Slashdot Mirror

Are you for real? https://www.aim.org/aim-column... https://dailycaller.com/2017/0... https://www.washingtonexaminer...

Seriously. When I saw it in the news awhile back they were praising how much better it is to work without any men.

https://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/liz-heron-huffpo-feminism-pic.png

How short our memories are.

When Obama first took office there was an outcry from both the left and right about the pressure the Obama administration put on news organizations that caused the purge of many journalist. There were articles everywhere about the purges on people getting fired all over the place to keep the administration happy - then silence - then most of the old articles slowly got purged from the archives. The only remnants of that era that are still in the "public memory" are the Fox News spats.

Unlike the previous administration - and the combined corporate efforts of corporations against their political enemies today - Trump hasn't done anything to stop the press. He just makes fun of the organizations he disagrees with mercilessly. Fox and other right-wing / independent media were straight up barred from the White House during much of the previous administration with other pressures outside of that.

To accuse President Trump of being anti-press when all he's doing is having name calling sessions with the ones he doesn't like and pretending he's the first president to have disagreements with the press is disingenuous at the least. This was even brought up on Slashdot in the past.

Unlike that of the USSR, who only supported foreign Leftists, Putin's Russia is non-partisan, looking for support and influence wherever they can find it. In Germany, for example, thay happen to be particularly successful among the Left (no doubt with the aid of the old Stasi files). In France they supported the supposed rightists.

Western societies aren't immune to corruption — if the price is right — and for years Putin could afford bribes on the scale of millions.

Likewise, their targeting computers of all political parties is not at all surprising. That the GOP runs a tighter ship is not surprising either...

they are not calling for open borders

Yes, they are calling for open borders — because, in their feverish minds, open borders are better than Trump enforcing them.

but rather for an end to an organization that has become associated with Trump's immigration policies

There is nothing wrong — to a rational mind — with Trump's immigration policies. If a country can control, who crosses its borders, it ought to be able to capture and detain those, who cross them without the country's permission. It also ought to be able to pursue those, who've managed to avoid the capture and detention earlier.

That's all, there is nothing atrocious nor even cruel about it — and those, who insist otherwise, want just that: open borders.

But only for the US. Because they are driven not by humane compassion towards the refugees — had compassion been the motivation, the same groups who organized the "migrant caravan", for example, would've demanded Mexico give them refuge — but by the desire to weaken America. Which has, indeed, been the policy of American Communists for decades and the reason, USSR has been financing them for as long.

Fending off bad actors like the Russians

The "Russians" needed fending off for decades. The stoked America's racial strife, and sponsored the "peace" movement. Yes, the butchers of Budapest and Prague, the destroyers of Afghanistan were arguing for "peace" and the American Left where lapping it all up! Quite possibly, these efforts cost us victory in Vietnam — the war was no less justified than the earlier Korean one, but met much higher internal opposition...

Only back then the same NYTimes — and all the rest of the Left-thinking Americans — mocked any attempts at the fending off as "Red scare" and denounced it as "evil McCarthyism". And now the same people are trying to convince us, the President is illegitimate, because his son once met with a Russian lawyer.

What's with this US obsession of distinguishing people into black, white, and asian?

In its efforts to create a color blind society the government makes us pay close attention to color, keep stats on color and "grades" us on those stats. Loosely "discrimination" is defined by a particular color falling below some percentage, as opposed to defined by a better qualified person of color being denied a seat in college, a job or other opportunity. So we have these various efforts designed to increase the percentages irrespective of qualifications.

Want to see a more blatant example, lets look at the US Federal Aviation Administration:
"the FAA threw out the AT-SAT scores and CTI qualifications [aviation related college training] of an estimated 3,000 CTI graduates and military veterans [with aviation related training and experience] who were all previously designated ‘well qualified’ to become air traffic controllers. The FAA told them all to start over. But this time, when they applied for a job, their college degrees and previous military experience would mean nothing. They would now compete with thousands of people the agency calls ‘off the street hires;’ anyone who wants to, can walk in off the street without any previous training and apply for an air traffic control job. The FAA’s only requirements, to apply, are be a U.S. citizen, have a high school diploma, speak English and pass the FAA’s new BQ, Biographical Questionnaire."
The biographical questions are being used to cherry pick individuals to improve FAA stats, at the expense of far more qualified candidates that would not improve the stats. Its an emerging scandal. https://www.aim.org/aim-column...

