Slashdot Mirror

Liberals can certainly defend their positions with legitimate arguments, but generally don't.

And you went to a "major university"? Do they give refunds?

I'm not basing this on the internet per se, although that is highly relevant in this day and age. My opinions are based on the 2004 Republican National Convention protests. The nuts handing out political fliers all over the city.

Well, it's a good thing that conservatives never do crazy stuff like that.

Propaganda produced by the likes of Michael Moore.

I applaud your even-handed assault on divisive political propaganda.

My own education in a major university.

I'm going to guess that you majored in something technical and didn't spend much time in classes that discuss public policy. Getting the flavor of academic political analysis based on fliers and student club activities doesn't count.

The endless parade of media personalities.

Again, a landscape entirely dominated by liberals.

Lets not forget the hordes of hipsters with their "I hate Republicans" signs, clothing, and tattoos.

I can't imagine conservatives being so crass.

We even have anti-conservative graffiti here in NYC.

Ah, yes, vandalism. A tactic completely isolated to the left.

Last but not lease - I've personally had to deal with liberals accuse me of a wide variety of bad things. I've been told I hate the poor despite the fact I'm not particularly wealthy. I've been told I hate minorities, despite the fact I'm hispanic.

For what it's worth, I believe that I've been accused of being anti-American, even though I am an American. I've also been accused of wanting "the terrorists" to win, even though I go to work every day and specifically work on projects designed to help catch them, which is more than most of the population is doing.

I've been told I hate gays, despite the fact I'm friends with a few prominent gay men.

You mean that people were--gasp!--making a rude and unfair assumption about you based on the actions of extremist elements whose political positions you happen to sometimes share? Say it ain't so! What kind of jackass would do that? Then again, does it bother you that the party you support has done such a good job of cynically exploiting anti-gay sentiment with their "protect marriage" propaganda?

I've never in my life heard a conservative in real life say anything like that to a liberal.

Well, you're presumably out of college, so I'm guessing you're old enough to have spent some time in bars. I just don't know what to say to that except to applaud your choice in bars.

I've never met a conservative teacher...

What "major" university did you say this was, again?

...nor seen conservatives take to the streets as a show of force...

No, I suppose that when conservatives do it, it's called protesting and not "taking to the streets as a show of force."

My point is just this - these kinds of t

the fact is this is total bullshit, the top 1% in america pay almost 50% of the tax, and avoiding this is IMPOSSIBLE. and the reason it's impossible to dodge is tax departments around the world have these nice little laws which allow them to investigate you and tax you based on what they THINK you should be paying. so hiding offshore does them fuck all good

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html

It's not that far-fetched. Certainly some of her support came from Republicans. Rush Limbaugh is Hillary Clinton's most visible campaign supporter at the moment. He thinks Republicans will get blasted if they try to hit Obama, so they'll let Hillary fight it out with him instead. Though really, they'd deserve a blasting if they pulled another Swift Boat maneuver.

"RUSH: No, the strategy is... Yes. The strategy is to continue the chaos in this party. Look, there's a reason for this. Our side isn't going to do this. Obama needs to be bloodied up. Look, half the country already hates Hillary. That's good. But nobody hates Obama yet. Hillary is going to be the one to have to bloody him up politically because our side isn't going to do it. Mark my words. It's about winning, folks!" Rush Limbaugh's theory.

That is what I imagined but it's worse than that. It won't just happen once, it will happen again and again. The first few times, most moms will give up and go home. After a while, they will either give up the store or stay there despite the baby crying. Eventually the mom will quit going. If she ever hears about these devices .... Kaboom! Real anger. Most will never go to the guilty store again and many will give a lot of innocent clerks a piece of their mind. Anything that looks like these devices, including fire alarms is going to be vandalized by people no one would suspect of such behavior.

