Slashdot Mirror

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26670&only&rss

Wikipedia EditGate: United Nations Edits Fallaci: 'Racist Whore'

I am somehow quite sure that if a DoJ account was used to describe Obama as a 'a sociopatic halfbreed', there would be repercussions.

Is the United Nations enjoying repercussions?

Not from Wikipedia obviously.

These folks would be most likely to make a deal.
Free Republic
LGF
Michelle Malkin

A group that would probably receive some sort of funding( and a holder of the previous two )
Pajamas Media

The only problem with these is that one of them's misfired themselves off of Fox. Another has trouble carrying the message outside of their choir. As for freerepublic, their message seems to only reach the loyal and converted.

Since there are so many sites that will do it for free:

Free Republic
LGF
Michelle Malkin
Etc.

For the record, modbomers:
Should you want to know the reputation of that person, this example shows his heavy slant towards pro-Israel fanaticism, for which does no real help, and more harm. Giving anyone over there or on the Pajamas Media Network a chance to fire that thing would have them fire at anything living - be it Hamas, uninvolved, or a stray animal(not to be confused with someone from a "terrorist group").

That is why Charlie and his followers should be as far away from this thing as possible.

...fine enough. Last thing we need is a bunch of lunatics behind the laser. They've done more to increase the vitriol more than anything.

the BBC hasn't been a reputable news source to any honest observer for years now. Here's another sample of journalistic malfeasance by BBC news: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=12

Of course, the general attitudes and biases of the News org tends to generally filter out to the rest of the organization as well.

Feel free to peruse some of the articles here; http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ or here; http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26019_Outrage-_BBC_Employs_Hamas_Terrorist&only or here; http://michellemalkin.com/category/bbc/

Did you know that Barack Obama is a big fan of Che Guevara? See http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915&only

I kiiinda like Obama and realize the "he's a muslim" chain emails are very dishonest, but I don't really think there's anything wrong with being a Muslim so long as you don't think Jihad=kill those you disagree with. I do not appreciate my truthful comments being lumped in with that sort of obvious smear, and you kinda owe me an apology for suggesting my claims are on that level.

But let's permit Ron Paul to explain his views on Obama, who we all can see is clearly a BLACK PERSON.

"[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists--and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

"I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational."

Chief, I understand your skepticism. After all, I accused a man of accepting donations from neo-nazis. That's so horrible it's tough to believe. Anyone who would accept support from nazis is totally unfit for anything good. I can't believe I almost forgot a link, since apparently this is first you've heard of it: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/19/paul-to-keep-donation-from-white-supremacist/

And I also accuse Ron of writing racist hate-speech, and lying about it. That's pretty damn extreme, as far as accusations go. Anyone who wrote the things I refer to is a monster, and any of Ron's supporters who would actually attempt to hide the truth, as this fucker does: http://revolusion2008.blogspot.com/2008/01/conscience-of-ron-paul-supporter.html, is also a monster. Worse than most Scientologists, possibly. And anyone who knows about Lisa McPhereson knows that Scientologists are monsters too.

I'm a bit surprised that a slashdot reader is unaware of these well-worn, practically old facts. I don't watch TV news often or listen to talk radio, so maybe this stuff isn't as well known out there as it should be. I feel as though a demand to prove what is as obvious about Ron is akin to demanding proof of the moon landing or 9/11 being caused by terrorists. I don't think every assertion that slams a monster like Ron Paul must have citations. I'm just having a conversation, not building an indictment.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php this is one expose that was pretty well written. The author was actually a fairly outspoken Ron Paul supporter. Gave him money, helped organize efforts, etc. But unlike some, this supporter stopped supporting Ron Paul when it became obvious Ron Paul is a monster. This is not someone who is biased against Ron Paul, this is someone who was biased in FAVOR of Ron Paul's presidential promises.