USSR/Russia have been meddling with foreign politics for decades. The entire "peace" movement was financed by the evil empire, financing everything "anti-war" in the West (while themselves invading neighbors like Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan).

Similarly, they also funded "Black liberation".

There is even good evidence of Senator Edward Kennedy offering future cooperation in exchange for Soviet help in getting himself elected... Certainly more evidence of (attempted) collusion, than there ever was against Trump...

But none of it was important, until Trump won the elections — and it became crucially important for the swamp to, if not impeach, keep him occupied and thus less dangerous to the crocodiles.

I support Egypt's move because the muslim extremists have a long history of manipulating the media to lend themselves a false legitimacy. When you tell enough lies, people no longer listen to you. These groups cry "censorship" yet do everything to silence dissenting voices who reveal their deception.

More countries should do the same because these groups simply are no longer trustworthy and are at best a brutal and savage culture.

Which would explain, why Hillary Clinton got 4 million votes more in California, than Trump...

Which would explain, why Hillary Clinton got 4 million votes more in California, than Trump (who won popular vote in the rest of the nation)...

The Soviets have been fomenting internal strife in the US since, at least, 1961. But that was Ok, because their propaganda was helping the Leftist causes.

Now that the Russians — in the mistaken belief, that Trump will be nicer to them than the alternative (of "Reset" fame) — chose to root for him, it is, suddenly, something, a government needs to fight. First Amendment be damned.

Oh, wow, you are still moving? I may need a new broomstick...

Given that Ukraine was freed in 1944

My grandfather was working the long-range bombers, which bombed Berlin in 1941. His brother finished officers-school in 1943 and commanded an artillery battery with sufficient distinction to get join the "Red Banner" order. In Ukraine.

And given your general attitude your grandfather was probably a Hiwi so he was doing what he was told by Germans.

There there. Straight from Putin TV — whoever wishes for independent Ukraine, must have been a German collaborator. Sorry to disappoint, but they weren't taking Jews into Hilfswilliger. You probably have heard of it — it was quiet a controversy for a while.

Well, except when they have brown skin or arab sounding names

More of the KGB-sponsored talking points — whoever is for strong America, must be a racist.

then they'll get beaten up by the likes of you

Baseless and totally false accusations — slander, actually.

Immigrants stay immigrants in Germany, but if they integrate themselves into the society, they are perfectly accepted

Separate but equal, right? Thank you for confirming my point — and accepting my accusation. Like I said, a German has no right to lecture Americans on the treatment of immigrants.

don't confuse my strong dislike of you personally and nationalists generally

Its been less than 100 years since a German led my great-grandmother to Babiy Yar. Today, his asshole descendant is telling me of the evils of "nationalism"? Wow... Had you been trolling, this would've been a good one, but you are on defensive and thus obviously sincere. Sincerely stupid...

respected by the German colleagues (also except the Ukrainian)

He-he... You are doing the lecturing wrong too...

my attitude to immigrants

I neither know nor care for your attitude towards immigrants. The entire nation of Germany has a long way to go, before it has the moral standing to lecture Americans on the subject of interracial relations and nationalism.

I don't care if he didn't have access to classified intelligence.

So you care more about the storyline than the facts or accountability?

He supported it in 2003-2005.

And why might that be. You only had both parties and the entire establishment media supporting the invasion - shocking development that most Americans also supported the war, given that they weren't privy to the actual intelligence briefings.

Who was privy? Hillary Rodham Clinton. So, yeah, having access to information the common citizen did not does matter. And of course, Trump's 2003 support for the Iraq War made no difference in the invasion - as opposed to the yea vote from a U.S. Senator. And yeah, if Trump had been the one in office at the time while Hillary was a private citizen, the same rules would apply to Trump in her place.

