Slashdot Mirror

• Obama hates white people.
• Obama is a Muslim.
• Obama is a drug abuser . . . and
• Obama is a homo.

Well if you believe worldnetdaily then read this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56174

It suggests that Fatah also has some support from the CIA.

Whether it's true or not it was obvious that Bush and Co were rather displeased when Hamas was elected into power, I suppose they would have preferred Fatah? Unfortunately for Bush and Co they didn't used Diebold machines for those elections, otherwise they might now have a US Gov approved democracy ;).

Actually, I take it back, it appears the man who planned the attack was, according to Israeli and Palistinian authorities, "an activist in Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization", and "received financing from Hezbollah". (source).

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5

It does not say He didn't make light-producing objects, just not the sun and stars. Besides, God Himself radiates light, as it says in book of Revelation (in the prophecy about the New Earth that says there will be no need for sun or stars).

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8

The higher waters are the clouds in the atmosphere. The lower waters are the seas.

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11

God created plants as mature plants, not as seeds. They survived just fine for the period of less than 24 hours until the sun was created.

In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14

No, the signs are for day-times, seasons, and holy days. The other verses TELL you exactly what the nature of the "signs" are. This is an example of WILLING ignore-ance. There's no way you can't see the answer.

"I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat." 1:29

That is exactly correct! ... in the English of the era of King James. I strongly discommend the use of the KJV Bible. The Hebrew word rendered "meat" there is related to the word for "eat." It means "food," which is how all modern Bibles translate it.

God created a man and a woman, and he "called their name Adam." So the woman's name was Adam, too! 5:2

The word "adam" in Hebrew is not necessarily masculine. It means "person" or "humankind."

When Noah was 500 years old, he had three sons. [Three sons in one year? Was that with one (nameless) wife or several?] 5:32

This statement is repeated again in 6:10, so the timing of the begetting is ambiguous. 6:18 says Noah had one wife.

Esau and Jacob were already fighting each other in the womb. 25:22

This is a great spiritual truth. They are still fighting today in the Holy Land.

God removes the wheels from the Egyptians' chariots. 14:25

Here is the evidence. Old news, really. There are a few videos about this.

God divided the sea with a "blast of [his] nostrils." 15:8

The Bible frequently resorts to anthropomorphism in describing God. Otherwise, there would be no way to intimately describe an infinite God.

God gives detailed instructions for performing ritualistic animal sacrifices. such bloody rituals must be important to God, judging from the number of times that he repeats their instructions. Indeed the entire first nine chapters of Leviticus can be summarized as follows: Get an animal, kill it, sprinkle the blood around, cut the dead animal into pieces, and burn it for a "sweet savor unto the Lord." Chapters 1 - 9

Yes, because there is no atonement f

Oh you mean like how the Australian parliament figured out the implications of the and rejected them in favour of sanity?

You don't understand, those laws are great! I mean sure, people still get murdered, but it's more likely to be with a knife that a GUN *shrieks hysterically*. Wouldn't you feel much better to have yourself or a family member killed by a knife instead of a GUN *shrieks hysterically*. (Sorry, I have to shriek whenever that word is mentioned, it's the law)

Just how pathetic is it here? The QLD Police recommend screaming as one of the most effective self defense methods. If you can't run away that is. Its shameful.

It would be easier to buy firearms illegally than legally here, and even if you have a firearm legally, self defence is an illegal use of that firearm and would likely result in you being charged and loosing your license, even if it was against an armed intruder.

Note to USians: make adoption of the Bill of Rights a condition of US/Australia free trade agreements. Please. Or include much more liberal immigration agreements with us, make it easier for us to escape to freedom.

Yeah the funniest part about that story was when those non-existent WMDs killed a whole bunch of non-existent people.

Armed only with reality, I have karma to burn.

Well there's always the Che poster hanging at an Obama office. Story

Read all about druggy Barack Hussein Obamba, the Muslim queer.

this is all encompassing.

think about this for a second. 50 years ago 90% of the things you see on television or with advertisement in general today would have been considered absolutely detestable by the majority of the population. people like to pat themselves on the back and say "there has always been homosexuality, sodomy, etc. there is nothing different." i disagree. the difference is the amount of people forcing their opinion.

think about what i just said very carefully- if i tell people what my opinion (and /why/ my opinion) is about say for example, religion, anyone that disagrees within earshot range will walk off thinking 'blah blah blah go force your opinion somewhere else.' you see, back in the day sodomy and homosexuality were seen for what they are, a detestable danger to us personally and to our society (though our social fabric that bound us together was already dissolving, i can assure you homosexuality sped the process up by far)

the question is: why is it that only 50 years ago it was considered such an awful thing by most of society, and now it is not only embraced but forced (because if you dont bow down and say that they 'cant help who they have sex with' you are considered a borderline prejudiced hateful person) as a 'normal' thing on other people.

