Slashdot Mirror
Viewing Tool Provides Scrutiny of Debate Footage
The New York Times has an interesting tool for reviewing the debate. Alongside the actual video, there is a transcription (which you can click on to go to that section of the video), a search tool (that counts the number of usages by each candidate), a topic segmentation view, and even a fact checker that links to corrections.
What is up with this demonization of Atheists in the US? We're just people who have come to the conclusion that a "god" isn't real, just as chrisitians (?) come to the conclusion that santa claus, the easter bunny or the tooth fairy isn't real when they grow up. We are of no threat to christians, except perhaps to stop them from imposing their religion on the world.
The existence of a "god" obviously can't be disproven, but neither can flying pink elephants, or the flying spaghetti monster.
You shouldn't be so hard on atheists. You both share a common disbelief in thousands of deities. They just believe in one less than you do.
The NYT is quite moderate by any reasonable standard. I suspect that you are pretty far to the right of normal, mainstream America if you think the NYT is left wing. You don't get to redefine the political spectrum to suit your extremism.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Oppression by religious people, however, is a GIGANTIC BAG OF LAUGHS! wheeeeee!
Yes, but there's a pretty good chance that either of them will die (Obama by some racist asshole, McCain by being a hundred and twelve), so the VP is unusually important here.
I thought Biden actually did better than Obama in the first presidential debate... but I digress.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Since none of them are mavericks, I suggest "Liars".
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
But what you describe has nothing to do with left/right bias. It's all about - as you say - creating controversy and selling papers.
Excuse me, sonny, but I marched against the first Gulf War. (I'm not saying I did a lot, that I was some great activist. But I was there.) The Congressional fsck-up that authorized it occurred on my 21st birthday. By the time Clinton came along, my zits were pretty much cleared up.
And I watched with dismay (and did a little minor activism) as Clinton pulled the Democratic party to the right and into an aggressive, brutal, and stupid foreign policy in the GOP mode. (It's not just on economic issues that "Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while.")
Bullshit. Millions of people demonstrated against W's war before the invasion. I was one of them. (Again, I'm not saying I did a lot. But I was there, and probably got my name on a list somewhere when I organized an anti-war poetry reading and sent recordings of it to Baltimore's congresscritters.)
Coverage of the pre-invasion protests in the corporate media: diddly-squat.
Don't even TRY to tell me I wasn't paying attention, when you apparently didn't even know that there was a significant anti-war movement until after the invasion.
And why didn't you know? Because the conservative MSM was totally on board with the war.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
So according to this logic because I hold 2 degrees, live in my nations capital, and have traveled to London, Paris, Switzerland, Italy and Monte Carlo my opinion can not be questioned for any reason.
Perhaps you are willing to surrender your free will to you perceived betters, but I tend to look more at the empirical evidence and make up my own mind. But to each his or her own.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!