Some actually say Ron didn't write that stuff. But Ron's bank account paid for the publishing, and Ron signed the checks. Could a normal sane person pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to print racist stuff signed in the sane person's name? Also, why don't you actually read the newsletter: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pdf/RonPaul-december1990.pdf

The author of the hate literature seems to believe he is married to Ron Paul's wife and grandparent to Ron Paul's grandkids and represents Texas's 14th congressional district (Paul's district). That's not hard to explain, because Ron Paul is the author of this newsletter and all the others that say:

"The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics."

"The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront&only

mythbust that ... your boy Ron Paul all buddy buddy w/ Stormfront owner Don Black

I HATE RON PAUL SO MUCH ... screw all y'all Ron Paul supporters !!!!!!!

The same is true of America. Different religion, same Armageddon fetish.

Really? Link? Do you just make this shit up as you go along? Here's proof that you are either retarded-gold-fish stupid or a liar. WE ARE STILL HERE The US has had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them anywhere in the world since 1946. And yet, we are still here. No Armageddon. That should be all the proof you need.

Right. The comparison is absurd. The USSR had the ability to end the USA's existence. A nuclear armed Iran does not. Nor have they ever threatened to, while the Russians had, and almost tried on more than one occasion.

Again, not just wrong, but fucking wrong. How about if I showed you a picture of Ahmadinajad watching a military parade with banners that read "Death to America".

Of course, I won't even get started on how many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of Iranian actions. That alone is an act of war.

Why would the US allow great sources of food like peace activists to leave the country? Will somebody think about the children!

See http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12615&only

Does anyone know of a Conservative/Republican forum that allows for branching discussions?

As a Conservative/Republican, I am ashamed to say that I know of none. Generally any conservative forum I have found is either representing the worst of the conservative and/or Republican mindset ("Illegal immigrants are coming to unplug our dead ladies!"), or they are trolled into oblivion. Little Green Footballs is a good blog (from a conservative POV, of course), but they don't thread reader comments. Is there something in the conservative mindset that rebels against threaded convos?

Anyway, that's why I come here and take my -1 Troll & -1 Flamebait!

Nice play at taqiyya. It is the very core of Islam to spread its ideology through any means necessary, as dictated by it's "prophet".

If you want to really learn what Islam teaches, don't waste your time listening to the appologists for the religion. Research the issue yourself. Read the Koran. Yes thats right, the Koran.

Google some of the more unspoken terms like, taqiyya, Dhimmi, Dawa. Understand the meaning of prayer of Salat one of the five pillars of Islam.

"Righteousness is not turning your faces towards the east or the west. Righteous are those who believe in GOD, the Last Day, the angels, the scripture, and the prophets; "

Know that this prayer recognizes that:

"The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'" Bukhari Vol. 4, Book 52, Num. 177 also 179 and 180.

That by religious obligation, every Muslim must be an anti-Semite and hate the Jews.

For more information, go check out Jihad Watch Urban Infidel, or Little Green Footballs

German Chair of of IPPNW Describes 9/11 Terror Attacks as 'Airplane Accidents'.

Interestingly, not one of nearly 200 comments even ponders whether this was imperfect use of English, from a non-native speaker... instead, no, he must be a Nazi. A "9/11 denier".

What a bunch of moronic pond scum.

Yes, and mind that that place is little more than another mouthpiece for Malkin that attempts to be lighter than the "fanatics of Semitism" site (where you're likely to see them offended by Islam enough to wall themselves in).

Go back to where ye came from.

But not vaccination!

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2666 0_Video-_Muslim_Brotherhood_Leader_Prohibits_Vacci nation_of_Children&only

this.

Not good to say the least.

It has been noted that Google chose not to recognize Memorial Day with an altered logo, as they do with many other holidays.

A reader forwarded the following reply from Google, about their continuing failure to mark Memorial Day; it's the same reply they've given for at least three years running.


        Thank you for your note. We appreciate your interest in seeing a Memorial Day Google logo. If we were to commemorate this holiday, we'd want to express reverence; however, as Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted in nature, this would be a particularly challenging design. We wouldn't want to create a graphic that could be interpreted as disrespectful in any way.

        We have a long list of holidays that we'd like to celebrate in the future. We have to balance this rotating calendar with the need to maintain the consistency of the Google homepage. We really value your feedback regarding the Google logo, and please be assured that we're actively pursuing ways in which we can acknowledge Memorial Day and other such occasions in the future.

