Slashdot Mirror

Some good links from FreeRepublic.

Seems like Dr. Evil and his "laser beam" are finally starting to do their evil deeds!

Some good links from FreeRepublic.

Seems like Dr. Evil and his "laser beam" are finally starting to do their evil deeds!

Some good links from FreeRepublic.

Seems like Dr. Evil and his "laser beam" are finally starting to do their evil deeds!

"Chilling Photo of a Past Day: Alone -- Man Faces a Tsunami in Hilo, Hawaii on April 1946"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309506/p osts/

Very informative article. Thanks for posting it. Here's a related story which supports your thesis.

The ATF got the tipoff though. They all got pager messages not to go in that morning. Maybe it was Sollog who called them. You should be more pissed off at them then at him since they didn't warn anybody.

This type of license identification and verification might be one way of plugging that loophole.

Pornography triggers myriad kinds of internal, natural drugs that mimic the "high" from a street drug. Addiction to pornography is addiction to what I dub erototoxins -- mind-altering drugs produced by the viewer's own brain.

How does this 'brain sabotage' occur? Brain scientists tell us that "in 3/10 of a second a visual image passes from the eye through the brain, and whether or not one wants to, the brain is structurally changed and memories are created - we literally 'grow new brain' with each visual experience."

[...] Any highly excitatory stimuli (whether sexually explicit sex education or X-Rated films) say neurologists, "which lasts half a second within five to ten minutes has produced a structural change that is in some ways as profound as the structural changes one sees in [brain] damage...[and] can...leave a trace that will last for years."

Pornography psychopharmacologically imprints young brains - thereby invalidating notions of informed consent. [...]

A basic science research team employing a cautiously protective methodology should study erototoxins and the brain/body.

This is mumbo-jumbo as far as I can tell. Note how quickly Dr. Reisman -- her Ph.D. is in Communications, and she has no education in medicine -- goes from coining a brand new word to describe something she cannot prove exists ("what I dub erototoxins") to using that word as if the substance is real ("study erototoxins"). Along the way she uses partial quotes out of context, and prepends her views on pornography to a quote that matter-of-factly describes an obvious fact about the brain.

And if you missed it -- yes -- she is railing against "sexually explicit sex education." She is saying that sex ed causes brain damage.

This is the same woman who thinks the Catholic Church should sue because priests molested children.

Some of these people scare me, they really believe that if a man and wife perform oral sex on each other they should be put in jail.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1284238/p osts

To: Lindykim
"Modern science," Satinover said, "allows us to understand that the underlying nature of an addiction to pornography is chemically nearly identical to a heroin addiction."

So what? Religion does the same thing. Do you want to outlaw that too?
14 posted on 11/19/2004 3:20:30 PM PST by Viking is a verb (Maximun Freedom, Minimum Regulation)

--00--

To: Lindykim

An addiction for which there is no cure; the outrageous tragedy is the introduction to young and curious minds.
Once something is SEEN, the mind can never forget, and the rest you go figure, hence the Jeff Dommers (spelling?).

17 posted on 11/19/2004 3:24:11 PM PST by Paperdoll (on the cutting edge)

--00--

I have to agree 100%. The sexual behavior the porn industry promotes is very perverted and way beyond normal. As far are the imagery, yes, I can recall quite a bit of the garbage mine eyes have seen. I'd rather be pure considering the crap I've had to endure.

I suppose the similarity is if each of us could recall the details of our first sexual encounter or extreme violent moment. Porn may have less of an indelible nature, but it does put our sex drive on warp speed (mine at least).

There's a difference between porn and tasteful art, and neither should be subsidized. The porn industry should be kept on a very very short leash as it is (and I prefer it to be gone completely). Scientific discovery (like researching the pornographic history of criminals) should reveal the true nature of porn. Likewise, we'd know rather than accept with wisdom the suffering men and mostly women suffer after abortion (of which porn entrepreneurs have always championed).

I hope more women drive this reckless sexual behavior away from what should be model manhood. Eventually, those that vehemently defend all porn of all kinds will expose themselves as the perverts they are.
30 posted on 11/19/2004 3:34:00 PM PST by SaltyJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
--==--

To: oldleft

There has been a lot of discussion about the relevancy of this post. I think it's very relevant. You guys want to critisize the "moral right"...but who do you think got George Bush re-elected? And didn't George Bush agree to a Pornography Protected Day?
The point is pornography is very, very addictive. And most of the porno out there isn't your cute, bunnyrabbit Playboy stuff. Some of it is cruel, disturbing and outright dangerous.

