Slashdot Mirror

the liberal will gladly give their candy away to the children & the conservative will take the candy away from the little ones and hoard as much as they can get

Nope.

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household

The Teabaggers are idiots and full of fail, but there are black teabaggers and even hispanics.

http://www.thegrio.com/politics/some-blacks-back-tea-party-despite-movements-racist-reputation.php
http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/19/black-tea-party-protesters-vs
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/GroupNew/20024d1a-72d1-404c-944a-1c132930142f/HISPANICS_FOR_FREEDOM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/25/tea_partiers_racist_not_so_fast_105309.html

Regarding the Holocaust: Got a source? Last I heard, Hitler himself had dark brown hair. I haven't heard that bit about persecuting hair color since I was in grade school. Thanks for the memories.

Regarding the health reform bill: Got a source? Everything I'm seeing shows no clear consensus, at which point it falls to the legislature to decide on their own. Even that was pretty evenly split.

Regarding arrest: In the event that you get arrested and it does screw up your lifestyle significantly, you have the right to sue for wrongful arrest. Mistakes happen, and you have the ability to try to get things fixed. That would be a great time to point out that, hypothetically, the police used only a GPS device, rather than an audio recorder, to show your association. Show that the arrest wasn't justified, and you can get it almost erased from history. Of course, the easiest route is to simply talk to your boss and try to get the job back after the facts have come out.

Regarding attorneys: Who did you think presents the evidence to a judge? It's the attorney general and the other assistant attorneys, and those with other titles depending on the state.

That may seems so only on the first glance. In reality, the Republican candidate had a 19 point lead in the polls over the Democrat leading candidate (the guy who lost to Alvin Green): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/sc/south_carolina_senate_demint_vs_rawl-1579.html This is in a seat that has been comfortably Republican since the 70s. The Republicans had absolutely nothing to fear and no reason to risk a scandal. On top of that, the Republican primary was very heavily contested and it seems unlikely that many Republicans would choose to vote in a Democrat primary instead (you can't vote in both of course). I have a feeling this is something personal, somebody wanted to embarrass Rawl for whatever reason.

In short, all the evil of the holocaust cannot justify the existence of Israel.

How about the evil that occurred after the Holocaust?

Don't you see how it still wouldn't matter?

The just thing to do is to right the wrongs by taking action against those committing them. If Poles were keeping stolen Jewish homes, that is an issue to take up with Poles, not Arabs.

Why would Arabs be expected to suffer for Polish or German crimes?

Logically, they wouldn't.

In short, all the evil of the holocaust cannot justify the existence of Israel.

How about the evil that occurred after the Holocaust?

"Well, I don't know about "everywhere else," but after World War II, many Jews did attempt to "go home" to Poland. This resulted in the murder of about 1,500 of them -- killed not by Nazis but by Poles, either out of sheer ethnic hatred or fear they would lose their (stolen) homes.

The mini-Holocaust that followed the Holocaust itself is not well-known anymore, but it played an outsized role in the establishment of the state of Israel. It was the plight of Jews consigned to Displaced Persons camps in Europe that both moved and outraged President Truman, who supported Jewish immigration to Palestine and, when the time came, the new state itself. Something had to be done for the Jews of Europe. They were still being murdered.

In the Polish city of Kielce, on July 4, 1946 -- more than a year after the end of the war -- rumors of a Jewish ritual murder triggered a pogrom in which 42 Jews were killed. All were Holocaust survivors. The Kielce murders were not, by any means, the sole example of why Jews could not "go home." When I visited the Polish city where my mother had been born, Ostroleka, I was told of a Jew who survived Auschwitz only to be murdered when he tried to reclaim his business. In much of Eastern Europe, Jews feared for their lives."

If you didn't make it up, you should be able to dig up a source or at least some credible evidence for the truth of your statement.

