Slashdot Mirror

Ronald Reagan died for our sins.

Jessica Lynch died for Ronald Reagan's sins.

Is this the same Al Franken that lied to John Ashcroft just to extract certain information from him for his new book?

You might want to read this article.

In fact, this Al Franken wasn't even sorry that he lied just to get the information. He was sorry that he used Harvard's stationary to seem more legitimate.

Good, then we agree that they both were right that they should attack the programs before the threat becomes imminent. From Bushes speech: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. Saying that Bush said there was an imminent threat has been discredited. A simple web search can show that: example, example, example.

Good, then we agree that they both were right that they should attack the programs before the threat becomes imminent. From Bushes speech: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. Saying that Bush said there was an imminent threat has been discredited. A simple web search can show that: example, example, example.

Although the war on drugs certainly has not captured the American public's attention to the extent that it should, there has been success in efforts to curb drug use and supply. According to the University of Michigan's "Monitoring the Future" study, the percentage of high school seniors who reported using any drug within the past month decreased from 39 percent in 1978 to 26 percent in 2001. There are a total of 9 million fewer drug users in America now than there were in 1979. And coca cultivation was 15 percent lower in Colombia in 2002, due to the combined efforts of the United States and Colombian governments. Drug czar John Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, is optimistic about the war on drugs. "We have to remember that, since we got serious in the '80s, overall drug use is half of what it was - and that's progress," Taken from Lou Dobbs

I'm old enough to remember the 1973 Arab oil embargo. Gas prices went through the roof. At their worst, gas was around $3.00/gal (in today's dollars, and yes, I know that's nothing compared to most of Europe). Pretty nasty when very few cars got over 15mpg.

The problem was that the vast majority of our oil was imported from the Middle East then, so when they stopped shipping there was none to be had at any price, hence the legendary gas lines and odd-even rationing.

I think you make a mistake with this second paragraph. Prices were actually frozen by the government. There WERE sorces of oil to be had -- many domestic -- that were above the price control levels. The oil was there, but the government, through price controls, made it impossible to use profitably. The frozen low-prices also encourged less-efficient use. The price controls threw supply and demand all out of whack. There were huge lines because the price was not high enough to limit demand, and because the price was too low to encourage supply.

One of the first things Reagan did was to remove price controls. More domestic production came online. In 1985 US production actually exceeded that of the Persian Gulf. The short-term increase in prices also forced people to economize. The long lines at the pump went away.

Say what you will about Reagan, but this one act has served us well the past 20+ years.

There's a great review here of the situation by the economist Sowell.

And if you read enough articles, you'd know that what he said last week was plenty accurate and his assessment was more accurate than many that supposedly "know football." But keep carrying that liberal banner way up high if it makes you feel better about yourself. Just don't be surprised when others give you about the same credibility as we give Rob Enderle.

I think Robert might disagree.

A few points:

We're hemorrhaging 400k jobs a month,
No, not exactly. The most recent month statistics shows a net loss of 93,000 jobs. Check it out yourself here.

consumer confidence is going down
In the link above, you'll notice that one month of stastics shows a decline. The trend was upwards all summer long. Essentially things trended upwards over the summer, and are starting to trend downward. One month or two months or even three months is a very small trend. It is *NOT* considered a big economic indicator to have a month of declined consumer confidence.

we're spending more on social services in Iraq then in the U.S
That's patently absurd. The entire budget for the war, social services, rebuilding and operational expenses for the next 12 months does not exceed the cost of one month of social services in the US. Second, are you somehow suggesting that the social welfare of minorities like the Iraqis and muslims is somewhat less valuable than an unemployed person in the US? Which is worth more? Is one okay to be unemployed and the other not? Why? One the surface your statement belies a latent racism/nationalism that is offensive at best and abhorrent at worse.

top administration officials are leaking the names of covert CIA agents
One agent is in question. It is two "senior officals" in question. The persons status has not been necessarily declared to be covert. Not every analyst in the Operations Directorate is a spy. It is likely the husband of the outed agent tipped Novak off himself. Wilson told Novak that he went to Niger at the suggestion of his wife. Novak called around to confirm the story. Additionally, before Novak broke the story it was common knowledge that Plame worked for the CIA. Read Novak's defense of the situation and you'll probably change your mind on the situation.

we have a humongous deficit and an administration that doesn't give a rats ass
Deficts are a long-term problem, not a short-term problem. What you seem to forget is that the world economy and the US economy specifically are cyclical. Boom-bust-boom-bust etc. Look at over time and you'll see essentially its a 9-10 year cycle. I do not agree with the spending patterns of Bush or even of the last administration (or any in the last 40 years really), however, to suggest that the current administration cares not for deficits is false. To solve current deficits would require drastic short term action that is not justified by the severity of the problem. A deficit of 5% of the budget is not a serious long-term concern.

Next November you're going to be enjoying a democratic president back in the white house
Of course, that is possible. Anything is at this point time. But it is speculation, just FYI.

I know, the freepers and little green footballers and NRO and all you guys will attempt to smear the shit out of anyone who shows up but I don't think it will matter
Thats an odd statement, but I dont quite follow. NRO (I assume you mean the NRA?) is as far as organizations go blisteringly forthright about how it selects to endorse candidates. They rate candidates based on issues determined by the executive board and membership at large. They assign points on a 100-point scale and then give out a grade-letter. Are you suggesting that somehow the NRA doesn't have the right to lobby citizens to vote for candidates they support? Are the 1 Million + memberso the NRA not allowed to express their collective political opinions?

Kiss president fucktard good bye.
Bush may well be voted out of office in favor of a democrat. But the bigger issue here is why yourself and the author of the article puts so much weight on the office of President of the US.