i think i know the answer

see 50 years ago people were ashamed of this type of thing, it wasnt something you went on tv and said "hey guess what!! i came out of the closet!! clap for me!!", only recently did it become more widespread and IMHO it was because people (mostly the gay community) were forcing their opinions on everyone else. if you dont accept us IN EVERY LIFE DECISION WE HAVE MADE you are a bad person.

if i decided today to walk out of my house today wearing a fluorescent green suit with bright orange pokadots guess what? i am subject to whatever anyones opinion of me is. i know right now that if i did that, most people dont, and therefor society would throw it in my face for being different. its sad, but that is simply the way it goes. its sad that people will judge you based simply on your appearance but this is the way of the world (especailly after edward bernays and sigmund frAud). now, it would be absolutely and completely wrong of me to say "HEY, I CHOSE TO WEAR THIS SUIT, THAT MEANS YOU CANT JUDGE ME BASED ON THAT FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER." EVEN IF i get a whole group of people together to wear the suit with me, justbecause we all wear it DOES NOT mean that ANYONE ELSE has to agree with it NOR embrace it. its OUR CHOICE regardless if the rest of society applauds or condemns me.

i have chosen a life of celibacy because many years ago i was a hopeless sex addict, that is my choice.
if i decide tomorrow to change and have sex with a woman, that is my choice.
if i decide the next day to change and have sex with a man, that is my choice.
but for me to say "this is what i do, and you HAVE to accept it and embrace it" is bull and is the definition of forcing an opinion

i am convinced that the only reason we see this spread of homosexuality is because over the last 50 years it slowly became more commmon to see people coming out blantantly proclaiming that its normal, then the next thing you have is crap like what happened in mass a few years ago-

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44306

can you believe that garbage? school children being told that fisting and anal sex are completely normal and to experiment with their classmates-- granted they wear protection. like a 14 year old man can even being to understand the complexities of what sex really means.

every look you give, every word you say, every word you write sends ripples down through the ages far past your death that directly influence the opinions of people that havent even been born yet.

im totally going to buy henrey mackows (the creator of the game Scruples) two new books. i

Highly unlikely. At least it's highly unlikely EVERYONE would die. There's been instances of explosive decompression (and all from holes much bigger than a bullet hole) where the plane has gone on to safely land. Hell, an entire section of roof blew off an airliner (Aloha Airlines Flight 243), and the only death was a stewardess, who was not buckled in to a seat.

Fact is, a bullet hole (or 2, or 3, or 6) are not large enough to cause catastrophic explosive decompression capable of killing everyone on board.

Mythbusters, while not exactly highly scientific also tested the myth. They sealed a 737 and pressurized it so that the difference in air pressure was the same as if the plane had been at something like 30,000 feet. Bullet holes did nothing. They had to actually resort to explosives to get any kind of result, and even then only the dummy's arm was sucked out the hole.

You're also assuming that she would hit the walls of the plane. There's a good chance a gun battle would be fought up and down the airliner from one end to the other, not from across the aisles. This means there's a good chance the bullets would strike seats, passengers, or bulkheads instead of the fuselage. Even though a .44 round is a pretty hefty round, it might not have enough energy after "blowing a hole through a perp" to even penetrate the fuselage (a lot of this would depend on the type of bullet).

I believe Boeing has also done tests that show it to be safe. And there's also been incidents of terrorists discharging small arms fire inside airliners, with no explosive decompression.

And if there was a serious threat of this, do you really think the FAA and the Airline Pilots Association (or whatever it's called) would have voted to allow air marshals to carry pistols?

A few instances of explosive decompression resulting from holes much more serious than a bullet hole(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390



And an article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26481

According to him:

"It's funny. It's cute. But here's what I really think about the theory of evolution: It's not real. It is not the way we got here. In fact, the life you see on this planet is really just a list of creatures God has allowed to live. We are not creations of random chance. We are not accidents. There is a God, a Creator, who made you and me. We were made in His image, which separates us from all other creatures."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52567

Well, obviously, the White House ordered these attacks. They've been trying to delay the opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse for years and now that it is finally almost here, and their plans to invade Iran are dwindling, this is all they can do. And sadly, I'm sure it will work, too. That's how they prop up the US Dollar -- For the past 50 years, there have been only 2 places in the entire world where one can legally buy oil and both require US Dollars. Now, that will remain the case for another year. Of course, Russia is working on it, too as well as Venezuela, but they're a long way off and lots can go wrong between now and then. Maybe another military invasion? :o(

Everything that Dr. Paul has ever done and all the ideals he stands for seek the end of racism. The entire accusation was constructed by professional counterintelligence personel.

What, Daily Kos is full of professional counterintelligence personel?? That's the wackiest conspiracy theory I've heard in years.

Unfortunately for them anyone who actually looks into it or even just hears his side of the story will realize it's a joke.

His "side of the story" is that he has no idea how those nasty articles got into the newsletter he published under his own name. Which would mean he's not even competent to run a 'zine, much less a country. Yes, his side of the story is a joke...

calling a respectable candidate who's served in congress for 20 years and has a respectable record a "batshit crazy racist loon" is quite possibly the worst ad hominem attack I have ever heard in my life. It shows you have no ground to stand on to debate his views without distorting them and have to focus on attacking the man.

