284 Activity:nil |
4/20 Please explain to me why DeLay thinks that doing web searches
on your own are incredibly outragous?
"Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based
upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States?
That's just outrageous," DeLay told Fox News Radio on Tuesday
"And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own
research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous." |
| 2005/4/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37244 Activity:moderate |
4/18 Ms. Right - Time Magazine features Ann Coulter
Cover: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101050425,00.html
Story: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/18/ann.coulter.tm/index.html
Quotes: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050425/what_did_she_say
"I think we ought to nuke N. Korea right now just to give the rest
of the world a warning. Boom! ... They're a major threat. I just
think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to ...
the world." - Jan 2005
"They're terrible people, liberals. They believe -- this can really
summarize it all -- these are people who believe," she said, now
raising her voice, "you can deliver a baby entirely except for the
head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and pronounce that a
constitutional right has just been exercised. That really says it
all. You don't want such people to like you."
The couple at an adjacent table -- which, this being Manhattan, was
a handsbreadth away -- visibly stiffened, and the man groaned. The
woman looked at Coulter with white-hot hatred, and Coulter ... blushed.
\_ Ann Coutler is a nut job, not a conservative.
\_ Ann Coulter is a typical Republican.
\_ No she's not, she's typical of a segment of smug, dogmatic
Republicans the same way some of the Berkeley fucknuts you
see being plain stpuid at protests are typical of a segment
of smug, dogmatic Democrats. -John
\_ Can someone explain to me how the term "conservative" and
"liberal" came about? I would consider myself
conservative/traditional in the normal sense, but
politically it seems that I matches that of a liberal.
Which part of "nuking NK" is being conservative? I don't
see how aggressive = conservative but apparently that is
the case...
\_ They were financial terms. Liberals were okay with
deficeit spending with a pay later attitude. Conservatives
wanted to run surplusses for a rainy day. Now the
\_ They were financial terms that have sponged up so much
extra political baggage as to be uselss. Useless terms
are of course, the preferred terms of the media. The
Republican party is no longer conservative. The
Democrats are still liberal, but not as liberal (in the
original financial sense) as Republicans
\_ Well, not really. Deficit Spending as we know it today pretty
much didn't exist until the last few decades. The terms
liberal and conservative get very muddy when applied to
different arenas. I tend to look at it as the level of
involvement you want from the government. This tack breaks
down, though, when considering the term "social conservative".
In any event, Conservatism has generally comprised of: laissez-
faire domestic policy making for smaller necessary government,
isolationist foreign policy, making for smaller necessary
military expenditures, and a federalist tendency. Of these,
only the first seems to still be a tenet of the R's.
only the first seems to still be a tenent of the R's.
\_ Liberals=compromise with your enemies, lay down weapons,
smoke weeds and make peace. Kind of like what wussy French
people did when Hitler attacked. Conservatives=no compromise,
stand up to your principles, increase defense (Republican
president=expanding military), you go our way or else. Nuking
N Korea is just a figure of speech.
\_ the French didn't lay down. All of their fighting adult
men were killed in WW1. - danh
\_ And they still lost 800,000 in WW2, about the same as
all US combat casualties from all US wars combined.
\_ I guess that lots of German soldiers survived?! This
seems like a poor excuse. The French haven't had any
soldiers worth a damn since Napoleon.
\_ It's more complicated than that. The French lost almost
5 percent of their population fighting a vicious 4 year
trench battle in Northern France during WW1, and then in
WW2 they first fought a defensive war against the
new German army, an army that was running around
all over Europe with their new blitzkrieg tactic
that the French defensive line was unable to handle.
Actually just about every other European army at
the time was unable to handle it that I can
WW2 they first fought a defensive war against the new German
army, an army that was running around all over Europe
with their new blitzkrieg tactic that the French defensive
line was unable to handle. Actually just about every other
European army at the time was unable to handle it that I can
think of right now. - danh
\_ You're all massively oversimplifying. Terrible
generalship, German chutzpah, poor politics &
capricious fortune all played a major part. -John
\_ You might as well say that anything Coulter writes/says is
a "figure of speech" then.
\_ Anyone who takes Ann Coulter seriously is an idiot.
She writes to inflame.
\_ If Time magazine had this on the cover next to her
photo, they might actually have done some serious
journalism.
\_ "The best way to talk to a liberal is with a baseball
bat." -Ann Coulter. Of course, this was a figure of
speech. She meant the best way to talk to liberals
is to herd them into camps and gas them.
\_ Yer more like O'Reilly (conservative/traditional)
Coulter is something else ...
\_ Coulter is not a real conservative. She's a well educated
Redneck. Rednecks!=Conservatives, althought these days they have
more in common with each other.
\_ Meh. I'd call her a partisan Republican. When I see her
criticizing Republicans for not holding to conservative
issues, I'll call her conservative.
\_ This is really really well-phrased. -John
\_ Time Magazine is pretty good at calling the "top" of political
and economic trends. Remember when they had Steve Case on the
cover?
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101000124,00.html
\_ Yeah, except it was his second cover. Look forward to two
more years of Coulter dominating the national discourse:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101970922,00.html
\_ Please stop paying attention to this woman.
\_ Your cock is so BIG and TAX FREE!
\_ Oh, it's taxing, baby!
\_ Why don't you write a letter to Time magazine?
\- AC is a hack to says extreme things to make money,
get airtime etc. i think rush limbaugh deserves to
be taken more seriously because i think he probably
has more of an effect on things because of his greater
mount of airtime.