        Regards,
        The Google Team



By "in the future," they apparently mean sometime in the next century or so.

As for their claim that they want "lighthearted" logos, how "lighthearted" were those melting glaciers they used on Earth Day?

Here was Google's reply in 2005 when people asked why they didn't mark Memorial Day.


        We have to balance this rotating calendar with the need to maintain the consistency of the Google homepage.

        Furthermore, Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted in nature. If we were to commemorate Memorial Day, we would want to express reverence, rather than mirth. This would be a particularly challenging design. We would not want to, in any way, create a graphic that could be interpreted as disrespectful. In light of the mail we have received about this, we are actively considering designs we could display on this day next year. We welcome any suggestions you may have.


To show you how transparently false this excuse is, here's the logo Google used for Australia & New Zealand's ANZAC Day, the Aussie/Kiwi equivalent of Memorial Day.

And here's their logo for Canada's Remembrance Day, which they've been running for several years:

And here's the British Remembrance Day logo from 2004:

In truth, Google is willing to honor the fallen of every country--except their own.

It has been noted that Google chose not to recognize Memorial Day with an altered logo, as they do with many other holidays.

A reader forwarded the following reply from Google, about their continuing failure to mark Memorial Day; it's the same reply they've given for at least three years running.


        Thank you for your note. We appreciate your interest in seeing a Memorial Day Google logo. If we were to commemorate this holiday, we'd want to express reverence; however, as Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted in nature, this would be a particularly challenging design. We wouldn't want to create a graphic that could be interpreted as disrespectful in any way.

        We have a long list of holidays that we'd like to celebrate in the future. We have to balance this rotating calendar with the need to maintain the consistency of the Google homepage. We really value your feedback regarding the Google logo, and please be assured that we're actively pursuing ways in which we can acknowledge Memorial Day and other such occasions in the future.

        Regards,
        The Google Team



By "in the future," they apparently mean sometime in the next century or so.

As for their claim that they want "lighthearted" logos, how "lighthearted" were those melting glaciers they used on Earth Day?

Here was Google's reply in 2005 when people asked why they didn't mark Memorial Day.


        We have to balance this rotating calendar with the need to maintain the consistency of the Google homepage.

        Furthermore, Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted in nature. If we were to commemorate Memorial Day, we would want to express reverence, rather than mirth. This would be a particularly challenging design. We would not want to, in any way, create a graphic that could be interpreted as disrespectful. In light of the mail we have received about this, we are actively considering designs we could display on this day next year. We welcome any suggestions you may have.


To show you how transparently false this excuse is, here's the logo Google used for Australia & New Zealand's ANZAC Day, the Aussie/Kiwi equivalent of Memorial Day.

And here's their logo for Canada's Remembrance Day, which they've been running for several years:

And here's the British Remembrance Day logo from 2004:

In truth, Google is willing to honor the fallen of every country--except their own.

It has been noted that Google chose not to recognize Memorial Day with an altered logo, as they do with many other holidays.

A reader forwarded the following reply from Google, about their continuing failure to mark Memorial Day; it's the same reply they've given for at least three years running.


        Thank you for your note. We appreciate your interest in seeing a Memorial Day Google logo. If we were to commemorate this holiday, we'd want to express reverence; however, as Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted in nature, this would be a particularly challenging design. We wouldn't want to create a graphic that could be interpreted as disrespectful in any way.

        We have a long list of holidays that we'd like to celebrate in the future. We have to balance this rotating calendar with the need to maintain the consistency of the Google homepage. We really value your feedback regarding the Google logo, and please be assured that we're actively pursuing ways in which we can acknowledge Memorial Day and other such occasions in the future.

        Regards,
        The Google Team



By "in the future," they apparently mean sometime in the next century or so.

As for their claim that they want "lighthearted" logos, how "lighthearted" were those melting glaciers they used on Earth Day?

Here was Google's reply in 2005 when people asked why they didn't mark Memorial Day.


