Slashdot Mirror

Yeah. Geraldo's reporting was so accurate that it got him booted out of his unit. Broadcasting troop positions aside, how is Fox any more accurate than the other outlets?

Contrast this to the "bipartisan" Abramaoff bribery scandal, where no money was given to Democrats and Abramoff's clients decreased their giving to Democrats at Abramoff's direction.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/22513 2.shtml: Democratic senator Pat Leahy reseived thousands of dollars from Abramoff (Vermont Guardian)
http://www.americandaily.com/article/11563: Senate Minority Leader Reid received $60,000 from Indian tribes linked to Abramoff
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html : Lists Daschle, Reid, and Gephardt as amongst his biggest recipients.

You are correct in stating that none of these received money directly from Abramoff, but given that Abramoff is a known Republican activist, is it not surprising that he would direct his Democratic donations through the tribes? He's not going to get to be a Democratic insider, but if he's speaking on behalf of a number of organizations having donated tens of thousands of dollars to their cause, he'll get their ear. Finally, though I hadn't heard that he'd instructed people to reduce their Democratic giving, could it be because Democrats now have less power to make changes compared to the Clinton or early Bush administrations?

I fail to see why this is news material of a 'bigotry' type.
Obviously the black community still has a chip on their shoulder and to utter the word 'ape' in the same paragraph as a person of color is considered a 'bigot' statement.

This reminds me of a story that happened in Columbus Georgia last year where a police officer was eating a banana and a black woman got offended because he was eating a banana in front of her so she complained to his superior.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/6842

..as for the totalitarians, the difference there is that if you say something about the government they come and take you away to God knows where and do God knows what to you.

Comment is superfluous.

However, whenever anybody is asked to site a case in which some poor schmuck actually got shafted by these laws, they suddenly fall silent.

Rather than them being silent, maybe you're just not listening.

Here's a repost of some relevant comments I made on this subject several months ago:

Here's a basic list of just a handful of abuses I came up:

• The PATRIOT act is being used in regular non-terrorism criminal cases . Anything beyond simple misdemenors is being passed off as terrorism , now.
• A webmaster was jailed under PATRIOT because someone had posted bomb making info on his server . Keep in mind that he didn't put the info there, he was basically a web host, and one of his clients was using his account this way. This is a particularly damning case of abuse where "Innocuous objects such as iced tea bottles and a toy car were described as terrorist devices by the FBI and a joint task force of police officers."
• A disturbing article about using the PATRIOT act to obtain warrants against doctors and scientists . Not because they've done anything wrong, but because they happen to do research with hazardous materials. Guilty before proven innocent.
• Story about someone killed by the PATRIOT act
• Several artists were charged with bioterrorism under PATRIOT for creating artwork meant to educate viewers in the dangers of the biotech industry.
• Story about a veteran being arrested for complaining too much due to the heightened terror alert.
• Shining a pocket laser into an airplane is terrorism falling under the PATRIOT act
• Article republished fromt the Washington post about American citizens held without trial
• A man being harrassed by a "joint terrorism task force" (the kind that has authority under the PATRIOT act) because of investigating Area 51
• Another "joint terrorism task force" investigating a 12 year old for doing a school paper on the Cesapeake Bay Bridge
• A photographer arrested and threatened with being charged under the PATRIOT act for taking pictures of Dick Cheney

And finally, maybe there haven't been as many abuses as there will be once all 2nd legal track the preparations are in place .

Please note that the identical AC post in this story was me, but I accidentally posted it as AC the first time.

Here's a basic list of just a handful of abuses I came up:

• The PATRIOT act is being used in regular non-terrorism criminal cases. Anything beyond simple misdemenors is being passed off as terrorism, now.
• A webmaster was jailed under PATRIOT because someone had posted bomb making info on his server. Keep in mind that he didn't put the info there, he was basically a web host, and one of his clients was using his account this way. This is a particularly damning case of abuse where "Innocuous objects such as iced tea bottles and a toy car were described as terrorist devices by the FBI and a joint task force of police officers."
• A disturbing article about using the PATRIOT act to obtain warrants against doctors and scientists. Not because they've done anything wrong, but because they happen to do research with hazardous materials. Guilty before proven innocent.
• Story about someone killed by the PATRIOT act
• Several artists were charged with bioterrorism under PATRIOT for creating artwork meant to educate viewers in the dangers of the biotech industry.
• Story about a veteran being arrested for complaining too much due to the heightened terror alert.
• Shining a pocket laser into an airplane is terrorism falling under the PATRIOT act
• Article republished fromt the Washington post about American citizens held without trial
• A man being harrassed by a "joint terrorism task force" (the kind that has authority under the PATRIOT act) because of investigating Area 51
• Another "joint terrorism task force" investigating a 12 year old for doing a school paper on the Cesapeake Bay Bridge
• A photographer arrested and threatened with being charged under the PATRIOT act for taking pictures of Dick Cheney

And finally, maybe there haven't been as many abuses as there will be once all 2nd legal track the preparations are in place.