34 posted on 11/19/2004 3:35:56 PM PST by mowkeka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

--00--

To: Rytwyng

You mean like Jimmy Swaggart and the hookers? Its always a classic when the types warn of hellfire and brimstone along with the threat of eternal damnation and then get caught hanging out in the seedier parts of town.

46 posted on 11/19/2004 3:41:55 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

--00--

To: Lindykim
I am not going to dignify equating one who enjoys porn with being a serial killer. Do a Google search on "straw-man arguments" and notice that it is under "logical fallacies." I, for one, am a conservative who reads Playboy, and I'm also an a college honor student. My parents have forgotten more pornographic images than I am ever likely to see, and I will certainly vouch for their character. It is "holier-than-thou" judgmental proselytizers that give conservatives a bad name.

If I wanted to live in a "nanny state," I would have voted for John Kerry.
81 posted on 11/19/2004 4:14:10 PM PST by newagepublius

--00--

With the explosion of p

Well, here's food for thought.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1255391/p osts/

For the record, this is similar to issues Gore brought up in FL in '00. Democrats jumped all over it then. I'm betting they are just as quick to dismiss it in this case.

He said it to an Amish group in Lancaster, PA:

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1172948/p osts

It's also been reported in many other places, just do a google search.

I didn't say he was a *perfect* libertarian. But that's my whole point -- his leanings, by and large, are of a libertarian nature.

* Economics? Staunchly free-market and anti-tax. Why do you suppose he used a $15b bond issue to try to pay off CA's deficit, rather than raising taxes?

Also, Arnie reads Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek. Economic girly-men need not apply where such authors are concerned, and Arnie calls Friedman, in fact, "my great hero"... The California GOP tried to paint him as a "liberal" (the evil "l" word) in the election, but failed b/c his capitalist tendencies are so strong. He has also attended an Austrian economics conference hosted by the Reason Foundation (and personally, for as libertarian as my ideals are, even *I* think the Austrians go too far).

BTW, have a look at his 16 person economic advisory board. It's reads like a who's-who list of outstanding free-market economists: Milton Friedman, Arthur Laffer, and Gary Becker are on that list, to name a few!

* Marijuana? He favors decriminalization (or is it legalization?) for medicinal purposes. No, he's not going for out-and-out drug legalization, but admit it: it's a step in the right direction, and a bigger one than virtually all Republicans are taking now.

* Abortion? Pro-choice.

* Gay marriage? Opposes a Constitutional amendment, and while he says it's illegal under CA law, he otherwise doesn't really care and seems to have no intention of actually having the law enforced.

Now, granted, he's not perfect. His stance on gun control is *far* from libertarian, and his stance on the environment is rather liberal (not that this is an entirely-bad thing IMO though).

But, when all else fails in demonstrating Arnie's libertarian cred, at least economically, well, he pisses off the socialists with his economic policies. That alone speaks volumes. And even socially, as I have described above, he is *far* more tolerant and moderate than most Republicans.

Face it, he's a libertarian-Republican; not a Libertarian, but not a Republican either. California could have done *far* worse than to elect the Terminator for governor.

Frankly, as *electable* candidates go (that is, the hardline Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, etc. are obviously not electable), he is about the best one could hope for; in stark contrast to President Bush, who is about as bad as it gets.

I use Free Republic for live updates from the right, and Daily Kos for live updates from the left. Both sites are highly biased, and admit as such. (I like my bias out in the open where I can see it.)

Both sites are highly active today with live or near-live reports coming in from voters and observers. Signal-to-noise ratio is low (as you might expect), but half the fun is reading through the "rah rah, our guy's winning" noise to find the nuggets of information that may (or may not) lead to a coherent picture of what's going on out there.

I do not want to be a pussy, so Bush it is. Hey Bush ... Pussy. Oh yeah that was already put together at the Democratic fund-raiser

You know, it's interesting that people (even Republicans, i find) totally ignore Democratic cases of voter fraud. Republicans are not the only ones responsible for it -- in fact, they seem to me like they're less likely to do it than Democrats, on the whole.

Some of these are really biassed, but here are some examples:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article385 5.html

http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/004765.html (LOTS of articles about it here)

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/007968.php

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1250035/p osts (admittedly, Free Republic is a pretty bad place to go for potentially reputation-harming information about Democrats, but there it is anyway <_<)

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund20040913 0633.asp

Even The New York Times had a story about Democratic voter fraud.

This isn't to say that the Las Vegas thing and Chuck Hagel's involvement with that voting-machine company and the convenient Diebold incident in Georgia aren't troubling, because they are, very much. But so many people mysteriously forget that the other party isn't the only one that can be 'filthy'.

