Slashdot Mirror

Note that Santorum was effectively addressing every one of us, claiming that the state should regulate our private, consensual sex. Even if you were het, you had reason to oppose this man. If you just enjoyed anal sex, or even just oral sex. If you just thought liberty was a good idea.

It's even more insane than that. Senator Rick Santorum, on record:

"One of the things that I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the sexual liberty idea and many in the Christian faith have said, you know contraception is OK. It’s not OK because it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

Note also that this is important in the context of Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down a law that prohibited couples from using contraceptives. Santorum would like to revert that SCOTUS decision.

If you ever used a condom or a morning pill in your life, you should be aware that senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum wants to make you a criminal for the sake of his religious beliefs. It's as simple as that.

Eh, a decent modern reactor with modern safeguards isn't going to see those sorts of problems, or at least they become much less likely.

Eh, that's like saying your new house with your new shingles will weather much better than shingles put up in the 80's. Sure, your roof may be new, materials have advanced in the last 30 years - but you're still susceptible to the same problems: wind, water, snow....meltdown, waste storage...

Besides, the biggest design flaws will always be with nuclear power, no matter how advanced reactors get: human greed and hubris. The disasters at Three Mile Island, Fukishima, and Chernobyl were all avoidable with the technology available at the time. Corners will be cut to save a buck and officials will still hop back and forth between working for regulatory agencies and the companies being regulated.

The level of public ignorance never ceases to amaze.

You mean the willful ignorance of the revolving door in nuclear power regulation or the willful ignorance of skirting safety measures to save a buck?

This time thankfully only soda cans bought it.

This timeit was a support column.

This time a cop accidentally shot a Bologna, so I guess it's not a CCW, and maybe the Bologna was resisting arrest.

This time it was in a starbucks, some kind of lead extra latte.

This one was in a school.

This Guy apparently hit himself in the leg when he dropped the gun at a Grocery store.

Again, This one is not a concealed carry, but as the guy was DEA and actually demonstrating gun safety to a group of children at the time he accidentally shot himself I think it merits inclusion on the grounds that accidents can clearly happen to even the most highly trained.

We people are the ones that could be shot at any time without warning because someone felt that the risk to others of their carrying a weapon was worth it. In this litigious society I would have though the insurance costs of packing heat would be prohibitive. Around 2% of gun deaths are from accidental discharges.

Yesterday, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Nick George, a Pomona College student who was detained and aggressively interrogated by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) authorities, by the FBI and by Pennsylvania police when he tried to board a plane carrying Arabic language flash cards.

You heard right: Not liquids, not matches, not a bomb. Flash cards.

George, a physics major who's studying Arabic, was pulled aside for secondary screening at the Philadelphia International Airport as he tried to go through security. When he emptied his pockets, the inspector saw his flash cards and he was arrested, handcuffed, locked in a cell for hours and aggressively questioned. Because of some flash cards.

The following exchange took place between George and a TSA supervisor who questioned him:

TSA Supervisor: You know who did 9/11?

George: Osama bin Laden.

TSA Supervisor: Do you know what language he spoke?

George: Arabic.

These liberal blogs that I am following have been very critical of Obama:

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/
http://www.americablog.com/
http://agonist.org/
http://crooksandliars.com/
http://www.juancole.com/

Dailykos mission is too elect Democrats. They are more partisan than the progressive blogoshpere at large.

When did this happen? I didn't hear about it until now. Link please, if any?

Here you go. I'm not even an American and I've heard of several instances, through the Daily Show mostly.

Bill O'Reilly cares :)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475823/death-panel-deception
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475253/death-panel-comeback
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4313344/first-sign-of-death-panels
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/beck-has-happy-fearmongering-session
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac3_1251310849
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSI4RTWRTxo
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475784/return-of-death-panels/?playlist_id=87937
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101020001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkbzoGZTelU
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101060003
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/glenn-beck-ny-times-vindicates-death-panels-foxnews-2010-10-04

You were saying?

