For those of you who still wish to blame this fiasco on stupid users, check out this graph.
Anyone still want to tell me that there's nothing funny going on here? Keep in mind that this is a largely jewish community, and that Buchanan is on record saying that Hitler was an admirable man in several ways.
But you can't fairly give the entire presidential race to one county in one state, and that's what you're proposing.
Why not? You made an assertion but you didn't back it up. In case you haven't been paying attention, this entire argument is occurring precisely BECAUSE the entire presidential race could come down to one county. Nobody "made" it that way, it's just the way it is. You seem to want Bush to win so badly that you're willing to overlook the gross irregularities of the vote in that county, where a liberal jewish community gave triple the votes to Buchanan of any other riding in the state.
In half a dozen messages in this thread you've said that people "deserve what they get". Other people, more mature, intelligent, and insightful than yourself, realize that legitimacy is an absolutely essential thing to have for any leader to effectively command.
If this situation in Palm beach is just allowed to slide and Bush winds up winning by less than the amount of disputed votes then about half the country is never going to accept him as a legitimate president!
This will have consequences beyond simple gridlock in congress. It will erode people's faith in the nation itself. Make no mistake, these are the days that will launch a million conspiracy theories.
It will be a similiar situation to what happened after Kennedy's assassination, where people wondered forever if the country had just been "stolen" and by extension whether anything the government did was truely legitimate any more.
Of course, this doesn't have the raw emotional impact of an assassination, but in at least one way it's actually a larger wedge issue. That's because this is happening right in front of us. There's no links of shadowy conjectures here, the irregularities are on the record. Consider these events:
jewish community gives 3407 votes for Buchanan -- more than triple the number of votes Buchanan got in any county.
voters ask for ballots but are illegally denied them
voters in minority areas are told that some polling stations are "out of ballots"
in another incident, police set up roadblocks by a black church where a largely black population was voting, randomly hassling people in a transparent attempt to intimidate them to stay home. This is probably the most incredible election offense. Is this the year 2000 or did we go back to 1870 in the deep South?
the governor of the state where all these offences happened is the brother of the candidate who has benefitted from each offense. This alone is going to give this story the legs it needs to last another 20 years if we don't clear up these problems now.
Do you think people are just going to forget that these things happened? Do you think the jews who have a vote recorded for a Nazi sympathizer are just going to drop it?
Why are you so frightened of the people in Palm Beach voting the way they intended, anyway? Do you really want to win this election so badly that you're willing to tarnish your candidate, your party, and yourself? Perhaps you don't think Bush will win in a fair, honest election?
You said it's "All to do with attitude". I agree. Your attitude is to overlook all of these facts, as well as the good of the nation as a whole, simply because it gives you an opportunity to beat on your chest and brag loudly about how wonderfully intelligent and competent you are. "Screw those little old ladies! *I* would have never made that mistake".
Good for you, buddy. Maybe by the time you hit your 25th birthday you'll figure out that all you're doing is broadcasting your own insecurity.
Poverty
Against Corporate Welfare
For Universal Health Care
For Social Justice
Against WTO, NAFTA, World Bank
For Gay Rights
For, Drug problem = Health Problem
Against Death Penalty (unlike Gore or Bush)
For Family Farm Not Big Agribusinesses
Against Your Tax Money going into Billions in Military Spending
For Minimum Wage Increase, Living Wage
For Environmental issues
For Individual Privacy
Nice wish list. Now, thanks to Ralph Nader giving the election to George Bush, you get to see the Republicans pass legislation that stomps every one of those concerns, with the possible exception of privacy.
And what prize did the Green Party get for leading the nation into darkness? Nothing. They didn't even get their 5%.
Way to go, Naderites! You really showed the system!
I've seen some really dumb moderation before, but this takes the cake. How the fuck could anyone consider my original post a troll? It was reasoned, honest, and polite. Disagree with me as you wish but don't call me a troll.
I guess some Naderite was frightened of the truth and decided the only answer was to mod me down so people browsing at +1 couldn't see me. Moderators, please mod me back to one.
Yeah! And if you're executed because your Texan defense attourney fell asleep during your cross examination, well, who's to say you wouldn't have been found guilty anyway?
Now have you wondered why the american voters don't just vote for someone real instead of another phony lying, value-less career politician?
Sorry, I know I'm posting too much today, but I can't let that pass.
I'm really, really tired of the morally-superior tone coming out of the Nader camp. I don't want to hear any more about Nader's love of the truth until he stops spewing the greatest lie of this campaign -- that Bush and Gore are identical.