\- the CSUA should put out a "I denied Ann Coulter sex"
tshirt.
\_ Why don't you write a letter to Time magazine with this sentence? |
| 2005/4/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37234 Activity:low |
4/18 OKC Bombing Linked to al-Qaida
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/17/112700.shtml
\_ find a non newsmax link and i MIGHT click on it.
\_ Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster to keep this
from leaking out.
\_ But HRC is merely a pawn in the game masterminded by the
Freemasons and the Jews!
\_ Yeah, whatever. How much did the Illuminati pay you to post
that red herring? |
| 2005/4/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37120 Activity:very high |
4/8 First Bolemic Lady and now a woman in Georgia is being starved to death. In
this woman's case however the woman's living will is being ignored.
She's not in a persistenet vegitative state nor is she comatose. The
granddaughter says "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and
who would want to live with disabilities like these?" She's also
prayed about it apparently and says "Grandmama is old and I think it is
time she went home to Jesus."
\_ She's prayed about it...who are we to doubt the will of Jesus? -tom
\_ Yeah, how would you feel as an atheist if someone prayed for you
and decided you were ready to die? -emarkp
\_ If I was incapable of understanding what was going on, I
don't think I'd feel much about it. Why do you think the
grandmother is an atheist? -tom
\_ I don't know if she's an atheist, but I'm fairly confident
that you are. And the question was directed to you, not
her. -emarkp
\_ I'll ask again, since you obviously have infinite free
time: what the FUCK is your point? Aside from the
fact that stirring up mindless bile among your
fellow social conservatives helps bring about your
theocracy, why are you so concerned with other
people's business? Maybe you should take heed of
the fact that if Christian fundamentalists really do
take over this country, mormons won't fare any better
than us liberal athiests.
\_ The irony here is palpable. I'm not for a
democratic theocracy. I don't like the idea of
people being starved to death when their wishes are
unknown or known to be against dying. -emarkp
\_ Don't argue with him, tom. Bolemic Lady's probably already
a Mormon by now thanks to posthumous baptism. JPII
too most likely too by now.
\_ Well, if you're really not interested in
turning this country into a far-right theocracy,
you should re-think some things. Do you really
not see what's going on here? The media circuses
surrounding various moral issues is to soften up
appointments in May. It is all part of a
so that the far right can force their extremist
have occured daily forever. Doesn't the timing
of this explosion of politics seem just the
tiniest bit odd to you? Think about it. Based
on your other posts, I don't think you are an
evil guy, but I'm afraid that you have decided
to act as a tool of evil by spouting the party
line of the far-right theocrats.
\_ Don't argue with him, tom. Terri's probably
already a Mormon by now thanks to posthumous
baptism. JPII too most likely too by now.
\_ Aaron!?! You're back! And you can't spell
"bulimic". -emarkp
\_ So you admit that your question was nothing but a
red herring? OK, thanks. I already answered your
question for me, and it added absolutely nothing to
the discussion.
I certainly don't see how someone whose brain and
bodily systems are all in an advanced state of
failure can think that Jesus wants her to live. -tom
\_ Um, this subthread was about the Georgia woman, who
doesn't have the problems you describe. -emarkp
\_ yes, she does. -tom
\_ Where does any story say that? -emarkp
\_ Then it'd be like that six month old boy that a hospital
put to death in Texas, despite the pleas from this mother!
CULTURE OF LIFE!!
\_ obTroll: Remind me again how many people Texas knocks
off every year? Oh, that's different. -John
The only online story I can find about
it is here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43688
Please don't dismiss it just because it's worldnetdaily. I'll happily
eat my words if the facts turn out to be different, but I've heard a
phone conversation with Ken Mullinax (the elderly woman's nephew). You
can listen to it free here (windows media unfortunately):
http://www.glennbeck.com/audio/free-audio.shtml (first link)
-emarkp
\_ Stop saying "starved to death". They are not being starved to death.
Their disease process is killing them, not starvation.
\_ What you meant to say was, most neurologists say a PVS patient
doesn't suffer, since they have no perception of pain.
\_ Wow, your ignorance is stunning. What "disease" did "they" have?
-emarkp
\_ OK I was referring to Terri, not your new person.
\_ What "disease" did Terri have? -emarkp
\_ OK I was referring to Bolemic Lady, not your new person.
\_ What "disease" did Bolemic Lady have? -emarkp
\_ Oh I don't know, maybe some shit called necrosis
rotting away in her brain from old events due to
her eating disorder. She was as close to dead
as possible, so don't even try to say she was
healthy. The only reason you and others think
she was functioning was because her eyes were
open in a creepy sort of way, fooling you into
believing she was engaging you. Yeah, the lack
of food tipped the scales finally, but that was
hardly a major blow. Starvation was the least of
her worries.
\_ She only needed food and water to survive, just
like you and me. Also, I've never seen proof of
any eating disorder. It's commonly noted, but
her family disputes that it was ever established.
Can you point to proof of her eating disorder?
-emarkp
\_ OK, how can we prove anything then? This
actually brings up a very good point, which is
that NONE of her situation is for us to
discuss. And by us I mean anyone that isn't
her, her husband, her parents, and her medical
team (which means no dumbass lawmakers and
politicians of course). The issue of one's end
of life is an extremely personal issue that is
only relevant to the few select people I
mentioned, for they are the ONLY ones that
know the true situation in all its intimate
and fine detail. This is not our business (and
it never was), so let's stop discussing it.
