Slashdot Mirror

As a Conservative I am also more likely to disagree with what Obama's decisions and policy. But even I find this refreshing and good. The extreme secrecy lent to presidential and governmental documentation, current and past was not something I agreed with President Bush on. I'm happy to see Obama reverse this.

Other conservatives agree as well.

First, in my experience only MSNBC has a liberal bias.

Ha. Try http://newsbusters.org/ and either start reading or search for "media bias".

Obama was hitting themes that struck a chord with Americans.

The press was only reporting a few things; how could Americans judge when the media wasn't giving them information?

McCain/Palin, on the other hand, basically accused him of being a terrorist.

Obama wasn't accused of being a terrorist. It was pointed out by many others than McCain that Obama lied and hid his long relationship with at least two terrorists. But the media didn't report on it; the media often merely called Ayers and his wife former radicals or that Ayers was now a professor. How do you think the liberal media would have reported if McCain had any relationship with extremists? Actually, you don't have to wonder, just look up how much the rumors of a Palin involvement with a secessionist group was covered (these were false, while Ayers was fact).

If there's more positive going on with Obama, there will be more positive stories. That's not bias, that's just basic common sense. What I thought was stupid were the ridiculous "false equivalence" stories where they'd critize both candidates for "going negative" when Obama was talking about the fact that McCain would tax healthcare (ie, telling the truth) and McCain was accusing him of palling around with terrorists (ie, a lie).

McCain would tax some health care, the employer-offered plans but would support other plans, causing reduced taxes for most. There is no question Obama was palling around with terrorists and covered it up; why didn't media report this? Obama also claims ignorance of the Weather Underground; he must have been ignoring the media when Weathermen robbed an armored truck in NY while Obama was at college in NYC.

You are just being selfish and unpatriotic. What, do you hate America?

the problem with McCain is that most Republicans are further to the right than he is, but he won the primaries by letting the two main conservative candidates split the majority of the party, while he skated in winning just enough of the liberal & 'Rockefeller Republicans' to win the nomination. So most of the party really doesn't like him, and in order to win those people over, he's trying to be something that he's not, and isn't doing a good job at it. To be honest, he could just have a narrator read this, splice in the relevant clips from that article, and have a killer ad or set of ads.

IMHO, it's sad to see that the media will do more background checking on some schmuck in Ohio than what they've done looking into the candidate answering the schmuck's question.

I like Obama, it is his supporters I can't stand. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/23/mccain-supporter-maimed-for-her-politics-by-robber/#comments

Also, ABC News did not mention that the two whistleblowers have an anti-war political axe to grind. Or if ABC didn't know, their investigative reporting investigators aren't.

It is amusing to see that Obama's campaign emitted squeals about the Keating scandal as a response. Look up McCain and the Keating scandal and you'll see that McCain learned from his mistake and tried to improve things. All Obama has done is tried to hide his past, which merely indicates shame or fear of discovery, and we don't know that the youngster has learned anything.

Biden makes huge gaffes and nobody ever reports it. Like "we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon"? And let's not forget his genius statement earlier that FDR went on TV after the 1929 crash.

Palin is new to foreign policy - just as every governor is, Clinton, Reagan, Carter - so she's going to be learning. Biden is a long-serving senator on the Foreign Relations Committee. What's his excuse?

...
  Where are the left-wing wingnuts?

Here are just a few:

Sandra Bernhardt

Charlie Rangel

Kathleen Sebelius

Randi Rhodes

Matt Damon

William Ayers

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

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

...
  Where are the left-wing wingnuts?

Here are just a few:

Sandra Bernhardt

Charlie Rangel

Kathleen Sebelius

Randi Rhodes

Matt Damon

William Ayers

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

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

...
  Where are the left-wing wingnuts?

Here are just a few:

Sandra Bernhardt

Charlie Rangel

Kathleen Sebelius

Randi Rhodes

Matt Damon

William Ayers

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

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

Haven't you heard? Iran doesn't have Homosexuals!