But its all bananna's to monkey boy.

Kerry gets an F from the, he sponsored and voted for many pieces of legislation that I consider illegal and on the road to totalitarianism. He voted yes on legislation to ban ALL CENTERFIRE.

Several bolt guns (centerfire) and pistols (centerfire). Don't you ever call yourself a real gun owner. You know nothing in the fight against the erosion of rights. The plan of attack by Totalitarians is to eat away at rights, registration here, pistol grip there, here there everywhere until everything is black powder, shotguns and bolts. Then they ALL get banned. I would be happy to let them have machine guns, EDs, and other things that are perceived by the public as menacing (however rarely they are used in crime doesn't seem to matter.)

Now that gun grabbing totalitarians are controlling Washington, I plant to get as much NFA/Class III gear as I can possibly amass. I would buy an M@-HB if I could, just to piss you off.

John Kerry gets an F in Civil rights because the NRA give him an F on his voting record. PERIOD. END.

John Kerry is not a sportsman or a gun lover. He is going duck hunting to gets idoits like you to actually believe he didn't vote against guns owners TIME and TIME again (whenever he actually bothered to show up and vote).

John Kerry Wants to Ban Guns in America

John Kerry's Voting Record on Second Amendment and Hunting Issues

John Kerry on Gun Control

Just for balance, the National Rifle Association, based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, Senator Kerry was assigned a grade of F based on a scale of A+ to a low of F. Not to be outdone, Gun Owners of America grade him F- (yes, that's a "minus" sign!).

If you can't see Kerry's lame hunting trip as a ruse, you are a complete idiot.

I'm furious with Arnold banning .50BMG guns in California, let alone with the stuns Kerry, Feinstein, Schumer and Kennedy have pulled against gun owners. They are the 4 most ANTI GUN senators today. This FACT supported by GOA, NRA, Voting Records, JPFO, etc. FACTS DONT LIE.

You are a horribly uniformed voter and you will lead to totalitarianism in the USA. You could never be a Libertarian with your communist views on Gestapo like agencies like the Treasury, BATF, FBI and totalitarian LEOs crushing the American people with superior force.

Get this straight, buddy, the Federalist Papers put the framers intent in perspective. READ THEM before you bleat about what the framer's intent was. YOU DO NOT KNOW.

Think of it this way, when the US was born, the weapons what people owned were identical to what the military owned. As time passed, totalitarians and federalists made it so the government can easily crush the people.

You support totalitarianism and your position is indefensible. Maybe when you are being shoved into a crematorium by an Islamo-fascist alive you'll finally realize what an ass you are.

Join the Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership!

You're not disillusioned a bit are you?

Very- I voted FOR Bush in 2000.

Um, the unions are still Democrat.

I suspect that modern organized crime is on the other side of the paycheck. It's far more lucrative to skim off the top.

I don't see it. I hope you're wrong.

The sad part is that it's not limited to the Presidential race, to any one location, or to either side. The problem is nationwide, covers almost all races, and is getting uglier by the day. A few examples (so far, pre-election, it's pretty much been limited to PROPERTY damage as opposed to personal damage, but that could easily change quickly):
http://www.sungazette.com/letters/letter_details.a sp?letterID=2888&postdate=10/14/2004
http://bakersfield.com/elections/story/4975842p-50 38992c.html
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20041019/ne ws/1438518.html
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/june_2004/recal l5.htm
http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20040326/ NH_004.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1236613/p osts
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf ?/base/front_page/1096459546252200.xml

My area is in that last section- and is particularily bad across the rural/urban divide.

"Premptive war"

Not quite. Saddam has been involved in a number of terrorist attacks on the US.

* WTC1 - the main guy, Ramzi Youssef, is thought to be w/ Iraqi intelligence, and received his passports from Iraq (he also had a Pakistani passport, which was from a Pakistani national who went missing in Kuwait after Iraq invaded). The one guy who got away went to live in Baghdad living off of Saddam's money.

* OKC - Terry Nichols was trained by Ramzi Youssef in bomb-making in the Phillippines. With McVeigh that day was former Iraqi republican guard member Hussein Al-Hussany. This was attested to by multiple eyewitnesses. Al-Hussany then went to work for Logan National Airport. You can read about this in the book The Third Terrorist by OKC reporter Jayna Davis. Al-Hussany sued her for libel and she won. You can find more info at jaynadavis.com

* The attempted assasination of GHWB in Kuwait

* TWA Flight 800 - not sure if this was Saddam, but this actually was a terrorist attack that Clinton covered up (he wanted to be associated w/ peace and not war, so he covered up anything that might indicate the need to go to war). That this was a terrorist attack has been mentioned by George Stephanopolous and John Kerry.