Do you want more? Because I can show you a lot more death panel videos from Fox.

Oh by the way, you might find this interesting:

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/110179/memos-reveal-how-fox-news-spun-the-health-care-debate/

I don't think anyone has ever argued OBL was born in the US. If you are mixing up BHO with OBL then there are some greater issues.

You mean like this?

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/03/calvin%20fails%20at%20capitalism_55384.jpg This is how I imagine you right about now.

Go here: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/video-wisconsin-gop-doesnt-want-you-see-gas , get the video and upload it everywhere :) It downloads as a .WMV

Well... why not. The Supreme Court already made it legal to bribe officials domestically.

I bet they got bribed to do it.

Very likely, actually, particularly in the case of Clarence Thomas

It's about PEACE. It has been given may to people in that same position as Obama, who were making efforts to bring peace to some region or conflict, but hadn't achieved it yet. The Prize in that situation is supposed to enhance the person's recognition in order to increase their chances of success at bringing peace. Other examples include Desmond Tutu (opponent of South African apartheid who got the Prize long before apartheid actually ended), Jimmy Carter (mideast), Woodrow Wilson (League of Nations), and numerous others. Rachel Maddow did a segment about this just after Obama got the Prize. Transcript here.

Raising taxes? Try again. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf

Regulation? Ha. Regulatory agencies are so fucking stuffed with corporate cronies it's not even funny. You got oil exes in what formerly was known as MMS (Minerals Management Service) and Wall Street guys have been fucking tearing up regulations since the 1980s.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/why-were-bp-executives-hired-mms-fox
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-15-2009/elizabeth-warren-pt--2 (eloquently explained by Elizabeth Warren)

What's wrong with regulations anyway? 'cause I really want lead paint on my cadmium drinking glasses and diethylene glycol in my toothpaste and melamine in my pet's food and my car to explode into a fireball if rear ended and my heating furnace to leak carbon monoxide and e. coli on my chicken and spinach and botulism in my can food and motor oil used in cosmetic surgery and shall I go on?

Unionization? What decade are you from?

Never mind. You're just trollin'.

We have tons of Royalty in the United States, Lords and Kings, etc. We might want to "clean house" here first before we start telling the British how to run things.

They have a national health service and lots of other lovely socialist things (they are working on getting rid of them, but still), we have King Don Blankenship of West Virginia who isn't nearly as charming as Her Majesty and has a lot more real world power.

I'm just sayin' is all...

Tom Ridge was the first Homeland Security chief, installed by Bush/Cheney. He's the guy who helped Bush/Cheney fake terror alerts timed to win elections. Ridge was Pennsylvania's governor until shortly before he headed Homeland Security, after decades at the top of Pennsylvania politics and police.

The PA Homeland Security department is completely compliant with Tom Ridge's way of doing business.

I suggest you read over your comment again and see if you can spot the hate in your own posts before commenting again. You are making it too easy to show what the problem is.

Here's the wiki:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. ...

Tell you what, sparky. Why don't you go back to the OP's post and tell me:
1) how I misrepresented it
2) how I tried to refute it

I'll even help you out. Here is the OP:

And your point is... what exactly?

His shtick is funny and has more truth in it than O'Reilly/GB's festering mouth(s) could ever dream of.

His argument is that Colbert is funnier and more truthful than O'Reilly or Beck, right? Where did I misrepresent that and attempt to refute the misrepresentation? I mean, aren't those the necessary requirements for a strawman attack?

No, my point was not to refute his argument. My point was show an Ad Hominem attack. See, that's where you insult and/or ridicule your opponent rather than go after his argument. You try to portray them as racists or idiots in an attempt to strip them, and therefor their argument, of any credibility.

Which takes me to my next point, projection. See, that's where you blame others of the crime you are guilty of. Like when you misrepresent someone's argument, claim it's a strawman and then try to shoot it down based on your assumption that your opponent's argument is a strawman. See, that's projection because you are making a strawman argument all while accusing your opponent of doing so.