So, you can't refute it, just call me a hippie?

Hmmm, well, I'm on lunch break, let's take a minute and do some quick googling, shall we?

Iraq NEVER had WMD

"In March 1986 UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar formally accused Iraq of using chemical weapons against Iran. Citing the report of four chemical warfare experts whom the UN had sent to Iran in February and March 1986, the secretary general called on Baghdad to end its violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol on the use of chemical weapons. The UN report concluded that "Iraqi forces have used chemical warfare against Iranian forces"; the weapons used included both mustard gas and nerve gas..."

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

NEVER had any link to terrorists.

"Turkish intelligence agents told the agency that Baghdad's support of the PKK intensified especially during the last three months when Saddam's arms and equipment were supplied to PKK bases in Iraq by the Iraqi command.."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6465/is_199912/ai_n25746892

"Saddam has supplied the PLO] with rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank missile launchers and Russian-made anti-aircraft guns..."."

http://www.acpr.org.il/cloakrm/clk100.html

"For instance, how about their support for The Army of Muhammad, a known al-Qaeda subsidiary operating in Bahrain?"

"Nor was that Saddam's only support for an AQ subsidiary. Saddam put money into Egypt's Islamic Jihad."

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/14/saddam-supported-at-least-two-al-qaeda-groups-pentagon/comment-page-1/

"Beyond cash and diplomatic help, Saddam Hussein was the Conrad Hilton of the terrorist world. He provided a place for terrorists to kick back, relax, and reflect after killing people for a living. ..."

"Saddam Hussein's general store for terrorists included medical care, too..."

"According to dissidents, journalists who have visited, and even United Nations weapons inspectors, Saddam Hussein appears to have offered training to terrorists, in addition to funding, diplomatic help, safe haven and medical care. The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills...."

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Apparently your definition of "NEVER" is not one used by the rest of the world!

I'd like to know how outraged you are over this:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/21/nyt-reveals-name-of-ksms-chief-interrogator-against-cias-wishes/

"NYT reveals name of KSM's chief interrogator -- against CIA's wishes"

Which means this person, their family, their neighbors, their coworkers, all of their lives are in danger now thanks to the solid reporting of the New York Times. Are you screaming and ranting and raving about it? Or is it no big deal, because it wasn't leaked by some deputy in the State Department after he drank too much at a cocktail party, thereby allowing you to hate Bush?

I don't think anyone is denying the Oklahoma City bombing or any other terrorist attack (or attempted terrorist attack that was committed by non-Muslims... what you're forgetting is that there is a great number of attacks that are committed by Muslims who claim to be doing so in the name of their religion.

Strangely enough... we don't see similar numbers of attacks from Catholics, Buddhists, Mormons, Quakers, Amish, Jews, Zoroastrians or even Atheists.

Why is that do you think?

Funny you mentioned the DC Sniper case... forget the leaders name have we? John Allen Muhammad. Just another lone Muslim killer eh? Seems to be a whole lot of them: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/07/31/myth-of-the-lone-muslim-killer/

If you'd really like to count... I'd take a look at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ a site that actually has a running count of the number of terror attacks world wide since 9/11... as of the writing of this post we are at 11,140... remind what group of people have recently used children or the mentally retarded as suicide bombers? Oh that that's right... those damn Catholics... no wait...

And remember... none of this discounts the fact that the vast vast vast majority of Muslims out there are peaceful... it only means that a terrorist act is more likely to be committed by one of them and no amount of crying from the ACLU, CAIR or even you is going to change that... only the members of Islam can do that for them by changing the way they preach and practice their faith as a group.

Just to name a few off the top of my search results:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020445.php
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22835_Jawa_Report_Video_Censored_by_YouTube&only
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/06/youtube-goes-dhimmi-part-two/

Before I begin, a disclaimer: I am a Conservative. I regularly read conservative news and blog sources, such as Newbusters, Hot Air, TownHall.com, Little Green Footballs, and the Jawa Report. I am also an avid gamer. I currently am playing mostly EVE-Online, and a bit of TA Spring. I have been gaming since before the days of Sierra's Hero Quest, and I still have an original, functional Atari game system.