He's not a respectable candidate; the fact that he served in Congress for 20 years proves nothing. And it's not ad hominem to attack a person's batshit crazy views on biology, medicine, religion, and government, or to point out his backdoor route to getting pork for his district.

But it's ok, the vast majority of people see through your games little cointelpro agent and we'll be knocking on your door soon demanding you pay your dues to our society.

Now I'm a COINTELPRO agent because I point out Paul's flaws? Shit, that's the wackiest conspiracy theory I've heard in my life. Yes, all these years of professing my politics on USENET, /., mailing lists, and so on, were just so I'd be in a position to denounce Ron Paul if he ever ran for President. My blog is an FBI front. Yeah. Time to refill the prescription for those anti-psychotic meds, my friend.

An example of a large medical product that the US government does efficiently is Medicare.

They have overhead that is about 1/3 that of private insurance...

Medicare is an iceberg that the USA is heading for, along with its smaller yet also dangerous sibling, Social Security. On our current course, in a few decades, all tax revenues taken by the US will be spent on entitlements for a very small percentage of the population. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the population does not rely on Medicare and Social Security for health care and retirement, and the sectors that are paying for the latter's private health care and retirement are doing great. Medicare and SS are horribly insolvent, versus a booming private sector. Which one is more efficient?

As Ravenshrike said, Medicare does not have to follow GAAP accounting rules, either in its own internal accounting, or in reimbursement. although the CBO has started keeping track of things that way just for the hell of it, and I can assure you that GAAP accounting does not show any such 1/3 advantage.

See: Real budget deficit: $4 trillion, an article about a problem scarier than the RIAA, the MPAA, Al Qaeda, and the ACLU combined.

But another huge reason Medicare is able to operate at the costs it does (remember, those costs are still going to bankrupt the USA and make US Treasury Bonds into junk bonds if something isn't done) is that the sheer size (and government-vested authority) of the program allows it to negotiate drug prices, and dictate reimbursement costs to doctors, something that can't be done in the private sector due to antitrust laws.

So you can't brag about something Medicare can do that would be illegal in the private sector, which includes accounting principles that would have any private corporation's accountants in supermax prison for a minimum of 20 years under Sarbanes-Oxley. It is ironic, indeed, that you are making the argument that Medicare, which essentially dictates the prices of drugs made by Big Pharma, is more efficient than the private system, in a thread about how capping the profits of Big Pharma is a bad thing - since such price controls would dry up the very investment that gave rise to said drugs - especially when such activities would be illegal if private health insurers tried it!

while the people that are on it rank it far higher than people rank their private insurance companies.

That which robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul. But Peter's grandkids are going to be really pissed when the real-world bills come due.

Medicare is a hopelessly doomed ponzi scheme that is going to ruin the US economy. Anyone who would use this program, of all programs, as some paragon of fiscal wisdom simply should stick to open source software debates, or wherever his real expertise may lie.

An example of a large medical product that the US government does efficiently is Medicare.

They have overhead that is about 1/3 that of private insurance...

Medicare is an iceberg that the USA is heading for, along with its smaller yet also dangerous sibling, Social Security. On our current course, in a few decades, all tax revenues taken by the US will be spent on entitlements for a very small percentage of the population. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the population does not rely on Medicare and Social Security for health care and retirement, and the sectors that are paying for the latter's private health care and retirement are doing great. Medicare and SS are horribly insolvent, versus a booming private sector. Which one is more efficient?

As Ravenshrike said, Medicare does not have to follow GAAP accounting rules, either in its own internal accounting, or in reimbursement. although the CBO has started keeping track of things that way just for the hell of it, and I can assure you that GAAP accounting does not show any such 1/3 advantage.

See: Real budget deficit: $4 trillion, an article about a problem scarier than the RIAA, the MPAA, Al Qaeda, and the ACLU combined.

But another huge reason Medicare is able to operate at the costs it does (remember, those costs are still going to bankrupt the USA and make US Treasury Bonds into junk bonds if something isn't done) is that the sheer size (and government-vested authority) of the program allows it to negotiate drug prices, and dictate reimbursement costs to doctors, something that can't be done in the private sector due to antitrust laws.

So you can't brag about something Medicare can do that would be illegal in the private sector, which includes accounting principles that would have any private corporation's accountants in supermax prison for a minimum of 20 years under Sarbanes-Oxley. It is ironic, indeed, that you are making the argument that Medicare, which essentially dictates the prices of drugs made by Big Pharma, is more efficient than the private system, in a thread about how capping the profits of Big Pharma is a bad thing - since such price controls would dry up the very investment that gave rise to said drugs - especially when such activities would be illegal if private health insurers tried it!

while the people that are on it rank it far higher than people rank their private insurance companies.

That which robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul. But Peter's grandkids are going to be really pissed when the real-world bills come due.