        We have to balance this rotating calendar with the need to maintain the consistency of the Google homepage.

        Furthermore, Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted in nature. If we were to commemorate Memorial Day, we would want to express reverence, rather than mirth. This would be a particularly challenging design. We would not want to, in any way, create a graphic that could be interpreted as disrespectful. In light of the mail we have received about this, we are actively considering designs we could display on this day next year. We welcome any suggestions you may have.


To show you how transparently false this excuse is, here's the logo Google used for Australia & New Zealand's ANZAC Day, the Aussie/Kiwi equivalent of Memorial Day.

And here's their logo for Canada's Remembrance Day, which they've been running for several years:

And here's the British Remembrance Day logo from 2004:

In truth, Google is willing to honor the fallen of every country--except their own.

It has been noted that Google chose not to recognize Memorial Day with an altered logo, as they do with many other holidays.

A reader forwarded the following reply from Google, about their continuing failure to mark Memorial Day; it's the same reply they've given for at least three years running.


        Thank you for your note. We appreciate your interest in seeing a Memorial Day Google logo. If we were to commemorate this holiday, we'd want to express reverence; however, as Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted in nature, this would be a particularly challenging design. We wouldn't want to create a graphic that could be interpreted as disrespectful in any way.

        We have a long list of holidays that we'd like to celebrate in the future. We have to balance this rotating calendar with the need to maintain the consistency of the Google homepage. We really value your feedback regarding the Google logo, and please be assured that we're actively pursuing ways in which we can acknowledge Memorial Day and other such occasions in the future.

        Regards,
        The Google Team



By "in the future," they apparently mean sometime in the next century or so.

As for their claim that they want "lighthearted" logos, how "lighthearted" were those melting glaciers they used on Earth Day?

Here was Google's reply in 2005 when people asked why they didn't mark Memorial Day.


        We have to balance this rotating calendar with the need to maintain the consistency of the Google homepage.

        Furthermore, Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted in nature. If we were to commemorate Memorial Day, we would want to express reverence, rather than mirth. This would be a particularly challenging design. We would not want to, in any way, create a graphic that could be interpreted as disrespectful. In light of the mail we have received about this, we are actively considering designs we could display on this day next year. We welcome any suggestions you may have.


To show you how transparently false this excuse is, here's the logo Google used for Australia's ANZAC Day, the Aussie equivalent of Memorial Day.

And here's their logo for Canada's Remembrance Day, which they've been running for several years:

In truth, Google is willing to honor the fallen of every country--except their own.

It has been noted that Google chose not to recognize Memorial Day with an altered logo, as they do with many other holidays.

A reader forwarded the following reply from Google, about their continuing failure to mark Memorial Day; it's the same reply they've given for at least three years running.


        Thank you for your note. We appreciate your interest in seeing a Memorial Day Google logo. If we were to commemorate this holiday, we'd want to express reverence; however, as Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted in nature, this would be a particularly challenging design. We wouldn't want to create a graphic that could be interpreted as disrespectful in any way.

        We have a long list of holidays that we'd like to celebrate in the future. We have to balance this rotating calendar with the need to maintain the consistency of the Google homepage. We really value your feedback regarding the Google logo, and please be assured that we're actively pursuing ways in which we can acknowledge Memorial Day and other such occasions in the future.

        Regards,
        The Google Team



By "in the future," they apparently mean sometime in the next century or so.

As for their claim that they want "lighthearted" logos, how "lighthearted" were those melting glaciers they used on Earth Day?

Here was Google's reply in 2005 when people asked why they didn't mark Memorial Day.


        We have to balance this rotating calendar with the need to maintain the consistency of the Google homepage.

        Furthermore, Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted in nature. If we were to commemorate Memorial Day, we would want to express reverence, rather than mirth. This would be a particularly challenging design. We would not want to, in any way, create a graphic that could be interpreted as disrespectful. In light of the mail we have received about this, we are actively considering designs we could display on this day next year. We welcome any suggestions you may have.


To show you how transparently false this excuse is, here's the logo Google used for Australia's ANZAC Day, the Aussie equivalent of Memorial Day.