So now that I've set your expectations and prejudices, I shall continue...

Honestly, I think of this as the O'Reilly effect.

One of the things I have noticed, is that ever since O'Reilly became an ascendant star on Fox News, the tone of the channel has changed a bit in regards to all things Internet. This is especially evident when Bill-O himself is on, even when he talks with fellow conservatives about the issue. Here is a link to him talking with Mary Katherine Ham about whether the Internet is a good or bad thing: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/23/video-mary-katharine-ham-talks-smoking-crack-with-oreilly/

As you can see, O'Reilly is as clueless as ever when it comes to all things Internet. Honestly, he makes Internet-Savvy Conservatives look bad. At least when it comes to technology, he comes off as a boorish old geezer. Honestly, I'm not sure how much of it is an act, and how much is him just being completely out of touch.

MKH, on the other hand, clearly "gets it". Of course, she's my generation (Gen-X) so it's not surprising that she would have a better grasp of this. Also, if you read through the comments at Hot Air, you can see that many of the other conservatives there think like I do, and just shake their heads with a mix of disgust and sadness at O'Reilly.

I think that his influence has been seeping into the rest of Fox News for some time. While obviously the PHB's there think that controversy like this makes for good ratings (and it does), it also serves to make the whole network look out of touch to younger viewers. I think it's a short-term gain, long-term loss kind of strategy. I guess time will tell if I'm right or not.

Either way, both myself, and many other conservatives think that the whole Mass Effect "controversy" is a compete non-starter, and entirely fabricated. As others here have said, it's a rated "M" game. The industry has marked it appropriately, and it's up to parents to make use of the tools given to them and make a judgment about whether or not to buy this game.

This is part and parcel of the conservative concept of Freedom. YOU get to control what you and your children are exposed to. It's not the Government's job to decide that. As far as the original article that spawned the controversy, I've read it, and it's utter hogwash. The writer is just a tool looking for some cheap publicity. Ignore him.

You know, the keen insight and argumentation on display in this audio clip of a Paulestinian really tempts me.
To vote for him, or disembowel myself with an ice pick, I'm unsure which...

Actually, I think that's morally indefensible.

Who are you saving? What are you actually doing? You're just torturing some slob for dated information that's not going to help anyone. And torture is a crappy way of getting accurate information anyhow.

Hot Air suggests this is the offending comic strip. Read the full story at Hot Air.

There are some hilarious pictures of where the weather stations are located.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

I'd like to see the corresponding pictures from stations in other locations before I concluded that the weather in the US is different from the rest of the world.

Clearly these stations were set up for for routine weather reporting, not highly speculative climate forecasts decades into the future.

There are so many sites now documentating the flaws in the climte studies.
Take a look here for a start:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/09/bombshell-na sa-revises-recent-us-temperatures-downward-after-y 2k-bug-fix/

Fred! Pwns: http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/15/the-obligato ry-michael-moore-challenges-fred-to-a-debate-post/

Since we'd hear not much different than These Echo Chambers. Or is dissent on this 4 year, multi-billion dollar "personal vendetta" safely expressible without the requisite public demonization?

Now if some groups at Yale(as well as the various other right-leaning Ivies)and Halliburton would have a $500,000 per item bake sale to raise money for Iraq, they can kill all the people they want on their (and only their) dime with their own people. I don't know how constitutional that would be, but it's not as if it's beyond them to disregard that "piece of paper".

Like Pelosi and Reid.

Hell, Reid's already admitted that he won't believe any reports of US success in Iraq.

Yeah, who wants a "win-at-all-cost" leader when you can have one running around waving a white flag against anything that moves.

Geez, if Harry Reid witnessed Punxatawny Phil coming out of his burrow on Groundhog Day, Reid would declare that any chance for spring is "lost".