The United States is not a central

While Katie Couric complains about GOP candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger being "the son of a Nazi party member" and international media outlets assail Schwarzenegger adviser Pete Wilson as "anti-immigrant" and "racially divisive," the liberal press has been stone-cold silent on Bustamante's connection to one of the nation's most virulently racist organizations. [...] MEChA's liberation agenda, outlined in El Plan de Aztlan, states defiantly:

"We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent. Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggles against the foreigner 'gabacho' who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture."

Substitute "Aryan" for "mestizo" and "white" for "bronze." Not much difference between the nutty philosophy of Bustamante's MEChA and Papa Schwarzenegger's evil Nazi Party. To date, however, the only exposure Bustamante's MEChA history has received has been on the Internet.

It is the desparate grab of a disintegrating party of traitors . Facing oblivion, the DemocRats choose to plame the voting process.

The problem is, of course, who determines what speech is against the principles of free speech and democracy?

If I propose a bill which states that it's purpose is Defending Democracy, and then I attach an ammendment which gives thousands in subsidies to an old country club chum of mine, and you veto the bill, I'll claim that your real goal is to defeat democracy and that you don't care about the ammendment, not really, you nazi/communist/leftist/whatever.

The problem with efforts to curtail free speech is that is does not matter if the intents are noble or base. The problem is that the law is a tool and tools care not for your motivations. So if I can use a tool to curtail your speech for good, why not bad? And the fact is that most restrictions on free speech are not used to protect our person and properties, but rather to eliminate political dissent.

Take the wave of political correctness on campuses in the US in the last few years. Does anyone actually believe that we are protecting students by silencing non-PC speech? Just to cite one case -- the answer is no, this doesn't protect students, it allows the administrators to keep a collar on the students.

Goddamn it, when will people learn? There are only three things that keep us from being chattel of the state/corporations.

1) The benevolence of those institutions and the people who hold positions of power within them.
2) Our ability to engender change by making the facts and our views known to others.
3) Our willingness to rise up and fight if we are fucked with too hard.

If you rely on 1, you're a fool

And you call me a troll...

A couple things:

1) I'm not a Republican, Republicans often like regulation that has nothing to do with the legitimate functions of government ie protection of individual rights.

2) fasâcism n.1. (sometimes cap.)
a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism.
Were this an accurate description of me, I would prefer governmental monopolies. It should be obvious that I don't. None of the other identifiers fit, either.

3) moânopâoâly n., pl. -lies
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
2. the exclusive possession or control of something.
3. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
4. a company or group that has such control.
5. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

4) US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: [The Congress shall have Power] To establish Post Offices and post Roads.

5) Section 8 pertains to powers granted specifically and solely to Congress. In other words, nobody but those specified by Congress can engage in postal business. The USPS is the only entity specified by Congress to engage in postal business.

6) The USPS employs inspectors to covertly monitor private parcel companies, fining them when certain classes (mostly letters) of mail are found to be delivered privately.

7) More information from the Government Accounting Office, here, here

8) I don't particularly care how bad other nations are. I'm not going to stop trying to make things better just because there are worse places. That's an attitude for pessimists or people looking for excuses to stick with the status quo.

Perhaps you'd like to ground your reasons in fact as detailed as I've provided, if you wish to defend your claims further, that is. You should try actually looking at the background details, especially the laws that govern mail. Try starting with the United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 83. It will provide information that you'll have trouble refuting, unless you happen to be a Senator or Congresscritter with sizable political clout. Well, you could do it if you control a majority of the Postal Commission, or the Justice Department.

18 USC Part I Chapter 83 Section 1696 - Private express for letters and packets

(a) Whoever establishes any private express for the conveyance of letters or packets, or in any manner causes or provides for the conveyance of the same by regular trips or at stated periods over any post route which is or may be established by law, or from any city, town, or place to any other city, town, or place, between which the mail is regularly carried, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

This section shall not prohibit any person from receiving and delivering to the nearest post office, postal car, or other authorized depository for mail matter any mail matter properly stamped.

(b) Whoever transmits by private express or other unlawful means, or delivers to any agent thereof, or deposits at any appointed place, for the purpose of being so transmitted any letter or packet, shall be fined under this title.

(c) This chapter shall not prohibit the conveyance or transmission of letters or packets by private hands without compensation, or by special messenger employed for the particular occasion only. Whenever more than twenty-five such letters or packets are conveyed or transmitted by such special messenger, the requirements of section 601 of tit

So I suppose trying to create peace and pro-Americanism is the wrong thing?

By bombing the hell out of foreign countries? If we've gone into the business of "liberating" countries from brutal dictators, we could have started a little closer to home. Fidel Castro has been pulling the same crap for nearly half a century, 50 miles off of our coast. I haven't seen an invasion plan for Cuba yet.

And as far as creating a spirit of pro-Americanism is concerned, if you haven't noticed, we've managed to piss off most of the planet.

Men, women and children getting slaughtered by the thousands every year, and you don't care?

What do you think we just did in Iraq? We just killed over 7000 people there.

And who said the government isn't concentrating on domestic policy?

Bush ran on a platform that included reforming Social Security, reducing the size, scope, cost and intrusiveness of government, and a "humbler foreign policy".

Government spending has increased (and that includes discretionary spending, not just non-discretionary spending), I don't see Social Security reform anywhere in sight. For a reduction of intrusiveness of government we get the Patriot Act, and don't get me started on the "humbler foreign policy".

Any conservative with sense ought to be screaming his head off. The last I heard, conservatives stood for limited, constitutional government and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

We can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

Apparently not.

I don't mean to be rude, but you're believing all of the crap that comes from the media.

So where are you getting your information? Are you privy to sources the rest of us aren't?

Perhaps you need to take a break from the neocon punks at the National Review and spend some time getting familiar with some real conservative philosophers and scholars.