I mean, I guess it would be nice if we elected a president who opposed the war at the time... but after 8 years of a president like that, would we even care about that issue?

We shouldn't care about the possibility of another warmongering fool getting thousands more Americans killed, and between one and two million people getting killed in more illegal wars?

Also, I have no idea why you think Iraq was anything like Syria or Libya.

How were they not like Iraq? Big Ebul Dictator needs to be overthrown and his country made safe for democracy, because he was abusing his own people, clamped down on civil rights, was a threat to his neighbors, blah blah blah. The fake concern over WMD's was copied straight from the Iraq playbook to Syria. Want to say the lack of boots (special forces use moccasins, not boots) and a long occupation makes those two regional instabilities too different from Iraq? Okay....but you know who really wanted boots on the ground in Syria, right?

HRC.

And here come the American Exceptionalists

Subject-change detected — the usual tactics of Kremlin bots. I accept your surrender of the previous topic — of Russia being a dangerous aggressor — and move on to the new one: whether the US "is just as bad".

ignoring the fact that their assistant Secretary of State is on video bragging about spending billions to subvert a democracy

Notably, your bombastic accusation includes neither a link to the video, nor transcript of the actual words.

It is perfectly normal for countries to spend money on legal organizations abroad. USSR has been doing just that for decades fomenting racial strife in the US, for example, as well as the so-called "Peace Movement". In the Middle East KGB kept Arafat afloat and fighting Israel.

In today's world, Russia buys influence among not only its traditional Communist-allies, but the far-right as well.

You joked about Obama being a KGB-agent — had that been true, it would've been "subverting Democracy" in the extreme. And yet, the entire Russia would've found it awesome.

So, blaming the hapless State Department for "subverting Democracy" is rather hypocritical of you, KGB wrote that book — using Western freedoms to subvert them. But that's not all Russia does... Armed invasion is Ok with you to — and not even to dethrone a particularly nasty dictator or right some other wrong (real or perceived), but to simply grab land.

caught on the phone picking leaders after the coup.

And that, even if it were true, equates to an armed invasion in your opinion? Wow...

Neocons have been strongly implying that Trump is being supported by Putin.

See Is Trump a Sleeper Agent for Moscow?
Ok, maybe actually doing more than implying :0

The neocons have also claimed that Russia has a "troll army" working to support Trump across social media, particularly Twitter and Facebook:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ch0MkR2VEAAfOYP.jpg
"David Frum @davidfrum May 6
Surprising number of AmericaFirst Trump trolls don't seem to speak English as their first language"

"Jeet Heer @HeerJeet May 6
@davidfrum I honestly think some of them are part of Putin's troll army."

This latest story is a another piece of the narrative that the neocons have been constructing about Russia influencing the US election in favor of Trump. The next piece will probably involve finding this "stolen" so-called DNC opposition research on a Trump's staffer computer or campaign server thus proving that Putin is aiding Trump to defeat Clinton. Watch for it.

Putin loves Donald Trump

Western sources who monitor Russian politics told the Washington Examiner that Rykov is a propagandist arm of the Putin government machine. "Rykov is considered to be one of the leading pro-Kremlin bloggers in Russia," said Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia under President Obama who is now a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution think tank. "As you can see from his Twitter feed, he is very active. And he loves Trump."

The Kremlin is trolling for Trump
[this is special one since it has anti-Kremlin, anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-anti-semitic threads running though it, all tied to Trump!]

Is Trump a Sleeper Agent for Moscow?

Trump has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, describing him as a strong leader who defends Russian interests and who could be an ally of the United States, especially in the Middle East. Duke believes much the same thing, and has a personal relationship with a long-time adviser to Putin who has devised an anti-American “Eurasian” alliance that includes Iran in the Middle East

just look at what n e o c o n David Frum (@davidfrum) said:
"Russia’s “troll army” now an active presence in US social media too"
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/737385995906076674

"Trolling for Trump may be one of those jobs that Americans just won't do. Requires imported talent"
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/728752525357256704

Lots more craziness from looney n e o c o n s about Trump is out there.

