Slashdot Mirror

Is ABC good enough?

"The FBI can access cell phones and modify them remotely without ever having to physically handle them," James Atkinson, a counterintelligence security consultant, told ABC News. "Any recently manufactured cell phone has a built-in tracking device, which can allow eavesdroppers to pinpoint someone's location to within just a few feet," he added.

"My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

Read the whole thing for yourself, or watch the footage. It was all about the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Nothing he said there was even remotely in support of socialism.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html

At least Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board is a little more honest than our friend jhoegl, given Mr Devaney admits that he cannot certify all of the job data on recovery.gov.

I guess the 18 million dollar recovery.gov website needs a lot of horsepower to run.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/18m-being-spent-to-redesign-recoverygov-web-site.html

No one else finds this unhealthy? Why are we discussing this as if enforcement is the problem? Giving the government the ability, and the excuse..."Well you have a cell phone out, I have probable cause to suspect that you were texting, or talking while driving." - Pardon me, but gtfo officer. You have no right to invade the privacy of my vehicle over this. I don't care if it is 'safer'. SCREW SAFE. How many of you eat while driving? With one knee on the wheel...in the rain? We should outlaw knees, lets chop everyone's legs off! We don't need them to sit in a cubicle! Alot of people who drive on the weekends are on drugs: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/07/16-of-weekend-drivers-test-positive-for-drugs.html - 16% of all the people that you passed were doing drugs. Yep, that means we need to make driving on the weekends a felony. Lets keep our economy healthy here, we will only allow the proliteriat to drive on days where they are going to work, to make the economy strong. We don't want to be like those pot heads. You want to tell me that denying an applicant the right to work (a person applying for a Commercial Drivers License) because they were TEXTING? How does this help anyone? Drug users are people like you and me: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004001227_bus08m.html This woman not only knows that the current drug law is wholly against the spirit of the constitution, but she carries a gun! I love her...Did you notice the part about her saving 22 kids? Thank god for this new law, it would keep people like her from driving our precious, precious cargo, you know the ones we are too busy to spend time with. I wonder if she texts too? If you are all really so scared that a bus driver texted once, then I put forth that you shouldn't let someone else drive your kids to school. You should transport them every morning by armored car. Obama shouldn't be using executive orders for this, no president should. May a court overturn it. You want to legislate? Do it properly!

Let's hear it for cosmic rays. We need something to kick evolution into gear. Things seem to have been at a standstill lately.

On the contrary...

Actually anyone even remotely joking about assassination has been arrested. If you think people with loaded guns near Obama have mentioned assassination weren't arrested, then you're clearly nuts.

In New Hampshire, a protester with a gun was holding a sign that said "It's time to water the tree of liberty." In case you're not familiar with the full quote to which he was referring, it is "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Not only was he not arrested, he was also invited to give an interview on a national talk show. So, still think I'm nuts?

And didn't Obama make a statement last week that he doesn't care what popular opinion is on healthcare? If you want to argue that Obama is this huge proponent of free speech, then why did Obama tell people to shut up and get out of the way?

He said nothing of the sort. I have no idea what you pulled that out of.

Why did he back Pelosi on saying critics who disagree are un-American?

He didn't back Pelosi: he publicly disagreed with her. Of course, Pelosi didn't even say that critics are un-American: what she actually said was that people going to town halls and shouting down legitimate dialog are un-American. Seriously, for someone who claims to be liberal, you certainly believe an awfully-large number of fact-free right-wing talking points.

The tactic or herding protesters together and keeping them at a safe distance has existed for years. It isn't solely a Bush tactic.

Well, it's not happening under Obama. Like I said, he's the only President in decades to even pay lip service to civil liberties, and his actions back that up.

Right. 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems and 78% of those filers had insurance. Citation [businessweek.com] That doesn't just make things more expensive for those with healthcare, it makes them more expensive for policy holders, anyone who wants a loan, small businesses, investors, and stockholders. And it's not just over the short term, it has an overall detrimental effect on our nation's economic well being which continues to mount.