* WTC2 - Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence a few months before 9/11. In addition, a few months before, Iraq's state paper basically predicted it -- said that Osama would attack America with all of the force of the bedouins, hitting the pentagon, the white house, and New York on "the arm that is already hurting".

Also, many of the other attacks outside our borders seem to have Saddam be quite complicit. He would make a threat, and then a month or two later Osama would strike.

Some links:

http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq%20Ter ror.htm

http://freedomkeys.com/secrethistory.htm

A good list of links

I thought it was that Canada negotiates lower prices for prescription medicines, not that they actually put funds into buying the drugs.

This site says that the drugs are cheap in canada due to price controls and bulk buying.

The problem with this is that they base the price on the per unit production cost, not including research/development/certification costs. For a reasonable return, the company has to make it up somewhere, mainly in the USA. Drugs in the USA are cheaper once the generics make it to market.

You can hear the liberal slashdotters' heads asplode...
"DMCA bad.... but... site... pro-Bush... ack... who should I side with... aaaah... *pop*"

I may disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it. That is a sentiment seen all too rarely from the right.

Need I remind you that "liberal" groups such as the ACLU defend not only the KKK and NAMBLA, they actually wend to far as to defend RUSH LIMBAUGH! One of the most conservative ALCU bashers there is.

While I dissagree with the site, I would still gladly defend them. Sadly in this case the site does indeed appear to have stepped over the line. They may have writen a parody news story, they plopped it in the middle of a GENUINE copy/paste CNN news page. Even the Freepers generally acknowledge this once you get down to post 44 and after. The DMCA is an abomination that needs to be eliminated, but even without the DMCA this guy has a problem. While I dissagree with the site, I would be glad to see him fix it with a new parody logo and fixing the copyright notice and maybe a few other tweeks and re-post it. While I dissagree with the site, I would be gladly work up a pardy logo to assist him if he were to call for assistance.

And needless to say, the site would have the same problem had it been an anti-Bush parody. I expect would have atrracted the exact same response from CNN.

-

the new voters project is a criminal fraud organization.

Ok, so how about calling for Bush's resignation. He has done every one of the things you suggest, in the case of the Niger Uranium issue, if not several other places.

You mean the 16 words, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"? What was wrong with that? Bush never even mentioned Niger, his statement was not based on that forged document, and his statement has been backed up by several independent reports, including the Brits themselves, and the Financial Times in July of this year.

Last year, when Wilson came out with this story saying he proved Bush was lying in his speech, I said, nonsense. You only proved this memo was a forgery, not that Bush's statement was based on it. But no one listened to me. Thankfully, that's what everyone is saying now.

The big difference is that his lies caused the death of 1100+ americans, and thousands of others.

Sigh. First, I don't know of any lies, and I think you don't either. Second, even if he did lie, those lies did not cause any deaths, as the primary justification for war is entirely factual: that Hussein had not fully accounted for what he was previously known to have, that he was not fully cooperating with UN Resolutions in this and other ways, and he was therefore in violation of UN Resolution 1441, which the U.S. Congress said Bush had the authority to enforce with the military.

Nothing about that is disputable, and none of it is based on lies (not even the vote in Congress, as Kerry himself has many times said he stands by that vote, to this day).

That only one relatively inconsequential part of his story was discredited.

Inconsequential? It was the lead of the story. Nice try, though.

The more important part of the story was the former Texas Lt. Gov. admitting that he used his influence to get Shrub into the guard.

I don't care. Even if Barnes -- a major Kerry fundraiser -- could be trusted, I would not care. This whole story is nonsense to me. We have four years of him as Commander in Chief, why should we judge his continued fitness based on whether he got favors before I was born? I've not run into anyone who cares at all about this, except people who already hate Bush.

My interest in this case has nothing to do with debunking the claims being made, since I don't care about them. It has everything to do with slamming reporters who intentionally and recklessly feed the public lies, so that the public can learn to be more critical and wary of what they see and hear.