Several occurred, although most of them were "commentary", which is opinion thinly disguised as news. Here's one example:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/02/msnbc_terrorism_analyst_blames_right-wing_group_for_failed_nyc_car_bomb.html

In this particular case, he kept saying it was a "home grown group". He tried to broaden it a bit by saying it could be "Al Queda or right-wing", but I think it's pretty clear that he meant "home-grown" == "right-wing".

However, the best one of all wasn't the news media: it was the mayor of New York:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdbUwlM4bK4

Please prove this:

The point was, the description was off-base, and it was off-base on wishful thinking from certain media personalities and Obama administration officials who were hoping to tie the situation to "anti-Obama sentiment."

If you didn't make it up, you should be able to dig up a source or at least some credible evidence for the truth of your statement.

It seems that this may support the previous poster's statement about wishful thinking on the part of media personalities:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/04/msnbc_anchor_hoped_ny_bomber_had_no_ties_to_islamic_country.html

Contessa Brewer - MS-NBC
"I mean the thing is that -- and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry."

linky

Fairing everything is unnecessarily hard because the right wing still has air time. A few more major policy enactments and they'll be ready to revisit the Fairness Doctrine in the US.

Nah, it's just a sudden, unexpected outbreak of common sense (probably not even that - it's probably just our politicians playing anti-American again).

While I'd prefer ACTA to be stopped based on it's bad points, I'll take anti-Americanism if that's what it takes. Unfortunately that may not stop the US Congress and President from approving and signing it. They, congress and Obama, have already shown they're willing to shovel dirt down voters' throats even when they disapprove it as with health care. Almost if not every poll on Obama and the Democrats' Health Care Plan has more people opposing it that supporting it. But they decided to cram it down voters' throats anyway.

Falcon

Taken from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html :

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

In the realm of health care, Cuba does outperform the United States.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe MSNBC isn't a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party so trying to equivocate it with Fox News is nonsense? Yes MSNBC's main talking heads currently lean left if you disregard Morning Joe but they are also frequently very critical of the Democrats.

Also during most of Bush's term MSNBC was much less liberal than it is now. Remember Tucker Carlson?

I wasn't criticizing MSNBC, or making any comment about them at all. What I was commenting on was a sitting president demonizing a media network. It seems... unseemly. For a President of the United States. And I don't recall that being done in the recent past. So far no one has pointed out what I may have missed.

BakaHoushi was equivocating that attack (coming directly from President Obama, as well as the White House communications directors and others) with complaints about George W. Bush's behavior toward MSNBC. I've seen the letter from Gillespie (White House council during the Bush administration) regarding a specific issue raised during a specific story on NBC. I just don't think that is equivalent at all.

In fact I think the White House has an obligation to answer or correct any statements from media that are misleading or incorrect. But demonizing an entire media organization, and claiming everything they report is untrustworthy, is an improper use of authority.

the USA

So does Cuba, does that mean we should follow Cuba's lead?

There are waits for some procedures for stuff that won't kill you. If you have a serious illness you get to see a doctor and whatever specialist is required within hours in most cases.

Canada has no rationing? None at all? Waiting for surgery isn't as bad in Canada? Wait tymes weren't at an all-time high in Canada? Average waiting tymes in Canada for surgery isn't 16 weeks?

Falcon

She probably did that for a particular purpose, however. She did, before pointing out the carrying, say they were Astroturfing. Gore did the same thing, with the same 'brownshirt' label back in 2004.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/08/nancys_nazi_shock_did_she_forget_the_bush_years_97812.html

Both sides do it whenever they feel like at and both sides are always appalled when it happens year after year.

(The careful observer will note the charade...)

what does an *Intergovernmental Panel* have to do with science?
more, what *should* it have to do with science?
what was that about "fool me twice"? Shame on anyone who accepts a political consensus without a large bag of side walk salt.