Without asking for details on why the poster used an adjective that's not a completely factual representation of "some kind of dental infection" you go off about how he/she has committed "what I'd call a hateful attack" and use that logic to condemn a group of people by generalizing a post or posts into a representation of the group which you disparage in a conclusion of "proof that it's not the right that are the "hate mongers", but the left." Finally using the name calling that you are supposedly denouncing.

The OP was an example. Here are some more, all from this thread:

Dude has a history of drug abuse, hell he might be using again. That sort of thing worked for Hitler, meglomania, an echo chamber of your are right and dope.

I think Beck doesn't necessarily believe what he says, but he /does/ believe (not without justification) that his viewers are morons who will believe whatever he tells them, as long as he includes the magic incantation to tell them to do their own research.

It's Nazis all the way down.

Just like Joseph Smith, and countless other charlatans, con-men, and demagogues through the ages.

Yes. Those suffering from narcissistic personality disorder are often able to suck in large numbers of people to their "cause", for a while.

I'm no Glenn Beck fan, he's a delusional religious nut. ...than bigotry, ignorance, self aggrandization, and chalk boards? Yes, yes it is. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

Teabaggers are unable to detect or comprehend subtlety and nuance.

Strange. I don't see a single argument in the entire thread that extols the virtues of a powerful, federal government. Nowhere do I see anyone even attempt to refute Beck's current rally call of "smaller government".

Nope, it's all about how big of an idiot Beck and his followers are. Other sites stick to how Beck and anyone who opposes President Obama is a

Look deeper, and you'll see that the main difficulty for Obama was also the main difficulty for Bush: increasing entitlement spending as the baby-boomers age.

Are you saying we're dipping into income tax revenues to pay out social security checks? The program is supposedly solvent for about 20 more years.

Maybe you've noticed that your income tax and social security payments are separate items on your paycheck... A lot of people don't understand this whole "entitlement" thing. We've had politicians confusing Social Security with "welfare" for the past couple of months.

It's not like they're taxing you so they can pay me more when I retire. What I get back depends on what I put in. But I guess misrepresenting the whole thing is a whole lot more effective as stirring the more ignorant parts of the population to come vote for you, so certain politicians rant about "entitlement" as if it were a hand-out.

BTW, this will let you identify what the main difficulties for Obama are.

This is crucially important, big guy.

For that matter, you could also count the May 2010 bombing of a mosque in Florida. But bombings are the work of lone nuts, not terrorists, right? Like the Anthrax scare... it was just a lone nut, not an organized group of terrorists, or so each of the narratives about "persons of interest" has told. And Ft. Hood... was he a terrorist or a psychiatrist in need of some "Physician Heal Thyself?"

The DC snipers ended up being two lone nuts cooperating in a lonely, nutty fashion, not terrorists.

The name of "terrorist" is applied when convenient.

I don't think the case for visiting the moon (and Mars) is compelling enough for the current economic climate.

There will never be a good economic climate to fund space exploration.

I don't think the case for visiting the moon (and Mars) is compelling enough for the current economic climate.

"After reading today's Slashdot news I don't know why anyone would want to live in the Western World."

Only if you are a PALIN-drone.

Yours In Akademgorodok,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

This is how I know you haven't thought about this at all. -- The "counter" part of the article, put simply, doesn't. If anything, it validates the claims made in the AP article!

Then again, if you think Glenn Beck is 'accurate' I don't expect you to be terrible good at critical evaluation.

A simple example, because you obviously need the help: The article doesn't bother to counter the first claim: "Teachers in Texas will probably be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers -- but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state." Instead, it lumps it together with the second claim, and hoped you wouldn't notice. (Hey, it worked! You didn't even think about it did you? I know, Glenn does your "thinking" for you.)

That particular claim, by the way, is one of the most frightening aspects of the curriculum changes. It's also the most obvious example of a 'far-right' change.