Health care is too expensive, no question. We're not going to fix it with preventive medicine (source 1 source 2, may be related I didn't check). Spreading out the cost sounds great until you realize that a lot of people don't have insurance because they can't afford it, and won't be paying their full share if they go for a public option either, so the same people who are paying more now will be paying more then too. If you want to make health care more affordable to have to do things to reduce the cost directly. Then more people would get insurance anyway because it would be cheaper.

No company in their right mind would pay 18 million for a website. There are many many websites that get more page views are were made for much less. To consider that website a success is a joke.

This was discussed to death the first time this information was posted on Slashdot...

But it isn't like they paid 18 million for a single, static page. From the original link:

The contract calls for spending $9.5 million through January, and as much as $18 million through 2014, according to the GSA press release.

Roughly $27.5 million over five-ish years is $5.5 million a year. Consider they're paying for servers, electricity, bandwidth, data processing, updates... That doesn't seem like a huge amount to me.

It's a lot of money, sure. But it isn't like someone went out and spent $18 million to shine up their Facebook page, which is what some people would lead you to believe.

You left off several "citation needed" items in that statement, right out of a paragraph labeled "Controversy". One might argue that should be the default state of a human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Controversy

I can't say one way or the other on it, but I'm in the middle of Gary Taubes book, "Good Calories, Bad Calories". It isn't as much a diet book as a study on the science of diet. It has been an interesting read, and very disappointing in terms of the junk science and politics involved. I intend to spot check resources when I'm done to verify some of his claims, but feel free to weigh in.

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-Taubes/dp/1400040787
http://a.abcnews.com/GMA/NewYearNewYou/story?id=3654291&page=1

Here is how government works with respect to industry (rephrasing closer to the original -mi):

• If it moves, TAX it.
• If it keeps moving, REGULATE it.
• When it stops moving, SUBSIDIZE it.

Yes, this is exactly, what happened to the US car industry over the decades... The last stage is unfolding right now with the government not only subsidizing it itself, but arm-twisting private banks into similar subsidizing.

Kidnappers should not be jailed...

That's perfectly understandable if you use the Obama's administration's reasoning on why Bush era torture shouldn't be prosecuted. "This is not a time for retribution. It's a time for reflection. It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back and in a sense of anger and retribution.'"

While that wealth - "societal fitness" correlation sounds plausible, it is not supported by any evidence I am aware of.

There is no smarts - riches connection .

More succinctly, the Chinese have a saying -- "wealth does not last three generations." Someone is going to blow it, invest poorly, etc. That would suggest no genetic component worthy of mating with someone.

It's what the Queen herself asked for!

The entire text of your link:

President Obama gave Queen Elizabeth an iPod during their private meeting at Buckingham Palace, the BBC reports. "It contains footage of her state visit to the US in May 2007. The Queen has given the president a silver framed photograph of herself and her husband. The official picture is what she gives all visiting dignitaries."

The gift exchange was closely watched, the Wall Street Journal reports, "ever since the British press took high exception to the modest presents the Obamas gave Gordon Brown and wife on their visit to the White House last month: a box set of DVDs, allegedly in the wrong format, and a couple of models of Marine One for the Brown boys."

Where does it say she asked for that?

Does it say in the same place she asked for video of Obama too?

And illegally copied music?

Right.

Also meant to add, is it really appropriate to give someone pictures/video/audio of yourself as a gift?

On the plus side, if the president of the US feels free to give away copies of songs to someone else, I guess it's OK for the rest of us.

While I could have picked other examples, such as Russia's recent debacle with that Iridium satellite, I cite China partly because of one of the last satellites they "decommissioned".
http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2007/01/china_blows_up_.html

I certainly thought there was a more recent incident but it looks like China may be taking measures to mitigate debris:
http://www.space.com/spacenews/070903_businessmonday_china_debris.html

The U.S. certainly has its share of crap that it does but the idea was to ask about who would be responsible. Perhaps a less inflammatory statement or an alternate example country such as the U.S. would have been better.

... these same climate experts were also spouting off that there would be an ice age not so long ago.

Citation needed.

Try this one: Study Debunks Global Cooling myth of the 90s (or here)

"The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s -- frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds -- is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era....

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends. The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

It was Obama who first screwed up.

nope.

that is true. their economy is bolstered on slave labor.

poverty in general and overall standards of living are much lower, there are major distinctions in wealth, and a strong social class system still exists in some places and results in discrimination and unfair due process that couldn't be tolereated in many developed countries

Yep, that sounds like a fairly accurate description of the USA to me... (these people compared to these people as an example...