There used to be, and Democrats have tried to re-instate it recently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The return:

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/...

Back in the 80s I worked cleaning houses after builders were done building them. Mind numbing stuff, and since we could not agree on a music station, we listened to Talk Radio (KSFO to be exact)

Back then it was news, Sport in excruciatingly deep detail, Dr. Dean Edell (where I learned more about the medical problems I would face in 50 years time than I wanted to know).

But not politics.
THAT was regulated to the late night hours when they just had to fill the time.

Except ISIS made a credible claim to be responsible for the downed airliner

Even if my accusations of ISIS having been created with the help of, and being controlled in part by Russia are true — and I have no proof, just speculations — few people inside ISIS would be aware of it. Wouldn't be the first time Russia financed a foreign organization without its members knowledge

ISIS claim of responsibility seems sincere and they, very likely, really did plant the actual bomb. That does not mean, Putin's FSB had nothing to do with it..

It largely isn't melting. For example, Antarctic sea ice is at historical highs, at least according to several sources (though they could all be in on or fooled by some conspiracy). But yes, glaciers advance and retreat. This is natural. I would posit it is more of an effect of humidity than cold, as I live in a semi-arid climate, and the ice in my ice cube trays keeps sublimating.

See, your problem is that you are working off of faulty (at least, according to me--check your own work) assumptions, namely that people who are directly supervised by and receive funding from politicians can be trusted not to have bias.

It may sound crazy, but loads of communists moved into the environmental movement after they realized that Communism was a non-starter among Americans, and have been working to undermine capitalism using an environmental justification ever since. This is why they chose CO2, which is an unavoidable product of the combustion of fossil fuels, and not easy to remedy (like the other one, water, would be). You can tell a true environmentalist from a communist plant by whether or not they support nuclear technology/power production. Note also that McCarthy was recently proven to be largely correct in his assertion that communists were infiltrating America.

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?

A perfectly valid question to ask. Communism is the most murderous school of thought known to humanity — even Hitler bizarre brand of Fascism was but a distant second.

Nothing "paranoid" about it. The above-mentioned Rosenberg was introduced to Soviet spies by a fellow American Communist (Bernard Schuster). Thus, belonging to CPUSA was not only indicative of supporting the Communism (whose murderousness was not as well-known back then), but also of a high likelihood of being a traitor.

I'd say the number of non-threats who were actively and vigorously blackballed

Citations needed.

Then add in civil rights discontent

The civil rights discontent was also actively instigated by the USSR. Both by covert payment to Americans and overt propaganda by the Soviets themselves.

Hover's infiltration of civil right's organizations

That was a covert operation, which is a direct opposite of propaganda.

Hoover was running FBI — federal police — not military. Countering foreign agents and spies is openly and officially within the scope of such establishments in all countries and infiltration is a perfectly legitimate tactics.

"Interesting" my butt.

under the argument that they were aligned with communists.

Many were USSR-controlled (knowingly or not), in all likelihood. Some certainly were.

I don't condone the violence, but it's interesting that you'll get headlines blaming the violence on Snowden and his release of the documents - not on the real source of the problem which was the covert activities of the US, and it seems now also the Australians.

It isn't even that. The problem is the asymmetric nature of the release. Indonesia is riddled with spies, at least some of whom are there to spy on the many terrorists and terrorist supporting groups in Indonesia. Unfortunately only the activities of a couple of nations have been revealed, and the others haven't. That allows people to pretend that the problem is the US or Australia, that other nations aren't involved, and that there is no reason for intelligence gathering in Indonesia. The article documents that Russia has a political delegation there, and you are kidding yourself if you think they don't have spies there conducting intelligence operations. The US, UK, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Finland, France, Canada, and many other countries are full of Russian spies, not to mention Chinese and other nations.

I also note that you apparently have nothing to say about Russia stirring the pot on this with their political delegation. It didn't occur to you that they are at the least exploiting this to their advantage? Or that they may have even had a hand in it?

The Snowden news added nothing new to the mil history aspect.