Medicare is a hopelessly doomed ponzi scheme that is going to ruin the US economy. Anyone who would use this program, of all programs, as some paragon of fiscal wisdom simply should stick to open source software debates, or wherever his real expertise may lie.

We have strict gun control because it's inconvenient to muggers and bank thieves when potential victims have large bore semi-autos, too.

There, fixed it for you.

Crime up Down Under

Believe it or not, some of us have moved past Geography 101

I guess American's no longer have the monopoly on arrogance.

He's used the Chuck Norris jokes in an op-ed piece to further his christianist agenda: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52567

And he's appeared in a Mike Huckabee advertisement also involving the jokes.

IAAL. He's gonna lose.

WorldNetDaily Exclusive:

Many American kids may be disappointed on Christmas morning because the Sony PlayStation 2 they wanted wound up in Iraq.

Both the U.S. Customs Service and the FBI are investigating the apparent transfer of large numbers of Sony PlayStation 2s to Iraq, according to military intelligence sources.... "Most Americans don't realize that each PlayStation unit contains a CPU -- every bit as powerful as the processor found in most desktop and laptop computers," said one military intelligence officer who declined to be identified.

Yes, this is prone to abuse. No, it can not be effectively audited by the public without "compromising" (or even "jeopardizing") "the mission". The only relief comes from the knowledge, that any evidence illegally collected still can not be used against anyone in the court of law...

Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson

Here's the text from a google search and finding another blog carrying the text:

By Joe Kovacs
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Google's commemoration of Veterans Day 2007, the first time it has honored the U.S. holiday
It took nearly a decade, but Internet giant Google is finally honoring Veterans Day with a special holiday design for its famous logo.
Users who log onto Google's home page today will see three World War I-era helmets capping the letters "o" and "e" in Google's name.
The decoration is a marked departure for the company, which has come under fire from veterans' groups for ignoring American holidays such as Veterans Day and Memorial Day since Google's inception in 1999.

The firm, known for its widely used search engine, regularly modifies its logo to commemorate holidays, historical events and figures.

"Maybe all the pressure is paying off," said WND reader Donna Hunter of Philadelphia. "God bless all our soldiers!"
When the Los Angeles Times asked the California-based firm about the issue earlier this year, spokeswoman Sunny Gettinger responded, "Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted and often scientific in nature. We do not believe we can convey the appropriate somber tone through this medium to mark holidays like Memorial Day."
The Ledger newspaper of Lakeland, Fla., called that excuse "laughable."

As WND reported last year, Google had no problem honoring the war dead of other countries, creating a special logo with poppies for Remembrance Day in Australia, Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52914

And for the ninth year in a row this past spring, Google declined to mark Memorial Day - something the company has done for the Chinese New Year, Valentine's Day, Halloween and other observances. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55900

Just last month Google acknowledged an accomplishment of the communist Soviet Union, which launched the Sputnik space satellite 50 years ago.
With the surprise launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, the Soviet Union leaped ahead in the race for space between the U.S. and the communist empire. Sputnik's success followed the failure of the first two Project Vanguard launch attempts by the U.S. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57982

Google also has given special honors for astronomer Percival Lowell, artist Edvard Munch and Louis Braille, inventor of the writing system for the blind.

Other days commemorated included National Teachers Day, Women's Day, Ray Charles' birthday, World Water Day and St. George's Day.

Besides overlooking Memorial Day and Veterans Day until today, it also has ignored Christmas.

Google has been criticized for its one-sided political contributions and content policies:

Rejecting an ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton while continuing to accept anti-Bush themes
Rejecting ads critical of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., while continuing to run attack ads against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
Allowing the communist Chinese government to have the search engine block "objectionable" search terms such as "democracy."
In addition, the company came under fire for an editorial decision giving preferential placement to large, elite media outlets such as CNN and the BBC over independent news sources, such as WND, even if they are more recent, pertinent and exhaustive in their coverage.

As WND reported, 98 percent of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats, and as a matter of fact, Al Gore is now a senior adviser to Google.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean.
Schmidt also contributed the maximum amount to Sen. Clinton.

Here's the text from a google search and finding another blog carrying the text:

By Joe Kovacs
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Google's commemoration of Veterans Day 2007, the first time it has honored the U.S. holiday
It took nearly a decade, but Internet giant Google is finally honoring Veterans Day with a special holiday design for its famous logo.
Users who log onto Google's home page today will see three World War I-era helmets capping the letters "o" and "e" in Google's name.
The decoration is a marked departure for the company, which has come under fire from veterans' groups for ignoring American holidays such as Veterans Day and Memorial Day since Google's inception in 1999.

The firm, known for its widely used search engine, regularly modifies its logo to commemorate holidays, historical events and figures.

"Maybe all the pressure is paying off," said WND reader Donna Hunter of Philadelphia. "God bless all our soldiers!"
When the Los Angeles Times asked the California-based firm about the issue earlier this year, spokeswoman Sunny Gettinger responded, "Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted and often scientific in nature. We do not believe we can convey the appropriate somber tone through this medium to mark holidays like Memorial Day."
The Ledger newspaper of Lakeland, Fla., called that excuse "laughable."