Some people, even hearing impaired people who should know better don't think of this because they are so busy gloating about the pain they can inflict on people they don't like:

Have you heard about this Krehley? Well, they're using it over in Britain. Apparently these teenagers over there got nothing to do, and they loiter. They hang around wearing these stupid long shorts, the tattoos everywhere, these 16-year-olds trying to grow goatees and stuff, looking grotesque, and they're loitering in these places of business and causing big problems. People don't want to go there. It's sort of like my famous commentary on ban the ugly from the streets in daytime if you want to promote economic recovery. These people are loitering around, so they've invented this device that emits an irritating sound, irritating frequency noise that only young ears can hear. Once you get past your teenaged years and into your adult years apparently you lose sensitivity to this. It's called a Mosquito. You lose sensitivity to this frequency. So only kids can hear it, and it's working. The shop owners have these things and they're turning them on, and kids don't know where it's coming from. They just scatter. The first thing that I thought when I saw that was, "Where do I get one?"

Statements like this are going to make moms even angrier. It is all very sad and stupid.

you are criticizing Rush Limbaugh because you think he insults people, and you chose to do that by... insulting him?

Hey jackhole, get a clue. When a bloated gasbag spews lies about an advocate for people with a debilitating disease, you're goddamned right he gets insulted. And when Rush mocks the disease's effects , shaking his body spastically around on camera to mimic Fox's illness, oh holy crap does he deserve to be insulted. Shakespeare didn't write enough insults for sick bastard whores like Rush Limbaugh.

But guess what? Rush was right. Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms. Here is a video clip of him admitting this.

Guess what, you brain-dead moron? In that video clip Fox denies what he supposedly admitted, saying explicitly -- listen to your own video clip --

"It isn't as if I didn't take it deliberately, as some kind of theatrical thing."

Which of course pustulent corpse-raper Rush Limbaugh quotes as:

FOX: I didn't take it deliberately as some kind of theatrical thing...

Here, as usual, Rush listeners learn their facts about the world exactly backwards. It's the price you pay for giving a fat, impotent, parasitic slug-worm an invitation into your living room. Lend credence to the sneering ringmaster of a national freakshow and what happens is that you become stupid. Let me give you another example. If you'd bothered to learn something instead of lazily gulping down Limbaugh's diarrhea, you might have known that the visible tremors Rush was mocking come from the medication:

In fact, at the time he was over-medicated for his Parkinson's disease, Fox said Thursday in an exclusive interview with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric.

"The irony is that I was too medicated. I was dyskinesic," Fox told Couric. "Because the thing about ... being symptomatic is that it's not comfortable. No one wants to be symptomatic; it's like being hit with a hammer."

His body visibly wracked by tremors, Fox appears in a political ad touting Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill's stance in favor of embryonic stem cell research. That prompted Limbaugh to speculate that Fox was "either off his medication or acting."

Fox told Couric, "At this point now, if I didn't take medication I wouldn't be able to speak."

I'm not the president of the Michael J. Fox fan club or anything. But the guy has to take his meds in order to be able to talk and move and interact with the world with some kind of normalcy. Without the medication, Parkinson's patients' muscles become rigid, their movements slow, and they even become unable to move at all. At the start of the filming day, Fox doesn't know if he's going to nail the ad in one take or is going to be there all day, so you can only imagine how carefully he plans out how much medication he's going to take and when, to ride the tightrope between his disease's wracking paralysis and the cure's tremors. Did he guess exactly right? I don't know, maybe not. Is Rush Limbaugh the biggest hate-smeared asshole the world has ever seen for second-guessing a prescription for someone he's never met, someone who is just trying to help a cause he believe

For informational purposes, the entire transcript is here. It appears that Rush went around and around with a caller who claimed to be the sterotypical lifelong Republican and member of the military; Rush didn't believe him. The next caller got into a discussion about the media and their perceived bias (note, I'm not saying they're biased or not -- just providing background on the conversation) in reporting. The following exchange happens -- emphasis mine:

"CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

CALLER: A lot of people.

RUSH: You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

CALLER: Exactly, sir......."

The caller made the original accusation that the solders who come out against the war are not real soldiers; Rush got burned by applying the word "phony" to describe the phenomenon. Once the call ends, Rush describes the recent Jessie Macbeth incident as an example of a phony soldier.

