Slashdot Mirror

The problem with balance is this: name one popular, over the top liberal pundit.

I only know of one offhand... Randi Rhodes on Air America. She makes me cringe at times. But she's more batty than a total maniac, but does fly off the handle for sure.

I hate boards with rules. http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/randirhodes/mess ageboards/index.php?act=boardrules what happened to free speech Randy?

For a second there, I thought Randi Rhodes was getting into pseudo science.

Well, I'm smart enough to understand that 53% only equals 100% in really bad rounding algorithms.

Must be the ones used in the electronic voting machines.

Your mileage may vary.

stolenelection2004.com
votergate.tv
Outrage in Ohio
Was the Ohio Election Honest and Fair?
Kerry Won
Shoplifting the Presidency?
Ultimate Felony Against Democracy

Surprising Pattern of Florida's Election Results
votes for party president versus voters registered
exit_poll(gif)
Florida2004chart

openvotingconsortium.org
verifiedvoting.org/eirs
electionprotection2004.org
The Rise of Open-Source Politics
cpsr.net

Presume once congress & the administration are aware to the purported problems they'll respond rapidly with "Help America Vote Act - II".

stolenelection2004.com
votergate.tv
Outrage in Ohio Was the Ohio Election Honest and Fair?
Kerry Won
Shoplifting the Presidency?
Ultimate Felony Against Democracy

Surprising Pattern of Florida's Election Results
votes for party president versus voters registered
exit_poll(gif)
Florida2004chart

openvotingconsortium.org
verifiedvoting.org/eirs
electionprotection2004.org
The Rise of Open-Source Politics
http://www.cpsr.net

Presume once congress & the administration are aware to the purported problems they respond rapidly with "Help America Vote Act - II".

HAHAHA, I was hoping I wouldn't make that error.

I officially swap my 'y' for an 'i'. :D

Actually, the correct action would've been for this to be standing policy since the invention of the transponder, but I digress. Given the circumstances, yes, the President should've given that order.

Many of us thought it WAS the standing order- but that day showed us differently.

If this were the case, it should've been standing policy for decades, since the Air Force has lots of pilots who have worked up through the ranks into positions of influence within the Pentagon. However, since it wasn't policy, I'd wager that Bush was never taught this course of action in his pilot training. If he was, I'm going to be a lot less happy with every President since the birth of commercial aviation for dropping the ball (and yeah, that does mean W, too).

Not turning off your transponder (which is the heart of our friend-foe id systems) wasn't drilled into fighter pilots sice the invention of the transponder during WWII? But I agree, tons of Presidents (and other high up muckity-mucks in the Pentagon) had dropped the ball- and the silly thing is, you've got a liberal talk show host out there, who WAS in the Air Force (only ground crew) but she thought it was policy (and it was her job to help keep the jets operating for such missions). You can find lots of information on it on her blog.

For the most part, I do agree with this; however, the President of the United States has duties other than that of Commander-in-Chief. He had to be extremely careful not to do anything that could be construed as panic in front of the cameras because that would create panic in the rest of the country. I see no problem with taking a few minutes to make sure you don't do anything hasty or scare anyone. Then again, I think the chain of command should be able to act at least in a preliminary way to defend us against an attack without talking to the President. Sending up planes to intercept airliners with their transponders off would've definitely been within this authority that I think they should have, but I would say the President should be consulted before firing in most cases.

I would agree with that- Maybe modify it by "I've got urgent business for our country to take care of, I'm sorry, but I won't be able to read to you today. I'll try to come back as soon as I can". That would keep from scaring the kiddies- even if it does disappoint them temporarily.

Are these still the correct actions today?

Too late, unfortuneately- we had about a 72 hour window of opportunity there when this was possible without destroying our economy entirely- so no, Kerry wouldn't be given the chance.

If yes, would John Kerry carry them out upon election?

Given Kerry's financial base- the real question is: If French Chefs Attacked America with Food Poisoning, killing 5000 people, would you let them fly back to Paris? Would you let Paris Survive? Personally, I think Kerry is almost as big of a whimp as Bush is on this topic.

My personal opinion is that nuking Mecca would've been overkill, but I have absolutely no problem with an attack on Saudi Arabia which has never been our friend, and attacking Afghanistan was clearly the right course of action.

Afghanistan was certainly a part of the correct action- as would have been Northern Pakistan once we found out that the Pakistani Government didn't have control of the region. But Saudi HAS been the friend of the Bush family, if not America- which is the point with Bush, he put personal friendship over duty to country.

Every illegal alien in the country should be rounded up and either deported or held for questioning anyway because they have no right to be here (by definition of illegal alien).

Too bad neither party will touch this- even after most of the hijackers came in with obviously forged and sometimes even ludicrously filled out documents.

On the other hand, I doubt that Kerry would do them

So, you think it's awesome that they don't actually say what they believe, and instead just use a strawman argument to discredit the other side?

Sort-of, yeah. See, when I turn to a liberal radio station - like the ones that would be playing Air America, I already know what they believe. And most of the shows do say what they believe (Randi Rhodes for one...)

Of course - it is nothing new, right? It's almost kind-of pointless for either side to listen, because not only do you know what they are going to say - but odds are that if you are listening anyway - you probably already agree...

You know, preaching to the choir and all that...

But the Al Franken show is unique, because - well, as a radio guy - he sucks... Which means he is not following all the same crappy paradigms that the other shows do - and it is a nice break from the norm.

Other than that, any shows on the right or the left are largely propaganda - and should be taken as the sum of a whole, not as gospel truth...

But as Dennis Miller says - I could be wrong.

Listen to The Randi Rhodes Show... she recently got syndicated, so might be in your area. If she's not... listen to the streamed audio over the internet.

I'm not involved with the show, just a fan who's happy she finally got syndicated.

Listen to The Randi Rhodes Show... she recently got syndicated, so might be in your area. If she's not... listen to the streamed audio over the internet.

I'm not involved with the show, just a fan who's happy she finally got syndicated.

if you actually listened to it you would know that they debunk lies with *facts*.

The really cool thing about AirAmerica and "The Liberal Media" (not to be confused with Fox, ABC, etc) is that the are intelligent people who check their facts as well as provide references to things they quote. Let's see Rush to that!