To those of you who may not know who Phyllis Schafly is, it may be informative to read the biography of her on that site.

As a further illustration of the type of news this is, when you visit the site, you get a pop-up window inviting you to receive "commentaries" from Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

Before some of you out there gag, understand that this is an important victory for the opponents of these controlling forces in today's intellectual-property field. It is not just "commie pinko liberals" who are advocating change here, but thoughtful conservative writers as well. If others follow, we may have support building from an unlikely place. I say it's good.

Despite widely held belief that conservatives are pro-business and are willing to support anything that businesses support, famous conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly wrote a column today decrying the way copyrights are used by the media conglomerates. The instances she cites probably won't be new info to /.ers, but some may be surprised the thoughts come from a conservative.

To quote Dr. Thomas Sowell.

People killed at home by family members are highly atypical. The great majority of these victims have had to call the police to their homes before, because of domestic violence, and just over half have had the cops out several times. These are not just ordinary people who happened to lose their temper when a gun was at hand.

Neither are most "children" who are killed by guns just toddlers who happened to find a loaded weapon lying around. More of those "children" are members of teenage criminal gangs who kill each other deliberately.

Some small children do in fact get accidentally killed by guns in the home -- but fewer than drown in bathtubs. Is anyone for banning bathtubs?

Gun Control Myths II

Do a little research before buying into the gun control propaganda.

My impulse is, of course, to be greatly concerned about my privacy with this. Not a bad thing, altogether. But I've done some looking around at what other people have to say on the matter.

On the one hand, I've heard a lot of folks on the radio and read no few columns by smart people saying we need to be paranoid. Rational paranoia's not a bad thing, I think. Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

On the other hand, another writer I like to read has pointed out that, as far as political, legal, and material freedoms goes, we're a lot more free than we have ever been in history, and the very fact that we have a number of people who are incredibly sensitive to violations of civil liberty means that civil servants have to keep on their toes about it. And the Heritage Foundation has published a memo explaining that DARPA's Total Information Awareness isn't quite what Safire of the NYT said it is, and it's not quite what everyone (rightly) fears.

Still, I won't budge from my first point. A little rational paranoia is a healthy thing to have. I've been doing my best to be 'safe', and to teach good habits to my not-so-tech-savvy friends. Now that I've got most of my family Back Home using PGP-friendly e-mail clients, I'm going to take some time to show them just how easy it is to use these nigh-impossible-to-forge signatures when I visit for the holidays.

My impulse is, of course, to be greatly concerned about my privacy with this. Not a bad thing, altogether. But I've done some looking around at what other people have to say on the matter.

On the one hand, I've heard a lot of folks on the radio and read no few columns by smart people saying we need to be paranoid. Rational paranoia's not a bad thing, I think. Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

On the other hand, another writer I like to read has pointed out that, as far as political, legal, and material freedoms goes, we're a lot more free than we have ever been in history, and the very fact that we have a number of people who are incredibly sensitive to violations of civil liberty means that civil servants have to keep on their toes about it. And the Heritage Foundation has published a memo explaining that DARPA's Total Information Awareness isn't quite what Safire of the NYT said it is, and it's not quite what everyone (rightly) fears.

Still, I won't budge from my first point. A little rational paranoia is a healthy thing to have. I've been doing my best to be 'safe', and to teach good habits to my not-so-tech-savvy friends. Now that I've got most of my family Back Home using PGP-friendly e-mail clients, I'm going to take some time to show them just how easy it is to use these nigh-impossible-to-forge signatures when I visit for the holidays.

Come ON. If little piss-ant countries like us in Scandinavia can have National IDs without problems, why shouldn't the big and glorious nation of USA be able to handle it? I find it difficult to believe that your government is so corrupt, so incompetent and so basically naughty that a National ID is impossible without a Big Brother situation. And if it is, why whine about the National ID instead of making sure that the incompetent government goes away?

The whole point of the US, its very raison d'etre, is that it is a country that doesn't have to do things the way the Europeans do. And while we're on the subject of how great the Scandanavian governments are, perhaps you'd care to explain this and this?

Unless there is a freak accident a gun cannot kill you, just like in most cases a hammer will not kill you. However there are evil people who are willing to point a gun in someone's direction and shoot. do you honestly belive anyone willing to break the murder laws would flinch about violating gun laws? "Oops I can't kill him because I don't have a firearm licenses". But if person 2 has a gun it's far more likely that we will have a dead killer, it at least gives person number two a fighting chance if he is armed too. is some beautiful writing on the subject

Guilty of hypocrisy over Iraq? Little known fact is that despite all the bitching from Washington about the lack of inspectors in Iraq etc, they don't allow UN inspectors into some American sites either - and we KNOW that America has weapons of mass destruction, so shouldn't they be monitored too?

Since Bush came to power, America has ripped up more international treaties and conventions, and ignored more UN conventions than the rest of the world combined in the last 20 years. Examples: kyoto is the biggie of course, but america also attempted to dismember many other international bodies

America is steadily isolating every single ally it has. Even the British government is seriously split on the issue. It apparently refuses to listen to anybody except big business, and has firsthand told the world that it will not do anything for the environment if that might mean harm comes to the American economy. They acknowledge the science and even agree with most of it (the rest of the world long ago agreed with all of it, but hey) - yet they still refuse to take action.

Bush preaches free trade as the means of saving the world. Yet he has imposed massive trade barriers to protect inefficient American industries.

The administration is prepared to invade another country pretty much without evidence, and without any political backing from anybody else at all. If the US can invade Iraq because Bush doesn't like Hussein, why is Iraq invading Kuwait bad?

It's the economy stupid.