\_ The *real* question in the issue is why did
her husband have the only vote when there
was doubt about her wishes. *That's* what
we need to discuss. If Terri had left
we need to discuss. If Bolemic Lady had left
written instructions, I'd have no beef.
Though it may not have helped her, as it
hasn't for the woman in Georgia. -emarkp
\_ For CHRISSAKE! He didn't have the only
fucking vote. There were multiple
relations who testified to her wishes.
Her parents had their day in court.
The system did its job. Get the hell
over it.
\_ No, the court system determined that
he had the only vote. I don't
understand how the judge did that.
-emarkp
\_ Because he was 1) her husband,
2) her legal guardian, and 3) when
challenged, the judge decided not
to change the guardianship. And
if you start screaming about his
"infidelity" again, we've been
through it. Bury this dead horse.
\_ Do you have a point?
\_ Now wouldn't have it been a lot better if protestors rallied to this
person's cause instead of Terri's?
\_ Terri's story had more time to build up, but I'd say yes, that
person's cause instead of Bolemic Lady's?
\_ Bolemic Lady's story had more time to build up, but I'd say yes, that
person's cause instead of Anorexia's?
\_ Anorexia's story had more time to build up, but I'd say yes, that
this is more important than her case because (if the facts are
right) they're killing someone against her express wishes.
-emarkp
\_ If this is indeed true, and someone wrongly claimed to have power
of attourney, this is bad, and should come to legal trouble for the
hospice and for the claimant to PoA. However, as the only sources so
far are wnd and a few right leaning blogs, I'll continue to be
skeptical. --scotsman
\_ Did you listen to the audio?
\_ no. but it appears to be an interview from someone who made
plenty of hay out of schiavo. Get a journalist on the case
and i'll lose some skepticism. check the validity of the
will. check out the PoA claims. strip the hysterics and give
me the facts.
\_ Ah. So you're not willing to evaluate the case because
Beck was in the don't-starve-Terri camp? Nice piece of
Beck was in the don't-starve-Bolemic Lady camp? Nice piece of
work. -emarkp
\_ Uh, no, i'm not willing to evaluate the case because
everything you've posted and everything on google news
about it is from interested parties. Find me a couple
disinterested observers as sources, and I'll consider
it. For now it feels like an attempted echo chamber.
\_ Pinch hitting for Pedro Borbon... Manny Mota....
\_ People who lose credibility often find it tough
to regain anyones trust. The whole Terri Schiavo
crowd, by their pointless campaign to smear her
husband by spreading a bunch of lies, has lost
my trust and respect.
\_ Now here is a non-WND link: link:csua.org/u/bm7 -emarkp
\_ I don't doubt that even if this particular story is skewed,
in the real world stuff like "Kid doesn't want to take care
of granny anymore for [laziness|greed|revenge|stupidity] and
sticks it to granny against her expressed wishes" is not new to
the 21st century.
\_ what is new is the idea that random nutjobs in Utah think
they should have something to do with the decision. -tom
\_ What does Utah have to do with this? -emarkp
\_ Dum dum dum dum dum...
\_ You mean you just discovered that people starve to death in America?
This kind of stuff has been going on for a long time.
\_ Hey 80 col Nazi! You keep deleting lines that are 79 or 80 chars.
What's your problem? -emarkp
\_ Yeah, doesn't he know that [79 columns|3 out of 4 neurologists
who have done a neurological exam and say she's PVS for 12+
years] is acceptable to most people? [80 columns which causes
automatic linebreaks|evil grandkid ignoring living will] crosses
a line, though.
\_ emarkp, do you realize all of the following:
(1) In Feb 2000, the court determined "by clear and convincing
evidence that Mrs. Schiavo would then elect to cease
evidence that Mrs. Bolemic Lady would then elect to cease
evidence that Mrs. Terri would then elect to cease
life-prolonging procedures if she were competent to make her own
decision".
(2) Her parents appealed.
(3) The Florida appeals court affirmed the decision in Jan 2001.
(4) The Florida appeals court denied re-hearing in Feb 2001.
(5) The Florida Supreme Court denied review of the case in Apr 2001.
(6) Since then there have been multiple motions claiming new
evidence, but all the courts have come back leaving the original
decision intact.
Sure, innocents are executed in capital crimes. Just as well,
Terri Schiavo might be a case where the court is wrong. And, I can
this might be a case where the court is wrong. And, I can
see how it would make sense to create a law that said you can't
kill someone in a PVS unless they have put it in writing. I can
also see how it would make sense to have a law that says you can't
kill a criminal unless there is no doubt (as opposed to beyond a
reasonable doubt) that person committed a capital crime. Your
focus should be on creating the former law, and you do a great
disservice to your cause by not clearly stating this. In addition
to saying "If Terri had left written instructions, I'd have no
to saying "If Bolemic Lady had left written instructions, I'd have no
beef", you should also say, "I support a law requiring such". Stop
complaining about the effects of the rules -- petition to change
the rules.
the rules. -jctwu
\_ You do know that this was a judicial review of Judge Greer's
findings of fact, right? There was no 'de novo' review of the
case. Oh, and sign your name. -emarkp
\_ Because congress is not allowed to just create new
jurisdictions. Separation of powers. The judge rightly
smacked congress down for it.
\_ This is not strictly correct. Art. 3 allows congress
to enact legislation that provides jurisdiction for
fed cts. The jurisdiction of fed cts is far more
limited than what the framers allowed in Art. 3.