Well, I have been stationed is Southern Iraq for almost 8 months now. Everyday I get an intelligence brief that tells me what has happened in the last 24 hours. If you think that for a minute that Basra and other Brit areas have been immune from the attacks that occur US controlled areas you see on the news, you need stop believing everything you hear in the very liberal, very biased media. AIF (Anti Iraqi Forces) and other insurgents strike the British Forces daily. Almost every day there is rocket or mortar attack against coalition positions like the Cimic house. And everyday the British hunker down and try to track the POO (Point of Origin) of the attack. US citizens don't ever see those reports because the liberal media knows that reporting attacks against other coalition forces does not support the picture that they are trying to paint, the picture that nobody wants us here. Check out this letter from a US Army Captain (no its not me).
http://www.jenmartinez.com/mt/archives/001264.php/
http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/000477.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/k-soldier/b rowse/
http://www.globalspecops.com/
Do not believe what you see or hear on TV. And don't spout off unless you have been here. Weather it is Fox or CNN, liberal or conservative, the media is bullshit. I made the mistake of talking to a reporter once. She had an agenda (and a nice rack which is the only reason I talked to her and probably why she was picked to interview soldiers) and after reading the article, wondered how she could misconstrue what I said. I finally realize that she just writes what she wants to and uses soldier's names in her articles to boost her credibility.
When I deployed overseas, my family and friends told me to be careful and "keep my head down". Now I realize it is not the Iraqi people or the insurgents I need to worry about, it is the media.

I would like to welcome those views from FreeRepublic.Com who are with us this evening.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232207/p osts

I would like to ask you one question tonight, how did you like the freerepublic slowdowns during the debate tonight? Isn't it amazing that they always happen right before a donation drive? Why is that? They don't happen other times and the didn't happen on 9/11.

Check out the current cost for bandwidth too, the going rate is less than 1.50/GB in bulk and the fr budget makes provisions for a lot more that that.

It's useful right now - look at how conservative bloggers were able to take down CBS news. No matter what you may think of the story, there's no question the memos were forged, and ineptly at that. This story would not have broken without the bloggers.

There is actually enough controversy between people nominally on the same side in sites like Free Republic (right) and Democratic Underground (left) to create effective debates. As a conservative site, Free Republic contains material of all kinds (from The Nation to National Review), and the conservatives who debate range from libertarians to fundamentalists. Democratic Underground is much smaller and ironically has much less tolerance of opposing views than Free Republic. Both sites will delete blatant trolls within seconds, but someone called Liberal Larry has survived on FR for years. He's civil, so he survives. In contrast, I wrote civil messages on DU which people seemed to enjoy responding to and I was deleted simply because I wasn't a liberal. I don't think that would have happened on FR.

A major reason for the emergence of liberal and conservative enclaves is that liberals and conservatives are pretty darn nasty when put in the same web site together, and as a result very little productive discussion actually occurs. This is unfortunate but true.

It's interesting that Slashdot has developed into essentially a liberal ghetto because intelligent conservative posts are moderated down. I have seen this happen to many of my posts, to the extent that I feel unwelcome. As a result, I don't post nearly as much as I did when the section was originally opened.

D

A few of my own auctions have been terminated for this reason (I was very candid about the OEM status), so if there's a legal defense for this, I'd like to know.

It's call the doctrine of first sale.
It's a legal concept that says when I buy a copy of something that is copyrighted, I get a certain set of rights by default. One of those is the right to resell it.

MS would have to believe that their EULAs constitute a valid legal agreement, and remove that right, but that's about as legaly enfocable as someone selling a house and leaving a sticker on the door that says, "by breaking this seal, you agree to these additional terms...".

You can't force someone to argee to a contract, by putting a sticker on something that's legally THEIRS.
If MS wants their EULAs to be legally valid, they need to be "signed" when the money is exchanged.

Imagine if you bought a new car and there was a sticker on the lock that said "By removing this sticker, you agree never to resell this car".
It's total nonsense.

In the case of ebay, you want to point them to THIS news item:
The judge, in the case Adobe vs Softman heard in the Central District of California, has ruled that consumers can resell bundled software, no matter what the EULA, or End User License Agreement, stipulates.
Then tell ebay that they are attemping to enforce liscense restrictions that the supreme court has ruled illegal.
You could point out that by having such a policy they are therefore opening themselves up to lawsuits frow people who just want to execise their own legal rights.

for some real hypocrisy

DU

Freeps

dare to compare with /.

I think we do pretty good here really

there was a suit against freerepublic.com about something similar. Actually it happens regularly there like this

The feds are working on outlawing peeping Tom activities.

You need a lawyer to determine your rights which will depend on the laws and court decisions of your state and details like whether or not anyone caught on video was a minor (big no-no).

Of course there is the direct approach.