Ah yes, the campaign slogan of one William Jefferson Clinton. A great view, that resulted in thousands of dead Americans due to lack of foriegn policy. Under Clinton's astute economic watch, we had the first economic bubble in many years that was already bursting by 1999, which had to be covered up by an accounting fiasco that makes Enron look like a lemonade stand. Read some more about Clinton's true contribution to the American economy in the 1990s.

A quote:

A fair assessment of his legacy should therefore begin by asking what, if anything, the President had to do with the economic growth of the last nine and a half years. The answer is: well, nothing really.

Yeah, that slogan is something to be real proud of.

Contrast this balanced review of a fine and nuanced history of an idea with this screed. I can't bring myself to get excited about this retarded debate any longer. We should respond to the Creationist with some patronizing smiles. Treat the Cobb Cty School Board to an awkward, embarrassed silence.

It is not as though the alternative is a poison. If the young minds of Cobb Cty can't be moved from their faulty instruction and misapprehensions by subsequent study, their convictions can be classed as theological and impervious to reason. And politely ignored by reasonable society.

If one rich guy wants to spend all his money on running for office, I say great--let's even out the wealth through the system. But when a bunch of rich guys throw their money together to drown out the little guy--well, that bugs me on a why-does-this-computer-take-so-long-to-boot level.

From your previous post, i rather suspected that you're (formally or informally) trolling for the Dems, but this one proves it. As much as i dislike this phony and destructive Left-Right political paradigm, people like you (and that right-wing idiot who didn't do any fact checking) insist on keeping the ball rolling.

My Sincere Apologies to the thinking/rational members of the /. Community for the excesive length, but "tossed off" facts require real context. SORRY!

Let's deconstruct some of the above post, why don't we?

"Once again you are lying. Insdustries give much more money to republicans while unions tend to give more to democrats. It's the classic struggle. Teachers, cops, firemen, plumbers etc support democrats while CEOs support republicans.

In the last two Federal cycles, Republicans received about 625 million dollars and Democrats received 449 million, or the Democrats recieved about 70% of revenues the Republicans received. Don't know about where you live, but around here, 449 MILLION DOLLARS is a lot of money.

here are some links to real data, you can find verified numbers for just about anything, if you look;

Common Cause
Judical Watch
Federal Election Commission
Roll Call Magazine
Library of Congress' THOMAS legislative info site
Vote dot Com
TownHall dot Com
Pew Research Center (reasonably balanced/verified poll data)

You also neglected to mention some rather important things. Especially as you seem to be attempting to tie the current economic probs to a particular party.

1. The vast majority of Technology CEOs supported Clinton and Gore, and routinely give big donations to the Democratic Party.

2. The vast majority of CEOs in the Finance sectors (stock brokerages, investment banks, bond houses) are also Democrats and are amongst the Dems biggest contributors

3. The Republican Party gets much more of its money from individual "grass roots" contributors (i.e., people sending in twenty or fifty bucks) than the Democratic Party does.

Whereas, the Democratic Party gets the vast majority of its donations from corporations, with very few dollars coming from "grass roots" donations. That's a kinda important point in this discussino, since you seem to be so wound about corporate donations.

4. The two largest contributor groups of the Democratic Party are two of the most regressive and damaging special interests in America. Teachers Unions (NOT the teachers themselves -- for whom i have HUGE respect by and large) and Trial Lawyers.

Teachers Unions have gutted and stalled any meaningful educational reform in this country for 30 years, while students' test scores have plummeted (and they continue to actively obstruct schoool reform) and Trial Lawyers are making it virtually impossible for anyone to start a new business in America without hugely expensive liability insurance (which many entrepeneurs cannot afford). I've done several tech startups in Cali -- next one WON'T be here, i'm done with this messed up state.

Trial lawyers are also increasing the price of virtually every product we buy with frivolous deep pockets liability lawsuits.

The key determinent in politcal fundraising actually seems to be, not so much supposed politcal affiliation, but rather who has control of the House. When the Dems had control of the House (and the White House) they outraised the Republicans by about an average of 20%.

The actual reality is that corporations will give money to whoever can deliver the goods. That will always favor the Party in the Majority. We have the best legislators money can (and does) buy. But, why would any corporation want to waste money on a legislator in the Minority??? What sense does that make? You spend money to buy influence, PERIOD.

When the Republicans took control of the House, they found that they could outraise the Dems, especially in "party building" monies. The reason is generally held to be that whoever controls the House, controls the purse strings. If you're looking for bucks, you go to the Majority Party.

"Once again you are lying. Insdustries give much more money to republicans while unions tend to give more to democrats. It's the classic struggle. Teachers, cops, firemen, plumbers etc support democrats while CEOs support republicans."

nice troll! actually cops and firefighters vote mostly republican (about 68% nationwide), teachers do indeed vote mostly democrat (about 82% nationwide -- though that's starting to change -- there's been nearly a 10% increase nationwide of teachers who are voting republican in the last decade, whoda thunk it?)

(i have no idea how plumbers vote), you're sidestepping the fact that it's actually police and fire unions who give big amounts of their members' dues to far-left candidates.

"All of this adds up to the grim fact that republicans get a ton more money then democrats over all.

True kinda/sorta, but certainly NOT "..a ton more", through the next election cycle, there will probably be about 18-22% advantage for the Republicans. Or about the same numbers that the Dems had over the Republicans when they controlled the House and Senate.

A significant difference, but certainly not fatal. Clearly the Dems aren't attacting voters the way they used to. The Republicans are (and have always been) the "Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight", when it comes to image projection. So, that pretty much suggests that the Dems are just losing their appeal. The Republicans are usually not adroit enough at attack politics, they're too busy blowing off their own media toes. (Look at Bill Simon in Cali,-- this guy couldn't get a BJ in a whorehouse, what were the Republicans thinking????)