Please note that the judges did not rule on whether
the act of congress creating jurisdiction for Bolemic Lady's
the act of congress creating jurisdiction for Terri's
case to be heard in fed ct was constitutional. Rather
he ruled on the temp restraining order that was sought
to keep Bolemic Lady alive. In order to be granted a TRO the
to keep Terri alive. In order to be granted a TRO the
party seeking it must show that they will most likely
previal at trial. The parents could not show this so
the lost the motion.
\_ What is "this"? Are you referring to (3)-(5), or the de novo
review that federal courts were ordered by law to conduct?
Before you answer, I urge you to consider carefully what I've
already written. Why argue when we might already agree on
some key points? -jctwu
\_ "Ordered by law"... Heheh. The judge would have had a
hard time deciding which grounds to toss that law out on.
It's a veritable garden of unconstitutionality.
\_ The standard for review of findings of facts by a ct of
appeals is clear error. The only other way to make new
findings of fact is to conduct a new trial.
While it can be argued that congress authorized this,
the text of the statute is not clear. The version I
read simply says 'de novo', it does not state whether
this is a new trial or merely review of the record. If
it is review of the record, then the dist ct only had
the power to review the record and reverse legal
conclusions or findings of fact that were clearly
erroneous; the dist ct would have to assume that the
trial ct's findings of facts were largely true.
Please also see above re the TRO. The parents did not
meet the requirements to be granted a TRO (which has
nothing to do w/ the standard of review).
Terri's case was handled properly w/in the law, even
if the judges didn't like the outcome, they were
constrained to act as they did. If they were to do
otherwise, all stability would be lost.
If the results in this case are not to your liking,
the proper course of action is to have statutes (fed
or state) enacted to ensure a different result.
--ranga
\_ yeah, like in Texas where Bush enacted a statute that
lets hospitals kill patients over the objections of
their caregivers. -tom
\_ I do not know the legislative history of the
the Texas statute that you mention, however
statutes are normally enacted by the legislature
and signed into law by the Gov. Assuming that
this statute became law in that fashion, the
statute can be taken as an expression of the
views of the majority of the citizen of Texas
by their elected representatives. Perhaps the
views of the citizen differ from those of the
caregivers, but why should the views of the
caregivers be given precedence over those of
the general public?
If the enactment of such a statute bothers you
(1) don't live in Texas or (2) work to elect
people who hold other views.
\_ What kind of nonsense is this. So when the
legislature of Indiana defined Pi to be 4,
that was a good thing since it was the will
of the people?
\_ No, because the bible states it should be 3.
Heretic!
\_ The value of pi is a fact, community
opinion doesn't define the value of
pi, nature does. In contrast, the
issue of how to handle end of life
cases are largely based on societal
conventions/opinion and are best
handled by the legislative process.
BTW, if pi were defined as 4, it
just means that we have to change
the rest of our number system, there
is nothing holy about 3.14159...
\_ If smart was defined as stupid, you would
be smart.
\_ Get your facts right. That never happened.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm
\_ I'd be willing to bet that if Terri hadn't been white
and photogenic, we'd never have heard of her. |
| 2005/4/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37103 Activity:high |
4/7 Watch popular conservative blog get it wrong on authenticity of
Schiavo memo: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009953
The third possibility is that the memo is a Democratic dirty trick.
At the moment, that looks most likely. It is easy to picture how the
document could have been constructed. A Democratic staffer wants to
put in some language that will sound authentic for a Republican memo.
What does he do? He steals four paragraphs from the Coalition's web
site. Then he adds the explosive political observations which are the
whole point of the exercise--weirdly out of place in a "talking
points" memo, but good politics for the Democrats.
\_ You stopped taking your meds, didn't you?
\_ i think a republican staffer just resigned for writing the
memo - danh
\_ A Florida Senator's legal counsel with close ties to... Tom DeLay.
\_ You are correct.
\_ Bahh, I have no need of your useless facts or logic!
\_ From the Sun-Sentinel in Florida: http://csua.org/u/blx
\_ You stopped taking your meds, didn't you?
\_ Do you see the black helicopters too?
\_ You two do realize the paragraph is taken verbatim from the URL?
\_ Powerline is no better than The Free Republic.
\_ Nor is Sean Hannity, nor Rush Limbaugh, nor Michelle Malkin,
nor any of the other commentators who jumped on the meme that
the memo was forged by dems.
\_ Wow--I guess it's a good sign that I hadn't heard this nutty
theory. Sounds just as wacky as the Dems who claim that the
CBS memos were authored by Karl Rove as a trap for the left.
\_ To her credit (never expected to say that...) Malkin came
to her senses today.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002017.htm
\_ Not really. Rather than apologize for spreading a
false rumour, she gets all snarky and defensive
ands makes a bunch more unsubstantiated attacks.
\_ Actually she links to an earlier blog entry where
she says other bloggers believed the forgery rumors,
not her, and another blog where she attacked the
believability of a report suggesting so.
now why do i feel so dirty?
\_ Powerline is just as much of a right-wing loony bin as Dailykos over
on the left.
\_ Mediamatters has an entire timeline on how this crap got into the
mainstream media. This all just reminds me of that Negativland
record "Helter Stupid."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200504070005
\_ Heh.
"I think within a week or two it will become clear that it--that
memo was a forgery, possibly written by Democrats on the Hill in
an effort to discredit Republicans." -Tucker Carlson |
| 2005/4/5 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37071 Activity:insanely high |
4/5 I need some URL to forward to co-workers to cheer them up.
Please help, offer suggestions.