As WND reported last year, Google had no problem honoring the war dead of other countries, creating a special logo with poppies for Remembrance Day in Australia, Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52914

And for the ninth year in a row this past spring, Google declined to mark Memorial Day - something the company has done for the Chinese New Year, Valentine's Day, Halloween and other observances. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55900

Just last month Google acknowledged an accomplishment of the communist Soviet Union, which launched the Sputnik space satellite 50 years ago.
With the surprise launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, the Soviet Union leaped ahead in the race for space between the U.S. and the communist empire. Sputnik's success followed the failure of the first two Project Vanguard launch attempts by the U.S. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57982

Google also has given special honors for astronomer Percival Lowell, artist Edvard Munch and Louis Braille, inventor of the writing system for the blind.

Other days commemorated included National Teachers Day, Women's Day, Ray Charles' birthday, World Water Day and St. George's Day.

Besides overlooking Memorial Day and Veterans Day until today, it also has ignored Christmas.

Google has been criticized for its one-sided political contributions and content policies:

Rejecting an ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton while continuing to accept anti-Bush themes
Rejecting ads critical of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., while continuing to run attack ads against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
Allowing the communist Chinese government to have the search engine block "objectionable" search terms such as "democracy."
In addition, the company came under fire for an editorial decision giving preferential placement to large, elite media outlets such as CNN and the BBC over independent news sources, such as WND, even if they are more recent, pertinent and exhaustive in their coverage.

As WND reported, 98 percent of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats, and as a matter of fact, Al Gore is now a senior adviser to Google.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean.
Schmidt also contributed the maximum amount to Sen. Clinton.

Here's the text from a google search and finding another blog carrying the text:

By Joe Kovacs
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Google's commemoration of Veterans Day 2007, the first time it has honored the U.S. holiday
It took nearly a decade, but Internet giant Google is finally honoring Veterans Day with a special holiday design for its famous logo.
Users who log onto Google's home page today will see three World War I-era helmets capping the letters "o" and "e" in Google's name.
The decoration is a marked departure for the company, which has come under fire from veterans' groups for ignoring American holidays such as Veterans Day and Memorial Day since Google's inception in 1999.

The firm, known for its widely used search engine, regularly modifies its logo to commemorate holidays, historical events and figures.

"Maybe all the pressure is paying off," said WND reader Donna Hunter of Philadelphia. "God bless all our soldiers!"
When the Los Angeles Times asked the California-based firm about the issue earlier this year, spokeswoman Sunny Gettinger responded, "Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted and often scientific in nature. We do not believe we can convey the appropriate somber tone through this medium to mark holidays like Memorial Day."
The Ledger newspaper of Lakeland, Fla., called that excuse "laughable."

As WND reported last year, Google had no problem honoring the war dead of other countries, creating a special logo with poppies for Remembrance Day in Australia, Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52914

And for the ninth year in a row this past spring, Google declined to mark Memorial Day - something the company has done for the Chinese New Year, Valentine's Day, Halloween and other observances. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55900

Just last month Google acknowledged an accomplishment of the communist Soviet Union, which launched the Sputnik space satellite 50 years ago.
With the surprise launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, the Soviet Union leaped ahead in the race for space between the U.S. and the communist empire. Sputnik's success followed the failure of the first two Project Vanguard launch attempts by the U.S. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57982

Google also has given special honors for astronomer Percival Lowell, artist Edvard Munch and Louis Braille, inventor of the writing system for the blind.

Other days commemorated included National Teachers Day, Women's Day, Ray Charles' birthday, World Water Day and St. George's Day.

Besides overlooking Memorial Day and Veterans Day until today, it also has ignored Christmas.

Google has been criticized for its one-sided political contributions and content policies:

Rejecting an ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton while continuing to accept anti-Bush themes
Rejecting ads critical of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., while continuing to run attack ads against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
Allowing the communist Chinese government to have the search engine block "objectionable" search terms such as "democracy."
In addition, the company came under fire for an editorial decision giving preferential placement to large, elite media outlets such as CNN and the BBC over independent news sources, such as WND, even if they are more recent, pertinent and exhaustive in their coverage.

As WND reported, 98 percent of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats, and as a matter of fact, Al Gore is now a senior adviser to Google.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean.
Schmidt also contributed the maximum amount to Sen. Clinton.

In Kennesaw, GA (a.k.a. "Gun City USA") in 1982 they passed a law REQUIRING all heads of households to own and maintain a firearm. and in the 25 years since then, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender. The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Funny how the direct correlation in this town seemed to be - More Guns = Less Crime - the exact opposite of your theory. Compare that to the town of Morton Grove, IL - a town that banned handguns the same year. The city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent.

Got any figures on that, out of curiosity?

Sure, the UK started exceeding US violent crime rates around 1991.

The 4k figure in that article includes over 2k 'minor' injuries from air rifles / pellet guns. Hardly violent crime - though dangerous and irresponsible - but a shot from a pellet gun usually only stings a bit.