As to the idea of having a judge decide on science ... BAD IDEA!
For you Americans, use the courts to challenge the Constitutional legitimacy of the EPA.
Generally, look at what's been going on in Australia wrt their cap-and-trade scheme (they actually call it a *scheme* ;-) ):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/24/could_australia_blow_apart_the_great_global_warming_scare_97148.html

On the flipside, there is a compelling argument for figuring out alternative energy sources. The argument is based on strategy security interests and not flower power tree hugging cheerleading, or even well intentioned but somewhat speculative computer models. Read as an example the recent NYT article by Thomas Friedman. For those of you with the courage to read a message that has not been preapproved and prepackaged by the mass media, a much clearer exposition is here.

The absolutely immense cost of the US military (defense spending is the largest category after entitlement programs) is only part of the picture. How do you price in the wars that you loose? How do you put a price on the concessions you end up having to make having to backward medieval rulers - surely they are not satisfied with a bow or romantic stroll? We're arming with one hand, via petrodollars, the same groups and regimes that we end up fighting only a few years later. The Cold War ended when oil prices crashed driving Russia's economy into a tail spin. This was the defining moment of our generation! A

You're kidding ... right?

If you want to know how deep congress is involved, just ask Sen Dodd why he inserted the original exemption on the executive compensation, to which he denied plainly and then admitted to, but not sure where it came from.

Now read this
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/dodds_wife_a_former_director_o.html

and realize that the rabbit hole is pretty deep. This isn't a bash against (D) over (R) because both are neck deep in the crap.

And if you believe anyone in congress when their lips are moving you're an idiot. I don't trust anyone there. PERIOD.

"Rest assured, the idiots in the current majority party will also be called out."

Really? Then why hasn't the president been called out for walking into a window? Or giving the wrong format DVD's to the British PM? If Bush had done these things he'd have been torn apart on Slashdot.

Some people will produce just for the heck of it. Or because it alleviates their boredom.

Ok, I exaggerated when I said there would be "zero" incentive to produce. More accurately, the incentive to produce would be vastly reduced. There is also a strong disincentive: the resentment felt by most producers when the fruits of their labor are confiscated and given to slackers.

You want to try to sustain the standard of living of the entire human population with the efforts of those very few individuals who work because they're bored, and don't resent the freeloaders who are in the majority? Like I said, that's a prescription for massive human suffering.

It's been tried many times throughout history, and failed every time. I urge you to read the lesson learned by the Plymouth Colony's Gov. William Bradford: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/the_tragedy_of_the_commons.html

It is this kind of partisan willful ignorance on the part of many that has enabled the political agenda among some to drive the notion that the US is in a severe recession caused by the ineptness and reckless irresponsibility of the Bush administration, when the US had nothing but growth in the GDP until only a month ago. If you asked most people how long they thought the economy had been shrinking for negative, they'd probably say things like, "A year? Two years?"

Megadittos.

Here's the thing. What you just said isn't true. One column I read regularly is that of Robert J. Samuelson. He's been writing about economic issues since 1977 and his column is carried several major newspapers such as the Washington Post, Newsweek, the L.A. Times and the Boston Globe. Hardly a non-mainstream guy. Go ahead, read what Samuelson has to say about the recession and its causes. Hell, read this article about the banking collapse. Many of the contributing factors were already in place well before W took office.

Now, I'm no ardent Bush supporter, and I'm definitely not a conservative in the mainstream sense of the word. But I have to agree with Samuelson because if you do the research yourself, you'll find his logic is sound.

This is what the mainstream media has touted, not that it's all Bush's fault. To sit there and play victim is exactly what Republicans and conservatives tend to do when they lose elections. It's predictable.

Reality is something else entirely.

It is this kind of partisan willful ignorance on the part of many that has enabled the political agenda among some to drive the notion that the US is in a severe recession caused by the ineptness and reckless irresponsibility of the Bush administration, when the US had nothing but growth in the GDP until only a month ago. If you asked most people how long they thought the economy had been shrinking for negative, they'd probably say things like, "A year? Two years?"

Megadittos.