\_ http://csua.berkeley.edu/motd
\_ http://csua.com/Recreation/Humor
http://csua.com/Recreation/Stripclub
\_ http://www.prettyhotbabes.com
\_ GODAMNIT. This is NOT work safe. -pissed
\_ This may be considered an intelligence test. You failed it.
\_ Doesn't everyone at soda work for a porn site or sex shop
by now? That means that http://foxnews.com may no longer be work
safe but porn sites will be.
\_ Funny, since foxnews seems to maximize the hot babes as
often as possible (stories, female reporters, etc.).
\_ http://www.partiallyclips.com
\_ http://www.finalexit.org
\_ http://www.asianthumbs.org/main.php
\_ None of these site cheered them up. Furthermore, they all
think I have bad taste, though my manager has not said anything.
Please come up with better links and I will forward them manana.
\_ http://www.prozac.com it REALLY WORKS!
\_ http://www.hanzismatter.com |
| 2005/4/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Academia] UID:37037 Activity:moderate |
4/1 I wonder if that's Jewish salad dressing?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/01/buchanan.attacked.ap/index.html
\_ I really don't like either one of those guys, but it sounds like
they handled it with class, and the students look like jackasses.
\_ My thoughts exactly.
\_ "Could 10 of the largest College Republicans start walking up and
down the aisles and start removing anyone shouting? Otherwise, this
lecture is over." -A. Coulter, Kansas University |
| 2005/3/31-4/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37001 Activity:nil |
3/31 You'd think a "liberal" media would be all over this. As it is
you have to do your own searching of various Texas newspapers to
learn about Sun Hudson, the six month old boy who was put to
death by a hospital, despite his mother pleading for his life.
Sun Hudson had a fatal disease, but was alive and conscious when
the hospital staff, following a law signed by George W Bush,
killed him.
And Bush says: I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue
to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and
valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of
others.
Unless "others" excludes hospitals in Texas, and "all Americans"
excludes six month old boys from poor families.
\_ Well, don't forget: They were black and not Christian. So others
also excludes non-white pagans or atheists.
\_ What law signed by Bush ordered the hospital staff to kill the boy?
\_ The Futile Care Law. It didn't order them to. It allowed them
to make the decision, without recourse. I'm not so much bothered
by the law, but by the hypocrisy in having signed such a law,
then sweeping in to the aid of Ms. Schiavo.
\_ I saw it here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43311
but of course people dismiss worldnetdaily because it's full of
right-wing nuts, right?
\_ It seems like it would at least be worth mentioning that the law
this action was taken under was signed by the President.
\- i think this episode does show the republican controlled
legislature has gone nuts ... considering they were repeatedly
chastised by multiple judges with solid conservative but
not populist credentials. As John Dryden wrote:
The moderate sort of men, thus qualifi'd,
Inclin'd the balance to the better side:
...
But when the chosen people grew more strong,
The rightful cause at length became the wrong.
--psb |
| 2005/3/28 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36915 Activity:high |
3/28 Block FAUX News: http://tinyurl.com/5av72 \_ I've got to wonder about freaks who buy this. It's not enough to change the channel? You're paying for a channel that you then block? \_ "The point is not to block the channel or block free speech but to raise awareness," said Kimery... \_ No no no. You misunderstand. I'm not talking about the guy selling the device. I'm talking about the freaks buying it. \_ Same deal. \_ Whatever freakboy. Enjoy your reality. \_ I don't want my children exposed to that filth. \_ I really doubt you have children. \_ Why don't you just hide the channel and passwd protect it? Most TVs already have this feature built in w/o having to buy something extra. \_ What the hell is this thing? Is it just a pass-through filter that blocks the frequency of Fox News Channel? If so, not all cable providers put Fox News on the same channel. \_ Maybe it just filters out fair and balanced reporting. |
| 2005/3/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36817 Activity:kinda low |
3/22 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151206,00.html Hey you fucking dumb ass pro-lifer conservatives, do you actually agree with this lame Fox News commentary? \_ No, I'm too stupid to type, so I can't respond to this you fucktard. \_ Ya know, I'm vehemently pro-choice as far as abortion goes, and am ambivalent on the Schiavo case, but I can't for the life of me what about this piece is so upsetting (well, except for the last paragraph, but I still don't really see how that merits your frothing at the mouth). Enlighten me? -alexf \_ I bet op is angry because the writer makes it sound like he's so reasonable but he's a filthy liar, and by being on TV at regular times gets both widespread distribution and credibility. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55441-2005Mar21.html In any case, I do agree with the Fox News guy in the sense that you shouldn't kill her by starvation. My opinion (and he doesn't say this) is, once you have established beyond a reasonable doubt her desire to die if she knew she were in an irreversible, persistent vegetative state, then she should be killed using something quicker. \_ Agreed. But assisted suicide with pills, injections, etc is illegal, and mostly because of conservatives. So now they're arguing how inhumane it is to let her starve when they also block euthanasia. Hypocrites. \_ Funny how Michael remembered she wanted to die only after receiving over a million dollars in a malpractice suit, money that was specifically awarded for her rehabilitation. You want to guess how much of that money was spent on Terri and how much on Michael's pro-euthanasia lawyer Felos? Felos' hospice is also under investigation for Medicare fraud for bringing in 150+ patients who should not have been there. This is the same hospice Terri was moved to. \_ You're right about him remembering her wishes after coicidentally receiving $1M, but lately he's been offered much more money to give up the fight and keep her tube in, and he's turned that money down. \_ taking the money is really not a possibility, it would make him look terrible. Plus, there will be plenty of money from book deals and film once Terri passes. \_ He *claims* he was offered $10M. I haven't seen anything to prove it. -emarkp \_ Would your opinion on the case be different if you believed he was arguing his position in good faith? \_ He can't stop the proceedings now, anyway. \_ The GOP loves vegetables and hates fruits. \_ Hilarious! This is the funniest thing i've seen on the motd in some time. |
| 2005/3/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36810 Activity:low |
3/22 Here is an amusing thought experiment. Turn on Rush Limbaugh or
Michael Savage or Ann Coulter and everytime you hear the word
"Liberal" replace it mentally in your head with the word "Jew."