From about the 1960's to the late 1980's, the Dems had an (by your standards "large") advantage in money raising. When the Republicans and Gingrich took over the Congress in the '94 mid-terms, the money gap started favoring the Republicans.

My favorite though is "...Combine that with the conservative media and you can explain how they control the country."

Where would this conservatie media be? You've got the looney-tunes Washington Times, the spooky strange FoxNewsChannel and that's about it.

Meanwhile, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washingpost, Time, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS, and most big city newspapers might as well just print the DNC's "Message of the Day".

Limbaugh gives the Republicans a pretty large presence on talk radio. (despite a decade of dire predictions by the Left about Limbaugh fading away, he's still do quite well, fascinating. i woulda never thunk it.)

But the most successful "politics" shows on TV are O'Reilly (yeech, i'm waiting for Bill to allow a guest to complete a sentence before he starts screaming at them) and Larry King, who spends more time discussing his own opinons than his guests. I can't watch EITHER of them without getting a headache. So, I don't.

O'Reilly is hardly a conservative, and while King is technically a liberal, as O'Reilly continues to pummel King in the ratings, King has drifted back to the center.

So the vast majority of media in this country is pretty much Center-Left.

It is also boring, trite and doesn't spend any real time discussing any alternatives to the obviously dysfunctional Left-Right paradigm that has captured the votes of the majority of the few voting Americans and turned off/over about half the eligble voters in America.

I voted for Nader before, and it looks like i'll be doing it again in '04.

.ad afgjk uba dooba doo DRUDGE REPORT 2002
Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers

WASH POST: Bush Admin Split over Iraq...

IRAQ 'CLOSE TO NUCLEAR BOMB GOAL'

Passive smoking can kill your cat... TIMEWARNER to charge flood victims for cable boxes... Archerd: Democrats seeking Hollywood money... Republicans will tie ANWR to Iraq; Say threat in Baghdad necessitates oil drilling in Alaska... Ventura Goofs On God... AP WORLD
AP NATIONAL
AP WASHINGTON
AP BUSINESS
AP ENTERTAINMENT
AP ON THE HOUR
AP HEADLINES
AP BREAKING
SEARCH
Headline:
Date Range:
Within 14 Days Within 13 Days Within 12 Days Within 11 Days Within 10 Days Within 9 Days Within 8 Days Within 7 Days Within 6 Days Within 5 Days Within 4 Days Within 3 Days Within 2 Days Within 1 Day
Any word(s) in article:


ANANOVA
DOW JONES
BLOOMBERG
PAKISTAN WIRE
PAKISTAN BROADCASTING
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC WIRE
ITAR-TASS
KYODO WIRE
PR NEWSWIRE
[SHOWBIZ] PR WIRE
SCRIPPS HOWARD
US INFO WIRE
U.S. NEWSWIRE
WORLDWIRES
XINHUA ABC NEWS
AD AGE DEADLINE
BBC
BBC AUDIO
BILLBOARD
BOSTON GLOBE
BROADCASTING & CABLE
CBS NEWS
C-SPAN SCHEDULE
CHICAGO TRIB
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
CNN
CNN TRANSCRIPTS
DAILY VARIETY
D.C. DAYBOOK
E!
ELECTRONIC MEDIA
EMERGENCY NET
ENT WEEKLY
FINANCIAL TIMES
FORBES MAG
FOX NEWS
INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIB
HILL
H'WOOD REPORTER
HUMAN EVENTS
INSIGHT MAG
INVEST BUS DAILY
JERUSALEM POST
JEWISH WORLD REVIEW
LA DAILY NEWS
LA TIMES
LUCIANNE.COM
MEDIA CHECK
MEDIA LIFE
MSNBC
MUCHMUSIC
NATION
NATIONAL ENQUIRER
NATIONAL REVIEW
NEW REPUBLIC
NY DAILY NEWS
NY OBSERVER
NY POST
NY TIMES
NEW YORKER
NEWSBYTES
NEWSWEEK
N. KOREAN NEWS
PEOPLE MAG
R & R
REASON MAG
ROLL CALL
SKY NEWS
SLATE: PAPERS
STAR
TIME MAG
TV SHOPTALK
[U.K.] DAILY MIRROR
DAILY RECORD
[U.K.] EVENING STANDARD
[U.K.] EXPRESS
[U.K.] GUARDIAN
[U.K.] INDEPENDENT
[U.K.] NEWS OF THE WORLD
[U.K.] PEOPLENEWS
[U.K.] STAR
[U.K.] SUN
U.K. TABLOIDS
[U.K.] TELEGRAPH
[U.K.] TIMES
US NEWS
USA TODAY
VILLAGE VOICE
WASH POST
WASH TIMES
WEEKLY STANDARD
WORLDNETDAILY
UPDATE: Mob Kills 2 in Ill. After Van Crash... US Senate Fails to Pass Medicare Drug Plan... Agents leaving Border Patrol in droves, union says... French spa to host next G8 summit... GLASSMAN/HASSETT: Dow 36000 Revisited... MATT DRUDGE
3 AM GIRLS
CINDY ADAMS
ARMY ARCHERD
DAVE BARRY
MICHAEL BARONE
PETER BART
BOB BARTLEY
STEPHEN BATTAGLIO
MARILYN BECK/SMITH
BLANKLEY
GLORIA BORGER
L. BRENT BOZELL
BRESLIN
DAVID BRODER
PAT BUCHANAN
BILL BUCKLEY
MONA CHAREN
ELEANOR CLIFT
RICHARD COHEN
PAUL COLFORD
JOE CONASON
ANN COULTER
STANLEY CROUCH
MICHAEL DALY
LOU DOBBS
MAUREEN DOWD
STEVE DUNLEAVY
ROGER EBERT
JOSEPH FARAH
SUZANNE FIELDS
ARI FLEISCHER
MICHAEL FLEMING
ROGER FRIEDMAN
JOHN FUND
LEAH GARCHIK
BILL GERTZ
GEORGIE GEYER
JONAH GOLDBERG
ELLEN GOODMAN
MARTIN GROVE
LLOYD GROVE
PETE HAMILL
CARL HIAASEN
NAT HENTOFF
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
H'WOOD REPORTER E-MAIL
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON
INSIDE BELTWAY
INSIDE POLITICS
INSIDE THE RING
MOLLY IVINS
AL KAMEN
MICKEY KAUS
KEITH J. KELLY
MICHAEL KELLY
MICHAEL KINSLEY
HARRY KNOWLES
MORT KONDRACKE
KRAUTHAMMER
LARRY KUDLOW
HOWIE KURTZ
JOHN LEO
DAVID LIMBAUGH
RUSH LIMBAUGH
HAL LINDSEY
RICH LOWRY
MICHELLE MALKIN
CHRIS MATTHEWS
MARY MCGRORY
MICHAEL MEDVED
DICK MORRIS
PEGGY NOONAN
BOB NOVAK
OFF THE RECORD
KATE O'BEIRNE
MARVIN OLASKY
BILL O'REILLY
PAGE SIX
ANDREA PEYSER
JIM PINKERTON
JOHN PODHORETZ
TV PROGRAMMING INSIDER
WES PRUDEN
ANNA QUINDLEN
WILLIAM RASPBERRY
REX REED
RICHARD REEVES
J. MAX ROBINS
RICHARD ROEPER
RUSH/MOLLOY
BILL SAFIRE
SCHLAFLY
TOM SHALES
GAIL SHISTER
LIZ SMITH
MICHAEL SNEED
JOE SOBRAN
THOMAS SOWELL
ANDREW SULLIVAN
HELEN THOMAS
CAL THOMAS
HUNTER S. THOMPSON
NEAL TRAVIS
TV COLUMN
DEB WEISS
JEFFREY WELLS
GEORGE WILL
WALTER WILLIAMS
WASHINGTON WHISPERS
BILL ZWECKER
GERTH ZEROS IN ON CHENEY... AIRLINES TO TRIM FLIGHTS ON SEPT 11... Accounting controls on EU budget 'unreliable'... Man Accused of Raping Nine Women He Met Through Internet... Pentagon: Hamas experimenting with chemical weapons... AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
AFP INTERNATIONAL
AFP NEWS WRAP
AFX
UPI WIRE
UPI NATIONAL
UPI WORLD
AP/REUTERS PHOTO WIRE
REUTERS ROUNDUP
REUTERS SPOTLIGHT
REUTERS WORLD
REUTERS POLITICS
REUTERS ODD
SEARCH