(that's intended as humour, but with a dark serious side, so I'll accept "Funny" or "Insightful". "Flamebait" is probably the most likely mod I'll get though)

She should be exiled.

Or elected.

Apparenthy there's a few in congress too...

[citation needed]

How about this? He was only in the Senate for 3 of those years, yet he still managed to rank second!

Or maybe this?

Or this?

I could go on all day, but what's the point? You're just going to make up some ridiculous excuse.

This is the truth. He outspend his opponent 3x by accepting donations like mickey mouse and doodad pro.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/rnc-to-demand-f.html

runs a positive campaign based not on mudslinging and personal attacks, but on a REAL platform?

Oh please. Obama's campaign was often petty and personal too -- see his attacks on McCain's houses and the dirty ad linking McCain to Limbaugh. Obama's REAL platform is peddling "change" and "hope". You might watch the 1972 movie The Candidate.

"But if in these early states Obama holds on to Pennsylvania and wins just one more -- any of the other five -- only a John McCain miracle later in the evening can deny Obama the White House.

The "miracle" here would be that someone could win the popular vote and yet lose the election. Or vice versa. We don't need any "Miracles". This is not a Bowl Game, won by a "Hail Mary pass". We need the President to enjoy the majority opinion of the country. I don't care WHICH candidate it is.

ABOLISH THE EC!

You fell for campaign spin.

His views that he wished the Supreme Court would rule on "economic justice" (60's style codewords for Marxism) is evidence enough.

As ABC News documented the quote that Sarah Palin based this claim on has been completely taken out of context.

If you read Obama's entire statement from six years ago it is pretty clear that he argues against using the courts for wealth redistribution. Although he obviously favors redistributive policies as evident in his tax plan:

"I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still stuffer from that."

(Source)

As someone who has seen the ugliness of communist tyranny up close I feel obliged to add that to classify this policy stance as Marxism is a callous hyperbole that is insulting to those who have suffered under and fought against real communism.

You fell for campaign spin.

His views that he wished the Supreme Court would rule on "economic justice" (60's style codewords for Marxism) is evidence enough.

As ABC News documented the quote that Sarah Palin based this claim on has been completely taken out of context.

If you read Obama's entire statement from six years ago it is pretty clear that he argues against using the courts for wealth redistribution. Although he obviously favors redistributive policies as evident in his tax plan:

"I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still stuffer from that."

(Source)

As someone who has seen the ugliness of communist tyranny up close I feel obliged to add that to classify this policy stance as Marxism is a callous hyperbole that is insulting to those who have suffered under and fought against real communism.

"Today, the line is $250k. Tomorrow, $200k. Next year, $150k. You know as well as I do...govt's always want more."

Whenever it doesn't apply to you today, someone is always going to apply the slippery slope fallacy. Sometimes a rock rolling down a hill is just a rock, and sometimes its a slide. You won't know unless it happens or it doesn't.

Well, it's already 200k.

Please explain the altar.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/27/_1da0715_3.jpg

For a less partisan take on the issue, look here.

Obama has formed a "truth squad" in Missouri to refute factual inaccuracies spread by his opponents. McCain and Palin have already done the same in other states.

Some of the members of the squad are in law enforcement, or are prosecutors; McCain and Palin have done the same thing on their squads. McCain's South Carolina primary "Truth Squad" included Attorney General Henry McMaster and Seventh Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy, a prosecutor. The recently created "Palin Truth Squad" includes District Attorney of Dona Ana County (NM) Susana Martinez.

No member of Obama's squad is threatening to use their legal powers to arrest or prosecute his critics, and in fact, it's unclear how they'd do so, since libel and slander are civil matters in the US.

If it DOES have a chilling effect on Obama's critics, we should expect that McCain's & Palin's truth squads have the same effect, but neither the Obama campaign nor McCain's primary opponents expressed any concerns or complaints. For Matt Blunt to cry "foul" when his own side uses identical tactics is disingenuous and hypocritical.

.... why did they take away Congressmen's blackberries away from them during the height of the bailout debate? http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/staffers-for-th.html

...
  Where are the left-wing wingnuts?