And here's their logo for Canada's Remembrance Day, which they've been running for several years:

In truth, Google is willing to honor the fallen of every country--except their own.

I would think that using "The Guardian" to disprove "The Daily Mail" is a bit like using "Little Green Footballs" to disprove/discredit "Daily Kos".

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2549 4_Muslims_%20%20Secretly_Organizing_to_Dominate_Yo uTube&only

...that the "private entity" shield is used.

These people take it all the way to the bank.

I believe you're lost. Here's where you should go: Go back to the echo chamber. Get back before Websense blocks them for good =)

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".

I believe your shrines are this way.

Sunspots bitch. The cycle of sunspots on the sun over the past century and a half much, much much more closely reflects tmeperature change than CO2 does. The same relationship is shown over the past several centuries using collected astronomical data by the scientists of the day. Sit down, shut up, and watch. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2476 0_The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#comments

A Lebanese woman looks at the sky as she walks past a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. (Adnan Hajj/Reuters)

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."

Which photographs?

I would start with this:
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/08/ al_ap_at_it_aga.html/
and
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2211 6_Still_More_Photo_Staging_Identified&only/

Then you can read about the Red Cross Ambulance Incident here:
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

Additional staged incidents here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2212 3_Green_Helmet_Admits_Staging_Photos&only/

Which photographs?

I would start with this:
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/08/ al_ap_at_it_aga.html/
and
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2211 6_Still_More_Photo_Staging_Identified&only/

Then you can read about the Red Cross Ambulance Incident here:
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

Additional staged incidents here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2212 3_Green_Helmet_Admits_Staging_Photos&only/

Hello, Ann Coulter. Welcome to Slashdot and have a nice day. I believe you meant to type in this or this.

Even by Slashdot's standards, this is ridiculous. I'm now flamebaiting? Are you really suggesting that communism has not failed?

Well, I guess I'm really just talking to a brick wall, here. Leftists like to avoid arguments, and if they have a tool like Slashdot's moderating system at their disposal, they'll use it without question (this does not stop them from feeling intelligent and reasonable, however). Sort of like what's happening to Little Green Footballs: leftists aggressively "bury" any LGF posts that get Digged. It's so fucking pathetic.

Cowboy up, pansies, and try to debate people every once in a while.

Yes, naturally anyone who's siding with Israel is a troll, as Slashdot users have shown time and time again.

When considering death tolls, there are some factors that need to be taken into account. Intent is an important one, as collateral damage and intentional damage are not the same thing. Then you have to consider the way Palestinians use human shields or otherwise expose civilians to danger, and then exploit the dead for propaganda purposes (Hezbollah did the same during last year's conflict). And who's really innocent? The area is crawling with terrorists wearing civilian clothes, and if the Palestinians, who are infamous for their lies and fabrications, claim that innocent people were killed by an Israeli attack, I'd take that claim with a grain of salt. Finally, the unbalanced reporting of the situation seems to downplay the persistent, blind rocket attacks againts Israel.

Another thing occurs to me: from a moral point of view it doesn't really matter who kills the most people, it only matters why those people were killed and who they were. This was completely ignored during the Lebanon conflict where people were concerned about the "disproportionate" death tolls, as if it's somehow unfair that Israel suffers less casualties in a war than its opponent.

Here's a poll according to which 66.8% of Palestinians support kidnappings, and 60% support rocket fire. The poll results seem consistent with "anecdotal" evidence.

I can give you 5 reasons:

1) Bloggers stopped CBS news from passing off a fake memo impugning the president before the 2004 election. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=1261 5&only

2) Bloggers revealed the prevalence of faked and photoshopped photos being passed off by the AP as genuine.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2239 1_Fauxtography_Updates&only

3) Bloggers like Michelle Malkin regularly make a farce of leftists and underscore their intellectual and moral bankruptcy
http://www.michellemalkin.com/

4) Unlike the Mainstream Media (MSM), bloggers are too numerous and independent for their integrity to be undermined. Unlike the fourth estate, they are not an institution which can be infiltrated and ultimately captured. Gramscian strategy breaks down because it is impossible for the minority who are leftists to control what everyone else is saying and writing.