Since my previous reply to the parent poster didn't have this link to the entire "phony soldier" conversation and since Slashdot doesn't allow editing of replies, I would strongly recommend that anyone interested in the matter read it to get the full context that Media Matters doesn't want you to know. You can't claim to speak with knowledge of the matter if all you have to go on is the out-of-context misrepresentation that Media Matters is serving up.

Since my previous reply to the parent poster didn't have this link to the entire "phony soldier" conversation and since Slashdot doesn't allow editing of replies, I would strongly recommend that anyone interested in the matter read it to get the full context that Media Matters doesn't want you to know. You can't claim to speak with knowledge of the matter if all you have to go on is the out-of-context misrepresentation that Media Matters is serving up.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081507 /content/01125106.guest.html

My favorite part is when Rove says that the Democrats are still running against George Bush, even though he isn't going to be on the ballot. Lack of vision, indeed.

So my subject is a homige to recent efforts by fans of Jericho to get the show back on the air... but I think it's a fitting title since about half of this top 25 list is rabid liberal conspiracy theory... Why is it when an extreme liberal view isn't widely covered in the media it's called censorship, but if a conservative view get a moments air time it's lambased as propaganda?

For example the proponents of the Fairness Doctrine are making serious strides in making it into law, but that story didn't make the cut. The Fairness Doctrine in a nutshell is carefully designed to squash the views on talk radio, because it is one of the only places conservative views far outweight those of liberals.

I am so tempted to break down the 25 points to show their liberal bias. Like how Cheney sold all his Halliburton stock before the first election to avoid any conflict of interst concerns... but taking the time and effort to break down every argument in their 25 points... would likely make my head explode. I simply don't have enough duct tape to wrap around my head to take on such an endeavor.

While I love Slashdot and the tech news I find there, sometimes the liberal bias of what stories get published on the home page makes me sick. When was the last time you saw a list of 25 or so far right views not getting enough much media attention on the Slashdot home page? Trust me they are out there. You can't remember it can you, becasue they don't post it... but that's not censorship, it's refusing to promote propaganda from their jaded point of view... but all those Daily Kos articles, well they are news that needs to be heard!

Honestly, I'd rather not see highly bias views from either the right or left on Slashdot... just give us the tech news... if I want liberal news I'll go to Daily Kos and if I want conservative news I'll go to Rush Limbaugh... just give me tech news Slashdot and leave out the liberal BS... pretty please.

He's not saying that the top ten percent of income earners pay seventy percent of their income in taxes; he's saying that seventy percent of the tax revenue is provided by that top ten percent, which I'd like to see a reference for.

It's closer to 66% now (data compiled from this spreadsheet from the IRS), but the larger point still stands. The top 1% pays more than a third of the total tax bill, the top 5% pays over half, and the top 50% pays over 96%. The other half of the population is, for all practical purposes, getting a free ride.

.. So, yeah, he ranted against women, too, and he ranted against a lot of things, but when he ranted against the rich, guess what? "Ooh, template! Template!" The Drive-By Media hears one thing, "Ooh, rich? Bam! We hate the rich, too!" That's part of liberal Democrat politics, is stirring up resentment against the rich. Demonization! It's a specialty of the left. They demonize entire groups of people. They demonize the rich. They demonize majorities of any kind. They demonize business. They demonize Big Oil. They demonize Wal-Mart. They demonize! You look at their enemies list, and you would have to conclude that they are anti-success and anti-capitalist, which I believe they are.

I believe they are threatened by anybody who makes it without some government involvement in their lives, or some movement involvement in their lives like the civil rights movement or what have you. These are the people that are full of hate, folks. These are the people that continually demonize the rich, and let me tell you how it manifests itself, not just in this case with this shooter. Whenever there is talk of tax cuts -- and how often do we get stories about "the wealth gap is widening! The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The middle class is being wiped out." How do you think that affects people? Well, when Democrats come along like Clinton or now the current crop of Democrats talking about raising taxes, well, guess what? Everybody's taxes are going to end up being raised, but the people who have been victimized by this demonization, the middle class and the poor, you raise somebody else's taxes it isn't going to make one iota's difference in their lives! If somebody's taxes get raised, yippee! It doesn't improve their lives at all. But there's this thing -- I coined the term in the early nineties -- get-even-with-'em-ism

[...]

