Slashdot Mirror

Obama's not a socialist at all. Check out http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/campaign-2008-h.html

As a libertarian socialist (as opposed to an authoritarian socialist), I would be happy if Obama was a socialist. He's not. He's slightly right of center and slightly more authoritarian than libertarian.

The fact that you think Afghanistan is libertarian illustrates how well you understand libertarianism.

Yes, I am entirely sure of that. Having already read your biased and factually incorrect link before, it will not convince me otherwise.

*shrug*, I've looked at the body of evidence and I've concluded that she's a nutjob. Asking the town librarian if she could ban books and telling a local resident that man and dinosaurs walked the Earth together.

Draw your own conclusions but it's interesting to see at least three different sources for her fundamentalist beliefs.

Those are all opinions no matter how much you believe them. Democrats were the ones trying to steal the 2000 election. We were not lied to about Iraq http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story and http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540, etc.

If card check legislation gets signed into law by the next administration, we'll see a return of the "good old days."

>That's how it will go down at the national level too. You can't punish people for being fat or for smoking, but you can offer "incentives".

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/29/business/fi-obese29

Seems like you can punish.

Smashing Pumpkins recorded a song just for Guitar Hero World Tour.

Does anybody remember the first telephone President? Or the first steam President? Or the first TV one? (Clearly, Joe Biden doesn't).

Using/not using the Internet should not be the criteria...

John McCain's own polling gives him hope, an aide says

When John McCain insisted, during his appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," that he was doing "just fine" in a presidential race in which the polls have shown Barack Obama with a steady lead over the last few weeks, many may have dismissed the comment as just something that a candidate has to say.

Not so, said a campaign official who spoke on background with The Times' Bob Drogin. The aide said the campaign's internal polling showed McCain down only 4 percentage points nationally -- a sharp improvement from a week ago -- and closing fast.

State-by-state, the private polling also showed McCain up 1 point in Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, and behind by only 3 points in Virginia (a new Washington Post survey found him down 8 there).

McCain almost assuredly needs to capture all five states to win the presidency. And even that may not be enough if he fails to win Pennsylvania, one of his campaign stops today. Without Pennsylvania, McCain needs to pull more electoral votes out of some combination of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico or Iowa -- all states where, as of now, the internal numbers look bleak.

The anonymous McCain official argued a comeback remains doable. "Check with me Wednesday," the aide said. "If we're still within the margin of error (in polling), we're going to win."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/john-mccains-ow.html

Just like the last two times.

Want to reflect a lot of light back? Require all new homes to go up with white roof coverings...

wasn't that a slashdot article a month or so back?
MIT article tracker
LA times article
Christian Science Monitor Blog
Powerpoint presentation from LBL: "Global Cooling: Increasing World-wide Urban Albedos to Offset CO2," Hashem Akbari (as pdf):

Try virtually nonexistent - I'm more likely to win the lottery.

If the risk of a Chernobyl-style catastrophic failure was "virtually nonexistent", we would not have had one already.

Unsolved in the USA, France and Japan seem to have little issue with it.

France's waste is still in "interim storage", awaiting a long-term solution. Meanwhile, it's leaking into groundwater.

Japan's waste also still has no long-term home; they plan to start building a facility in the 2030s.

I apologize for being a little late, but lets see here...

As for the taxes part, the $250k lower limit is what he'll do first. Reasonable, no? But the rest of the plan has some interesting aspects. From the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html And if you think that lower limit will remain $45k, you're smoking something.

Conveniently enough, I just ran across this, which even points out the specific WSJ article that you linked. Search for

Furthermore, the Journal's editorial misstated a key fact in its "welfare" argument. It said that anyone who doesn't pay federal income taxes is not a "taxpayer," which is simply incorrect.

In reading various independent analysis of the tax policies of the two candidates, I'm pretty sure that you are reading a little too much republican propaganda if you think that I'm smoking something.

---

Finally, your bit about Terrorists and Muslims is lame - yes, there are people who believe that and vote that way. There are also people who don't like McCain because, since he can't raise his arms, "doesn't look open and friendly". But it doesinvite the question about the company he keeps, and his forthrightness. Obama initially only admitted a trivial association with Ayers, but apparently there was quite a bit more to it.