Newsbusters is one of the most bias sites I've run across. How you can claim it's "one of the best" is beyond me -- unless by "best" you mean "reinforces my beliefs". If that's the case, you've got a lot to learn about critical thinking.

Let me help you get started. Read this site: http://rhetorica.net/bias.htm

Pay particular attention to critical question #4 "What sources does the speaker use, and how credible are they? Does the speaker cite statistics? If so, how were the data gathered, who gathered the data, and are the data being presented fully?" As you're a Fox viewer, you need to be especially careful -- Bill O'Reilly is notorious for not only inventing studies that support his claims, but even entire journals! (An example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo8K4YPi-v0 ) (Oh, he's also been known to outright lie about studies that actually exist. See this example: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/oreilly-46-physicians-may-leave-medical-pr )

Seriously, you really really need to learn to think critically. The future of our nation depends on people like you educating yourselves.

nobody assumes I'm a terrorist.

Unless you drive through Arizona.

Haven't you heard? Out of state drivers licenses are not considered a valid proof of citizenship.

The actual text of SB 1070 says:

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

        1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

        2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

        3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

        4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

See here, here and here.

nobody assumes I'm a terrorist.

Unless you drive through Arizona.

Haven't you heard? Out of state drivers licenses are not considered a valid proof of citizenship.

The actual text of SB 1070 says:

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

        1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

        2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

        3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

        4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

See here, here and here.

I am wondering though, is net neutrality going to end up a victim of partisan politics? The FCC under Obama says "Net Neutrality good" so the GOP leadership says "Net Neutrality bad" for no reason other than taking the opposite side of Obama...

Ya think?

Warning: These links contain dangerously high levels of Glenn Beck.

W

"Special Seeds"?

Read it and weep. This has been going on for decades.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/weeds-are-now-resisting-monsanto-weed#comment-1544265

Alright, so if you're a US citizen who believes the police may have reason to suspect you're in the country illegally, you have a few options to avoid any issues. First and foremost, a driver's license works wonders. If you're driving a vehicle, you have to have one of those anyway. If you simply don't drive at all - ever, and don't want/need a driver's license, you can get a state-issue ID for little or no cost. Either should be perfectly sufficient to resolve any questions from law enforcement.

From another post above, sometimes a Driver's License (& SSN) doesn't cut it in AZ

There are a couple key points here that are missed without context that essentially everyone is missing it.
Maricopa Counties Sheriff has been on a 'arrest all the mexicans!' bender for some time; he's currently under investigation by DOJ for a variety of things, including civil rights violations, racial profiling, using department resources to wage war on political rivals/basically anyone who disagrees with him and this in turn caused ICE to strip him of his authority to arrest illegal immigrants (By federal law, only ICE has this authority).

So the response? Okay we'll make a state law and make it sufficiently vague that we are essentially legitimizing his practices (a prior quote of his was telling AZ citizens to arrest any mexican they saw driving with a cracked windshield [horrible advice, citizens arrests are just asking for lawsuits/charges]).
Some interesting reading:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/08/politics/main6071928.shtml - Sherrif Joe Arpaio Facing Investigation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/16/AR2008071602636.html - Ariz. Sheriff Accused Of Racial Profiling

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/03/15/20090315arpaio-politics0315.html - Feds' new tone puts Arpaio in hot seat

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/sheriff-arpaio-sued-over-racial-profiling-latinos-maricopa-county - Sheriff Arpaio Sued Over Racial Profiling Of Latinos In Maricopa County

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/arpaio - series of articles concerning the sheriff's activities .. like 15 years worth.

http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/ice-strips-sheriff-joe-arpaio-immigra - ICE Strips Sheriff Joe Arpaio Of Immigration Enforcement Powers

et cetera, just hit google.