Now, if this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich, and all these other things? This guy is a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act. Now, the Drive-Bys will read on the website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen! I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation. I'm just pointing it out.

For the record, I was making no claims about the accuracy of those statements - our discussion was about propaganda.

Unfortunately, propaganda is rampant on all sides of the debate. Look at the legions of people that call George W Bush a "liar" without bothering to cite what it is exactly that they think he lied about.

The "coalition" was the United States and a smattering of other nations' troops.

Fair point. Kind of irrelevant, but fair.

And, if you think the Iraqis had any choice in their system of government, you are naive beyond belief. The US shoved a western-style constitutional democracy down their throats and told them to like it.

I think that the Iraqis had a choice in their new government for a few simple reasons: I watched as over 8 million Iraqis elected local representatives to write a constitution, then I watched as Iraqi's held town hall meetings across the country to give input into the new constitution, then I read the Constitution drafted by these Iraqi legislators, then I watched almost 10 million Iraqis turn out in a national referendum to ratify the constitution, and after that I watched 12.4 million Iraqis show up to vote in their new Parliament. How "naive" of me to think that Iraqis had anything to do with this.

You're willing to say it was necessary based upon what?

Here are the reasons why I think it was necessary.

1. Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States.
2. Iraq was in blatant violation of 17 unanimous Chapter VII UN Security Council Resolutions spanning 12 years.
3. I believe that freedom and self-determination are essential in combating the hatred and fanaticism that breed terrorism (see my sig)

As you point out, life sucks in Iraq right now. This is the fault of the US government, and by proxy, the US populace.

As I conceded earlier, we have made some serious mistakes there that have contributed to the mess. However, the career criminals, foreign terrorists, and sectarian factions that are trying to capitalize on the chaos and kill as many innocent people as they can to try to achieve their goals also share a lot of the blame.

But the US had no right to inflict this up the Iraqi people.

The US did not want to cause the current suffering in Iraq, but not only did we have the right to use military force under international law, we had the responsibility to do it. UN Resolution 678 clearly authorized the use of force to implement resolution 687 and to restore peace and security to the area. This authorization was never withdrawn- on the contrary, it was confirmed in over a dozen subsequent resolutions condemning Iraq for its non-compliance (including 1441 that gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply). The UN has no executive branch, so it's charter requires member states to enforce it's mandate. This is what the United States set out to do.

Sixty-four percent said it was true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda, despite this being repeatedly proved false (Dick Cheney went on Rush Limbaugh's show just a few days ago to repeat this lie despite a new US government report disproving it).

Speaking of propaganda, I'm afraid this is another bit of anti-Bush (or Cheney, as it may be) spin. Here is a link to the full transcript of what Dick Cheney said:

Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda, then migrated after we went into Afghanistan and shut 'em down there, he went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda ope

Cheney is basically trying to get everybody to foam at the mouth by implying that Iraq somehow supported the people who attacked us. In reality, there as no Iraqi government support for the attacks against the US he's just playing word games and trying to rationalize a colossal military and foreign policy blunder.

RUSH: That's the key: We haven't the humility.

This wraps up this whole global warming argument. We so lack in humility -- and it's a contradiction, too. On the one hand, the environmentalist wackos consider us irrelevant. We're no more important than the average rat or dog or insect, and in the other moment we are so powerful and we're so negative and we are so destructive that we, humans, are destroying the planet.

Don't get confused. Global warming people, they're not worried about what it will do to humanity. That's not the way they pitch it. They pitch it that the world, the fragility of our climate is in crisis. Of course, Charlton Heston, reading from Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park, puts this in a great perspective. In fact, that passage is one of the things that helped form my whole thinking on the concept of the complexity of all of this that is our planet and the impotence that we really have to do anything about it.