\_ This is interesting or meaningful because...?
\_ Throw the Liberal down the well, so my country can be free!
\_ How dare you contaminate our precious water supply.
\_ I guess it illustrates their brand of hatred.
America-hating Jews, the Jew media, communist Jews...
America-hating Joos, the Joo media, communist Joos...
pretty much fits the 1936 agenda... -!op |
| 2005/3/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36788 Activity:moderate |
3/21 Nurse: Terri Can Eat Normally
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/20/102601.shtml
http://www.zimp.org/stuff/06%20-%20CindyShookDepo.htm
\_ "'When is that bitch gonna die?'" Do you really buy this?
\_ I really don't care about this case one way or the other,
but, do you this the Nurse is lying? How do you know?
\_ I think there's a lot of shit being piled on a guy who
has gone through a horrible ordeal. As he has no political
gain in the matter, and others do, I tend to give him more
benefit of the doubt than newsmax.
\_ You may very well be right, but it seems like there's
enough evidence of douchiness that it makes sense to at
least try feeding her by mouth. I mean, this sort of
decision is supposed to happen with full support of all
involved.
\_ Ordeal? 1.5 years after she collapsed he was screwing
another woman. At the same time he was telling a court
that he loved Terri! And only needed $1M to take care of
her. Then he got the money and hasn't stopped trying to
kill her.
\_ The money went directly to her care. He has declined
an offer of $1M from some loony businessman to walk
away. If he were trying to kill his wife for personal
gain, as you seem to think, would he have done that?
You suck.
\_ This case is not about the husband being a jerk. And
1.5 years is not short. Most people would have pulled
the tube within 6-months and move on with their lives.
\_ Um, yes it is. He's the one who decides whether she
lives or dies and he's fucking someone else. 1.5
years after her collapse he WAS IN COURT ASKING FOR
MONEY TO TAKE CARE OF HER, WHILE FUCKING ANOTHER
WOMAN.
\_ You do not know this person. You would never
have known about this person in a sane world.
You spout anger as though Terri was your sister.
Check yourself. When you can translate rage
at something like this (which is truly a false
rage perpetuated by selected facts and rumors)
into empathy, you might learn to get your point
across.
\_ Her parents encouraged him to get on with his life.
Look into it.
\_ I have no problem with keeping her alive as long as the medical
bills don't go to the taxpayers.
\_ What do you think happens when an insurance company pays for
medical care? They do it out of the goodness of their hearts?
\_ Insurance companies have no hearts. They're out there to
maximize profits.
\_ which is why they pass on their costs to their policy
holders; that is, taxpayers.
\_ She's on Medicaid, which Bush is in the process of trying to
cut.
\_ The congress should be focusing on the real problems.
\_ 70% of Americans think Congress is wasting time on this circus:
http://csua.org/u/bg1
\_ arbiter says she had no awareness
link:www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/2005/03/20/news/nation/11185214.htm
link:tinyurl.com/4vnsh
(mercurynews.com/noway1@nohow.com/nopassword1)
\_ Terri is practically Einstein according to some of the more fundie
websites. Let's see, she can talk, swallow, communicate, and her
husband tried to kill her. The big questions are, why did 7 years
worth of court trials and doctor examinations not uncover any of
this (are they all idiots or in a conspiracy), and why did the
husband not accept the multiple $1M+ offers to let his wife go?
\_ Her husband can't stop it now even if he wanted to. As for
medical care, you will see when you are very sick and/or old
that doctors stop caring as much when they think you are not
worth the effort. I watched my 86 y.o. grandfather die because of
this kind of nonchalance. "Well, we *could* do xyz, but he's
so old that..." I am sure the doctors think she's not worth
their time at this point. My neighbor is a neurologist and
one time he ordered an MRI for a boy who had severe
neurological problems. He was diagnosed with a stroke, I
think. Anyway, the insurance refused to pay.
one time he ordered an MRI for a boy who had severe neurological
problems. He was diagnosed with a stroke, I think, by the
previous doctor. Anyway, the insurance refused to pay for an MRI
on a 'stroke victim'. My neighbor resigned as the boy's doctor.
Later on, it was discovered the boy had a brain tumor. It was
removed and the boy is fine now. The MRI would have caught it.
There are a lot of doctors who don't care enough to fight
the bureaucracy and you can't really blame them.
\_ This is obviously not the case here since she's lived for
15 years despite having little brain function. Why can't
her husband stop now even if he wanted to? Take the money
and run!
\_ He can't stop, because it is the court's decision to
make now. My point was that maybe Terri would be
better now or would be improving if she had had
better medical care. However, lots of doctors see
'vegetative state' and 'Medicare' and don't do
anything for her. For many of those years she was in
a home with no specialized therapy or care. She has
had nursing, but not good physicians. Most of the
doctors around her now are trying to determine if
she is a vegetable, not what the best treatment
might be. Frankly, they hold out little hope and
project that lack of hope onto her.