On the other hand we now see Russia deploying political action teams to stir the pot and exploit the ensuing political chaos to their favor. A textbook example of political warfare 101 by Russia courtesy of its Soviet roots, almost as if they planned it.

I'm a little surprised you didn't pick up on that given your nose for conspiracy.

...that I have to wonder who is guiding them. How would Snowden know exactly how to publish this data to maximum effect? He's a sysadmin, not a PR expert. This seems more like one of the successful KGB misinformation campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s.

That inference has been made.

It's Now Clear That Russian Intelligence Speaks For Edward Snowden
Defector Describes Russia’s Handling of NSA Leaker Snowden
The Russians were involved with him long before it was acknowledged in Moscow.
Report: Snowden stayed at Russian consulate while in Hong Kong

Definitive? Not quite. Suspicious? Very.

"...The report reveals on page 130 that Mapes, one of those fired because of the scandal, had documented information in her possession before the controversial September 8 broadcast that George W. Bush, while in the Texas Air National Guard, âoedid volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots.â ..."

Whups. What were you saying again about him not volunteering?
He flew interceptors in the Guard. He volunteered, but the military said "you know what, we don't need high-altitude interceptor pilots in Vietnam".

From Accuracy in the Media: http://www.aim.org/press-release/report-says-dan-rather-personally-involved-in-cbs-news-campaign-to-destroy-/

Seventy six years after the infamous poll that sank Literary Digest, Alf Landon wins again.

Then may I present to you http://newsbusters.org/ http://www.aim.org/, http://www.cato.org/, and http://nlpc.org/.

Never heard of most of those, but I'm sure there is no immediate bias at http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/ and even liberals deny being tied to http://mediamatters.org/ .

part of rupert murdoch's IQ lowering propaganda empire

and no, this isn't a swipe at conservativism, it's actually a swipe at china's power:

The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review opined that "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."[31]
Perhaps the most serious allegation against the Post is that it is willing to contort its news coverage to suit Murdoch's business needs, in particular that the paper has avoided reporting anything that is unflattering to the government of the People's Republic of China, where Murdoch has invested heavily in satellite television.[32]
Ian Spiegelman, a former reporter for the paper's Page Six gossip column who had been fired by the paper in 2004,[33] said in a statement for a lawsuit against the paper that in 2001 he was ordered to kill an item on Page Six about a Chinese diplomat and a strip club because it would have "angered the Communist regime and endangered Murdoch’s broadcast privileges."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Criticism

or the power of Saudi Arabia, take your pick:

WASHINGTON—Accuracy in Media (AIM) is urging a full inquiry into a report that a Saudi billionaire caused the Fox News Channel (FNC) to dramatically alter its coverage of the Muslim riots in France after he called the network to complain. The Saudi billionaire, Al-waleed bin Talal, is a friend of News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch and controls an influential number of voting shares in the company.

“This report underscores the danger of giving foreign interests a significant financial stake in U.S. media companies,” declared Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media.

The controversial comments came at an Arab media conference featuring representatives of Time magazine, USA Today, PBS, The Wall Street Journal, and other news organizations. The conference and the Saudi Prince’s growing influence in News Corporation are among the subjects of a new December-A AIM Report that has just been posted at the AIM website (http://www.aim.org). The report raises the specter of Arab money influencing News Corporation and other U.S. media companies.

http://www.aim.org/press-release/saudi-billionaire-boasts-of-manipulating-fox-news-coverage/

do yourself a favor and stop reading the NY Post. it is a tool of a man who is evil immoral corporate influence incarnate

Science is just one target. I mean, didn't you know that chickens are just feathery jews?

Payola commentary has been around for a while. Why would Twitter be different from big shot pundits?

If you look at Newsweek I would see a every so slightly liberal agenda.

You're joking, right? Here are two photos from the same issue, one of Obama, one of McCain. You think they treat both equally? (Ignore the source, just look at the pictures).
Then, there's this:
http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/liberal-bias-at-newsweek/

Oh, hell, I'm tired of finding articles. Just google "Newsweek bias" (no quotes) and read through the over 850,000 hits. Funny, none of them mention Newsweek as bring biased to the right.