McCain actually is a fairly amiable looking candidate in my opinion, despite what the media claims. But are you seriously arguing that the racism and fear of terrorism in this country is less of an issue than voting in a guy who doesn't look open and friendly (which I'd argue against)? What exactly do you define as "quite a bit more" to the Ayers connection, by the way? A meet the candidate night at the guy's house? Oh shit, they must have been preparing to bomb something. I guess what scares you about Ayers nowadays is that the foundation he is involved in funded two projects that the McCain campaign quoted as being radical - "one having to do with a United Nations-themed Peace School and another that focused on African-American studies." (from the same politifact link I pasted earlier).

I was actually a fan of McCain around 2000 before he changed a number of his stances, such as the Bush tax cuts and immigration. If you ask economists, immigration in particular is actually pretty damn good for the economy. It helps to look past the "They're taking our jobs!" meme that people like to spout out, and put a little thought into whether immigrants actually have the training necessary to take said jobs.

Quick note on the immigration from the LA Times:

As a sponsor of two comprehensive reform bills, McCain should be unbeatable on this issue. Standing up to fellow Republicans (and some Democrats), he declared that the nation could not turn its back on the impoverished millions who have come here to work and prosper. Unfortunately, the free-thinker has become a follower, trailing behind the worst instincts of his party. Abandoning problem-solving for politics, McCain has made border security and employment enforcement his new mandate. That may be good Republican politics, but it's not sound policy.

McCain used to have great ideas that go against common belief, but he has since turned his back on such in order to get more mainstream votes.

---

You seem to think that all Republicans are either knuckle dragging cretins or amoral titans of industry.

I actually like to break it down slightly differently... (but I do like your wording of one, so I'll borrow that)

• Amoral titans of industry
• Regular people (potentially church-goers, but not always) who feel

870% return - NOT returns.

He's just a self-aggrandizing self-promoting - Harvard MBA full of shit hedge fund manager. What I'm saying is he got real lucky once and was smart enough to cash out while he was ahead. And, he will never be able to do it again.

While $200 is still about 600 times the amount of the actual damages

Punitive damages are meant to punish the offender, not just compensate the victim for their loss (which, because of the legal fees and the costs of investigation are still way higher). The young woman infringed knowingly — not by accident.

She was not even stealing bread, medicine, or other vital sustenance — it was just entertainment. I have no sympathy for her, and neither should you... And yet, puzzlingly, there will, no doubt, be angry follow-ups (and negative moderations) here claiming that:

1. the stolen entertainment was crappy and therefor stealing it is Ok — the most befuddling illogic in this long-running debate;
2. copyright violation is not exactly like stealing tangible goods — and therefor there is nothing wrong with it;
3. it is only the middlemen like RIAA, who worry about infringement — like it matters, or like actual musicians and other content-creators don't give a damn.

Correction: The car Tesla Motors has for sale now costs $109,000.

The L.A. Times article has more detail: Tesla Motors hits the brakes amid credit crisis.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/09/new-twist-for-m.html

Perhaps though that's why i like Palin's bio as a cleaner of Alaska's Republican Augean stables and am frustrated by the one-sided coverage of her.

That's your problem. You have this image of her as a corruption fighter, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Like I said, she's just like Gingrich - she didn't take on corrupt figures because she wanted to clean out the system, but because she's a ladder climber who was looking to make a name for herself:

• She takes Bush's peonage appointments and turns it up to 11.
• She tried to ban books and tried to fire the Wasilla librarian when she rebuffed Palin's request for the third time.
• She fires officials that don't support her during elections.
• She requested earmarks that McCain specifically complained about as being wasteful spending.
• She fully supported the bridge to nowhere until Congress said it would have to be paid for with state money, yet took the federal funds anyway. Now she's lying by saying "I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere."
• She illegally uses personal email accounts for state business.
• Abused her position by trying to have her ex-brother in law fired, and when the state commissioner refused, she fired him instead.
• And most dispicably, signed off on charging rape victims for examination kits.