Here's the thing. What you just said isn't true. One column I read regularly is that of Robert J. Samuelson. He's been writing about economic issues since 1977 and his column is carried several major newspapers such as the Washington Post, Newsweek, the L.A. Times and the Boston Globe. Hardly a non-mainstream guy. Go ahead, read what Samuelson has to say about the recession and its causes. Hell, read this article about the banking collapse. Many of the contributing factors were already in place well before W took office.

Now, I'm no ardent Bush supporter, and I'm definitely not a conservative in the mainstream sense of the word. But I have to agree with Samuelson because if you do the research yourself, you'll find his logic is sound.

This is what the mainstream media has touted, not that it's all Bush's fault. To sit there and play victim is exactly what Republicans and conservatives tend to do when they lose elections. It's predictable.

Reality is something else entirely.

Who really wanted the Patriot Act?

Well, most of our elected officials in Congress and the half of the country that voted for GWB in 2004, apparently. But you can keep on believing it was the "military-industrial complex" if that helps you to sleep at night.

Senators and Congressmen create and pass laws and funding measures all the time that only benefit the corporations.

Which by extension would benefit the shareholders of those corporations (do you have a 401(k)?) and the employees thereof. Mind you, I'm not a big fan of corporate welfare but it's not nearly as one-sided as you are making it out to be.

Citizen participation in politics only occurs when they are under the illusion (delusion really) that they have any meaningful effect on the outcome

Yeah, because voting never has a meaningful effect on the outcome. It's not as though there have ever been close elections before.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

Read that, so you can realize that your claim "all the black people were backing Hillary Clinton anyway" is completely refuted by reality.

What's the point of making shit up that can be so easily disproven?

I figured he probably has the best (but unfortunately still very small) chance of getting enough votes to scare some sense into the duopoly.

You could read the pools instead of guessing. Nader polls around 2.3%, Barr at 1.5%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_vs_mccain_with_barr_nader-957.html

I like http://realclearpolitics.com/ which actually has a Republican bias in the articles, so you know they aren't exaggerating when they show Obama up by 6% in the popular.

Anyone who thinks this election is close is deluding themselves.

actually, the majority of the rich in the US got there by working for it.

Of the Forbes 400 list of the really wealthy, 270 are entirely self-made, while only 74 inherited their whole fortune.

Or to look at it another way, of those who have 5 million dollars or more, only 10% inherited it. The rest worked for it.

Now, that may not be true in other countries, whose economic and cultural systems are different. But in the modern US, wealth is generally a by-product of people working hard and being willing to take risks that others don't. Take a look at the Smart Money article.

The polls are so variable it's hard to know which are accurate. Some show Obama up by 14. Others show him up by just 1. The difference lies in differing assumptions about who is likely to turn out to vote on Election Day. See for example, this explanation.

If turnout is demographically similar to previous elections, polls show it will be a very close election. If as some pollsters expect, we have larger-than-usual turnout among blacks and the young, then Obama will probably have a large margin of victory.

I agree that the media can often be morons. But it's not stupid to question the accuracy of the polls, given how hugely dependent they are upon what are little more than guesses about voter turnout.

Wow.. And if you would have put a little effort in this, you wouldn't have come out looking like an idiot. We aren't talking about Delegates dumb ass. We are talking about the Super delegates. That aren't the same.

Here are some articles concerning the super delegates that we are talking about. There are/were in 2008, 842 super delegates that had no obligation whatsoever at all to any primary or caucus results. There were 796 unplugged super delegates when Dean made them chose over a risk of losing their voice at the convention. After Dean made his declaration, they _told_ Hillary to stop campaigning when Obama reached the number of delegates required. However, seeing how 441 of Obama's delegates where super delegates and by DNC rules had until the convention months later to decide, Hillary could have easily convinced some of them to goto her camp and Obama wouldn't have gotten the nomination. There is no guarantee that she could have but the rules said that the risk to Obama and the challenge to Clinton should have been there until the convention at the end of August when the votes where counted and if she could have convinced enough of the super delegates to vote for her, she would have had the election.