• Kerry's story about how Nixon sent him to Cambodia during Christmas, and how this was "seared, seared" in his memory. Only now we find out that he was never in Cambodia, and Nixon wasn't even president then anyways.

Wrong on several counts; he never said Nixon sent him -- here's an anti-kerry blog with a compendium of Kerry's Cambodia quotes here's another -- show me a "Nixon sent" quote or you'll have to retract. Sure, Kerry mentions Nixon, but he never says what you claim. Next, on June 16, 1971 O'Neill told Nixon that "I was in Cambodia, sir." This was recorded by Nixon's secret taping system. That story even made it to freepers, so you have no excuse for missing it!

What we have is, in the 1970's both Kerry and O'Neill agreeing they were in Cambodia, and in 2004 O'Neill changing his story. To you this is proof Kerry lied? A number of vets have come out against O'Neill's group's claims. Read about it here. According to this article, Kerry's boat was very near the border; how can you prove he wasn't on the Cambodian side?

• It was also seared in his memory about when he was in Vietnam when he heard MLK Jr. was shot. Only MLK Jr. was shot months before Kerry went to Vietnam.

Correct, Kerry is in error here, although Kerry never uses the word "seared" regarding that memory. Kerry was on the USS Gridley, mostly in the Gulf of Tonkin. Exactly how far is that from Vietnamese territorial waters?

• Kerry has admitted that his first Purple Heart "may have" been self-inflicted (by accident). This is mainly because Kerry's journal from the time stated that they hadn't been attacked yet.

False. Kerry admitted no such thing. The "self inflicted" claim comes from this line of logic: Kerry was first wounded Dec 2, then wrote in his journal Dec 11 "A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky,". Kerry-haters, reading this journal entry, have claimed the wound must have been self-inflicted, but Kerry said no such thing.

• Kerry said he got an honorable discharge before schmoozing with the North Vietnamese, but in fact he was still an officer.

False. Kerry never said he was discharged when he met with the North Vietnamese in Paris. The error is in an AP timeline; not in Kerry materials. You can read about it here. Show me where Kerry claims he was discharged before Paris, or retract.

• He now claims that he requested and signed up for the most dangerous job in the Vietnam War, but in actuality he tried to sign up for the safest. (After failing to get a deferment.) How do we know this? Not only because of records (swift boats were changed from easy coastal patrols to dangerous river missions after Kerry signed up). But we also have Kerry's own admission of this fact a few years ago.

False. Show me where Kerry claims he "requested" the "most dangerous job." Kerry explains he volunteered for the Swift Boats so he could be near the action but not in it. Here's a direct quote: "They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing." It is a measure of K

• Kerry's story about how Nixon sent him to Cambodia during Christmas, and how this was "seared, seared" in his memory. Only now we find out that he was never in Cambodia, and Nixon wasn't even president then anyways.

Wrong on several counts; he never said Nixon sent him -- here's an anti-kerry blog with a compendium of Kerry's Cambodia quotes here's another -- show me a "Nixon sent" quote or you'll have to retract. Sure, Kerry mentions Nixon, but he never says what you claim. Next, on June 16, 1971 O'Neill told Nixon that "I was in Cambodia, sir." This was recorded by Nixon's secret taping system. That story even made it to freepers, so you have no excuse for missing it!

What we have is, in the 1970's both Kerry and O'Neill agreeing they were in Cambodia, and in 2004 O'Neill changing his story. To you this is proof Kerry lied? A number of vets have come out against O'Neill's group's claims. Read about it here. According to this article, Kerry's boat was very near the border; how can you prove he wasn't on the Cambodian side?

• It was also seared in his memory about when he was in Vietnam when he heard MLK Jr. was shot. Only MLK Jr. was shot months before Kerry went to Vietnam.

Correct, Kerry is in error here, although Kerry never uses the word "seared" regarding that memory. Kerry was on the USS Gridley, mostly in the Gulf of Tonkin. Exactly how far is that from Vietnamese territorial waters?

• Kerry has admitted that his first Purple Heart "may have" been self-inflicted (by accident). This is mainly because Kerry's journal from the time stated that they hadn't been attacked yet.

False. Kerry admitted no such thing. The "self inflicted" claim comes from this line of logic: Kerry was first wounded Dec 2, then wrote in his journal Dec 11 "A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky,". Kerry-haters, reading this journal entry, have claimed the wound must have been self-inflicted, but Kerry said no such thing.

• Kerry said he got an honorable discharge before schmoozing with the North Vietnamese, but in fact he was still an officer.