The idea that by improving our standards of living, that those characteristics of our existence will destroy us, is, frankly, just absurd. I contend you cannot believe in God and believe what the global warming crowd believes. You can't. The two do not go hand in hand. You have to actively not believe in God and believe in something else as a replacement, in order to hold this catastrophic climate crisis view that they all have.

Heston is beating up on a limp strawman, and it is this strawman that Limbaugh says "has formed his whole thinking": Because we are currently incapable of breaking down the entire planet into its constitutent atoms, and smearing them into a diffuse ring around the Sun (a pretty high bar for destroying the planet), then we are basically incapable of having a real effect on the world.

There is no hint of science to this worldview, just an increasingly irrelevant ideological tenet. We are small and puny in the face of God and His creations, so thinking about our responsibilities towards that creation is as absurd as a water molecule thinking about its responsibilities towards the ocean. No evidence can be brought out to convince Limbaugh's ilk otherwise, whether it be rising temperatures, shrinking forests, vanishing species, or increasing pollution. As an ideological tenet, it isn't subject to analysis; it is simply a fact that all reasoning and all conclusions must be molded to fit.

Hand in hand with this, we have a purely theological tenet: God is guiding life on this planet, and God made this planet for our use. Mix this with the idea that the planet is infinite in its ability to supply our needs, and you end up with a worldview that should horrify not only environmentalists, but all reasonable people: providing a quality of life is merely a function of using resources as quickly as possible, thereby "improving our standard of living," and no matter how quickly we burn through those resources, there will always be ample for our needs, and there will always be plenty of places to harmlessly stash the byproducts.

It's almost as though Limbaugh feels that the suburban, middle-class lifestyle is not only optimum for our happiness (ignoring the studies showing that we're not any happier than we were fifty years ago, when we had and used far less), but given special dispensation from God Almighty. How else to explain the fact that Limbaugh so quickly jumps from Heston's "We couldn't possibly eradicate all life on the planet" to his own "We couldn't possibly be affecting the globe in a wa

No link? Here are a few to check out.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://stat ic.tailrank.com/cache/b151a4f64c1058c585a2cf8524b4 a0e5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://tailrank.com/posts/56294 9953714293/Al-Qaeda_Training_Manual_Found_In_Iraq& h=117&w=200&sz=6&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=dx2cz9Re_e3BY M:&tbnh=61&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dterrorist%2 Btraining%2Bsite%2Biraq%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26l r%3D

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://coun terterrorismblog.org/badawi1-thumb.jpe&imgrefurl=h ttp://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/07/yemen_recap tures_jamal_albadaw.php&h=200&w=150&sz=18&hl=en&st art=2&tbnid=E6ftbs6lVrVl2M:&tbnh=104&tbnw=78&prev= /images%3Fq%3DQaeda%2Btraining%2Bsite%2Biraq%26svn um%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0324-09.ht m

http://regimeofterror.com/

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/cold/photos_prove _connection_between_iraq_and_al_qaeda_terrorists.g uest.html

You are welcome.

And the richest 2% pay 50% of the taxes.

You may have been facetious (I don't know), but you're not far from the truth (derived from source data here). The top 1% pay more than a third (34%) of the taxes, the top 5% pay a bit more than half (54%) of the taxes, and the top 50% pay nearly all (96%) of the taxes.

The Slashbots were about due for their Two Minutes Hate, though, and they tend to not let such insignificant things as facts get in their way.

BTW, for the record, I said "Seriously, part of being a 'responsible consumer of knowledge' from any source is knowing that the facts may be different than presented.", I do not limit my skepticism from any source, in particular Slashdotters who use 3rd grade taunts.

Is this Gore's insurance policy in case global warming happens? Remember, we have only ten years left.

Somehow the URL got munged. Sorry.

I'm sure you'll find it here ^_^

Yay for Club Gitmo!

Apparently so.

"Prisoners here are in paradise." -- guest at Club G'itmo

I checked out Rish Limbaugh's site, and it appears that he hosts his streaming media on a different server(stream.rushlimbaugh.com). It also takes being a subscriber(which I'm not) to get.

Being at work, air america's site is indeed, blocked. On the other hand, Al's site isn't blocked.