But even that isn't what really pisses me off about Nader. It's more the fundamental betrayal of his own people and the very movements he claims to endorse.
It's instructive to look at his counterpart on the right, Pat Buchanan. Buchanan is also running a highly ideological campaign that is siphoning votes from the mainstream party. But Buchanan is doing it in the least destructive way possible, because he's keeping his eye on the greater goal and doesn't want to help Gore win this election.
Buchanan is spending his money to attract Bush voters in states that Bush has already lost. The argument goes, "Your vote is meaningless anyway, so vote for me, and maybe I'll get enough of a popular vote that I'll get funding for the next election, where I'll continue to fight the damn liberals for you".
Nader is doing precisely the opposite. He's putting all his money into swing states, actively doing whatever he can to destroy Gore's chances of winning. You might ask why he's doing this, since he's going to lose all of his natural allies and also help elect the man who most strongly opposes the environmental movement as well as the anti-corporate movement.
The only answer I've been able to come up with is because Ralph Nader values his own advancement more than he does the very causes he pretends to champion. What does Nader care if George W. wins, as long as the spotlight is on him? He just wants the ego boost from those extra votes in the swing states. He likes seeing his face on TV.
What you folks currently supporting Nader need to realize is that this is a betrayal. Bush will rape the environment, as he did in Texas, increase free trade, and limit the power of unions in any way possible. Supposedly you care about these things, or you wouldn't be supporting Nader. Maybe some of you should ask your leader why he's doing everything possible to throw this election to your mortal enemy.
Maybe you should also ask yourselves why you're supporting a candidate who has so far demonstrated that he's less ethical than Pat Buchanan.
Let's see, we have one candidate who recognized the potential of the net years before most people had even heard of it and who took steps to see that the development of the net was properly funded. The same individual also pressed to fund the federal laboratory which begat Mosaic, which begat Netscape.
Opposing him is a man who probably has difficulties operating a microwave, let alone a computer. The same individual who thinks that the internet is a great threat to our energy supply since it's currently consuming 8% of the nation's power.
I heard you suck dick for a living. Can't be a lie, since I'm just repeating what I heard. I think I'll go post stories about you to all major news outlets.
So true. Nader is the best friend Bush has at the moment. For Christ's sake, Republicans are even paying for Nader's ads!
I hope those of you that are "voting your consicence" enjoy that fleeting feeling of smug superiority. It might even last a day or two. Then you're realize that through your own retarded actions you've just elected a man who is the antithesis of everything you believe in.
The rest of us are going to have to pay for your conscience. So will the air, water, and soil. Quite a legacy for the so-called "Green Party".
I liked a lot of his answers too, especially the bit about asking Gore and Bush whether they'd be better off if they spent 10 years in jail for their "youthful indiscretions".
Too bad he's a nutcase. Anybody that thinks you can just do away with income taxes and the entire IRS needs a bite of a reality sandwich.
Great, Great
So I want to believe that one of my deities likes human flesh.
Ok, I won't kill the first person who appears because i dont like the local jail.
I'm with you 100%, buddy. The time to stop dangerous, deviant cults is the first time they pop up, before any lives are ruined.
And the situation is worse than you thought. I just found out there's a group of people in my own neighbourhood who get together regularly and ritually consume blood and human flesh. Sure, they're just using wine and bread for now, but the intent is clear, and any thinking person can see that eventually they'll move on to the real thing.
Now, I'm not a violent person, so I'm not in favour of torching their church or anything like that -- though I probably would if my own son got involved with these people.
However, I already have written my senator and congressman and asked for legislation and an expanded police force in order to deal with these people. At the very least, they should have their children taken away from them.
The 144 kbit connection sold in Seattle is a type of line I haven't seen before, so it's not quite a fair comparison. From what I understand, it's some kind of DSL line that is useful over much longer distances than a regular DSL line.
Usually, if you're more than a few miles from a DSL repeating station (probably wrong term), you can't get DSL service. But with these 144 kbit lines, you can get the service even if you're out in the countryside somewhere. The trade-off, of course, is the slower speed and the higher price.
I agree though, that in general, Canada gets a much better deal on xDSL lines. I had a 2.2 Mbit ADSL connection in Ottawa for about $70 Cdn, and that was four years ago.
Another thing I remember from Starship Troopers was how humanity was an imperialist expansionist race that conquered every other race it encountered. The rationale was always the same: "Because we can." You know, the whole trip about the strong having a moral imperative to rule the weak and so on.