False. Kerry never said he was discharged when he met with the North Vietnamese in Paris. The error is in an AP timeline; not in Kerry materials. You can read about it here. Show me where Kerry claims he was discharged before Paris, or retract.

• He now claims that he requested and signed up for the most dangerous job in the Vietnam War, but in actuality he tried to sign up for the safest. (After failing to get a deferment.) How do we know this? Not only because of records (swift boats were changed from easy coastal patrols to dangerous river missions after Kerry signed up). But we also have Kerry's own admission of this fact a few years ago.

False. Show me where Kerry claims he "requested" the "most dangerous job." Kerry explains he volunteered for the Swift Boats so he could be near the action but not in it. Here's a direct quote: "They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing." It is a measure of K

The editors aren't required to cater to anyone's views, yours included. If you don't like it, leave and send Taco or somebody else important an email explaining why you left. If enough people do this, then advertising numbers will go down, and the site will eventually shrivel and die. However, judging by the number of people who hang around here complaining and never leave, that day will probably be far in the future.

Please excuse my troll but I'm absolutely sick of /.er's constantly attacking Microsoft and expounding the virtues of Linux. Although I have no hard evidence to suggest the following, it is my conclusion based on my understanding of human nature. The reason that Linux virii don't run loose in the wild is people have no reason to create virii for Linux. 90% of people are on Microsoft systems (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999634/p osts) thus people with malicious intent scour microsoft products for exploits. Malware/Adware has become a big business and finding exploits helps to facilitate that business. Such a small percentage of people use Linux that there is no reason for people to find exploits, I sincerely doubt it has anything to do with them not being there.

This all being said, I have no problem with Linux. I tool around with it at home, but as an IT Professional I know it is NOT the solution to my companies problems. A great deal of software we use is not compatible with it and our clients software is not compatible with it either. Simply changing the Colorado DMV over to Linux would be a TERRIBLE solution. Although the OS would cost no money, the money it'd cost to build appropriate software, train employees and transfers all the systems over to the new systems would be ASTRONOMICAL.

Linux is great, but it's not the holy grail.

Actually, the myth that a 3rd party vote is wasted needs to be dispelled. Reaching a certain percentage of voters for an office means that that party will be automatically carried to the ballot on the next election. From the top of my head, the percentage required varies from office to office (and possibly state to state), but 5% of the vote for the presidency gets your party relisted and access to receive public funding for the next election (see here).

...when this site becomes crucial to our democracy.

If you really want to read a high-quality conservative blog, here are two from National Review Online:

• The Corner, a braided-blog with constributions by many of NR's writers, run by Kathryn Jean Lopez, and
• The Kerry Spot, penned by Jim Geraghty, whichs follows Kerry and his campaign closely, as well as related subjects. (The Kerry Spot was one of the best sites to follow for updates on Rathergate.

• http://www.powerlineblog.com/
• Instapundit
• Little Green Footballs
• http://www.allahpundit.com/
• Rather Biased, which perked back to life after the scandal broke.
• http://www.rathergate.com/, which sprang into being shortly after the scandal broke
• http://www.indcjournal.com/
• Finally, although I'm less of a regular reader, it was a poster on Free Republic who first broke the story.

Well, that should get you started. in truth, except for the NR blogs, I was only an occasional readers of the others before the Rathergate story broke, but now I'm much more of a regular reader, much to the detriment of my productivity...

...more outsourcing of jobs in my industry...

Take a look at the number of jobs outsourced by the Heinz corporation, of which Kerry and his wife own 4% ($500M USD). Now, she doesn't sit on the Board, or hold a position at the company, but owning 4% of a huge company like Heinz buys a helluva lot of influence (as well as outsourcing-enhanced dividend checks).

Kerry is a hypocrite on this issue, pure and simple. As they say, "clean up your own back yard before you go knocking on your neighbor's door."

The part about how you can be left wing and a libertarian was fascinating. A friend of mine listens to a talk radio show in Boston by Jay Severin (96.9), which claims to be libertarian. I have listened several times. Last week, Severin said he doesn't want to have to vote for Bush. He wishes he could vote for Pat Robertson... Looking for more info on the web, I read that that Severin said that all muslims should be killed. Or that he was for the war, against the peace, Iraqis don't deserve a better system and we shouldn't be giving it to them. So it's very interesting that liberarians can be left or right wing. Or just plain idiots like Jay Severin.

"the people at WTVT trying to work with the correspondents regarded them, especially Wilson, as combative, contentious, insulting, and unprofessional. The Fox lawyer participating in the editorial review complained to them that they were stating "in almost every way possible that you are fed up with our process of legal and editorial review."