Also, while you're correct that the feds have the ability to throw up checkpoints, its *supposed* to only be legal within 100 miles of an international border; although in practice they just do what they want anyways. (i.e. on a bus trip from Seattle to Phoenix the bus was stopped by ICE in far northern Utah, everyone white was allowed off without much of a question, everyone who appeared mexican was in turn given the 'royal treatment')

US citizens can also be stopped and asked for their papers too, and can be arrested, and held until they can prove their citizenship.

This was the first page that came up: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/77309/a_pattern_of_republicans_stealing_music_from_bands_who_don't_like_them/
Here's another: http://www.theinsider.com/news/1264982_Can_the_Republicans_Stop_Stealing_Everybody_s_Music
And another: http://crooksandliars.com/2008/06/14/mccain-caught-stealing-democratic-music

It's pretty amazing how often they do it, and get away with it despite the protests and legal actions of the artists involved. It's the Republican party saying, "We don't have to play by the rules, fuck you!" to artists who disagree with them. Classy.

It's not quite so clear as far as accusations of "stealing" goes. There is something called compulsive licensing (for example, a radio station playing a music does not have to individually seek permission of the artist; it just has to pay a rate set by law). So, by law, anyone can play the music publicly as long as they pay the license fee set by law, no individualized permission from artists needed (and given the compulsive nature of this licensing, I doubt they can revoke this congress-granted permission; Lessig talks about this as being a case where Congress balanced the rights of copyright holders with public good).

Especially in the McCain campaign case, you will read about the artists returning the license fee—that's because McCain campaign played the music legally and paid the legally set license fee, as required by law. The artists can refuse the fee as a publicity thing if they want, but that doesn't change the fact that McCain campaign fulfilled all its obligations under the law.

Of course, why they would want to promote artists whose political views diverge so far from conservative views is baffling to me, but in any case, the only sense in which the campaign "stole music" is in the sense in which McCain campaign didn't seek permission that they didn't have to seek under the current law (but some people, like Weird Al, do seek such permission even if he doesn't have to, so you could argue it as a matter of courtesy—but not as a matter of law, as "stealing" implies).

Political speech enjoys higher levels of protection, but misuse of copyrighted works is not a free speech issue. It is a, oh what's the word, copyright issue. You do understand that, in order to work at all, copyright trumps free speech, except in limited circumstances like fair use and parody.

Republicans have a long, sordid history of using music without permissions, they especially love to use songs from artists who are not Republicans. Google 'republicans stealing music.'
This was the first page that came up: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/77309/a_pattern_of_republicans_stealing_music_from_bands_who_don't_like_them/
Here's another: http://www.theinsider.com/news/1264982_Can_the_Republicans_Stop_Stealing_Everybody_s_Music
And another: http://crooksandliars.com/2008/06/14/mccain-caught-stealing-democratic-music

It's pretty amazing how often they do it, and get away with it despite the protests and legal actions of the artists involved. It's the Republican party saying, "We don't have to play by the rules, fuck you!" to artists who disagree with them. Classy.

On extending the patents from 5 to 12 years:

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/09/14/us/house-debates-bill-to-extend-drug-patent-term-by-7-years.html

http://www.milliman.com/expertise/healthcare/publications/newsletters/pa/pdfs/president-obama-pharmaceutical-industry-PA-03-31-09.pdf

The actual bill. It is hard to read, but go to the page 1869 and read it. You'll see it. But you can also read around it. Apparently all kinds patents are going to be extended, by half a year here, by seven years there, various interesting stuff.

Also look at Obama killing the bill, that would have allowed cheap drug imports from Canada or other countries.

Dorgan introduced the bill

You will find shadows of this information in the news:

how the White-house killed this bill.

Dorgan had 30 or more Senators supporting this on his side, it still ended up dead.

Obama is nobody to love.

Congrats US citizens! You're on your way to a non-broken health care system!

We could only be so lucky. This bill by and large doesn't change anything. Most of us have health insurance that we purchase through our employers, provided by insanely profitable corporations. And for almost none of us will that change.