Here's a basic list of just a handful of abuses I came up:

• The PATRIOT act is being used in regular non-terrorism criminal cases. Anything beyond simple misdemenors is being passed off as terrorism, now.
• A webmaster was jailed under PATRIOT because someone had posted bomb making info on his server. Keep in mind that he didn't put the info there, he was basically a web host, and one of his clients was using his account this way. This is a particularly damning case of abuse where "Innocuous objects such as iced tea bottles and a toy car were described as terrorist devices by the FBI and a joint task force of police officers."
• A disturbing article about using the PATRIOT act to obtain warrants against doctors and scientists. Not because they've done anything wrong, but because they happen to do research with hazardous materials. Guilty before proven innocent.
• Story about someone killed by the PATRIOT act
• Several artists were charged with bioterrorism under PATRIOT for creating artwork meant to educate viewers in the dangers of the biotech industry.
• Story about a veteran being arrested for complaining too much due to the heightened terror alert.
• Shining a pocket laser into an airplane is terrorism falling under the PATRIOT act
• Article republished fromt the Washington post about American citizens held without trial
• A man being harrassed by a "joint terrorism task force" (the kind that has authority under the PATRIOT act) because of investigating Area 51
• Another "joint terrorism task force" investigating a 12 year old for doing a school paper on the Cesapeake Bay Bridge
• A photographer arrested and threatened with being charged under the PATRIOT act for taking pictures of Dick Cheney

And finally, maybe there haven't been as many abuses as there will be once all 2nd legal track the preparations are in place.

Historically gun registration has led to gun confiscation. See the Nanny State otherwise known as the UK for example. Of course, since crime has been on the rise since the banning of guns there, I'm sure the UK's latest efforts to restrict knife ownership should do the trick with crime. Meanwhile the US crime rates keep falling....

UK regulates knife sales.

Banning guns in the UK didn't work

Here is an interesting article on immigration. Note that it does focus on illegal immigrants, but the same logic can be applied.

A news report also said that American wages have *dropped* over 7% in the past 20 years, and the flood of low-paid immigrants is the main cause. It's also a factor in higher health care costs.
I'll probably get marked as flamebait, as usual, but I'm just noting studies that have already been done and their results.

private institutions? none of their damn business.

As far as I know there are only two or three private colleges that do not accept federal funding (Hillsdale College in Michigan, Grove City College in Pennsylvania, and Patrick Henry College in Virginia). I graduated from Hillsdale in 2002 and so this fact falls close to home, but you can see these other sources for verification.

This brings us back on topic, should the federal government be able to keep tabs on its investment? Maybe the better question is should the federal government be funding (read controlling) nearly all of the higher education in the nation? Seeing as only 3 colleges are run without federal money, which I would like to find anyone who gets funding without strings attached.

You mean like this:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

- Bill Clinton, 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

Hillary Clinton, 2002

If you honestly look at what members of both parties were saying in '02, including Kerry, this latest "revelation" is a blind attempt to destroy the Bush administration.

More info here

More: Chicago Sun Times

American Times

Read them.

Make your own decision.

Think for yourself.

I link to my own site because it's useful for me to not repost this information for every discussion I have on the topic.

Yes it is sourced. I would hope that the speaker and the date would be useful in doing the same research that I did before I posted it. I quit providing links to the sources because it was a maintenance nightmare keeping up with changed or dropped links. All of these are easily Googled and are cited in referencable publications. Here's a link that does a better job at it. Many of them are in the Congressional Record. http://www.americandaily.com/article/4694

But he has, he's waved a firearm around in a public place.

Your position is utterly perplexing. You say "waving a firearm around" like the mere action is causing horrific injuries and massive casualties.

Hello, nothing happened. If the gun accidentally discharged due to the owner's carelessness, he should be fully responsible for that. (This very risk is why responsible gun owners [which most are] that carry for self-defense [which not many do] usually take it upon themselves to get training.) But to leave him defenseless because of a maybe, a might-have-been, a potentiality - is ridiculous. I might slander or libel someone, and that's a crime too - should I be barred from speaking or writing??? Just like most people never slander or libel someone (to a criminal level anyway) most people never use a gun against another person. Most of the times when they are used against a person are in self-defense. And most defensive gun uses never even result in a bullet being fired - just "waving it around" (and often it doesn't even amount to that) is enough to make a criminal think twice and back off. However, these stories don't make headlines (Sep 2004 if the relevant story has been archived).