Adolf would have loved this book if he'd survived, the same way Charles Manson loved Stranger in a Strange Land.
Still, there's never any shortage of high school kids who will argue that Heinlein's ideas are a sound basis for society.
I'm not too fond of the electoral system either, for the reasons you described. But since it only determines presidential elections, and the results are generally in line with the popular vote, I don't get too worked up about it.
What I'd really like to see is a method of preferential voting. I think they do this in Australia, though I'm not certain.
It works like this: you list the candidates in order of your preference. When the votes are counted, you take the candidate with the lowest number of votes and remove him from the election. All the votes for the eliminated candidate go to the second preference on those ballots. Repeat until you have a majority winner.
This would be perfect for this kind of situation. People could list the votes as 1. Nader 2. Gore 3. Bush. Then when Nader gets knocked out, the votes would go to Gore (for the sake of argument). This would allow people to express strong opinions for third party candidates, and maybe even let them win, since there would be no reason not to vote for one. But it would also prevent the "wasted vote" scenario -- all votes "count", even in the final run off between the two most popular candidates.
I don't think you can ever forget the real, tangible consequences of your actions. And at this point, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
Look at the polls. Ever the professional know-it-alls in the media have given up trying to predict this election. Meanwhile, Nader is sitting at 5%. The scenario that W. wins by less than 5% is a not only possible, it's probable.
Come November 8, many of you may experience a long, sinking feeling. Nader supporters have strong opinions about preserving the environment and reining in the corporations and they could be directly responsible for electing the man who is by far the most hostile to their agenda among all the current candidates.
It reminds me of when I lived in Canada. There, the conservative party split into two because many conservatives thought that the "official" conservative party wasn't nearly conservative enough. The result, of course, is that the liberal party has had a stranglehold on elections for the last decade and will maintain it for the foreseeable future. Those archconservatives must feel proud for bringing their people into the political wilderness.
So, by all means, make your statements, influence the agenda, make the major parties scramble to adopt your more popular positions, and then quietly change your vote to Gore on November 7th. This election is too close, and too important, to do otherwise.
I'm all for tax cuts, too. That's why I want to see the national debt paid off, so we can all get a permanent tax cut. We'll also be doing right by the next generation, which is something the Republican party doesn't give a damn about. This will happen under Gore, it will never happen under Bush.
Also, it seems that liberals get elected by telling people how terrible everything is and how it all needs to change.
Come on, now. That's a conservative tactic if there ever was one. Conservatives are always ranting at length about the horrible direction the country is headed. According to them, our entire society is disintigrating due to those damn liberals.
Never mind that pretty much every statistic you can find supports the viewpoint that this is the best time there's ever been to be alive. Incomes are high, unemployment is low, crime is down, more people are getting good educations, there's lower rates of teen pregnancy and infant mortality, the list goes on and on. Yet somehow I know that Bush, Lott, Helms, and company are going to be telling me I'd better vote for them or the whole shithouse is going to burn to the ground.
Those belonging to the Cult of Reagan like to repeat that line. It helps them to evade the charge that Reagan ran up the debt in a totally irresponsible manner, leaving it a problem for the next generation to solve.
It always seemed funny to me that archconservatives swallow this version of history whole. Aren't they supposed to be against horrendously excessive spending? Only when it's not done by a Republican, I guess.
The truth, of course, is that cold war really did end largely due to the actions of a single man with vision. His name is Gorbechev.
The government is far less "bloated" than it was during the time of George H. W. Bush's administration. There's 300,000 less federal bureaucrats than there were before. Granted, 75% of that loss was from the military bureaucracy, but the fact remains that the domestic bureacracy is smaller now than it was during Bush the Elder's term.
Gore was instrumental in opening up the internet to the public. It's not too surprising since his father wrote the Interstate Act. Gore saw how much the interstates sparked the economy and saw a similar possibility with the net. The interstate tie-in is why, in my opinion, he always uses the abominable phrase "information superhighway".
The SDI doesn't work and never has. Sure, give it R&D funding until they get a working prototype, but opening it up to full scale production the way W. wants to is nothing more than a pay-off to the defense contractors who contributed to his campaign.
Sure, you could have a short-term boost in employment by looting the treasury to fund a project which doesn't have the slightest chance of success. Russia used to have lots of phony make-work programs like that to guarantee full employment. Is that the kind of government you have in mind? And you have the gall to accuse others of leftism?
Slashdot Mirror
For those of you who still wish to blame this fiasco on stupid users, check out this graph.
Anyone still want to tell me that there's nothing funny going on here? Keep in mind that this is a largely jewish community, and that Buchanan is on record saying that Hitler was an admirable man in several ways.