Unfortunately our government doesn't do change this year.

it's easy to be armchair cynics and dismiss the whole thing with the wave of a hand. And since this is the slashdot of today, full of ideological blowhards with little depth of knowledge or any kind of real expertise behind their blathering, it's even easy to get modded really high for such comments. The truth is, if there was indeed nothing changing here, you wouldn't have seen the nastiest, dirtiest fear mongering campaigns that were ever unleashed against any piece of legislation. If you are really interested in knowing how it changes things, start here:

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/what-you-get-when-hcr-passes

  But of course if (as is likely) all you're interested in is to hold on tight to your pre-conceived notions, feel free to keep your eyes tightly shut, clap your hands to your ears and keep on singing naah-nah-nah-naah-nah for as long as you like.

They may work on a news radio but they are on talk shows and do not claim to be non-baised. In fact, Hannity speficially says on the radio that he is biased.

http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/movieimages/2009/10/10315.jpg

True (mostly), but people still listen to political pundits like they are providing news, not opinions...that's what my problem is. Whether this is due to ignorance on the viewers part, manipulation on the pundit's part, or both doesn't matter to me...the fact that it happens is pretty bad.

But more to the point, I think we should expect senators not to be making fools of themselfs.

I completely agree...but it can be kind of fun sometimes /(^.^)\

Did you find the pro-health care people that kept posting the worst health care disastater stories extreme?

Yes. I equated that to one half of a shouting match. Shouting never fixes problems, it just makes them worse.

Or the ones that took any critism as racisim?

YES YES YES. This bothered me IMMENSELY, especially as an Obama supporter who admitted he was half-way full of shit (I like being realistic). When people can't back up their own argument or opinion, they resort to one of the following, depending on the topic:

A) Racism
B) Fanboyism
C) Religion...ism...or something. Whatever, you know what I'm talking about!

Responding to criticism with chants of racism just make the critics angrier and less likely to listen to your side. It does nothing but get people angry. The only way to quiet a critic is to explain your side, why you think that way, and please tell me why you disagree. Getting them more pissed just makes things worse.

It is rare that I do not see Barney Frank screaming and yelling at the camera's about something.

Barney Frank doesn't work for a fucking news channel. He's a politician, he's expected to make an ass of himself.

I find it funny that people find Rush extreme but Carville not.

Forgive me for leaving the Gollum/Lizard Baby out of my list.

I believe you are mistaking "emotionally violent" with passion

No, passion is something grounded in reality, presented with concise and logical thinking...unlike political pundits, who throw tantrums and have knee-jerk reactions so bad they can barely walk.

and see "extreme" as something different than what you believe.

I define "extreme" as someone who uses fear to change people's opinion.

This is extreme.

And I don't know anybody that finds Matthews conservative. He just had a show on the other night about how the republicans were being taken over by conservatives (gasp!) and went on about how terrible that was along with calling the black conservative repubican on the a sellout and a lapdog sucking up to his masters.

And where did I ever say Matthews was a conservative? I just lumped him in with the rest of the people paid to give us their opinion...they don't freakin' matter, and people shouldn't listen to them.

People need to learn how to form their OWN political opinion without listening to pundits from EITHER side. Period.

Well put. I don't agree with everything Beck says and there are times that he is truly wrong. You have pointed a couple out. Nice job.

Now, my beef is that Beck seems to bring up things that no one else (in the media) seems to care about. You have a "Green Jobs Czar" that has openly said he was a communist. Beck showed the video. But, so what. So what if the "Green Jobs Czar" is a communists? What can he do? He then showed the video of the same guy (Van Jones) saying that green jobs goes well beyond just "green jobs".