*FINDS ANY STORY LINKED ON DRUDGE WEATHER ACTION
QUAKE SHEET x x x x x VISITS TO DRUDGE
07/31/02

004,776,309 IN PAST 24 HOURS
107,519,403 IN PAST 31 DAYS
895,224,122 IN PAST YEAR DRUDGE ARCHIVES DRUDGE REFERENCE DESK EMAIL: DRUDGE@DRUDGEREPORT.COM SUPER-POWERED BY ALLEGIANCE TELECOM... DRUDGE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB SPEECH TRANSCRIPT

.ad afgjk uba dooba doo DRUDGE REPORT 2002
Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers

WASH POST: Bush Admin Split over Iraq...

IRAQ 'CLOSE TO NUCLEAR BOMB GOAL'

Passive smoking can kill your cat... TIMEWARNER to charge flood victims for cable boxes... Archerd: Democrats seeking Hollywood money... Republicans will tie ANWR to Iraq; Say threat in Baghdad necessitates oil drilling in Alaska... Ventura Goofs On God... AP WORLD
AP NATIONAL
AP WASHINGTON
AP BUSINESS
AP ENTERTAINMENT
AP ON THE HOUR
AP HEADLINES
AP BREAKING
SEARCH
Headline:
Date Range:
Within 14 Days Within 13 Days Within 12 Days Within 11 Days Within 10 Days Within 9 Days Within 8 Days Within 7 Days Within 6 Days Within 5 Days Within 4 Days Within 3 Days Within 2 Days Within 1 Day
Any word(s) in article:


ANANOVA
DOW JONES
BLOOMBERG
PAKISTAN WIRE
PAKISTAN BROADCASTING
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC WIRE
ITAR-TASS
KYODO WIRE
PR NEWSWIRE
[SHOWBIZ] PR WIRE
SCRIPPS HOWARD
US INFO WIRE
U.S. NEWSWIRE
WORLDWIRES
XINHUA ABC NEWS
AD AGE DEADLINE
BBC
BBC AUDIO
BILLBOARD
BOSTON GLOBE
BROADCASTING & CABLE
CBS NEWS
C-SPAN SCHEDULE
CHICAGO TRIB
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
CNN
CNN TRANSCRIPTS
DAILY VARIETY
D.C. DAYBOOK
E!
ELECTRONIC MEDIA
EMERGENCY NET
ENT WEEKLY
FINANCIAL TIMES
FORBES MAG
FOX NEWS
INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIB
HILL
H'WOOD REPORTER
HUMAN EVENTS
INSIGHT MAG
INVEST BUS DAILY
JERUSALEM POST
JEWISH WORLD REVIEW
LA DAILY NEWS
LA TIMES
LUCIANNE.COM
MEDIA CHECK
MEDIA LIFE
MSNBC
MUCHMUSIC
NATION
NATIONAL ENQUIRER
NATIONAL REVIEW
NEW REPUBLIC
NY DAILY NEWS
NY OBSERVER
NY POST
NY TIMES
NEW YORKER
NEWSBYTES
NEWSWEEK
N. KOREAN NEWS
PEOPLE MAG
R & R
REASON MAG
ROLL CALL
SKY NEWS
SLATE: PAPERS
STAR
TIME MAG
TV SHOPTALK
[U.K.] DAILY MIRROR
DAILY RECORD
[U.K.] EVENING STANDARD
[U.K.] EXPRESS
[U.K.] GUARDIAN
[U.K.] INDEPENDENT
[U.K.] NEWS OF THE WORLD
[U.K.] PEOPLENEWS
[U.K.] STAR
[U.K.] SUN
U.K. TABLOIDS
[U.K.] TELEGRAPH
[U.K.] TIMES
US NEWS
USA TODAY
VILLAGE VOICE
WASH POST
WASH TIMES
WEEKLY STANDARD
WORLDNETDAILY
UPDATE: Mob Kills 2 in Ill. After Van Crash... US Senate Fails to Pass Medicare Drug Plan... Agents leaving Border Patrol in droves, union says... French spa to host next G8 summit... GLASSMAN/HASSETT: Dow 36000 Revisited... MATT DRUDGE
3 AM GIRLS
CINDY ADAMS
ARMY ARCHERD
DAVE BARRY
MICHAEL BARONE
PETER BART
BOB BARTLEY
STEPHEN BATTAGLIO
MARILYN BECK/SMITH
BLANKLEY
GLORIA BORGER
L. BRENT BOZELL
BRESLIN
DAVID BRODER
PAT BUCHANAN
BILL BUCKLEY
MONA CHAREN
ELEANOR CLIFT
RICHARD COHEN
PAUL COLFORD
JOE CONASON
ANN COULTER
STANLEY CROUCH
MICHAEL DALY
LOU DOBBS
MAUREEN DOWD
STEVE DUNLEAVY
ROGER EBERT
JOSEPH FARAH
SUZANNE FIELDS
ARI FLEISCHER
MICHAEL FLEMING
ROGER FRIEDMAN
JOHN FUND
LEAH GARCHIK
BILL GERTZ
GEORGIE GEYER
JONAH GOLDBERG
ELLEN GOODMAN
MARTIN GROVE
LLOYD GROVE
PETE HAMILL
CARL HIAASEN
NAT HENTOFF
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
H'WOOD REPORTER E-MAIL
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON
INSIDE BELTWAY
INSIDE POLITICS
INSIDE THE RING
MOLLY IVINS
AL KAMEN
MICKEY KAUS
KEITH J. KELLY
MICHAEL KELLY
MICHAEL KINSLEY
HARRY KNOWLES
MORT KONDRACKE
KRAUTHAMMER
LARRY KUDLOW
HOWIE KURTZ
JOHN LEO
DAVID LIMBAUGH
RUSH LIMBAUGH
HAL LINDSEY
RICH LOWRY
MICHELLE MALKIN
CHRIS MATTHEWS
MARY MCGRORY
MICHAEL MEDVED
DICK MORRIS
PEGGY NOONAN
BOB NOVAK
OFF THE RECORD
KATE O'BEIRNE
MARVIN OLASKY
BILL O'REILLY
PAGE SIX
ANDREA PEYSER
JIM PINKERTON
JOHN PODHORETZ
TV PROGRAMMING INSIDER
WES PRUDEN
ANNA QUINDLEN
WILLIAM RASPBERRY
REX REED
RICHARD REEVES
J. MAX ROBINS
RICHARD ROEPER
RUSH/MOLLOY
BILL SAFIRE
SCHLAFLY
TOM SHALES
GAIL SHISTER
LIZ SMITH
MICHAEL SNEED
JOE SOBRAN
THOMAS SOWELL
ANDREW SULLIVAN
HELEN THOMAS
CAL THOMAS
HUNTER S. THOMPSON
NEAL TRAVIS
TV COLUMN
DEB WEISS
JEFFREY WELLS
GEORGE WILL
WALTER WILLIAMS
WASHINGTON WHISPERS
BILL ZWECKER
GERTH ZEROS IN ON CHENEY... AIRLINES TO TRIM FLIGHTS ON SEPT 11... Accounting controls on EU budget 'unreliable'... Man Accused of Raping Nine Women He Met Through Internet... Pentagon: Hamas experimenting with chemical weapons... AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
AFP INTERNATIONAL
AFP NEWS WRAP
AFX
UPI WIRE
UPI NATIONAL
UPI WORLD
AP/REUTERS PHOTO WIRE
REUTERS ROUNDUP
REUTERS SPOTLIGHT
REUTERS WORLD
REUTERS POLITICS
REUTERS ODD
SEARCH






*FINDS ANY STORY LINKED ON DRUDGE WEATHER ACTION
QUAKE SHEET x x x x x VISITS TO DRUDGE
07/31/02

004,776,309 IN PAST 24 HOURS
107,519,403 IN PAST 31 DAYS
895,224,122 IN PAST YEAR DRUDGE ARCHIVES DRUDGE REFERENCE DESK EMAIL: DRUDGE@DRUDGEREPORT.COM SUPER-POWERED BY ALLEGIANCE TELECOM... DRUDGE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB SPEECH TRANSCRIPT

You always fall back to simple disagreement, or an offensive presentation of disagreement, as if hate speech would not exist.

I suppose I have in examples. And I agree words have power. The pen truly is often mightier than the sword. And I agree hate speech is not a good thing. But I think we give too much credit to blatant hate speech by banning it.

Come on! Of course we can go to extremes both ways. There is no simple answer.

But the US Supreme Court found my extreme compelling enough to rule for the plaintiff in ACLU v Reno and strike down the COPA, which theoretically banned all such works.