Here are just a few:

Sandra Bernhardt

Charlie Rangel

Kathleen Sebelius

Randi Rhodes

Matt Damon

William Ayers

Geez. That's just in the past few days.

I didn't even bother going for Keith Olbermann videos.

Ah, so you're a PUMA then?

No, but since Obama supporters like you are now making him the candidate of "if you point out any error or inconsistency, my supporters will ignorantly accuse you of being an enemy operative", maybe it's not such a bad idea.

No, that's a lie. Obama never committed to public financing.

The hell he didn't. He's the one who brought it up as an issue. He made it a point of contention with Hillary Clinton, and then turned it on the Republicans. He made the proposal in response to the other candidates hedging on the issue--only to hedge himself, and flat out walk away from his own proposal. He allowed the media to talk about his pledge, his plan, and his commitment while it suited him and was working in his favor. Then he lied about his reason for not taking the money.

Since the option he took has even fewer restrictions and no need for loopholes, he can't complain about a "broken" public fund. It's not broken, except that you can bypass the requirements and limitations by opting out. Since that's exactly what he did, though, it's no protest.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/content/Questionnaire_Midwest_Democracy_Network_Obama_02192008.pdf

"I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election." He made the proposal. HE was the one who made the issue into a campaign issue. He walked away, paying little more than lip service to the idea.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/11/obama-blurs-his-pledge-on-public-financing/

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1014824,public061908.article

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-to-break.html

And now you're saying that a pledge and a commitment isn't a promise. Where is this candidate of change and new politics, exactly? He looks exactly like all the other ones.

Tapper, an Obama supporter, summed it up perfectly: "Declaring independence from a "broken system" by breaking a promise. Obama hopes you'll care more about the former than the latter."

As a liberal, it's the latter that matters, especially when the former is largely a lie. A liberal who tolerates this is no liberal at all, but rather an ideologue trapped by a cult of personality, and unfortunately the Democrats are joining the Republicans in that growing population.

Her state loves her because she helps Stevens bring in the federal pork.

O rly? End of the Bridge to Nowhere

Also...

"Alaskans are being told wake up, you have to be less reliant on the federal government. So I'm saying, 'OK then let us be less reliant on you. Allow us to develop our resources. Let us prove to you that we can responsibly and safely do this.'"

from Palin visits D.C., lobbies for Alaska issues

>I'm pretty sure that's not legal anywhere -- not even in Texas

Actually, it is legal to shoot your neighbor's robber in Texas.

http://a.abcnews.com/TheLaw/story?id=5278638&page=1

I'll avoid taking time now to argue I think this is indicative of Design, because I expect to see the usual spontaneous compulsory posts insisting it isn't indicative Design, as sufficient psychological indication of it being considered plausibly Design.

But I will. This is clearly an indication of Intelligent Design. His noodliness is obvious in almost everything we do! The recent discovery of the world's smallest snake makes clear that FSM has a message to the world: I am ruler of all I survey! Worship me!

Compare pictures here, of the world's smallest snake and an artists rendering of the FSM. Aren't the similarities striking?

Long live Intelligent Design!

> It does have an oil industry and the people who live here are justified in using it to improve their living environment, are they not?

yes, but not at the cost of Chinese and Indian slave labor. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/dark_side_of_du.html

but could you provide at least one pair of links in the past year from major media outlets (CNN, NYT, and so on), that backs this up.

Fair enough.

How about CNN and William Jefferson

Or, even better, ABC News' slide show on POLITICAL SCANDALS?

Summation on the ABC Slide show from NewsBusters:

* Slide 1, Eliot Spitzer -- No party ID on New York's current Democratic governor.
        * Slide 2, Mark Foley -- immediately labeled "R-Fla."
        * Slide 3, Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- immediately labeled "R-Calif."
        * Slide 4, David Vitter -- immediately labeled "R-La."
        * Slide 5, Randall Tobias (Deputy Secretary of State; April 2007) -- party affiliation not identified, and apparently not known.
        * Slide 6, Bill Clinton -- No Democratic party ID. The slide only mentions Monica Lewinsky. Others, who the BBC 10 years ago referred to as "All the President's Women," are nowhere to be found: Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, and several others. Juanita Broaddrick (backup link)? Surely you jest.
        * Slide 7, Jim McGreevey -- No party ID on the former New Jersey Governor, who resigned in 2004.
        * Slide 8, Larry Craig -- immediately labeled "R-Idaho."
        * Slide 9, James E. West -- No party ID on Republican former Spokane, WA Mayor, 2005. Big whoop, as if a lower-level GOP overlook makes up for the other oversights identified here.
        * Slide 10, Bob Livingston -- GOP Party ID noted in the first sentence.
        * Slide 11, Daniel Crane -- immediately labeled "R-Ill."
        * Slide 12, Gerry E. Studds -- immediately labeled "D-Mass." The Studds scandal dates to 1983.
        * Slide 13, Wilbur Mills -- No party ID on the former Democratic House Speaker.

Summary:

        * Six Republicans immediately identified; one relatively obscure GOP member not ID'd.
        * Four Democratic affiliations not noted; one, involving a matter dating back a quarter-century, immediately identified.
        * One party affiliation not clear, and apparently not known.

Then there is the case of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D). The Today Interview completely IGNORED his political affiliation.

Heck, just go to Newsbusters.org, hit the search feature and put in "Republican, Scandal" or "Democrat, Scandal" You will find HUNDREDS of articles and links to media outlets that back me up.

I'm not trying to claim that either Republicans or Democrats are more corrupt, they both are to varying degrees. The point is though, when you have a National Media ACTIVELY covering up for ONE side, it unevenly loads the presentation of the parties and ultimately, skews elections.

Personally, I think that the template for presenting politicians in ANY news story in ANY media outlet should automatically be [title] [name, first, last] [political party affiliation]. Just automatically, without regard to anything else. Not that I expect it will ever happen. That would be too honest.

Whenever you see the phrase "a computer virus" you know the computer is using Windows but the article won't mention the OS or further specifics. The ABC article used a stock image of a man with a Mac, a new attack on a non free peer. Never mentioning the OS is a lie big publishers have used to defend their M$ friends for a long time. Another Boston paper was used to attack Peter Quinn, so the AC's lie has two insults, now doesn't it?

The obvious question I haven't heard anybody ask: why did these congressmen have sensitive information on machines connected to the Internet?

Hmmmm. Uk.... terror plots.... IMs to Pakistan.... web based training.... emails to cell members.... "Jihadi" web sites.... So I guess it's funny because it could be true?

Police have foiled 15 terror plots in Britain since the 2000, Ian Blair reveals

The suicide bombers who met at McDonald's: Image shows meeting with '7/7 terror plotter'

Car Bomb Found in London 20 Days After al Qaeda Suicide Bomber 'Graduation Ceremony'

Training camps for terrorists in UK parks

UK camps 'preparation for terror'

Men 'planned airliner explosions'

Airline terror trial shown liquid bomb exploding

[Channel 4 News] UK airline plot martyrdom videos released

Fertiliser bomb plot: The story
Five men have been convicted of plotting to build a bomb which police say could have killed hundreds of British people. The men were caught after police and MI5 launched a massive surveillance operation.

I would think most people would prefer avoiding another 7/7 attack.

Well, carry on with the snarky comments then. After all, that's what keeps us all safe, isn't it? Certainly it couldn't have anything to do with the security services based on the typical post on Slashdot. And never forget Bin Laden's gracious peace offer. All we have to do is convert to Islam as nations, abolish our respective constitutions and replace them with Sharia, start enforcing strict Islamic morality (which will mean killing homosexuals and blasphemers, no more alcohol, drugs, charging interest on loans, pornography, fornication, etc., etc.), then Bob's your uncle - peace! And look, the necessary infrastructure and supporting institutions are already coming into place, supported by leading religious figures. If converting to Islam is too high a price for you, there is even an Islamic alternative for many of you.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/foley_resigns_o.html

It may be aluminium oxynitride (see here rather than sapphire, which is too hard to manufacture in such large pieces (max about 30cm, I believe, and very expensive). Asus do not claim it is sapphire .