I am SAYING that these are facts, and that reporting them is (of course) fair. My complaint is the failure to report other pertinent facts.

Like those Fox News talking heads that wished that the rest of the media would stop talking about all the bad things happening in Iraq - like bombings that would kill a hundred people at a time, roadside bombs killing our troops, and ethnic cleansing between Shiites and Sunnis - and focus on the positive things like construction of a new clinic inside the Green Zone. I'm sure the women of Iraq who would wear mourning robes for years at a time - another family member would be killed before it was time to take them off - would concur.

With all due respect there's a pretty big difference between being endorsed by a pastor and having someone BE your pastor for over 20 years.

With all due respect you're rationalizing a racist smear. If you watch more than "Goddamn America" soundbyte played on the media, he's speaking about how the United States kept slaves "in perpetuity", the "separate but equal" Dred Scott decision, Jim Crow, forced American Indians onto reservations, interned Japanese Americans during WWII, and the Tuskegee experiments on black men with syphilis. Funny how the media never mentioned that this Angry Black Man hated the United States sooo much he voluntarily gave up his student deferment and served two terms of duty as a Marine in Vietnam, and then re-enlisted as a medical corpsman and was so good he was the valedictorian of his class and was on LBJ's surgical team in 1966.

It is at least conceivable that McCain wasn't fully aware of

Almost all of the coverage of Palin has been negative

Well, that's what happens when you report the facts on Republicans. Otherwise you end up with "balanced" coverage, like how the Washington Post calls states with a 13.8% Obama lead a "battleground state" yet a state where McCain has a 2.2% lead "leans Republican".

most coverage of Obama has been positive

This talking point was debunked months ago. Obama received fawning media coverage, yes - ask anyone who supported Edwards in the primaries - but only until he passed Hillary Clinton. Since then the media coverage of Obama has been constantly negative, because the media loves a horse race and loves trashing Democrats.

The facts are NOT unfair in themselves (there's plenty of legitimate complaints to make of her) it's that there's been no other reporting at all.

Fixed that up a bit for you.

What hypothetical question did she pose to the head librarian in Wasilla?

You don't ask about banning books three times if you don't want to ban books. That fact thing again.

What job did Palin hold between being mayor of Wasilla and becoming governor, and why did she quit? I would bet that the majority of average news consumers can answer the first question, while not one in 10 can answer the second

And how many voters know that Obama was head of the Harvard Law review vs how many know who Rev. Wright is?

despite the fact that the answer to the second question is the most significant political story about Palin explaining the foundation of her popularity and subsequent political success in Alaska, and that it is at least as revealing of her character and motivations as the first.

That she was a rat fleeing a sinking ship? Her record as mayor and governor proves that far from being a corruption fighter, she epitomizes corruption. She's just like Newt Gengrich, who forced Jim Wright to resign as Speaker of the House over Wright's book deal, only to have his own shady book deal when he was speaker, plus a bushel of other ethics violations.

Reporting on an opponents criticisms, and making criticisms yourself are somewhat different things.

Reporting on an opponents criticisms, and making criticisms yourself are somewhat different things.

No, it's called blatant double standards. Like how the media obsessed over Rev. Wright for two months, yet ignored John "the Catholic Church is the Great Whore" Hagee until he said that Hitler was sent by God to drive the Jews to Israel. Just imagine the response if one of Obama's daughters was 17, unmarried and pregnant.

On those occasions where reporting negative stories about Obama has become unavoidable they've largely been written in the form of an apologia. Witness the NYtimes story on his associations with Ayers. Somehow I doubt Palin would have gotten the same "inconsequential crossed paths" treatment if an abortion clinic bomber had hosted a fundraiser for her and served with her on a charitable board.

Because they should be, because this "associations" game is crap, and the Republicans who play it are firing howitzers in a big glass house:

"My government is my worst enemy. I'm going to fight them with any means at hand."

This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.

Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that's the very same secessionist party that her husband, To

I can give you two examples of people I knew. But they're not really close friends of mine, so I'm not going to give out too many details. One is a retired school teacher, who seems to blame everything bad in society on the failing school system. He blames the failing school system on the parents. And blames the bad parents on the drug taking hippie 60's. (Even though most of the parents of the kids today grew up in the era of Reaganomics.)

He is genuinely fearful of terrorism. He lives out in the sticks, not in a big major city like New York. The idea of his podunk little town being targetted is laughable to me, but not to him. As such, he eyes foreigners who live in (or worse, visit) his town with prejudice and fear.

Need I say he is a rampant Fox viewer, republican conservative?

The second person is a divorced mother raising a daughter alone. Her fears are equally vague and nebulous, though in the last few weeks economic fears have supplanted her fears of terrorism. She ranks her fear of terrorism above child kidnapping, pedophiles, drug pushers near schools, bullying, and some liberal teacher telling her child that lesbianism might be an acceptable choice in life, though she scared of all of the above. If you gave her the option of pushing a button to wipe out the middle east, most of asia, and possibly all foreigners, she'd push it in a heart beat, with no consideration for the morality or the ramifications of such an action.

She's also a Fox viewer.

I'm not particularly having a go at Fox, just mentioning it because I think it's relevant.

I'm not a shrink, but I seem to remember seeing a study where it was shown that some people have a higher fear response to new and different stimuli. Those people tend to grow up conservative and vote republican.
(Something like this article, but different, and from an actual study, not a newspaper report of a study.)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story?coll=la-home-center

My own hypothesis (never saw a study to support it) is that people who have such a sensitive fear trigger response, are on some level deriving pleasure from the fear response. (Much like people on a roller coaster or something.) They don't want to be told that things will be okay. They want to be told to be afraid. And they will listen to (and vote for) people who tell them to be afraid. I base this on the study which showed that rationalization to allow confirmation bias results in the pleasure centres of the brain being over-stimulated. (Drew Weston http://www.psychsystems.net/lab/06_Westen_fmri.pdf )

If this is as good as they say, they wouldn't have any secrets and would spill the beans.

The fundamental research was done a long time ago(with picture of prototypes); I've read articles about it in Electronics and Wireless World several times over the years, so it's hardly a secret. Any potentially patentable critical element is going to be kept under wraps, obviously.

I think they have found some weaknesses that restrict the usefulness of this technology.

Or they spent 3 years on R&D fixing those weaknesses, like the article says.

Further information of note from the NYT article:

SiOnyx is already commercializing sensor-based chips as a technology development platform for other companies and for use in next-generation infrared imaging systems.

So we're told:
1- There's a decade of peer-reviewed research behind the technology.
2- They have funding and partners already.
3- They're shipping parts now, not at some unknown time in the future.

Either this is real, or Dr Mazur et al are engaging in an exceptionally elaborate, very public and career-ending series of lies (and it's not as though SiOnyx will be a paying proposition if the tech doesn't work). The part of the operation that does look suspect is their web site (Flash warning), but that doesn't prove anything about the physics involved.

I'm not sure what media you are viewing, but most of what I'm seeing is that most of the media is fully in the Obama camp

As I said, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality - your talking point was fully debunked months ago. More recently, look at the debates - viewer polls show blowout losses for McCain and Palin, yet the pundits try and spin them as some sort of tie, same as they did in 2000 and 2004.

For instance, yesterday on NPR, Obama "revealed" his plan to change bankruptcy law, while McCain "trotted out" his plan to buy individual mortgages - and then proceeded to beat on McCain for his plan, while not even making commentary on Obama's.

The fact that McCain has no idea what the hell he's doing might have something to do with that. "Hey, I'm gonna spend my campaign to to to Washington to help out. Except I actually keep campaigning for a day before strolling into the Senate. Then I don't say a word throughout the meeting, until wrecking it at the last minute with an "alternative proposal" from House Republicans. And I still haven't read Paulson's plan four days after I've received it, even thought it's only three pages long. Then I'll flip flop on my statement that I wont debate until a bill has been passed."