Why not? You made an assertion but you didn't back it up. In case you haven't been paying attention, this entire argument is occurring precisely BECAUSE the entire presidential race could come down to one county. Nobody "made" it that way, it's just the way it is. You seem to want Bush to win so badly that you're willing to overlook the gross irregularities of the vote in that county, where a liberal jewish community gave triple the votes to Buchanan of any other riding in the state.
In half a dozen messages in this thread you've said that people "deserve what they get". Other people, more mature, intelligent, and insightful than yourself, realize that legitimacy is an absolutely essential thing to have for any leader to effectively command.
If this situation in Palm beach is just allowed to slide and Bush winds up winning by less than the amount of disputed votes then about half the country is never going to accept him as a legitimate president!
This will have consequences beyond simple gridlock in congress. It will erode people's faith in the nation itself. Make no mistake, these are the days that will launch a million conspiracy theories.
It will be a similiar situation to what happened after Kennedy's assassination, where people wondered forever if the country had just been "stolen" and by extension whether anything the government did was truely legitimate any more.
Of course, this doesn't have the raw emotional impact of an assassination, but in at least one way it's actually a larger wedge issue. That's because this is happening right in front of us. There's no links of shadowy conjectures here, the irregularities are on the record. Consider these events:
Do you think people are just going to forget that these things happened? Do you think the jews who have a vote recorded for a Nazi sympathizer are just going to drop it?
Why are you so frightened of the people in Palm Beach voting the way they intended, anyway? Do you really want to win this election so badly that you're willing to tarnish your candidate, your party, and yourself? Perhaps you don't think Bush will win in a fair, honest election?
You said it's "All to do with attitude". I agree. Your attitude is to overlook all of these facts, as well as the good of the nation as a whole, simply because it gives you an opportunity to beat on your chest and brag loudly about how wonderfully intelligent and competent you are. "Screw those little old ladies! *I* would have never made that mistake".
Good for you, buddy. Maybe by the time you hit your 25th birthday you'll figure out that all you're doing is broadcasting your own insecurity.
Why don't we start with you, fuckhead?
You can always count on Slashdot for that. Any opportunity to call someone else "an idiot who deserved it" is golden.
I'm sure they rant and rave at the stupid fucking users who can't figure out their perfectly reasonable programs, either.
So, we have a UI so poorly designed that about 20,000 people got it wrong but you're railing that it's the end user's fault?
Let me guess: you're a programmer.
Against Corporate Welfare
For Universal Health Care
For Social Justice
Against WTO, NAFTA, World Bank
For Gay Rights
For, Drug problem = Health Problem
Against Death Penalty (unlike Gore or Bush)
For Family Farm Not Big Agribusinesses
Against Your Tax Money going into Billions in Military Spending
For Minimum Wage Increase, Living Wage
For Environmental issues
For Individual Privacy
Nice wish list. Now, thanks to Ralph Nader giving the election to George Bush, you get to see the Republicans pass legislation that stomps every one of those concerns, with the possible exception of privacy.
And what prize did the Green Party get for leading the nation into darkness? Nothing. They didn't even get their 5%.
Way to go, Naderites! You really showed the system!
I've seen some really dumb moderation before, but this takes the cake. How the fuck could anyone consider my original post a troll? It was reasoned, honest, and polite. Disagree with me as you wish but don't call me a troll.
I guess some Naderite was frightened of the truth and decided the only answer was to mod me down so people browsing at +1 couldn't see me. Moderators, please mod me back to one.
Yeah! And if you're executed because your Texan defense attourney fell asleep during your cross examination, well, who's to say you wouldn't have been found guilty anyway?
Sorry, I know I'm posting too much today, but I can't let that pass.
I'm really, really tired of the morally-superior tone coming out of the Nader camp. I don't want to hear any more about Nader's love of the truth until he stops spewing the greatest lie of this campaign -- that Bush and Gore are identical.
But even that isn't what really pisses me off about Nader. It's more the fundamental betrayal of his own people and the very movements he claims to endorse.
It's instructive to look at his counterpart on the right, Pat Buchanan. Buchanan is also running a highly ideological campaign that is siphoning votes from the mainstream party. But Buchanan is doing it in the least destructive way possible, because he's keeping his eye on the greater goal and doesn't want to help Gore win this election.
Buchanan is spending his money to attract Bush voters in states that Bush has already lost. The argument goes, "Your vote is meaningless anyway, so vote for me, and maybe I'll get enough of a popular vote that I'll get funding for the next election, where I'll continue to fight the damn liberals for you".