I'll agree that Fox is right of center, but they are alone. That's why they are number one. Conservatives make up about 40% of the population. Liberals make up about 40%. The problem for most of the media is that Fox automatically gets most of the conservative 40%. The rest of the media has to split up the liberal audience.

As for MSNBC... I don't know if they are left of Newsweek, but they are definitely left. Even their not-supposed-to-be-biased journalists got "thrills up their legs" when Obama spoke. Then there is Olbermann. What a joke! The guy can't be parodied because he is a parody of himself. Oh, and didn't NBC put him back on football on Sunday nights to try to promote him? Yeah, no bias in that network.

And yeah, radio is far right, but it sells. Air America tried it and failed. They had to steal money from charities to stay afloat. Rush, Hannity, Beck and the rest don't have that problem. Liberals just don't listen to talk radio.
As for TV, it appears that liberals don't sell too well there either, but these guys don't really care much. Their ideology trumps their pocket books, for now.

Oh, and the Big Three, NBC, ABC and CBS, may not be terribly liberal on their local news, but their national news shows are extremely liberal. Are you telling me that Katie Couric is a conservative? The closest thing I've seen to a conservative on any of the network news shows has been John Stossel, and he's not really conservative. He's a libertarian who just calls it like he sees it. He'll gladly hammer either side when they are acting stupid. The guy's awesome!

If you take the entire US media market and then look at it in perspective globally the whole thing including Washington Post is actually biased to the right

I love the BBC. Not their specials, but their interviews. They'd hammer Mother Theresa if they got an interview. They ask the hard questions of anyone. They simply don't care who they offend.

Finally, as for stem cell research... read my sig. It is a close quote from the guy that practically invented stem cell research. (the whole quote wouldn't fit within the 2 to 3 words you are allowed as a sig). The full quote is "if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough". But you are correct on the left of me part, but that's human nature.

The bottom line is that we all see center of the road to be right in front of us. So anyone to the right of us is right of center. Conservatives see Fox News as truly "Fair and Balanced" and liberals see them as far right wing. It's compounded when Fox is compared to the rest of media. I try to base my comparison by comparing them to the competition. I also look at things like, "how many liberals do I see on Fox News?" "How many conservatives do I see on MSNBC?" Answers: Plenty and Zero, respectively. So, by that alone, Fox is much more balanced than MSNBC. (Many liberals actually work at Fox as returning talking heads and true, full time employees)

Are you suggesting that economists see Depression 2.0 as inevitable, so they might as well give a bunch of cash to their friends before the shit hits the fan? Or are you seriously suggesting that government bailouts and nationalization of damn near everything is going to switch us to a different track?

The same economists that predicted the crisis we are living through are the same ones who (continue to) say that throwing more money at failing business will only make the great big fucking hole greater, bigger, and more fuckinger.

The rhetoric we've been hearing about the need for bailouts is exactly the same rhetoric we heard about the Patriot Act: if we don't do something, we will suffer. It is the same rhetoric we heard about going into Iraq: if we don't do something, we will remain in grave danger. The US government as a whole has not had a good track record in recent times, yet very few question the credibility of its latest statements.

So go ahead and continue to believe the rhetoric of your state-sponsored economists despite the fact that the credit crisis is laregly a lie. Despite the fact that the first big bailout hasn't solved fuck-all even though it was oh-so-important that it be passed immediately. Despite the fact that the first big bailout is openly being used for purposes radically different from what was legislated.

The next year is going to suck no matter what. Unless we change course by doing the opposite of what we are now, Depression 2.0 will ensure that the suckiness lasts far longer than a year. Unfortunately, it looks like the people running this sideshow are calling for full steam ahead.