As for the NRA, you say "to some extent Obama". Have you been following the election at all? The NRA is beating on Obama mercilessly, including TV ads which the Obama campaign threatened to sue TV stations over.

Yes, the NRA. In 2004, gun nuts would talk about how they couldn't vote for any candidate that supported gun control. Kerry was obviously out, but so was Bush for saying he "supported existing gun laws and would resign the assault weapons ban". NRA members either stayed at home in droves or voted 3rd party, throwing the election to Kerry.

Oh wait, you mean they voted for Bush en mass like the pathetic hacks they are? Like how Giuliani even spoke at the NRA, which should have been like Dick Cheney speaking at a peace rally?

I find it amusing that you are accusing me of lying. I said this:

What's smart about believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that man and the dinosaurs walked the Earth together?

To which you said this:

Second, please post the entire quote that proves what you're claiming she thinks is true.

So I provided this story from the Los Angeles Times. Quoting:

After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.

Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.

Now you are accusing me of lying. Where was that lie exactly? Did I say she was quoted as saying that? Someone who lived with her is quoted as saying that. There was also the matter of the librarian she fired. Some sort of book banning attempt. You can call those sources liars if you want, but I don't see where I lied. Rather interesting though that there are two different sources for her wacko beliefs.

Um, ok WTF does that have to do with me, A DEMOCRAT?

Sorry, I just assumed you were a hyper-partisan Republican troll. I guess I was giving you too much credit. You are just an asshole. Jumping all over the thread and posting to unrelated comments whining about the fact that I hadn't replied to you first.

I'd like to apologize to all hyper-partisan Republican trolls. He's clearly not one of you.

The Bush administration never lied about WMD or an al Qaeda connection in Iraq (please read my whole post and the two articles I link to before dismissing my comment. As a note: I don't think we ever should have invaded Iraq but we did and there's no changing that). I think it's pretty convenient for so many people to forget that all major intelligence agencies around the world (and all major, interested nations) said repeatedly that there were WMD in Iraq. No one seriously doubted this - not even the UN weapons inspectors. Here are a couple articles about the whole topic (one is from the Wall Street Journal, the other the LA Times):

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story

As far as al qaeda connection goes, the WSJ article also mentions that:

"What of the related charge that it was still another 'lie' to suggest, as Mr. Bush and his people did, that a connection could be traced between Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11? This charge was also rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Contrary to how its findings were summarized in the mainstream media, the committee's report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion, as did a comparably independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which pointed to 'meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al-Qaeda operatives.'"

"The no-fly list -- a list of people so dangerous they are not allowed to fly yet so innocent we can't arrest them"
        -- Bruce Schneier http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-schneier28-2008aug28,0,3099808.story

And once some vindictive law enforcement person puts you on that list you're never getting off it. No one's career is going to be furthered by removing bad names on that list, but removing a name that goes on to hijack a plane is a sure way to end your career. Hence no one is going to remove anyone...

And certainly Palin has never expressed that belief.

Sure about that?

What's so smart about believing that democrats only want to tax those making over $250,000/year? They bring out that bedtime fairy tale every election.

And the Republicans have done that much better?

God how desperate are you

Not very, since my team isn't the one down 11 points in the polls.

no one gives a fuck about that nothing story outside of people who have a direct, vested interest in smearing the candidate.

I'm not smearing her. Just pointing out the fact that the McCain campaign sent out of town lawyers to interfere with what had previously been an Alaskan affair.

Second, please post the entire quote that proves what you're claiming she thinks is true.

Is this good enough for you?

what the fuck are you mods smoking that open partisan slander rises to the level of insightful to you?

WTF are you smoking that you assume anything that disagrees with your own views is automatically open partisan slander?

And to answer the question, she's smart enough to get elected governor of Alaska, in addition to her previous achievements.

Yeah, and Elliot Spitzer was smart enough to get elected governor of New York. Winning a gubernatorial election doesn't automatically translate into having common sense or wisdom.

But let's pretend like the work she's actually accomplished

Well, since you seem really fond of asking for citations let me ask you for a few: What has she actually accomplished as Governor of Alaska? Was it rejecting all of the earmarks from Washington after lobbying for them while Mayor? It certainly wasn't her energy policy.