While pellet guns are indeed generally near the bottom of the force chart - fatalities can and have occured from being shot with them. I have been shot with a spring type pellet handgun as a teenager - about the slowest you'll find. It left a good bruise, more than 'stings a bit'(the friend who shot me suffered worse). While at the time it was later laughed off - today I probably could have pressed assault charges and won.

Today I have a air powered pellet rifle - fully capable of penetrating the skin, even through clothing, as well as consistently killing small animals - even cats(haven't killed anything with it, but I know it can be done). It put a quarter inch dent into a heavy aluminum pizza pan through a cardboard box and styrofoam- took a hammer to flatten back out.

Still, remember what I said - I care about crime, divided roughly into classes by injury caused, not how the crime was commited - a murder commited with a knife is just as bad as one commited with a gun. A robbery commited with a gun is as bad as one commited with a gun, so on and so forth.

Consider the permanent, crippling harm that can be done with your average hammer - would it really be any worse than being shot?

The UK btw has gotten pretty weird about crime statistics, cause of changes in how they reward police officers (bonuses depend on the number of crime 'detections', etc..) over the course of the labour government.

I've also heard that they're a bit wierd how they count murder - if the murderer plea-bargains it down to a manslaughter charge(or less), it's removed from the murder rate. I've heard this several times.

Please note that the rates in quoted in the first link I gave include victimization surveys for stuff other than murder(a bit difficult to survey murder victims).

The rest of Europe can be a bit different - in some areas silencers are considered good manners while hunting, here in the USA they're illegal for hunting, just plain illegal in others, and require a $200 tax stamp where they are legal. Gun laws are different - as is the culture.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/just_26_favor_senate_immigration_plan

A quick search on Google provided me with the following links, most support or tend to support the claims I made.

http://www.illegalaliens.us/polls.htm

http://www.npg.org/immpoll.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44154

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155413,00.html

Latest polls show it is closer to 3/4 than 2/3. In the meantime, I suggest that you broaden your circle of friends.

Now, as for Illegal Immigrants, do you know how much of the prison population are "undocumented aliens"? How many of them are murderer's, and how many victims? Just because you don't like the terminology I use, doesn't mean it isn't factual. The problem is that when one ignores time (3200 in 3 hours vs more over years ..) doesn't make the facts any less factual. Funny thing about statistics is one can make any case one wants with them, if they have the right data.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml

Chernobyl was an RBMK design. Because it was configured to convert on demand to a military apps operation mode that could produce lots of Plutonium 239 for quickly building bombs, it was built without a containment vessel, at a time when all U S commercial reactors were already encased in multiple meters of steel and concrete.
      The soviet union deliberately compromised safety for military advantage, and yes it was a known bad design.

"The test in question was meant to determine how much power could be extracted from a nuclear plant in meltdown."

      Not exactly - the test initially conducted was an extreme low power test, where the reactor was being run at such a low level it didn't provide enough power to run all the feedback systems designed to control the reactor itself. Extra power to run control systems was supposed to come from outside sources. A reactor near meltdown under some configurations may be producing much less power than usual and so this test had applicability to some meltdown research, but this particular design, in weapons production mode, would also have greatly reduced spare power for control in normal operation, so this test was probably to confirm the military applications of Chernobyl 4.

Here's a link to Gordon Prather's page, which is a good explanation for the non-technical. Note Dr. Prather's credentials at the bottom if you think he's just some guy spouting off.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20062

'course, one does have to admit they prefer shooting other dems. But, in a pinch, innocent men, women, and children will work as shown at Waco.

Who are the fucking criminals?

WOO HOO, 8 more clintons year! http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=57498 />

Did you really just cite

Reuters
and the Associated Press
as
examples
of
accuracy
in reporting?

Wow, just wow.

Arbitrary? Hardly. Charisma counts. Presence counts. Especially in a close election.

The point is not whether you or I believe that Gore was charismatic, the point is that it is not measurable. Remember after the debates of 2000, Bush had his people fan out after the debate and convince the media that Bush won the debate. Media and pundits, too lazy to think for themselves parroted the talking points Bush's people used after the debate. My point is that judgments of 'charisma' or 'presence' are arbitrary and personal. To push your personal judgments as if they are somehow universal or representative of a national trend is a fallacy.

You're right, some may have voted based upon whether they felt like they could have a beer with a candidate or felt like they 'liked' them more. I hope every single one of them remembers the 3699 soldiers who have died because of that choice.

And in An Inconvenient Truth he was preaching to the choir. Global warming is very fashionable with Hollywood. Big surprise that a very left-leaning institution chose to reward their own.

You Faux folx keep insisting that Hollywood is 'left-leaning.' Yet you always talk about how 'the market takes care of itself.' Your pejorative 'Hollywood' is a collection of businesses, and if you remember your high-school economics class, there needs to be a demand for a business to be able to sell its products. If a business doesn't cater to the widest possible clientele, or doesn't provide what most clients want then they will go out of business. So it would seem, if your Faux hero, Adam Smith is really right about the magical market, then Hollywood represents the mythical 'middle.'