Nobody in the US makes it a habit to walk around like Rambo, dozens of guns and live ammo strapped on, casually sticking them under people's noses with the safeties off. The fact that you have that perception just shows how ignorant you, and most people that haven't grown up around guns, are of them in particular and America in general. The media plays on your ignorance, showing the very thing you fear as the only possible outcome. Try a different picture.

"Your defense against aggression might have a remote possibility of harming a third party. Therefore you shall forever be relegated to victimhood." Silly Brits.

I dont understand Americans obbsession with the freedom to use items designed urely to injure and kill in anyway they please without restriction.

I don't understand the British obsession with bending over and taking it up the rear.

It is precisely because there are people who will use (potentially lethal) force against me and my family, whose lives I value very much, that we fiercely protect the freedom to use similar force in defense. If my right to life means anything at all, my right to defend it (with force if necessary - maybe you get by with biting witticisms?) is a natural consequence.

If your life isn't worth protecting, fine, don't buy a gun. If your neighbors' aren't worth it, disband your police. If your countrymens' aren't worth it either, disband your military. If you can claim a collective right to protect your collective lives, then how can you deny an individual right to protect your individual life? In a country of one, you'd be your own military. No one cedes that right just because there are other people around.

Government (people as a collective) has no right to do what individual people have no right to do. Invalidating self-defense invalidates national defense. Just because you want to be peaceful doesn't mean everyone else does, and occasionally you may have to use violence to defend the peace. Sounds paradoxical, but true.

As for that, I haven't heard that argument from any conservatives

That's strange, because I can't think of a single conservative mouthpiece or media source who has not said something similar to the grandparent's posting. The following comes up in the first few pages of a Google search:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp ?ID=6317
The Hate America Left
Ben Johnson, columnist, FrontPageMagazine.com

http://anncoulter.com/columns/2002/070302.htm
Liberalism And Terrorism: Different Stages Of Same Disease
Ann Coulter, AnnCoulter.com

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/weekend_sites/080 904_081304/content/what_would_happen_if.guest.html
"For every eye that has to police the protesters, that's one eye less watching for terrorists. Do they care? No... You hate the president. You hate the country."
Rush Limbaugh Transcript, 8/12/2004

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/26 /124459.shtml
'Hate-America Leftists' Lead the Appeasement Movement
Wes Vernon, columnist NewsMax.com

http://www.americandaily.com/article/917
"People who hate America... these are John Kerry's constituents"
JB Williams, columnist, The American Daily

http://www.americandaily.com/article/2390
The Hate-America Crowd Speaks Its Mind
Doug Patton, columnist, The American Daily

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/04/loc_br onson4.html
Hate-America crowd has its own picnic
Cincinati Inquierer, columnist, Peter Bronson

http://www.wtoctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2028797
"Why are people who hate America still living here?"

Bill Carthcart, WTOC 11, Savannah Georgia
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp 20040706.shtml

Michael Moore and the problem of American self-hatred
Dennis Prager, Townhall.com

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArti cle.asp?ID=14125
Hate-America Advocates
Jean Pearce, Frontpage Magazine

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2159
American Academics Who Hate America
Daniel Pipes, Capitalism Magazine

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArti cle.asp?ID=9298
A Hate-America Superhero
Joshua Elder, FrontPageMagazine.com

As for that, I haven't heard that argument from any conservatives

That's strange, because I can't think of a single conservative mouthpiece or media source who has not said something similar to the grandparent's posting. The following comes up in the first few pages of a Google search:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp ?ID=6317
The Hate America Left
Ben Johnson, columnist, FrontPageMagazine.com

http://anncoulter.com/columns/2002/070302.htm
Liberalism And Terrorism: Different Stages Of Same Disease
Ann Coulter, AnnCoulter.com

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/weekend_sites/080 904_081304/content/what_would_happen_if.guest.html
"For every eye that has to police the protesters, that's one eye less watching for terrorists. Do they care? No... You hate the president. You hate the country."
Rush Limbaugh Transcript, 8/12/2004

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/26 /124459.shtml
'Hate-America Leftists' Lead the Appeasement Movement
Wes Vernon, columnist NewsMax.com

http://www.americandaily.com/article/917
"People who hate America... these are John Kerry's constituents"
JB Williams, columnist, The American Daily

http://www.americandaily.com/article/2390
The Hate-America Crowd Speaks Its Mind
Doug Patton, columnist, The American Daily

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/04/loc_br onson4.html
Hate-America crowd has its own picnic
Cincinati Inquierer, columnist, Peter Bronson

http://www.wtoctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2028797
"Why are people who hate America still living here?"