I'd just to say a big "grow the fuck up" to those of you who think your sides talking points are useful in discussing the quality of a person's job performance.

Says the person who is defending someone whose entire experience in the national spotlight has consisted of repeating talking points.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power"-- Mussolini

OK, if we are going to quote Mussolini as a great political scientist, let's extrapolate on this a bit. Who created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the true "merger of state and corporate power" in this crisis? Democrats. Who further extended this by creating the CRA? Democrats. Who expanded its mission into accusing bankers of racism ("redlining") and extorting them to make more bad loans, or else be investigated? Democrats. Who ignored warnings and blocked efforts at reform in 2003? Who killed efforts at GOP reform of the FMs in 2005? Democrats. What party was Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee who took millions in lobbying money from the financial services industry and got sweetheart loan deals a member of? Democrats. What party was the guy who was boning the assistant director of Fannie Mae while he was on the House Financial Services Committee a member of? Democrats.

Funny, I see a lot of suspects that your oh-so-insightful post left out.

But don't worry. help is on the way. Barack Obama, who also got a sweetheart loan deal, will be sure critics can't speak out against him. He will define truth, just as Orwell predicted, since the media is asleep at the switch. What party is he from?

Whoever modded parent as "insightful" are all so busy slamming Fox News that you don't even know who is responsible for all of this. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

They can't accept the fact that the free market is what caused this mess.

Wait, what? What a stunning display of ignorance of how the whole subprime lending system worked. In a "free market" the government does not intervene. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government sponsored enterprises (AKA, "ATMs"), are no more "free market" than the post office. In this "free market," both FMs artificially inflated both credit and housing markets (just as government student loan programs have done to tuition) by pouring money into the system, and representing to the banks "don't worry, we are backed by Uncle Sam, what could go wrong?". In a "free market", government regulations like mark-to-market, which caused massive bank paper losses, don't exist. In a "free market," you don't have a CRA telling lenders how they have to loan their money. In a "free market" you don't have corrupt senators like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who are on important congressional banking oversight committees (which themselves wouldn't exist in a "free market"), leaning on lenders to make subprime loans, and fighting attempts to reign in these out-of-control Government-Sponsored Monstrosities..

Here's what Chuck Schumer said back in 2003, when Republicans wanted more oversight of said Government-Sponsored Monstrosities:

Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.

Source.

So Schumer himself opposed reform on the grounds that the "free market" is the wrong approach. Massive government intervention and regulation was the status quo. But now it is the "free market's" fault? WTF?

Yeah, sounds like a "free market" alright. Just like public housing is a free market.

They're not dumb, they're just evil.

This is the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think libs are well-meaning but horribly misguided. Liberals think conservatives are evil (and this gets modded as insightful rather than flamebait!). And it's the conservatives who are "intolerant."

For the record, it was Democrats who got us in this mess, not Republicans. Democrats created these government-sponsored ATMs (Freddie and Fannie), the CRA, and your fair-and-balanced media won't report on Chris Dodd's and Barney Frank's (sorry, only Fox News is reporting this one, so had to use them) ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, how those government sponsored enterprises acted as ATMs, and how Dems forced banks to lend to those with bad credit. And how they fought John McCain's 2005 home mortgage reform bill. But now it's Republicans' fault? THIS IS A GOVERNMENT-CREATED PROBLEM that Republicans tried to regulate and Democrats wanted unregulated. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The lack of reporting on what really caused this scandal is a scandal in itself. Reading these threads shows me how the media has not done its job.

The point is people go where they cab be in harmony. You can pay a high tax and like it, as long as what you get in return is of par value for the taxes paid, people won't move. If they get less than par value, they will eventually move.

Here's the paradox of socialism: If you provide more social services for free or below cost, more people without the ability to pay full cost will move in, further burdening the system. The money comes from some where, and that is the taxpayers. Eventually you face collapse, as the system attracts those that's can't provide for themselves. You raise taxes, and some of those who can over-pay into the system decide to move. because there's better deal else where. Then you really have collapse.