I didn't realize the BBC was optional. I thought the "license" aka Tax was mandatory. Also the BBC tends to be... um, sensationalist. And biased. Read here:

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/media-bias-at-the-bbc/

Not to mention that the kind of money we are talking about would go a long way towards helping folks pay off that "bad paper" on their houses that so many have been saying is dragging down the economy. And I for one would rather it be spent here on Americans instead of being used to, say, bail out one of the richest Arabs on the planet? I personally would like to see an accounting done to show how much of that money has been tossed into a black hole heading straight out of this country never to return. Wouldn't you?

But it is Paulson and his buddies on the right going through cash worse than a DC mayor on a crack binge. And BTW did you know that your taxpayer money will be helping to bail out one of the richest Arabs on the planet? Just gotta love it.

Our commitment to continuing the human race ranks a little bit higher on the ladder then democracy.

War with Russia = Mutually Assured Destruction

DUH!

Guess we are going to find out.

Obama v. McCain

Obama calls for ceasefire, gets it.
McCain calls for peacekeeping force,also gets it.

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/kaine-gives-obama-credit-for-russian-ceasefire/ http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=d33859f1-7f2e-4eef-8ce0-c2f3eb9aa05a

So far, dead even.

Apparently Russia has already given the ceasefire a chance and it didn't work so well for them. President Bush announced a stab at McCain's plan of a peacekeeping force.

My friends in the blogosphere tell me that Ivan will not be able to resist taking shots at those cute Air Force and Navy girls and boys. So we will have "War with Russia".

When we have the "War with Russia" and it results in "Mutually Assured Destruction" I will vote for whatever Obama/Putin/Democrat/Socialist is available. I will also STFU if I am not yet dead.

However, if the war does not result in "Mutually Assured Destruction" I would expect you to think long and hard about those who have sacrificed their lives for your freedom. I would also castigate you to not cast another ballot until you understand the responsibilities of liberty.

No war, we both vote for Ron Paul.

Is it really worth giving up a democratic republic to avoid Mutually Assured Destruction?

Our commitment to continuing the human race ranks a little bit higher on the ladder then democracy.

War with Russia = Mutually Assured Destruction

DUH!

Guess we are going to find out.

Obama v. McCain

Obama calls for ceasefire, gets it.
McCain calls for peacekeeping force,also gets it.

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/kaine-gives-obama-credit-for-russian-ceasefire/ http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=d33859f1-7f2e-4eef-8ce0-c2f3eb9aa05a

So far, dead even.

Apparently Russia has already given the ceasefire a chance and it didn't work so well for them. President Bush announced a stab at McCain's plan of a peacekeeping force.

My friends in the blogosphere tell me that Ivan will not be able to resist taking shots at those cute Air Force and Navy girls and boys. So we will have "War with Russia".

When we have the "War with Russia" and it results in "Mutually Assured Destruction" I will vote for whatever Obama/Putin/Democrat/Socialist is available. I will also STFU if I am not yet dead.

However, if the war does not result in "Mutually Assured Destruction" I would expect you to think long and hard about those who have sacrificed their lives for your freedom. I would also castigate you to not cast another ballot until you understand the responsibilities of liberty.

No war, we both vote for Ron Paul.

Is it really worth giving up a democratic republic to avoid Mutually Assured Destruction?

This just in... The Russians have agreed to Obama's request to stop. Kaine Gives Obama Credit for Russian Ceasefire

>>If you think Obama or Hillary are real liberals and/or socialists, you REALLY need to meet some real liberals and socialists.

You mean like Obama and Hillary's mentors?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html

They shared an interest in Saul Alinsky, and Obama considered Bill Ayers a role model:
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/its-the-communism-stupid/

Jeremiah Wright goes without saying.

Michael Moore is pretty damn close...wants Fidel Castro as his guest and to give his acceptance speech at the Oscars.
http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/movies/15815122.html

Barack Obama is the next best thing: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/

>They are aware that Canada is a separate country, right?
At the *moment*, yes but...

http://www.aim.org/special-report/north-american-union-conspiracy-exposed/
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/the-amero-is-real/1179/

http://www.aim.org/special_report/5247_0_8_0_C/

Do what you will with info from Accuracy in Media articles, but this is some pretty damning stuff... And as ever... Condi & Chertoff and Bush are behind it all.