Further update: looks like it *might* be aluminium oxynitride , which is similar to sapphire but can be formed into large sheets (and is not single-crystal). Either that or they are lying about the hardness of 9. Dan

Yes, they can ignore your preferances. I'm not saying they do it to everyone just to mess with them, but the technology allows for it.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/can_you_hear_me.html

......Any recently manufactured cell phone has a built-in tracking device, which can allow eavesdroppers to pinpoint someone's location to within just a few feet..... The court ruling denied motions by 10 defendants to suppress the conversations obtained by "roving bugs" on the phones of John Ardito....Experts say the only way to defeat it is to remove the cell phone battery.....

Cell phone users, beware. The FBI can listen to everything you say, even when the cell phone is turned off. A recent court ruling in a case against the Genovese crime family revealed that the FBI has the ability from a remote location to activate a cell phone and turn its microphone into a listening device that transmits to an FBI listening post, a method known as a "roving bug." Experts say the only way to defeat it is to remove the cell phone battery. "The FBI can access cell phones and modify them remotely without ever having to physically handle them," James Atkinson, a counterintelligence security consultant, told ABC News. "Any recently manufactured cell phone has a built-in tracking device, which can allow eavesdroppers to pinpoint someone's location to within just a few feet," he added.

No they don't. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said so: http://i.abcnews.com/US/story?id=3642673&page=1

The distinction you wish for doesn't exist. Outside of politics, it you actually get held to higher standards as you move up the chain.
Right. You said it. Outside of politics. You still refuse to actually correlate Bush's crimes with Clinton's crimes. My point is specifically that at different points up and down the chain, people get treated differently. People tend to give the president much license because he's so high-profile.

[Foley] sorta indicated that he was sexually interested in a former employee of legal age. He was roundly condemned by his own party.
People are allowed to have as much ass sex as they want, as long as they don't vote against it. Plus, it's telling that the kid turned 18 6 weeks before a recorded interchange.

Grasp the difference yet?
I don't think you do. I don't know why I'm expected to do all the grasping around here.

Documentation, please. I have yet to find a liberal that can stand up to such a simple challenge.
OK, Katrina:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/fema.tapes/index.html
WMDs, and on my fear-as-manipulation claim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o
The war in Iraq:
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
9/11:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

Really, for lies directed at the American people, try any of his state of the union addresses.

[Falsified information and firing based on political beliefs] is normal. Most completely clean house as they enter office and put their own lackeys in place.
Well, then, this marks a change for the better now that the likes of Alberto Glz are caught. Let's hope the next Democrat who does it on such a major scale gets caught as well. Washington is a fucking cesspool.

And Democrats don't use fear with respect to Social Security, Health Care, and a host of other issues?
I think threatening people with death and destruction is worse than threatening them with bad healthcare. Really, I think the healthcare system is fucked up, but you, like Tom Delay (what a cocksucker, might I add), seem to think that pointing out a problem with the Democrats absolves the president of guilt for killing people.

Man, you reek of hypocrisy and are clearly blind to your own side's foibles.
Look, I'm not attacking you or claiming you are on their side. You are putting me on the Democrat's side because I'm attacking Republicans. Why don't I create two arbitrary sides here, and we'll call them Nathan (that's me) and fucking moron (that's you). See? I like that better.

No, just stupid, uninformed, illogical, childish dissent.
Dissent is important. People being able to speak without being threatened by the government is important. I bet you think that the government should get to decide what is stupid, uninformed, illogical, and childish, too. In Soviet Russia... Oh, wait... there's no punchline!

It isn't our fault that half the Democratic party falls under this category.
Right. And half of the Republican party falls into the category of man-who-sucks-on-the-moral-rod-of-truth. In other words, guys who take it up the ass, and talk out against taking it up the ass. Or, hypocrites.

All false choices.
I was asking your preference, but I see you use the NeoCon ignorance defense.

First, the odds of any of these things happening to me are trivial no matter who the president is.
Not in Iraq. I understand you're not a Humanist. And you're probably very white and have probably never left the country. But the real world exists out there, too. And people are trying to live their lives like yo

Bin Laden is releasing a new screed against America, and the west in general, apparently Reps. Murtha and Pelosi are writing his speeches. Although, he'd benefit from Michael Moores cinematography.

Looking into the workings of the Universe is against Allah's wishes. Geeks will die because of this.