The conservative approach is to say you are responsible for everything yourself. Everyone except the under performers thrive. The under performers move to places where they can get a free ride - to your socialist states. Eventually your socialist states collapse

I firmly believe California would be only a stop on the illegal immigration railroad if they didn't provide such excellent social services.

Lithuania is still not Russia.

Most of the bills still look usable.

Anyway, I'm sure the hiker will be rewarded. If somebody returned my wallet I'd give them whatever cash was left, and I imagine a missing loved one would be more important to me than a missing wallet.

Because as we all know, the remnants of a crashed plane and pilot tend to form a nice little pile by the roadside, right?

On the return visit, they found a Nautica fleece pullover and left it at the scene, anchored by a rock.

Baumwohl theorized that Fossett's plane may have hit a nearby ridge or mountainside, ejecting the pilot. No body was found near the other materials because bears or mountain lions may have dragged it off, he said.

source

Looking at the photo of the items found something just doesn't look right.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fossett2-2008oct02,0,1608495.story

Look at the card in the center. It looks to "fresh" and clean compared to the rest.

some more info here

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fossett2-2008oct02,0,1608495.story

It's only ONE person, and he DOES NOT believe in Intelligent Design.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/15/science/sci-collins15

"Unfortunately, the intelligent-design argument is scientifically flawed. My premise, which is shared by virtually all scientists who are believers and thats about 40% of scientists is that evolution is true, and it was Gods method of creation."

While the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been doing some good things, I see one criticism missing from wiki. The foundation is a big investor in Eni, an Italian petroleum giant. Eni has been accused of having bad environmental and health records.

Falcon

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story The key thing here is this article is about the *Gates Foundation*, but __notice__ what the Gates Foundation is concerned about: The foundation did not respond to written questions about the problems of patients who cannot obtain needed AIDS drugs due to pharmaceutical company policies. Meanwhile, the foundation holds its grant recipients to a far higher standard than the drug companies on which it bets large portions of its endowment. Its grant form says it expects recipients "to exercise their intellectual property rights in a manner consistent with the stated goals of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to promote the ⦠availability of inventions for public benefit in developing countries at reasonable cost." Some critics say the foundation's failure to use its own investments "to promote ⦠public benefit in developing countries at reasonable cost" might trace back to the source of most of its money â" Microsoft â" which Bill Gates serves as chairman. "The Gates Foundation is in a position to change the dynamic, to make sure that drugs get first to the places they are most needed," said Daniel Berman, deputy director in South Africa for Doctors Without Borders. "But it conflicts with the interests of Microsoft."

Here is the info:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns10-2008aug10,0,3497661.story

But of course, I should have known better than to speak ill of the second ammendment of the US constitution... No worries, I've got enough karma and I am telling the truth.

The system works just fine.

I'm definitely of the opinion that conservatives are mentally stunted, (can't tell their W's from their M's), but that's okay. The world is set up to teach us all the lessons we need in order to grow. The lesson in this case is why following fear and mentally stunted leaders is disastrous. Souls learn only through repeated pains, so you dump a ton of souls on the planet and let them do their thing. To try to control the less advanced souls through drugs and behavior modification slows down the process; you can only truly learn from mistakes and applied experiences. Let the retards run free and bang into stuff. We all have to go through the process; we've all been retarded. Heck even at the highest forms achievable on this plane, the best of us are barely functional.

But in my personal life, I try to keep the conservatives at a distance. They can lead their fear-filled, mentally challenged, inflexible viewpoints and the associated disasters they call 'lives' without my active participation! It's far too draining to spend time around that bunch of dysfunctional stiffs; "Love Jesus while killing them A-rabs and punishing the poor!" What a travesty of incompatible thinking processes; being in a roomful of conservatives is like experiencing a head-on train collision everybody is pretending not to see.

-FL

Although I'll admit that breaking into someone's Yahoo account is a breach of privacy, I think that in this case I condone it.

Ok ... so you would then support breaking into Barack Obama's private Yahoo account as well?