Top 10 Reasons to Vote for John Kerry:

10. John Kerry would handle the war in Iraq differently. I think.
9. He's got better hair.
8. John Kerry will personally create thousands of jobs in America.
7. He has a plan for America's future. I think.
6. George Bush stole the last election.
5. I think John Kerry may have served in Vietnam.
4. George Bush didn't go to Vietnam, AND he skipped a physical!
3. The french people and the rest of the world all like him best.
2. Didn't he get some medals in Vietnam?
1. He's Not George Bush! (TM)


Top 10 Reasons to Vote for George Bush:

10. George Bush is Tough on Terrorism.(TM)
9. He supports educating children.
8. George Bush freed all those Afgan and Iraqi people. Personally.
7. He will lower your taxes.
6. George Bush was President on September 11th, 2001.
5. John Kerry's medals are fakes.
4. Those CBS memos were forged, duh.
3. The french people and the rest of the world all hate him most.
2. He's not as rich as John Kerry.
1. George Bush will keep America safe.

According to the UN, England has the highest crime rate in the world. England, where it's all but impossible to legally own a gun.

And in Australia, where guns are also almost impossible to legally own, criminals that can't get guns have been resorting to swords (which some Aussies want banned now) or crossbows (as per the story about a man's life being saved by his cell phone).

As to a fight against an oppressive government, look at the communist nations that prohibit their citizens from owning guns, versus oppressive nations where citizens can own guns. The USA won its war for independence because its people owned guns and turned them against the oppressors.

Do you have any evidence to back up your side of the issue?

He's referring to the "respected in the world" part of the Democratic platform. It's pretty nebulous, but given recent events, it can only mean giving in to France and Germany when they say "stop."

It also means giving up the long-term strategy for getting rid of terrorism, bringing back appeasement tactics, and again treating terrorism as a criminal act.

Right-wing conspiracy theorists (which the parent poster may or may not be - it could have been hyperbole) can also throw in Kerry's ties to France - including his hairdresser. I'd say those might be a small factor in his decision-making. But my first two paragraphs are pretty much fact, and IMNSHO they're horrible ideas.

Thats why everyone wants to come over here to go to Harvard or Yale or MIT or Oxford or Stanford or even our high schools.

You may want to check http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0730/p01s01-usgn.htm l or http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1196702/p osts. Oh and BTW, Oxford? *grin*

- Hurga

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1211076/p osts#20

Sorry to reply to my own post, but I wanted to clarify the assessment made by lgf: Their source is freerepublic.org (another like minded discussion board). The evidence they cite is that "every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.

In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used monospaced fonts.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. "

It is my hope that /. readers can clear this up one way or the other.

I don't often participate in Slashdot discussions when politics is involved; for what reasons, I'm not sure. However, I feel that you have made some factually incorrect points, sir. Whether you know this or not is not my concern, rather giving proper information is.

The swift boat stuff was all concerned actions 30+ years ago. Did Kerry tell recent lies about those actions? I don't think so -- all the fact checking I've seen supports Kerry and says the swift boat gang are liars.

In fact Kerry has lied about href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=K erry+V+device&btnG=Search+News">his service

Even though President Bush's records have come to be something of a hinderance to his re-election campaign, my research on Senator Kerry has shown that he is far more apt to take liberty with his service record to be all things to all people. Therein lies John Kerry's major flaw: He wants to be on both sides of the fence--a decorated war hero and an anti-war advocate.

Posting anonymously, because the popular view on slashdot seems to be more liberal and libetarian, and I'm a bit more of a conservative geek than that.

Nothing on NECN's website, which is affiliated with that Bastion of Truth, the Boston Globe, so it's not a surprise.

I hate to get into a flame war during the grand opening of this politics section of /., but take a look at this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1195870/p osts

Do you really, truly, in your heart of hearts believe that a group some longtime financial supporters of Bush and longtime friends of Karl Rove just coincidentally came up with several hundred thousand for a group of veterans to contradict their own previous statements and just about every record in the Navy at the most opportune time in the Bush reelection campaign - without so much as a phone call to Karl? All of the players in that slander are in the business of politics, and one of the lawyers on in the group was also an advisor to the Bush campaign, until he resigned after being outed. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

As for Bush calling Kerry's service admirable, yes, he did the right thing there, both morally and politically (he's the good cop, the "unaffiliated" agents are bad cop). I guess it's naive to expect campaigns not to engage in outright lying (as opposed to the standard practice beating on a marginally relevant flaw in the opposition), but it's still fair to call scurrilous when it's practiced.