Can somebody with access to air america's site verify whether or not it has streaming media availabe from the same url?

I'm not against the filtering, though I can't say I'm thrilled either. The troops have a job to do, and the most important information they need comes from their compatriots, their superiors, and in letters from home. The unilateral nature of the filtering (filter out Al Franken and Wonkette but leave in Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh?) is what really bothers me. If you're going to filter, filter them all!

Oh, wait, then those gift subscriptions to Limbaugh's show that us liberals are supposed to buy for our favorite troops will be worthless. Oh darn. I guess if they filter Rush, I won't be able to Support Our Troops the Limbaugh way.

--Joe

$7 == one month of gervais podcast == 4 shows. That's $1.75 per half-hour show. That is in-line with what apple is charging for TV shows. But, but, but this is audio only. Whatever the market will bear...

Rush Limbaugh charges $7/month for 20 shows or 60 hours of programming plus, if you want, live streaming video (no I don't understand this) and a short daily video blog and some website content.

Apparently it's making great money - this seems like a fair business model. At Rush's rates this guy would be charging > $180/mo for his show.

A lot of people like Gitmo orange, you insensitive clod.

There were only three people (and their staffs) proclaiming that, without a doubt, Saddam had WMD

What a lie. What a downright despicable, arrogant, so-WRONG-it-couldn't-be-wronger-if-it-claimed-2-pl us-2-equals-five fucking lie. And you have either the balls or the stupidity to say Bush lied? What damned planet have you been on, anyway? What color is the sky? It sure as shit can't be blue. What kind of mind-blowing drugs do they have? You've been partaking of them too much.

Like I said. Revisionism. Right out of some idiot's asshole. Instead of pulling that crap out of your ass, you need to pull your completely useless HEAD out first.

Page one of documented quotes proving you are one totally brainless, utter waste of protoplasm.

Page two of documented quotes that demonstrate beyond any doubt that you have less intelligence than a loose, runny beer shit.

Page fucking THREE of even *more* documented quotes that put to bed for all eternity the question of whether you have any functionality left in the utter vacuum between your ears.

Something is wrong all fucking right. Your claim to be sentient is farcical. Calling you a dumbshit would be an insult to all the dung beetles in the world. Hell, it would be an insult to all the DEAD dung beetles in the world.

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow i

Scientists? No, they're:

Liberals! Liberals! Liberals! Liberals! Liberals!

The socially liberal among us should be doing what I'm doing: preparing to leave America eventually. The Right Wingnuts are going to want to hang us from the light poles in the Final Analysis. I'd rather live modestly in a drafty apartment in Germany than have my neck stretched here in America.

so how can we cause it?


Everything that happens on earth is not a manmade problem, nor an American-made problem. If it's hot one day and not hot the next day someplace where it's cool, it's not man made. It's not our fault. And I'm not going to sit here and accept the premise that somehow we are to blame for this. And that's what worries me the most about you liberals. Why can't you just accept that there are powers greater than us, greater than we have that may have influence over this over which we have no control? There's not one climactic event that we can stop, that we can alter, that we can detour. We cannot stop it raining harder; we cannot move thunderstorms; we cannot weaken hurricanes; we cannot steer them out of the way; we can't stop snowstorms; we can't stop drought; we can't do diddlysquat about all this, so in my mind there's no way we can cause it. You can't have one without the other. If we're causing it, then we can stop it. We can't stop it.

so saith rush

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_083105 /content/anchorman.guest.html

full post:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is Paul in Burlington, Connecticut. Welcome, sir, nice to have you with us.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. How can you say you're grounded in reality when you keep denying the issue of global warming? And it seems to me that the -- the answers don't fit your politics, and you're afraid of what the left has to say about this and their solutions, why aren't the conservatives on board? I think is the real issue. There's enough evidence. There's enough people saying it is, that we can't all be, you know, blame-America-first, freedom-hating sort of people -- and I've listened to you long enough to know you changed your position on it [sic]. You used to deny it existed. Now you've come to some sort of terms. "Well, it may be happening. It may be sunspots," and where are the conservative answers?

RUSH: Wait.