You cannot deny that. It is fact and hiding behind regular delegates as if your acting ignorant of the facts doesn't make you right or correct. As a matter of fact, rule 9a and 9b speak specifically of the super delegates and their roles in the very links you provided. Of course they listed them as unpledged party leader and elected official delegate as well as add on delegates but I assumed that since you were taking a stand on them that you know this or at least had the wherewithal to google for super delegate in which one of the first pages would have told you about this. I also like the way you think it is perfectly ok to punish democrats of a state that is controlled by republicans who change the timing of the election. That's a bit like citing the passenger of the car for speed and driving without a license because the driver got the ticket. But in the case of preferring Obama, I guess it is worth it, right? And no, I'm not making this up, after the penalty to Michigan and Florida for something that the democrats in the states had no control over, you find that they still favored Clinton over Obama. In fact, the results in Florida was 33.5 Obama to 52.5 Hillary and in Michigan it was 29.5 Obama to 34.5 Hillary. Now if you remember, they cut the delegates in half for Michigan and Florida so Hillary should have gotten 105 in Florida and 76 in Michigan and if the full count would have been listed, Hillary would have had 87 more for a total of 1983.5 which is only 135 below the minimum needed to win. When Dean made his demands, about 320 super delegate votes where up for grabs and some of the already committed super delegates have already switched pledged alliances. Deans own words were The party "cannot give up three months of campaigning and active healing time,"

Don't whine about the political slants of the sites either. I did a simple google search and those are the sites that came up. I'm not getting paid to educate you and I'm not going to invest the time to do it past what is easy for me. You can find the same information on other sites from going deeper into the google search or by even useing a different

> That said... you want 'Real Change'?

Obama likes to make a big deal that John McCain voted with George Bush 95% of the time.
Presumably, that's bad .
Presumably, that's bad because Bush's approval rating is something like 29%.
Presumably, that's why Obama keeps telling us we need to vote for change.

But... Barack Obama voted with Democrats 96% of the time.
And the Democrat-controlled Congress' approval rating is something like 13%.

So... Where is the change that Obama will be bringing?

"the republicans" ?

We're right here you know. You talk as if they can't be found except on other planets.

"the republicans", esp McCain btw, were Questioning certain loaning practices, only to be scolded out for being racist.

What's that I hear on the news now lately ? And this "too little regulation" thingy ... that's odd. Don't they have tons of regulation in Europe ? (same link)

"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.

Let's see, McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts

You mean the tax cuts he now wants to make permanent?

McCain was wrong the first time. He's right at this time.

Despite what Joe Biden says, there's nothing patriotic about having a larger chunk of your income taken by the government simply because you make more than others. That's punishment, not patriotism.

Let's see, McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts

You mean the tax cuts he now wants to make permanent?

Care to back this up with evidence? Voting for B in the primary doesn't necessarily indicate a dissatisfaction with A.

Obama has very high "favorable" ratings.

...it's obvious that not a lot of Americans will vote Republican again.

I don't know about that. Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush* (scroll down on that page). So if they're not voting Republican, they probably aren't voting Democrat, either.

*Naturally that depends on the accuracy of the polls. See Dewey Defeats Truman

McCain is so old school he can only imagine increasing the supply of oil. What he and the GOP don't like is the obvious need to encourage commuting by bicycle and public transit--as we have here in NYC--so that people like me can gleefully sell their cars and live without one.

Have you been living under a rock? Here's what John McCain has said about his energy strategy:

The strategy I propose won't be another grab bag of handouts to this or that industry and a full employment act for lobbyists. It will promote the diversification and conservation of our energy sources that will in sufficient time break the dominance of oil in our transportation sector just as we diversified away from oil use in electric power generation thirty years ago; and substantially reduce the impact of our energy consumption on the planet.
...