5) Forcing bloggers to register is only one part of a two pronged assault on open dialogue. The democrats are also attempting to reintroduce the so called "fairness doctrine" in an attempt to undermine conservative talk radio.
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2007/01/18/democ rats-seek-to-resurrect-dead-fairness-doctrine/

In general leftists are all for free speech when you're saying what they want to hear. When you disagree with them they're very quick to try and silence you. This is the purpose behind things like campus speech codes and political correctness itself. They want to silence conservatives and libertarians because they've learned from experience that these philosophies are more pursuasive and compelling than their own, especially the more people learn about them. The reason why you don't see Republicans voting for measures like this one is because they have nothing to fear from freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas.

I can give you 5 reasons:

1) Bloggers stopped CBS news from passing off a fake memo impugning the president before the 2004 election. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=1261 5&only

2) Bloggers revealed the prevalence of faked and photoshopped photos being passed off by the AP as genuine.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2239 1_Fauxtography_Updates&only

3) Bloggers like Michelle Malkin regularly make a farce of leftists and underscore their intellectual and moral bankruptcy
http://www.michellemalkin.com/

4) Unlike the Mainstream Media (MSM), bloggers are too numerous and independent for their integrity to be undermined. Unlike the fourth estate, they are not an institution which can be infiltrated and ultimately captured. Gramscian strategy breaks down because it is impossible for the minority who are leftists to control what everyone else is saying and writing.

5) Forcing bloggers to register is only one part of a two pronged assault on open dialogue. The democrats are also attempting to reintroduce the so called "fairness doctrine" in an attempt to undermine conservative talk radio.
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2007/01/18/democ rats-seek-to-resurrect-dead-fairness-doctrine/

In general leftists are all for free speech when you're saying what they want to hear. When you disagree with them they're very quick to try and silence you. This is the purpose behind things like campus speech codes and political correctness itself. They want to silence conservatives and libertarians because they've learned from experience that these philosophies are more pursuasive and compelling than their own, especially the more people learn about them. The reason why you don't see Republicans voting for measures like this one is because they have nothing to fear from freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas.

Cool it. Areas where it either makes sense to go metric or at least isn't a particularly bad idea, such as science, automobiles, and medicine, have already gone metric. For the others, metric is a yawner. Products can state their quantity in both systems (and most do). Highway signs and items for sale should stay as they are because that's what we're familar with. If Europeans come here, they can learn our system. And construction work should continue to use the English system because it's quite a bit better.

The US hasn't gone metric for two reasons:

1. The metric system is rather stupid, dreamed up by French philosophers who'd probably never did an honest day's work in their lives. Building around 10 with conversions between units (i.e. meter to kilometers) isn't that useful in the real world. What is useful is have quantities that are easily divisible. That's why sensible, experience-based systems use 12, 16, 36 and 360 so much. They're easily divisible into quarters, thirds, halves etc. Powers of ten systems give you nasty results like 33.33333333333333.... cm for one third of a meter. Really, really dumb. It's a marvelous demonstration that experience is the best teacher, that people who think they're smart often aren't.

2. The US is far more democratic than Europe, including the UK, where the politicians crammed metric down the public's throat, fining store owners for even displaying English measurements. I like to think we'd never put up with that sort of behavior here, but given the lemming like behavior of some on Slashdot, I have my doubts.

When the choice is between having a stupid French system forced on us and a practical English system we all know and find helpful, I'm quite happy with telling the Europeans to take a hike. To tell the truth, I quite enjoy telling the French and the Germans to take a hike.

Besides, by the end of this century Europe is going to be filled with nutty Islamists who'll be waving nukes and demanding that we adopt THEIR system, derived from Sharia law and based on reasoning as convoluted as that used to justify metric. There's already a Dr. Abd Al-Baset Al-Sayyed of the Egyptian National Research Center calling for the world to adopt a system of time based on Mecca rather than Greenwich. You can read about it at the link below. It's quite funny. Born two centuries ago, this Dr. Al-Sayyed would've been a French philosopher. He has the same out-of-touch-with-reality way of thinking they had.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2397 8_Egyptian_Researcher_Blinded_by_Science&only

Metric or Sharia measurements, both are bad ideas made worse by those who want to cram them down our throats.