"[If] All we do is take out the dirty power system, the dirty power generation in a system and just replace it with some clean stuff, put a solar panel on top of this system. We don't deal with how we are consuming water, we don't deal with how we're treating our other sister and other brothers' species, we don't deal with toxins, we don't deal with the way we treat each other, if that's not a part of this movement, let me tell you what you'll have. This is all you'll have. You'll have solar powered bulldozers, solar powered buzz saws, and biofuel bombers and we'll be fighting wars over lithium for the batteries instead of oil for the engines and we'll still have a dead planet. This movement is deeper than a solar panel, deeper than a solar panel. Don't stop there. Don't stop there. No, we're going to change the whole system."

The "Green Jobs Czar" wanting to change the whole system? My big fear of government regulation of things is that they will use it to try to control me and take away my freedoms. Health care is a good example. Here is Van Jones saying that the government should use Global Warming as a way to control me. That scares me. If Glenn Beck had not started investigating Van Jones, no one would have ever known BECAUSE THE PRESS DOES NOT ASK THE QUESTIONS!

Then, of course, there is Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director. She said, "The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."

Of course, no other media outlet reported on this. The only refutation that Beck received was that he took the quote out of context. HERE is a site that does just that. To prove the point, they showed the entire video of the relevant portions of her speech. They don't seem to notice the irony that the entire video they showed to prove that Beck took the quote out of context WAS FROM BECK'S SHOW!!!!

So, while you may not like Beck's delivery, pay attention to the content. I wrote Beck as crazy several years ago when he would say conspiracy stuff like, "The government wants to take over the financial sector" and "The government wants to control the auto manufacturers". Now-a-days I watch the occasional show (when I'm home at 5:00) and get scared to death. He's like Alex Jones, except Beck is right more times that not and HE ACTUALLY HAS THE VIDEO TO BACK UP WHAT HE IS SAYING!!!! Where Alex Jones says, "I've seen the documents",
Beck shows you the video, and it not only scares the crap out of me what Beck says, but the fact that the press ignores it almost makes me want to build a bunker!

This also means that other news outlets cannot display clips of Glenn Beck saying foolish things or fact check a FoxNews story...Then, when Fox News describes their reporting as fact checking, then it becomes a story of "he said/she said".

While not necessarily the cause of this particular mishap, sleep deprivation is a problem for pilots, air traffic controllers and truckers, among others. And why is it a problem? Because they get shitty pay and have to work long hours. Some commercial pilots are paid so little that they qualify for food stamps while others take second jobs.

One of the reasons the air traffic controllers went on strike during the 80's was the fact that they wanted a 32 hour work week - because it's easier to keep a high level of alertness. But Reagan fixed that little union problem, and now ATC's get as little as two hours sleep between shifts. If there's two groups of people we don't want to fall asleep on the job and have to work at coffee shops (like the co-pilot of the plane that went down in Buffalo into an apartment building), it's pilots and air traffic controllers.

The wonder of the free market in action....

genome assembly (by Craig Venter, of course) , creation, and deployment to defeat the
Criminals-In-Congress.

Yours In Ashgabat,
Kilgore Trout

Listening to the whiners complain about Tom Delay. when there are bigger fish to fry IN Congress.

Yours In Astrakhan,
Kilgore Trout

Yeah. They got a quasi-race war in the press, to distract the base from stuff like this:
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/09/hbc-90005704

and this:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/15/bagram/index.html

Hey! Stay classy America! Your Edward R. Murrow is a comedian for chris'sake!
http://crooksandliars.com/dday/colbert-goes-there-only-media-figure-america

Meanwhile - back in the states:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/8133
http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m9d11-San-Diego-Sheriff-deployed-military-crowd-control-device-at-Congressional-town-halls

Gosh. Glenn Beck didn't FREAK OUT about that, did he?

I'm not even going to debate with you, as looking at your comment history, it's obvious you're a flaming liberal-progressive type.

And since reality has a well-known liberal bias, we both know how this is going to go.

A majority of the US rejects the liberal-progressive agenda.

Which is why 80% of the population, including a majority of Republicans, want a public option on health care.

That's why liberals seeking office have tried to re-brand themselves as "progressives" as that's a warmer, fuzzier label that doesn't recall the failure of nearly every liberal policy ever tried.

