Politics Domestic RepublicanMedia - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:RepublicanMedia:
Results 151 - 300 of 353   < 1 2 3 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/09/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/19    

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.
2017/09/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/19    

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/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] 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/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] 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.
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 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] 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/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] 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/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] 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 [Recreation/Celebrity/MarthaStewart, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] 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/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, 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/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] 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/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President] 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/Crime, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] 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/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] 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/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] 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/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] 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/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] 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/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] 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/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] 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/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] 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/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/Gay] 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/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President] 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 [Academia, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] 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/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] 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/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] 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/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, 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?
2017/09/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/19    
Results 151 - 300 of 353   < 1 2 3 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:RepublicanMedia:
.