Reaching new levels of hysteria, Rep. Maurice Hinchey said the survival of America was itself at stake because "neo-fascist" and "neo-con" talk-show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh had facilitated the "illegal" war in Iraq and were complicit in President Bush's repeated violations of the Constitution, such as by detaining terrorists. He warned that the "right-wing oriented media" were now preparing the way for Bush to wage war on Iran and Syria.

His answer, a bill titled the "Media Ownership Reform Act," would reinstate the federal fairness doctrine and authorize bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.

Hinchey, chairman of the "Future of American Media Caucus" in the House, was introduced as the new chairman of a subcommittee with jurisdiction over the FCC. For Hinchey and the vast majority at the conference, there was a pressing need for more, not less, regulation of what they call the "corporate media."

And ofcourse according to the Bush administration those people didn't have any freedom and couldn't enjoy the things we had here. Amazing how much of the official stories turn into pure falsified information whenever you're coming into contact with information residing from someone who actually lives in the region itself...

Well said. As many on Slashdot know, there are few things more important, or a greater demonstration of freedom, than playing games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty, unless it is playing soccer or other sports. It is difficult to call Iraq during Saddam's rule anything but a "paradise" for everyone, from children to those of privilege, and even to Saddam's own family, like son-in-law Hussein Kamel . I don't know why everyone on Slashdot doesn't understand that. Maybe with a bit more education....

Ooh. Pictures of kids smiling at American GIs.
What a scandal. How could the New York Times cover up the fact that... you know... sometimes there are these kids... and they smile at American GIs. Instead, they divert attention to unimportant things like the military situation, hostages that have been tortured and killed, human rights violations, and (the lack of) WMDs! And the incipient religious civil war.

The "Accuracy in Media" group is obviously a neoconservative think tank. Just look at the biographies they have up at http://www.aim.org/static/20_0_7_0_C.

It's a bunch of American Legion members and other far-right political hacks.
The "USA's survival" web site that it links to is a bunch of wacko rants about how the UN is going to corrupt our precious bodily fluids, how environmentalism is a cult, and Satanic "world government" is just around the corner.

Here's a sample from "USA's survival":
U.S. taxpayers are being forced to subsidize a new form of state religion which holds that natural resources have to be protected for the sake of Gaia, a so-called Earth spirit. This religious movement, which has cult-like qualities, is being promoted by leading figures and organizations such as Vice President Albert Gore, broadcaster Ted Turner, and the United Nations. ...
These people believe in Gaia -- an "Earth spirit," goddess or planetary brain -- and they think that human beings can have mystical experiences or a spiritual relationship with this entity. In order to protect Gaia, in their view, the U.S. and other industrial countries have to be prohibited from certain uses of the world's natural resources. This is called "sustainable development."

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for spreading this nonsense.

Have you ever seen these pictures in the media? http://www.aim.org/static/2194_0_7_0_C

The rest of what we "know" we got from biased parents and biased education.

Have you ever seen these pictures in the media? http://www.aim.org/static/2194_0_7_0_C

The rest of what we "know" we got from biased parents and biased education.

By not being exposed to "static" bullshit news I feel I am in a better position to actually think and form an opinion rather than having one shoved down my throat by the news agencies. And, yes given the choice I rather be uninformed than misinformed. Have you ever seen these pictures in the media? http://www.aim.org/static/2194_0_7_0_C

How about global warming? What do we really know and understand. Even if you are involved in the research, what assumptions you basing your conclusions on? Let's face it, most things we "know" are things we have seen on TV or in a paper. The rest of what we "know" we got from biased parents and biased education. So let's not confuse knowledge with stuff you have been told and that you took as a fact.

>Horrible as it sounds, a couple of nuclear bombs dropped on "problem" cities would do it.
No, I don't think it is that easy, because guerilla fighters are supported by the general population, In case of Japan the government of Japan capitulated, and the army obeyed the orders. But in Iraq this doesn't apply, as the government is pro USA anyway but id doesn't control the fighters. For example : Countering Insurgency in a Foreign Land