\_ it's in the hands of the courts. congress is trying
to take the decision out of the hands of the state courts
right now. at this point it's out of the husbands control.
\_ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/opinion/22tue1.html?hp
Republicans take a dump on the Constitution then wipe up
with the Bill of Rights.
\_ There is a strong possibility that the fed ct judge
or the 11th cir ct of appeals will rule that article
3 does not give congress the power to authorize a
new c/a wrt to a previously adjudicated state law
claim. The parents seem to have hedged their bets
and are claiming that the procedural errors by the
judge amount to a depravation due process rights
under the color of law, which is actionable in fed
ct. If this claim works out, the case may be remanded
to state ct to fix the procedural errors, assuming
that they were prejudicial. |
| 2005/3/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36581 Activity:moderate |
3/8 Why do conservatives have such a deep personal hatred of Hillary
Clinton? I've seen her referred to as the "Evil One" on freerepublic,
and I'm a little confused as to why the hatred for her is so personal.
\_ She's feminism, pro-choice, and lying bitch all rolled into one.
They do have some regard for toughness, so in this respect think
she bests Bubba in this respect.
\_ Her power makes their penis seem even smaller.
\_ From what I remember in the early 90's, it was because she was
very active in pushing her health care reform plan even though
she was never elected as a policy-maker. At least that's when the
hatred began. |
| 2005/3/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36572 Activity:moderate |
3/7 I've heard that armed forces in other countries (Switzerland,
France, and even UK) are REQUIRED to take extracurricular classes like
military history, Western Civilization, foreign languages, etc. How
about our armed forces in Iraq, how well educated are they? And what
about the liberal motd guy who has a brother that loves Bill OReiley,
how is he doing in Iraq right now? Is he still worshipping OReiley?
\_ No they're not. The officer candiates must take some additional
theoretical training, as well as some "how to be a gentleman" type
classes (as a bunch of their guys will essentially be farmboys.)
Basic training? All the guys I knew in the Swiss, French, German
and British armies spent basic training running around, screaming
a lot, doing pushups (as one does) and smoking dope and drinking
loads whenever they had the chance to get out. This is the big
argument against draft armies--not only do you get the usual
losers, but you also get the losers who'd much rather be
anywhere else. -John
\_ I had another big argument with him, but this time handed him some
articles penned by O'Reilly saying how the U.S. was very wrong about
WMD intelligence, and also gave him the CIA key conclusions on this.
He was so convinced about WMDs, but now he sees the other side, he
is much less angry.
After that, he read a whole bunch of books on what military life was
like, and will be starting boot camp at Ft. Benning March 11.
I also think he got my basic message that Dubya really needs to
unite the country and the world.
\_ Marines? Navy? Army?
\_ Army National Guard, Infantry
\_ Most of the guys on the ground in Iraq are not well-educated
and would be unemployed if not for the military. My
acquaintance in Iraq (who is still here on leave for another
week) said that lots of guys have nothing to go home to and
when their enlistment ends they work as private contractors.
He brought back lots of interesting photos and videos in
addition to telling stories. He's been there 6 months and in
the Army for almost 13 years. BTW, he's in NW Baghdad, an area
not particularly friendly to the US unlike some areas. If you
really want to know what the heck is going on over there then
e-mail me. --dim
\_ It's alright dim, I have a pretty good idea what's going on.
I watch Fox News every day to keep up with current affairs.
Everyday, our troops are spreading freedom. They are building
infrastructures that provide food, water, shelter, and
teaching Western ideologies to the Iraqi savages. The world is
safer today thanks to George W. Bush. God Bless America !mormon
\_ The more you watch Fox News, the more inaccurate your
view of the world becomes:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf
\_ LIBERAL LIES! Everything but Fox is full of liberal lies.
Truth is in Fox and truth in God. -real conservative |
| 2005/3/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36570 Activity:kinda low |
3/7 How to argue with unyielding morally right conservatives (how to talk
to conservatives when they think they're right and you're wrong):
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18597
\_ I prefer to talk to liberals with a baseball bat. -Ann Coulter |
| 2005/3/7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36564 Activity:high |
3/7 Freedom of Speech is dying.
http://csua.org/u/ba8
\_ Just for the record, CU is run by total fuckheads. Read up on
their various football related scandals, and how the administration
reacted. I know someone on the faculty there, and the faculty
are PISSED about how that was handled. It's clear that the
university has more respect for their rapist football team than
they do for their nobel laureate physicists. I'm not taking a side
in this case, I'm just providing background on how this school is
run.
\_ Umm... so some crackpots are screaming to get someone fired for
something they said... is that new? I don't think he should get
fired for his writing, he should be fired for getting tenure
under false pretenses.
\_ I don't see the Federal gov't involved, so what is the problem?
\_ State Government cesorship is okay in your book?
\_ You are misappropriating the term censorship. He can say
whatever he wants ad nauseum, but that does not entitle
him to be a taxpayer subsidized fraud.
\_ A government official firing you because you said something
unpopular definitely qualifies as censorship. But I admit
in this case no one has been fired yet, there has just
been a lot of mau-mauing by the governor.
\_ I think you are mistaking unpopular w/ untrue. This
guy is going to get his ass kicked out of CU b/c he
have been going around making up stuff that is
completely bogus and he finally got called on it.
\_ "The WTC attacks are an example of the chickens
coming home to roost" is nothing more than an
unpopular opinion. Your belief that it is "false"
says a lot more about you than anything else.
\_ Ummm... he's refering to the guy's previous
articles, which are indeed, often full of
false information. As it, it doesn't even
vaugely agree with the sources he sites.