The man you hate

You credulous fool

This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop "clone" tool to add more smoke to the image. (Hat tip: Mike.)

It's so incredibly obvious, it reminds me of the faked CBS memos. Smoke simply does not contain repeating symmetrical patterns like this, and you can see the repetition in both plumes of smoke. There's really no question about it.

But it's not only the plumes of smoke that were "enhanced." There are also cloned buildings. (See below.)

The original image that was heavily modified is included in that post.

Here's some commentary on the photo about which you make a credulous claim that it wasn't altered:

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/05/the-worst-ph otoshop-ive-ever-seen/

Here's a non-political photography site ripping you a new one:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html? tid=21302

Some quotes from there:

"Nah... smoke naturally repeats itself in perfect patterns like that. It always does.....doesn't it?"

"If your going to ruined your career, at least work on the photo a little longer than two minutes."

Unfortunately closed minded groups and certain people have a bit of an agenda that isnt simply "find the truth".
The first one may be a clear given, the third one politically motivated but still within the ballpark, but the second one regarding Reuters shows the true colors of who the critics are(and how they slant).

That is, Pajamas Media (the group associated with most of the criticism) has too much of a country club, right-wing, and pro-Israel slant(and does not mind showing it in the case of LGF). It continues on from LGF to Michelle Malkin who seems to get the idea that she is to dish but not take criticism(see all her entries that haven't yet been banned and see the "comments disabled"). This continues on to HotAir, also known as A**ahpundit, where they take on the unofficial policy that is summarized as "We're not responsible for the comments, but existence isnt guaranteed". While these may be the flagrant offenders, others may take parts of that policy; the constant is that they declare themselves holier than the "MSM".

If there's anything to be learned out of that group, it's to seek information that is factual, and has enough proof to make multiple opposing sides agree on the course of events. Otherwise, I'd rather read them, and then take a more serious look at those who allow a more open dialogue to see what pans out. If they're just going to delete and demonize the opposition, they're just speaking to the choir. In cases such as Reuters, I'd rather hear the objection come from someone who at least doesn't rely on hiding behind the "private group" defense to justify their objections to criticism.

Unfortunately, readers and acolytes of these fine echo chambers seem to get it wrong(and not mind it)- just see how fast a legitimate and correct idea gets the user banned. If you object, they hide behind the vanguard of untouchable private entity. Thus, you have the makings of one unified entity that prefers to silence the crowd instead of listening to it. See the cancellation of the Fairness Doctrine as an example of an echo chamber rejecting the crowd.

You haven't seen the whole thing. Look here:

You'll see the blogger shoving people to get to Allen.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/02/new-photos-s how-kos-kid-shoved-his-way-towards-george-allen/

Look here, from the CNN footage shown:

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/31/video-allens -staffers-toss-kos-kid-to-the-floor/

they have the whole segment.

He shoulders the bodyguard from behind, intentionally. He braces and throws his shoulder into it, not an accidental contact.

What is next? this sort of shinnagans:

http://www.bwog.net/index.php?page=post&article_id =2265&lionshare=cc8ae8c5c2fc3764cc08ec0a260f6837

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/23/video-claire -mccaskills-michael-j-fox-ad/ I hate to admit it, but Ann Coulter was right! Liberals love to show us victims that tell us things like war is bad and stem cells are good and don't disagree with them, they're victims. So here's the science--Michael J Fox can now have Parkinson's--and cancer! Bravo!

I don't know what that means, but Youtube is even worse: they're supporting Islamic fundamentalism. Anti-Jihad videos get deleted, while Jihadist videos stay. Hmm!

Listen to this fella speak.

Now I suggest we put his assertion -- that he loves death as much as we love life -- to the test.

Let us bring back the gladiators' arena, and put him there with a sword & shield against a lion, or a tiger. We'll see then how brave he is when the kitty tears his limbs off one by one.

These guys seem all brave when they can end their life with a flick of a switch, but I'm pretty sure they'll change their minds when faced with a more horrific, painful, slow death.