Does a civilised justice system work the same way? Yes. It is not about mechanical rules. They do not apply either to people or to speech. Example: We know what terrorism is (killing civilians) and we know what collateral damage is (killing civilians), but there is a world of a difference between the two, and we do see it.

Agreed. Laws have to consider certain non-mechanical standards all the time. Due dilligence, reasonable person, probable cause, you name it. It's not a crime to throw away an incriminating document because you don't need it anymore, but it is a crime to do so to conceal a crime - tricky ground. Sometimes, as is the case with objectionable speech, the ground is too tricky and a civillized justice system also rejects laws which are vague, arbitray, capricious, or overbroad. Consider this piece by George Carlin. Is it hate speech? I think it's insightful and witty, and it makes a compelling argument against religion IMHO, while being incredibly blunt. A friend thought it should be banned as promoting anti-Catholic bigotry. The "reasonable person" test falls apart pretty fast when we start talking about speech.

We should be mature enough and we should regard ourselves mature enough to at least try to judge what we do (and that includes speech) and what it leads to.

Not in America, at least, where we elect prosecutors who must come up with sensational cases to gain reelection. (I infer from your spelling you are not an American). Consider this example of a man prosecuted for writing stories which involved sexual acts with children. While actual child pornography is a horrible thing, the child pornography boogeyman is used to justify the prohibition of anything distateful to the majority.

Those who want more information on the farce that was Durban may wish to check out this article -- the punchline being that I sort of doubt the Arab delegates holding up signs which said `Too bad Hitler didn't finish the job' were aiming just at Zionism, and not at Jews in general...

Balanced reporting, and they often scoop the Big Players too.

• World Net Daily
• Drudge Report
• News Max
• Townhall
• Lucianne
• Jewish World Review
• Front Page Magazine
• Cybercast News Service

Fox has pretty good, balanced news, too.

Um. No. I vehemently disagree with you. Global Warming is bunk. We only have about 100 years worth of weather data. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU SAY HUMANS CAUSE THIS WITH THIS DATA! It isn't enough! The world is around 3 billion years old ( I think that's it....) and we are trying to say that us humans who have only been here part of that time caused this? No, US folks are skeptical of scientists who talk out there butt. Weather patterns are CYCLICAL! Just because I ain't freezing my butt of now and walking thru 10-12 inches of snow does not mean that the globe, as a whole is any warmer. Do you realize that Texas has had more snow then Columbus, OH?? That's almost unheard of. Also, I believe Texas has also been colder then we are too. Some people will say that global warming caused this chaotic pattern. BS. We don't have anywhere near enough data to prove global warming. Any scientist saying we do should tear up his PhD.....now and go start selling burgers at McDonald's.

Also there's no such thing as an unbiased news source. We're humans. We have opinions and try as we might, we can't always suppress them.

Also, an another note, for the freaks who say we don't have enough oil, well, if we'd drill in ANWR we'd stabilize the market. If we get off of our butts and tap the oil in the Gulf of Mexico, we could be self sustaining and not need oil from saudi. This is a fact (wish I could atrribute a source but it's late and I am going to bed after this). Here's an interesting link about ANWR. The reasons these ecological wackos have come up make no sense and have no scientific backing except some crap some scientists who liked the idea has drawn up.

I am not saying we should not explore alternatives that are cleaner then gasoline. Hydrogen and fuel cells hold great promise not just from an environmental sense, but from a business sense as well. Imagine if we all had a fuel cell on our house. We'd no longer be dependent on wires going underground and into our house and no longer would we have to worry about lightening striking the above ground wiring because there would be none. When ever Hydrogen is cheap (it's cheap now...), you'd just fill it up and be good to go. The waste water created by the reaction could be ran through a filter, and used to flush toilets or take showers or heck even drink. Who WOULDN'T want this? Even the big oil would want a piece of this. The good thing is if we actually tap the Gulf adequately, we could be assured we would have enough oil until this stuff is perfected. Right now, if we decided to bomb someone in the middle east, we may as well grab ahold of a bank loan to buy gas cuz it's going to go up. My biggest point here, is that it doesn't have to be this way. it's only this way becase a small MINORITY thinks the sky is falling when it's not.

Like most Europeans I have a (mandatory) national - in my case German - I.D., and up to this point I do not feel spied on or deprived of any kind of liberty.
In the U.S., the attitude towards a national I.D. seems to range from scepticism to demonization to outright paranoia.
This is an honest question, not trying to make anyone angry: What's the big deal? How does a national ID infringe on liberties?

Alex

P.S.: If you would like to tell me that Europe is already under the control of Martians/Illuminati/New World Order/Jews/Bilderbergs etc.: Please don't. In that case, I would like to stay ignorant and cheerful ;)

2) Newt Gingrich was for ditching crypto controls several years ago, wrote a very nice two page essay in Boardwatch Magazine (which I still have). Newt, while no longer in office, is about as pro-technology as you can get. Meanwhile, it took massive bribes--er, "contributions" from Silicon Valley to get the Clintonistas to finally back off on those crypto regs.

3) Larry Ellison, Scott McNealy, and various other tech $billionaires bribed the Clinton Administration into declaring war against their competitor Microsoft. Up until then, SV was largely apolitical. Now everyone knows that if they don't make their "contributions" to the Democratic Party, bad things might happen to them.

4) Read Nat Hentoff's (libertarian First Amendment advocate) syndicated columns for more interesting info.

I see President Bush promoting filtering software and parental supervision as a means of countering 'net porn, which, by golly, is all he's been doing.

And we right-wingers have been heavy users of the 'net to get our political message past the liberal media censors (National Review, Town Hall, Matt Drudge, etc). We probably wouldn't have won this past election without the 'net and most of us know it.