This 9/11 crap just drew attention to it.
\_ How is it dying? A loudmouthed professor got scrutiny which turned
up his past lies, plagiarism and exposed him as someone who assaults
reporters. The guy's a scumbag who got his job under false
pretenses. -emarkp
\_ His essay is hilarious. He actually ties 9/11 to Iraq. |
| 2005/3/7 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36561 Activity:nil |
3/7 http://csua.org/u/ba8 |
| 2005/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36433 Activity:high |
2/25 Best... Freeper... Post... Ever....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350645/posts
\_ What...the...fuck...? I don't even understand the intent of the post
or of any of the replies enough to even make fun of them.
\_ wow wtf is that? tangent: kids with flags and uniforms make me sick.
\_ I feel a great swelling of pride... in not being one of those
people.
\_ On the other hand, you post here.
\_ Touche'.
\_ The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Mom in the upper right corner is just
too perfect.
\_ Since you all seemed unable to figure this out, the thread is for
the morale of troops who visit the site, of which there are
a significant number. So, my reply is you all are pricks.
Do you mock the USO as well?
\_ Posting morale boosters for the troops to freep is akin to having
your anti-war rally blessed by UBL. I mean, sure, the sentiment
is there, but it's still ick.
\_ Bad analogy. There are probably quite a few soldiers who
read and enjoy freerepublic, and appreciate the support.
The idiocy in the freeper post isn't idiotic because it's
a freeper post or because it is intended to support or
entertain the troops, it's idiotic because it's idiotic. |
| 2005/2/15 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36186 Activity:moderate |
2/15 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147731,00.html Bush is going to cut education as promised. I bet this is going to help with the military recruitment, hence killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Bush is brilliant, simply brilliant -conservative \_ You are about as conservative as Howard Dean. \_ RAAWWWWRRRRGGGHH!! |
| 2005/2/8-9 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36112 Activity:very high |
2/8 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146797,00.html I have to say this is the hottest junior high teacher I have ever seen. If I were the same 13 year old, I'd shut up and enjoy the ride. \_ There was a recent case where the teacher was hotter. \_ Agreed. That was Debra Lafave. \_ I wonder if this is the same school where the principal banned War Veterans for Peace from distributing information to students. \_ My French teacher in HS was hotter--she as also the swim coach. Tall, blonde, liked to wear red minidresess. -John \_ Damn you. My French teacher in high school was about 65, short, and fat. Fortunately, she didn't like to wear red minidresess. \_ I had the hots for two teachers, both hotter than this one. In biology class, watching her always kept my thoughts on topic. Damn. \_ Human Biology? \_ try http://afterschooldoc.com and look for "Debra Lafave". Her ex-husband was interviewed on Larry King, and seemed cool and decent even though he was humiliated by the whole thing. \_ Or just: http://images.google.com/images?q=debra%20lafave \_ Seconded. I'll bet every horny 13 year old boy (is there any other kind) was dreaming about banging her -- and one of them got lucky ... \_ Is there a NAWBLA? \_ North American Wayne Brady Look Alikes? |
| 2005/2/7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36083 Activity:nil |
2/6 One of those "programs" that must be "redundant"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/politics/07budget.html |
| 2005/2/3 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:36057 Activity:high |
2/3 What is the most non-intrusive web site that you wouldn't mind your
boss seeing you looking at? Javadoc? CNN? Google/Yahoo? I'm asking
because I'm thinking of writing a program that translates
controversial stuff (like freerepublic) to make it look like Yahoo
email so that my boss wouldn't say something about it. ok thx
\_ http://salary.com
\_ http://fuckedcompany.com
\_ http://m2m4sex.com
\_ goat.cx of course
\_ Our regression status report internal page. Actually I can imagine
making it link to news stories and formatting the stories as test
output. Haha. |
| 2005/1/27 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:35926 Activity:high |
1/26 I hate democracy
http://www.filibustercartoons.com
\_ In other news, the Shining Path is a bunch of murdering thugs.
Do people on the Right really think people who opposed the war
support Al-Zarqawi?
\_ The short answer is yes. Why do you think Ann Coulter called
her book _Treason_?
\_ Ann Coulter != people on the Right
\_ Do you think she is on the Left? Her books sell millions,
she is adored by the Freeper crowd and she is one of the
thought leaders of modern American conservatism. She
certainly does not represent every single American
conservative, but hers is part of the mainstream.
This is why I said "the short answer." Now you have
the long answer. Is there any part of that you
disagree with?
\_ No dumbass. She is a person, not people. And she is a
faaaaar right polemicist, not a representative sample.
\_ I find it amusing that both conservatives who
have bothered to reply have resorted to personal
attacks.
\_ Why? When someone's being an idiot I call them on
it.
\_ By the same token, Mr. Moore is part of the Left
mainstream, and is their 'thought leader.'
You = drooling moron.
\_ You = ad hominem attacks
Yes, I would agree that Mr. Moore is part of
the Left mainstream. Absolutely. Do you know
the difference between the singular and
plural in the English Language? One of the
thought leaders is not the same idea as
The thought leader.
Moore:Left::Coulter:Right
\_ Heh. You are the motd thought leader!
\_ And here I thought I was a drooling moron...
\_ What do you think thought leader means,
thought leader?
\_ This is pretty much what I think it means:
http://csua.org/u/avl
What do you think it means?
\_ For some reason pointing out how the Bush admin is running
this country straight into the ground is treason? |
| 5/27 |