Energy efficiency by using improved technology and practicing sensible habits in our homes, businesses and automobiles is a big part of the answer, and is something we can achieve right now. And new advances will make conservation an ever more important part of the solution. Improved light bulbs can use much less energy; smart grid technology can help homeowners and businesses lower their energy use, and breakthroughs in high tech materials can greatly improve fuel efficiency in the transportation sector.

McCain has said over and over again that offshore drilling is not a total solution, it is just needed to get our economy back on track and as a stopgap measure until other energy sources can be fully developed and implemented. If you actually go out and do some research you'll see that he has a ton of ideas on how to do this, from electric and hybrid vehicles to solar and wind energy and, yes, nuclear. He backs these ideas up with sound reasoning and solid proposals on how to encourage their development.

As to your proposals:

Electromagnetic energy taken from the ionosphere

Highly unlikely. Do you understand how high up the ionosphere is? How do you propose we keep some sort of generation equipment at an altitude of at least 50 miles? How do you propose that the energy be transported, the machinery be maintained? Somehow I think the costs of obtaining energy directly from the ionosphere will be very prohibitive, especially in the near future.

Seawater desalination by solar-cell-powered electrolosis, generating hydrogen

So you want to remove the salt from water, then electrolyze it? That will be kind of tough to do once you've made the water non-conductive don't you think? Or is it that you want to electrolyze it and then desalinate it? Wouldn't that just concentrate the salts and make it cost more energy to desalinate? This proposal makes no sense at all, if you are generating energy with solar cells then why would you go through a wasteful step such as electrolysis, just use the electricity directly and save the conversion step!

Vast swaths of the Western US need to get covered with wind farms.

This is the most reasonable thing you've said. Of course there are huge costs associated with wind farms, many areas can't use them effectively, and those that can use wind farms are already doing so. If placing a wind generator on a piece of land would produce enough electricity to pay for itself and make a profit then you can bet that the land owner will put one up. The fact that the technology has been slow to adopt shows that right now it is marginal in the cost to benefit ratio. Will this change? Sure it will but you can't expect people to waste their money right now on technology that won't provide them with a significant return.

Now I know people will say, "Then subsidize it!" That's great for the people directly benefitting from the subsidy but all it means is

uhm, have you actually been keeping up with the news? Hint: You won't find it on the dailyshow/etc.

The republicans have been asking for a vote, any vote, on energy legislation this session. Instead of allowing, the democrats have been refusing to allow any amendments to legislation....and limiting all bills that come to the floor to simple yes/no votes on non-critical matters. The democrats aren't even going to try to pass critical funding bills for the fiscal year, which is really the only legislation they are required to pass during a session.

So, the story here is about more than one day or silly stunt...It's essentially about whether congress intends to do run away from its responsibilities over a sustained interval to avoid a single vote on an issue that might be embarrassing to the party in charge.

I'm not saying that whatever legislation the republicans want passed is a good idea, but when the leaders of congress turn into cowards...I think we should be honest about it.

oh, you probably want a link....there are hundreds out there over the last month, but here's a rather recent one:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/dems_stop_approps_bills_to_blo.html

I just wanted to second billstewart's, and enhance it with a bit of history about Joe Lieberman.

Senator Lieberman is (was) a Democrat who was booted from the party ticket in New Hampshire for not voting the "right" way on the Iraq war, who then proceeded to have a heavily funded Democratic adversary run against him in the primary. Ned Lamont beat him in the primary. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/senate_races/connecticut_senate_two_days_after_primary_lieberman_ahead_by_5
>He ran as an independent, and won the 'real' election. In doing so, he captured nearly all of the swing vote, and became a much more important figure locally and nationally. In an interesting quirk of fate, he was also the 50th Democratic senator, so the Democrats accepted him back into their caucus in order to maintain control of the Senate's rules, however, both sides (Republican & Democrat) court him regularly, he is often a pivotal vote, and his popularity is quite high.