CALLER: It's obvious it's happening whether the hurricane was caused by it or not.

RUSH: Wait. Wait.

CALLER: Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't.

RUSH: Wait, wait. No, no, no. It's not obvious that it's happening in the sense that you guys mean it. The only stipulation I've made is, "There may be global warming, because I'm not an idiot. There have been warming cycles of the earth and freezing cycles, ice cycles, for as long as the earth has been around. We may be in a naturally warming cycle." Where I part ways from you is that man is causing it. There is no evidence of that, zilch, zero, nada. There's nothing more than a 25-year shrill campaign to create subconsciously the idea in everybody's mind that when it gets hot in July and hot in August it must be global warming; when it gets cold and a snowstorm happens in January, and happens to be a little bit more intense than it was last year, it must be global warming. Nobody can prove it. Nobody can prove that man is causing it. To me the proof that man is not causing it is there's nothing we can do to stop it. This hurricane was said to be caused by global warming. Well, this hurricane weakened right before it hit and it had nothing to do with the ocean temperature. It had to do with some dry air that it had encountered and pushed it further east (story).

But the problem that I have with you guys on global warming is it's become a political issue by which you seek to advance the liberal agenda. It's nothing more than a platform for you. Whenever I see anything designed to advance the liberal agenda, I'm going to oppose it because I hate the liberal agenda. I disagree with it. It's destructive; it's damaging, and it doesn't do anybody any good -- other than if you define it by spreading misery equally as the New York Times accurately headlined today in their coverage of the hurricane. If you want to believe it, go ahead, but I'm not going to accept you

Rush Limbaugh has already stated that he will be referencing the article.

So I'm going to keep this handy. I'm going to be referencing this for the rest of my career. I am going to keep this handy because now let's go to the story that I had from yesterday.

I just updated to iTunes 4.9, so I guess it's time to run out and get my first iPod. So many choices, but it looks like the $299 new color iPod will be the one I'll get.

Yes, yes indeed. Makes you wonder how we hear so many tales of torture and abuse coming out of Gitmo. You'd think they'd all be dead or shut up in dungeons never to be heard from again.

Hang on just a minute here: according to this site, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/, the 96% of taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners.

For those of you who won't link through, his source is http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xl s, (yah i know it's an excel file. I didn't feel like pouring over the IRS website to find a pdf version.)

You guessed it, Rush Limbaugh

First, you're making the wrong assumption that rich people are conservative. I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Look at this. Yes, I know it's from Rush Limbaugh, but I won't accept an ad hominem attack on him. An anecdote: in my state, Wyoming, only one county went for Kerry: Teton county, home of Jackson Hole, which is where all the rich, out-of-state people live. Teton county has about 15,000 residents and 20,000 people employed there (because people can't afford to live there, so they have to commute). Next, journalists are liberals, and they decide what to report. I think it should open some eyes when you have ABC saying they need to hold Bush to a higher standard of truth than Kerry, or when you have the Newsweek editor or publisher (I can't remember which) saying that positive coverage of Kerry is worth 15% (later revised downward to 5%). Sorry, but the data don't fit your proposed explanation, so the explanation has to be wrong.

I think it's important to tell the whole truth. The media never mentions when we open schools, when we open hospitals, when we improve infrastructure, or anything else like that. The media is only telling one side of the Iraq story, and it's the side designed to harm American morale. Why don't they start reporting on the good things that are happening over there as well?

The Kerry by 20 in PA came from early numbers, and Karl Rove was even quoted mentioning it. They had Kerry tied in North Carolina. However, when the exit polls vary far from months of previous polling, that's got to be pretty telling.

John McCain is liberal relative to most other republicans; the same is true with Arlen Spector. However, in general, they're centrists. That final remark was food for thought. Next, Bill Clinton raised the top income tax rate from George H.W. Bush. Also, economically speaking, Bill Clinton is a moderate, and Barry Goldwater was a social conservative (and a nutcase in my opinion. 1964 was the last time that Wyoming went Democrat). Goldwater suggested doing nothing with the taxes, Clinton raised them. However, this whole analogy is flawed: you're comparing apples to oranges here. Furthermore, Bush made the income tax system MORE progressive. Crunch the numbers instead of relying on baseless allegations about how Bush is only taking care of the wealthy.

but rush limbaugh says otheriwse.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

Should I belive the annointed one or the scientists?