And if you found emails from the convicted felon Tony Rezko about Obama's home land deal .. that's fair game? Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake

And emails from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ... about the contributions to his campaign? ... that's cool too ... right? Barack Obama largest recipient of political funds from mortgage giants Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae

Yeah, I can see how one would like to see private emails concerning their politicians of choice.

Feminists all over the spectrum from Gloria Steinem to Jessica Valenti decry the insulting tokenism of Palin's appointment. In many ways, there could not be a more abhorrent candidate from the point of view of women's rights.

here are some links to what the gp is talking about, well i think he's talking about, just me googling and such http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/03/opinion/oe-kinsley3 and i think there are links inside those to take you onto more references

Hmm, I don't believe its fair to tie the Democrats to the entertainment industry.

Uhm, with all due respect, what planet are you f-ing from?!

Both the recently deceased Jack Valenti and the current MPAA chairman Dan Glickman are loyal Democrats.

This is the point, where an honest man in your shoes either commits suicide or promises to vote for a Republican as a penance...

(crossposted from Blacknell.net)

Sad.1 David Foster Wallace2, along with perhaps only William Gibson, had a reader in me for everything he wrote. So dedicated was I to his Infinite Jest that I carried it in planes, trains, and autobuses over three continents.3 If you've never read any of his work, maybe you could start with this brilliant 2005 essay on political talk radio.4

1And I say sad in some weirdly personal sense that comes from both finding his writing deeply compelling in itself, and identifying his work with a period of time in my life which is not missed, but stands out as significant in recollection.

2David Foster Wallace (or DFW, as he is popularly known among fans) also provided (albeit completely unknowingly) some of the reason that Blacknell.net exists today. The blog that inspired me to start my own was written by an alumnus of the law school I had just started in. He, in turn, had been motivated to write online (in a format once known as an "online journal") while he read Infinite Jest (nb. This same author once had an essay published in the same collection as DFW). An early autobiography of this online journal community is available here (it is amusing to consider how much energy was expended on the subject of diary v. journal, only to have blog become the accepted appellation).

3 A massive tome of a book with 1200 pages of writing to be relished and consumed (in addition to being read) I took two years to complete it, taking it to Panama, Venezuela, and Britain. I've since reread it (in sections, while it wasn't lent out).

4Even though it isn't entirely representative.

(Ah, for want of a superscript tag . . .)

It dropped like a rock after news (from 2002) ended up online. Google and the Tribune Co. say each other is at fault. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-moneyblog9-2008sep09,0,1609687.story What next? A news story about Pearl Harbor being attacked?

Well, we've dropped the giant ice cube in, so now we just have to watch and see...

According to the LA Times, the conversion might be postponed due to the storm.

Here's one measure of "readiness" to be president: The ability to face the press. Where is Palin on the Sunday talk shows? She is missing (we do not see Obama hiding from the press).

The fact that Obama-supporting talk shows don't want to allow her the opportunity isn't really her fault. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-opr.html Yet another attempt of the Liberal mainstream "press" trying to blot out a conservative candidate. Even Fox News is interviewing Obama...

Palin does not oppose contraception.

LATimes article

Palin's running mate, John McCain, and the GOP platform say children should be taught that abstinence until marriage is the only safe way to avoid pregnancy and disease. Palin's position is less clear.

In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau.

...indeed many of the most vilified characters (like Ted Stevens) to get elected governor

Well, she ran Ted Steven's 527 group until 2005, and in return he endorsed her for Governor. They are still friendly, because as governor she made a request for $198 million in earmarks for next year's budget. As mayor she managed to wrangle $27 million for her town of 8,000, and about the 'bridge to nowhere', she supported as a candidate, but killed it in state office, keeping the money.

I know that the libertarian wing of the Republican party has been looking for some sign of hope, but I've got news, she's not it. Sure she managed to kill off some competitors using corruption charges, but they only let her in because they thought that she was dirty too, but couldn't/wouldn't prove it when they needed it. I'm sure that they know her better than you. Sarah took the governorship quickly, really out of nowhere, now two years later, she's trying to do the same thing at our VP slot.