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.

That explains this Country Club Conservative and her IDF spokesperson equivalent perfectly. Nothing like people who go the extra mile to hear their voice echo, and only their echo.

Animal Farm perfectly describes the Democrat's socialist policies. Animal farm did not entail the characters defending themselves against a threat to their freedom, rather, it entailed the animals being falsely lead to push for what they believed to be an expansion of their freedom, which was really only expansion the freedom of certain individuals, all at their expense. The ideas that people are not free if they cannot have an abortion and marry the same gender are perfect examples of that, as while social ruin ensures, the Democrats will reap the benefits of high office, much like what happened in animal farm, in which all semblance to a logical order was lost, and all that the pigs had to do was to convince the animals to get rid of the farmer so that they could be "free."

Despite that, there is a grain of truth to what you say. The recent changes in the United States and the subsequent cries for more control and less freedom can be quite clearly listed:

Roe vs. Wade - Legalized Abortion in all trimesters with Abortions in the Third Trimester allowed only if it is a threat to a woman's health
Doe V Bolton - Defined that an abortion is a threat to a Woman's Health if she feels unhappiness or social pressure
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry= 23148 - The ad is a cry against Proposition 90, which would have limited the California's exercise of eminent domain.
The Institution of Social Security
The Institution of Medicare
The Institution of Medicaid
The Institution of No Child Left Behind - The only item on this list that was pushed through by a Republican President, even though more Democrats voted for it than Republicans.
Cries for Socialized Health Care
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=44589 - Cries that the Constitution must be replaced with a brand new Socialist Constitution
Cries by the Democrats that we need more taxes
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.d raft/ - Cries by Democrats to reinstate Conscription, a.k.a., "the Draft"

I could continue, but I think that is list is indicative of where the grains of truth in your statement lie.

Anything involving an entity that insists on acting like it's still a department at an exclusive college.
Anything involving an entity that thinks the Midwest is just flyover country with a few ski resorts on the western edge is evil.
Anything involving an entity that thinks freedom is something obtainable by forsaking those of your own country.

Hrm. That'd include a Country Club Conservative who cant take the heat of criticism, the US's self-titled IDF spokesman who does the same, the infamous union busters who need not be glorified with a name, and Google.

Misery does love company.

Well, you don't need to make up "the Marines bombed your house and killed your sister, father, and daughter. Join us in fighting them!"

Yet, that's exactly what happened in the last few days with the latest strike in Pakistan. The story comes out in the Associated Press that 80 people are killed in an attack on a madrassa (Islamic school). A Quote from the article: "Local leaders however insisted that most of the dead were teenage students". Suddenly, a follow up story comes out, "intelligence sources now tell ABC News that the missiles were fired from a U.S. Predator drone plane." Within hours, people are holding protest marches against the US in Pakistan, complete with banners in english protesting "US Terror Attack on Bajaur", with world-wide image coverage courtesy of Reuters. A couple hours after that, a US military rep had a press release stating that the US military was not involved in this strike.

Of course, we know now that the strike killed 5 senior leaders of al-Qaeda's branch in Pakistan, including one who was known to have harbored al-Zawahiri, the current 2nd in command of al-Qaeda. We also know the initial death reports were incorrect, the follow-up reports assigning blame were incorrect, and since no outside officials have been able to inspect the dead, it is possible that even the death count is incorrect (see the shennanigans in the recent Lebanon-Israeli conflict as evidence where bodies were being removed from morgues then used in staged pictures for foreign media).

What the US government is facing is an advanced war of propaganda, where the "enemy" is quite skilled, and has many willing accomplices in the US media; their hatred of the administration knowns no bounds. My feeling on this issue is not "should the government release their versions of events"... given how much false information is being dished out by our press, my reaction is "why has it taken until now"?

oops. meant this instead of the other URL. The message conveyed remains the same.