Dittohead...You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh, haven't you?

I got bored while driving 9 hours yesterday, started flipping through the radio stations, fell upon Rush, and decided, "What the heck...can't find anything else to listen to." What I heard (before I decided to stop being masochistic) was him ranting about exactly what your post was about...well, that and explaining how you should charge all of your liberal friends a fee in order to eat Thanksgiving Dinner...

Bush is at least being honest about the situation when he says that he doesn't know if there will be an end to terrorist acts. Kerry just throws out a blanket statement that he's going to end terrorism.

You're giving your best shot, long hours, all your brainpower, to win a war that we're going to win. President Bush - Speech to CIA

We will win this war. President Bush - State of the Union Address

Today at the Legion I said, "We're winning the war on terror, and we will win the war on terror." There's no doubt in my mind, so long as this country stays resolved and strong and determined. President Bush - Interview with Rush Limbaugh

As for that, I haven't heard that argument from any conservatives

That's strange, because I can't think of a single conservative mouthpiece or media source who has not said something similar to the grandparent's posting. The following comes up in the first few pages of a Google search:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp ?ID=6317
The Hate America Left
Ben Johnson, columnist, FrontPageMagazine.com

http://anncoulter.com/columns/2002/070302.htm
Liberalism And Terrorism: Different Stages Of Same Disease
Ann Coulter, AnnCoulter.com

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/weekend_sites/080 904_081304/content/what_would_happen_if.guest.html
"For every eye that has to police the protesters, that's one eye less watching for terrorists. Do they care? No... You hate the president. You hate the country."
Rush Limbaugh Transcript, 8/12/2004

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/26 /124459.shtml
'Hate-America Leftists' Lead the Appeasement Movement
Wes Vernon, columnist NewsMax.com

http://www.americandaily.com/article/917
"People who hate America... these are John Kerry's constituents"
JB Williams, columnist, The American Daily

http://www.americandaily.com/article/2390
The Hate-America Crowd Speaks Its Mind
Doug Patton, columnist, The American Daily

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/04/loc_br onson4.html
Hate-America crowd has its own picnic
Cincinati Inquierer, columnist, Peter Bronson

http://www.wtoctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2028797
"Why are people who hate America still living here?"

Bill Carthcart, WTOC 11, Savannah Georgia
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp 20040706.shtml

Michael Moore and the problem of American self-hatred
Dennis Prager, Townhall.com

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArti cle.asp?ID=14125
Hate-America Advocates
Jean Pearce, Frontpage Magazine

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2159
American Academics Who Hate America
Daniel Pipes, Capitalism Magazine

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArti cle.asp?ID=9298
A Hate-America Superhero
Joshua Elder, FrontPageMagazine.com

Gas giants are no proof of intelligent life.

I suppose I could post this? But it would almost certainly be modded offtopic. ;-)

I just heard some sad news on talk radio. The anti-slash jihad was found dead in his internet home this morning at the age of 3 months. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the trolling community will miss it -- even if you didn't enjoy it, there's no denying its contribution to troll culture. Truly a Slashdot icon.

The pathetic details:
Warning: mysql_connect(): Access denied for user: 'marriott_scrpt@localhost' (Using password: YES) in /home2/marriott/www/admin/include/mysqlconnect.php on line 2
can't connect to the server

Rush Limbaugh. anyone?

On a totally unrelated note, does anyone else here read Atlanta-Journal-Constipation when they see AJC? I know someone else who does.

Au Contraire! You prolly get modded down 'cause you try to emulate a greedy, racist, loudmouth and duplicitous drug addict.

As for why he chose that brand over other possibilities, I don't remember what he said on the air at the time (around January 2002). Here is his site's collection of articles regarding his implant.

I don't know if you will find these articles useful or not, but hopefully it will help you with your decision-making process.