You mean like the New Deal, which paved the way for the greatest, and most stable, economic expansion in the history of the world, one that saw great improvements for both the wealthy and the working class? Or maybe you mean Medicare, which has 2 cents on the dollar administrative costs, as opposed to 35 cents on the dollar for private insurance?

That's why liberals-progressives always seek to silence opposition and debate.

Yes, which is why you'd get arrested for going to a Bush rally for wearing an anti-war shirt, while gun nuts are free to take loaded rifles and pistols to Obama rallies.

It's the reason behind the Fairness Doctrine and new backdoor plans being pushed currently to accomplish the same thing.

You mean the Fairness Doctrine that has no plans whatsoever to be considered, much less re-instated? If you're so worried about back doors, try pulling your head out of Sara Palin's deranged ass for a change.

But even if that were the case, the FD doesn't do anything to restrict anyone's speech. At all. Limbaugh, Beck, Savage et all would still be free to go on air and lie through their teeth for 3 hours a day. What it would do, is force the stations that carry Limbaugh, Beck, Savage et all give equal time to someone on the other end of the spectrum. Che Guerra is dead, Fidel Castro doesn't look like he has much of a speaking voice, so they might have luck recruiting talent from North Korea.

It's also the reason that liberals have tried to send in their "brown-shirts" in the form of the unions and special-interest group bussed-in disruptors to the town-hall meetings. They hear the American people and it scares them to death, so they attempt what liberals always attempt when confronted with opposition...they try to silence it/drown it out.

As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality.

White SEIU thugs even engaged in the assault and battery of an African-American outside of a town-hall meeting for his political beliefs!

Yawn. Any other long-debunked stuff you want to get out? How about Clinton being at fault for Waco and Ruby Ridge?

Liberalism always results in unintended consequences. Welfare expanded the number of poor.

Except that it didn't do any such thing, of course. As opposed to the run away successes that conservative outsourcing, moving factories overseas, and union busting have been for the middle class.

Liberalism is nothing more than a front for socialism/communism/fascism.

Any more poplar opposites that you want to throw in there? Potassium and water, maybe?

The American people have been asleep for a long time, but the liberal crazies in Washington have gone too far and have awakened the juggernaut. What has occurred so far in the town-halls and Tea Parties is only the beginning. People who have been too busy living their lives to pay attention have found it necessary to take action, and they're really, *really* pissed that the liberal nut-jobs have made it necessary for them to have to set things right.

As Barney Frank said: on what planet do you spend most of your time? If Obama and Congress were actually sup

Only because the things the cons like are already over-represented to the tune of 650 billion in military spending. It didnt get that way because the cons thought that the miiltary was big enough, but over decades of demanding more defense spending, pork, etc.

Now that the cons have situated themselves well you cant sit back and say "See, theyre fiscally responsible and want smaller government." No, they are not. In fact it took Obama to stop the production of F-22s we didnt need to fight an enemy that no longer exists.

Every GOP presidency in past couple of decades has led to massive deficit spending. Clinton cleaned up the Bush years and Obama will have to clean up the other Bush's mess.

Not to mention when liberals spend we get the GI Bill and FHA. When cons spend we get f-22s we dont need and on top of it they cut taxes for their rich pals, thus guaranteeing a deficit.

Wat. Stop making baseless conjecture and passing it off as fact, your post is in no way correct.

Get your head out of the sand please. He is probably correct. The most paranoid conspiracy theorist is the government.

U.S. Spies Want to Find Terrorists in World of Warcraft

UK Government Needs $20 Billion for Increased Spying Program

FBI Looking For Moles For GOP Convention Protestors

That commenter on your blog may actually be working for the Israeli government

CICNA chief tells all.

I enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh as an entertainer only.

If you are ever curious why Democrats dislike Rush, check out this site. They catalogue anything funny or atrocious Rush has done in his career.

You sound a lot like this guy.