Huh? Can you try to write your English a little more effectively? Maybe include fewer nutroots-on-the-inside phrases so people who write and speak normal English can understand you...

I'm sorry that hyphenated words confuse you so. The subject and the object of the sentence is there (unlike your 'grammer Nazi' sentence). If the context isn't enough for you to understand the meaning, then there's really not much else I can do for you. Maybe it's the acronym that's confusing to you—DLC. It seems more likely to me that this is a diversion from the point, which is that Gore was trying to be in the mythical middle. Whether or not he was in your Faux middle or not, he definitely wasn't over on the left with me and mine. You might like to think that way, because it fits in better with your theories of national sentiments, but it's just not true.

No, idiot, he veered left because he tracked left on issues. Gore the Senator, pro-life. Gore the VP and Presidential candidate: pro-abortion rights. Gore the Senator, pro-gun rights. Gore the VP and Presidential candidate: pro-gun control. Abortion and gun control alone probably cost him Tennessee. And those 11 electoral votes were enough to win, everything else being equal (including losing Florida).

Sorry, Faux 'analyst,' your thesis is dubious at the very least. More likely, Gore was swiftboated back when Rove could get away with it.

...maybe it's the relative increase of the people identifying themselves as Republicans during the 90s Now, I know that Republicans and conservatives aren't exact matches, but it's a good enough back of the envelope approximation.

From the linked article:
At present, the American electorate is almost evenly divided in its partisan loyalties: in the 2004 American National Election Study (ANES), 32 percent of American adults identified with the Democratic Party while 29 percent identified with the Republican Party. The 3 point Democratic advantage in party identification was the smallest in the 52 year history of the ANES.
So if we accept

Hey, according to the Israelis the 'Palestinian' people were 'invented' (by the Romans in the first instance) and really they are just Arabs.

Nice, subtle form of genocide there; pretend that an entire people never really existed...

Nice subtle insult you made. Let us turn to the exact words of Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said, back in 1977:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Pretty clear cut if you ask me.

If you find a cannon on an old pirate ship at the bottom of the ocean, do you just call it a hunk of metal since it doesn't work anymore? Or do you call it a cannon?

Did we find Sarin Nerve Agent? Yes
Did we find weapons that were meant for the dispersal of Sarin (WMD)? Yes
Did we find weapons which contained Sarin? Yes
Did we find fully functional WMD? Maybe, but they were old and we weren't going to test them.
Did we find new WMD? No

See the clarification? Hell, some of our soldiers were even exposed to the effects of one. So to say they were useless or not considered WMD is hogwash.

There are plenty of reports outside of Fox News that say Sarin (WMD) was found. Here are a few:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?i d=15918
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation /archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/06/iraq/mai n627580.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=40754

is where wikipedia is the weakest, and most prone to being jacked.

Even without viewing the stub, I recommend that any who visit the link take a long hard look at the history versioning, but even that feature can no longer be fully trusted, as methods have been implemented which allow for the removal of versioning entries by just a few of wikipedia's elites.

Of course they promise to only use that memory hole for good, not evil, and only sparingly, when the data carries with it a taint of defamation or slander, which is extra-especially sensitive when it comes to biographical data of persons living.

I immediately wonder how this could possibly apply to information regarding potential conflicts of interests between a sitting vice-president, who has a known predilection to engage in over the top vindictiveness(he may even roll your wife!), and large international corporations, who have skimmed the top of the classes from America's first-tier Law Universities for their law departments' staff.

,p>Then there is the newest trend in abuse of international tort law being played in a despicably unamerican fashion. It gives one great leverage to those whose have at their beck and call as a staff member, a retained English barrister. Contemporary Conservatism whiny relativism offers illuminative irony though, as it seems the Perles were cast a wee bit before the other swine got into the act.

The Wikimedia Foundation, in their vested survival interests, can do little else but fold. Whitewash by any other name is just a blinding.

and we have always been at war against {fill in blank}...

Actually I'm waiting for the appeals process. We can site opinion after opinion and still get nothing done.

See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=55824

or any of the other discussions about it. There are many. Only a fool would call this directive harmless. In the event of ANYTHING Bush chooses to call an emergency, he by self-proclamation assumes power over all government functions:

"When the president determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the president can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."

Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over."

The problem with this directive is, it is also up to Bush to declare when the emergency is over. Nice, huh?

I know DOD, NSA, and CIA are not surprised.

Politicians and news folks Fox/CNN/... only want to
surprise the USA Citizens/public for rating purposes.

Yes, some GOs/FAs are great politicians with agendas.

Look up some stuff about "Titan Rain" and even that was old news for some folks.

Time Magazine:
The Invasion of the Chinese Cyberspies (And the Man Who Tried to Stop Them)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1 098961,00.html

Remember the recent persecution and jailing of "Two" US Border Patrol folks
(by US) for doing their job and trying to stop drug smugglers?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=52545
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhRWRbqIvtU

This type of stuff goes back many years even before
the present gang of politicians; So, "NO CHANGE"!