Bill Carthcart, WTOC 11, Savannah Georgia
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp 20040706.shtml

Michael Moore and the problem of American self-hatred
Dennis Prager, Townhall.com

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArti cle.asp?ID=14125
Hate-America Advocates
Jean Pearce, Frontpage Magazine

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2159
American Academics Who Hate America
Daniel Pipes, Capitalism Magazine

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArti cle.asp?ID=9298
A Hate-America Superhero
Joshua Elder, FrontPageMagazine.com

Also:
- Hezbollah
- Al-Jazeera
- Red China
- Fidel Castro
- The Mafia
- The Sandinistas

> Of course, your post ignores the history of the past 40 years.
Of course. As required by the context of my post.

> In 1964, Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act through
> Congress, and {effectively and eventurally} ceded the South
> to the Republicans.

The bill's predecessor was from the Eisenhower Republican presidency:
From here:
The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was introduced in Eisenhower's presidency and was the act that kick-started the civil rights legislative programme that was to include the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act

Lyndon Johnson helped water it down, but later drive through the 1964 act with Republican help - a necessary step to end the evil that was threatening to tear America apart:
...
The bill didn't pass unhindered. There were doubters in Congress and it also had to overcome the longest obstruction in Senate history. Its final passing owed much to Kennedy, who had won over the Republican minority before his death.

And from here:

Let's interject some logic here: if southern racist Democrats became Republicans, how could (and would) they vote FOR the Civil Rights Act? It's a well documentable and easily proved fact that the majority of Republicans voted for the Act, thus the majority of Democrats voted against it. Since Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Act, Democrats fraudulently received and are now drowning in their self-gratulations.

Maybe the remaining Dixiecrats who remained with the Democrat Party had no desire to hang with nigger-lovin' Republicans, and gladly stayed where they felt comfortable.

> While these folk are by no means a majority, even in most
> Southern states, they are numerous enough and influential enough
> to command a lot of attention and wield a lot of power.

As the page above contends, the Democrats don't really have a lot to be proud of:

I contend racist Democrats remained with the Democrat Party, racists like J. William Fulbright (Bill Clinton's "mentor"), Robert (KKK) Byrd, and Senator Albert Gore, Sr. who like those of their ilk voted against the Act.

Perhaps bigots gravitate a bit more to the Republican party and are a bit harder to detect there -- given the Republican's sympathy to "traditional values" and the current republican emphasis on minimizing government affairs. But the party isn't racist: as you know, Colin Powell and Condi Rice can be described as having traditional values, but are black and in power nonetheless.

The Republicans are better for America than the Democrats.

Yes, not impressed and very very concerned about its deployment, especially after the poorly implemented gun-registry . There is a related story here . Sometimes, "developed" nations get it wrong too!

article at http://www.americandaily.com/item/2273

Just so you know, Dean is anything but a libertarian. Libertarians advocate LOW taxes, not high. I don't normally comment on sigs, but this blatent contradiction requires someone to set the record straight.

I mean seriously, this judge ruled that the Boy Scouts, who tended that property, spent MILLIONS of dollars doing so and let ANYONE use it, needed to be thrown out of there? Give me a break.

Sorry, but this is just an ACLU vendetta against the Boy Scouts, plain and simple.

This lawsuit NEVER would have happened if it were any other sort of organization with religious ties... It's just that their a Christian organization, and they're anti-Christian. Plain and simple.

To the original poster... if you can live with anti-religion bigots like that.... well, that's up to you.

1. They're looking to go with .Net instead of Unix or another stable, secure system. Insert your own jokes here.

2. They're building a Unionized auto plant. Obviously, this guy has no idea why big automakers have constantly moved their plants from heavily-unionized northern states to right-to-work states in the sun belt. Notice what a great benefit being heavily unionized was for the steel industry...

3. He's starting a new business in California. This is the same California, mind you, where Gray Davis and the Democratic Legislature have been making it almost impossible for businesses to operate profitably in. If he was serious about lowering costs, he'd be opening his plant someplace like Nevada or Texas.

Here are few sources to read up on the current California economic crises:

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/ 0,15114,465792,00.html

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20030713- 9999_1n13workers.html

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/fede ral_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/legal_reform/tre vor_law_group.html

http://www.americandaily.com/item/1853