In short, Lieberman, also feared/hated by 'his' party (like McCain), would probably be an excellent veep pick for McCain.

Frankly, if McCain really wants to win, and isn't worried about burning bridges, he'll pick Lieberman as his Veep, and rebuild the Republican party along as pro-warhawk, moderate social policy, and tight fiscal policy without an emphasis on tax reduction. Many of the "Blue Dog" Democrats would most likely join this party. Many of the existing "Red State" Republicans would probably loose their shit over this, however, they don't really have anywhere to go (except, perhaps, to a new "Ron Paul" Campaign for Liberty style party, but that's probably me dreaming).

I don't see that happening, because I'm under the impression that McCain is strongly controlled by his Republican handlers now, however, I think that will also be his undoing.

Most American politicians these days seem to forget that the "real" swing group these days is Independents. Suburban Whites, Urban Blacks, Women, Men, Young, Old, Rich, Poor, and all the other "typical polling groups" tend to always vote in the same direction, and are extremely difficult to influence.

The real swing vote is so-called independents, reflects about 30% of the electoral vote (which is huge!) and traditionally would have been extremely attracted to both McCain and Lieberman.

It's called "hate crimes" legislation.

In Canada, they have there an office of inquisition regarding hate crimes.

in Nigeria?

There are real banks in Nigeria, owned by the ruling ethnic group, that's where the billions of dollars from oil goes. The rulers get their money while those who live where the oil comes from, the Niger Delta, have to fight for scraps.

You are so full of shit. All signs point to EITHER ONE OF THEM having a clear lead over McCain--yes, Clinton's lead is slightly larger, but the ACTUAL situation is absolutely NOTHING like your left-field claims. I have no idea where you're pulling this notion that Obama is some kind of crazy unsupportable idealist who doesn't stand a chance against McCain from. Nearly every single source of actual evidence I've seen shows otherwise. In fact, if you look into the actual detailed statistics you'll find on that site, you'll find that in recent months Obama and Clinton have tracked eachother almost identically in terms of how they're expected to fare against McCain (both coming out ahead).

So please, spare us your tirades against Obama supporters. They have no basis in reality.

This being said, the alternative is Hillary Clinton. Do you know how many democrat voters would rather avoid voting or just vote for John McCain if she was the nominee?

Besides, Barack Obama has taken all the heat the Clinton camp could give cause Clinton cared about nothing more than winning the nomination by all means necessary. How many ammo do you think the Republicans have left against him? And how much do you think they have against Hillary Clinton AND Bill Clinton? If they don't have a couple of sex scandals for Bill Clinton then I don't get it anymore.

So much FUD from ppl like you. And this was on March 2'nd.

New, here?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/the_blameamericafirst_crowd.html

The analogy between physical momentum and voting momentum should not be taken too literally. Momentum does not mean the tendency of the rate of change to remain constant, (although that's probably something worthy of interest in its own right) but rather the tendency for a win in one primary to lead to wins in other primaries. It's more of a feedback loop than a conservation law. This link describes momentum well, I think.

The problem for China is that if they become effective at imposing these draconion rules, then using the internet in any fashion will become such a risk that no one will do it. They will cripple their economic growth. The Sarbanes-Oxley can be used as a model for what happens when a country makes doing business to expensive and risky that no one wants to invest in it. In this case the USA has seen a massive shift of capital investment out of the country. The same thing will happen to China if they keep this up. The internet is becoming a critical tool of business. China cannot keep crippling it and making it worth your life to use the internet and continue to develop into a big player in the global economy.

First of all, there is no objective statistic that indicates that the US is behind on medical care. All of the "statistics" are based on certain very subjective assumptions that automatically penalize capitalist systems.

That said, it is certainly the case that the US health care system could use some fixing, but the solution is to take the government out of it, not add more government. We could drastically reduce health care costs by limiting frivolous lawsuits and government red tape. That way, more people could have health care and it would be better to boot.