Don't worry, be happy, !HAVEFUN!

That trend makes me uncomfortable with the recent directive that Bush issued on May 9 signed that grants near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president. I am surprised that directive has not yet received much discussion in the press or by Congress.

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51 and HSPD-20

--But alas, the only amendments that most politicians seem to be interested in proposing involve idiocies like flag burning and marriage definition (both of which come as close to the concept of 'unconstitutional constitutional amendments' as can be imagined).--

Anyone else notice that the only things to make the news anymore are topics that will cause people to have a strong emotional reaction? Nobody wants to hear about technology amendments, educating our senators and congress critters. They want to know who won on American Idol. They want to know about OJ and Anna Nicole. They want useless, pointless busywork so they don't have to pay attention to the REAL issues. Why would we want to worry about the Government wiretapping our homes when things like whether or not your neighbor wants to bang someone in the ass in his/her own home?

Abortion, Gay Marriage, Music Downloads...all of these things to keep the eyes of the populace glued to the TV for the next fuckin' commercial. It reminds me of The Wizard of Oz and the 'man behind the curtain'. They trump up all this useless bullshit, meanwhile lots of actually IMPORTANT things go un-reported because they only have so much time on the air.

A quick Google on a topic I had read about a few years ago turned up quite a few websites that were touting "most missed / under-reported news stories"
Newsdesk.org,Foreignpolicy.com, and Worldnetdaily.com to name a few. Start asking questions of your congressional representitaves, then KICK THE BUMS OUT IF THEY DON'T WANT TO LISTEN. There are millions of people in America. I find it astounding that they can all be so damn silent while their country rots from the inside out.

Thanks. /soapbox rant
A.A

Remember that the debates are ran by a joint R and D controlled group that excludes third party candidates. There is no real debate. The Libertarian and Green presidential candidates were arrested while trying to attend the 2004 debates: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ ID=40843

I don't listen to the NDP on anything. I can see massive military spending increases and jingoistic speeches for myself. My information comes straight from the mouths of the conservatives themselves who were just spouting the tired empty rhetoric that following the Kyoto protocol would result in economic disaster, they have engaged in multiple round of anti-gay marriage rhetoric. Charles McVety (CFAC, Canadas Jerry Fallwell) has a strong working relationship with the harper conservatives, and was drafted by Harper to sell his "child care plan".

This McVety:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ ID=52904

The linked article includes this statement:

"Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized."

I cannot speak for the UK, but I live in Australia and I can tell you that the 30% figure is utter crap - unless it includes getting wedgies in the school yard.

As for the gun lobby myth that violent crime exploded in Australia after gun controls were introduced, check out this bar chart of homicide rates for the period 1989 - 2000. The homicide rate is pretty much constant before and after gun control laws were introduced in 1996 (you can see when the laws were introduced because of the large spike in the homicide rate in Tasmania in 1996, due to the Port Arthur massacre. The gun control laws were introduced immediately after the massacre).

Maybe you will try to claim that the rates went up after 2000, however these figures show that it remained constant until 2004, the latest normalised figures I could find.

You should try getting your information from somewhere that doesn't have ads for books about the duty of self armament on its front page. Gun control laws may not have done much to reduce crime in Australia, but they certainly haven't done anything to increase it, despite a great deal of misinformation from the US gun lobby to the contrary.

As a former alumni of Va. Tech and former resident of Roanoke, VA, I would like to thank the Va. Tech talking heads, other liberal colleges around the state, campus police, Larry Hincker and all the other anti-gun crowd pundits who had a hand in striking down (illegally IMO) sound legislation (House Bill 1572); legislation proposed by the honorable Del. Todd Gilbert that would have allowed students and teachers, who hold a state-issued concealed carry permit, to carry a concealed gun on campus(es).

By there very unconstitutional actions they were complicit and abeted Cho Seung-Hui in the killings of 33 students yesterday at Va. Tech. There is no guarantee, but if the students/teachers of Va. tech would have been allowed to lawfully carry a concealed weapon on campus (without the fear of ejection from the college) this tragedy may have been averted. My sympathies to the families who have been affected by this insane action by a seriously disturbed murderer.

HB 1572
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+su m+HB1572

Virginia Tech's ban on guns may draw legal fire
http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770

A bill being considered in the House of Delegates challenges the authority of public universities to restrict weapons on campus.
http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/49915

Gun bill gets shot down by panel
http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/50658

College spokesman celebrated 2006 defeat because it would help make campus safe
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=55226

Va. Tech: Gunman Student From S. Korea
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/17/ap/natio nal/main2693365.shtml

UK, Australia, and Canada all surpassed the US in violent crime back in 2001 and have been trending even further up. ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=21902 , http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/gunlawsandviolent crime.html). Data that supports the US having one of the higher violent crime rates is from 1994, quite outdated.

Of course if they'd spent $700k securing the computers in question properly before Gary attempted his cracking then perhaps we wouldn't be in this situation.