Nader is doing precisely the opposite. He's putting all his money into swing states, actively doing whatever he can to destroy Gore's chances of winning. You might ask why he's doing this, since he's going to lose all of his natural allies and also help elect the man who most strongly opposes the environmental movement as well as the anti-corporate movement.
The only answer I've been able to come up with is because Ralph Nader values his own advancement more than he does the very causes he pretends to champion. What does Nader care if George W. wins, as long as the spotlight is on him? He just wants the ego boost from those extra votes in the swing states. He likes seeing his face on TV.
What you folks currently supporting Nader need to realize is that this is a betrayal. Bush will rape the environment, as he did in Texas, increase free trade, and limit the power of unions in any way possible. Supposedly you care about these things, or you wouldn't be supporting Nader. Maybe some of you should ask your leader why he's doing everything possible to throw this election to your mortal enemy.
Maybe you should also ask yourselves why you're supporting a candidate who has so far demonstrated that he's less ethical than Pat Buchanan.
Let's see, we have one candidate who recognized the potential of the net years before most people had even heard of it and who took steps to see that the development of the net was properly funded. The same individual also pressed to fund the federal laboratory which begat Mosaic, which begat Netscape.
Opposing him is a man who probably has difficulties operating a microwave, let alone a computer. The same individual who thinks that the internet is a great threat to our energy supply since it's currently consuming 8% of the nation's power.
Guess which one I'm voting for?
P.S. bo nus Doonesbury cartoon
I heard you suck dick for a living. Can't be a lie, since I'm just repeating what I heard. I think I'll go post stories about you to all major news outlets.
So true. Nader is the best friend Bush has at the moment. For Christ's sake, Republicans are even paying for Nader's ads!
I hope those of you that are "voting your consicence" enjoy that fleeting feeling of smug superiority. It might even last a day or two. Then you're realize that through your own retarded actions you've just elected a man who is the antithesis of everything you believe in.
The rest of us are going to have to pay for your conscience. So will the air, water, and soil. Quite a legacy for the so-called "Green Party".
I liked a lot of his answers too, especially the bit about asking Gore and Bush whether they'd be better off if they spent 10 years in jail for their "youthful indiscretions".
Too bad he's a nutcase. Anybody that thinks you can just do away with income taxes and the entire IRS needs a bite of a reality sandwich.
I'm with you 100%, buddy. The time to stop dangerous, deviant cults is the first time they pop up, before any lives are ruined.
And the situation is worse than you thought. I just found out there's a group of people in my own neighbourhood who get together regularly and ritually consume blood and human flesh. Sure, they're just using wine and bread for now, but the intent is clear, and any thinking person can see that eventually they'll move on to the real thing.
Now, I'm not a violent person, so I'm not in favour of torching their church or anything like that -- though I probably would if my own son got involved with these people.
However, I already have written my senator and congressman and asked for legislation and an expanded police force in order to deal with these people. At the very least, they should have their children taken away from them.
The 144 kbit connection sold in Seattle is a type of line I haven't seen before, so it's not quite a fair comparison. From what I understand, it's some kind of DSL line that is useful over much longer distances than a regular DSL line.
Usually, if you're more than a few miles from a DSL repeating station (probably wrong term), you can't get DSL service. But with these 144 kbit lines, you can get the service even if you're out in the countryside somewhere. The trade-off, of course, is the slower speed and the higher price.
I agree though, that in general, Canada gets a much better deal on xDSL lines. I had a 2.2 Mbit ADSL connection in Ottawa for about $70 Cdn, and that was four years ago.
Nice quote.
Another thing I remember from Starship Troopers was how humanity was an imperialist expansionist race that conquered every other race it encountered. The rationale was always the same: "Because we can." You know, the whole trip about the strong having a moral imperative to rule the weak and so on.
Adolf would have loved this book if he'd survived, the same way Charles Manson loved Stranger in a Strange Land.
Still, there's never any shortage of high school kids who will argue that Heinlein's ideas are a sound basis for society.
I'm not too fond of the electoral system either, for the reasons you described. But since it only determines presidential elections, and the results are generally in line with the popular vote, I don't get too worked up about it.
What I'd really like to see is a method of preferential voting. I think they do this in Australia, though I'm not certain.
It works like this: you list the candidates in order of your preference. When the votes are counted, you take the candidate with the lowest number of votes and remove him from the election. All the votes for the eliminated candidate go to the second preference on those ballots. Repeat until you have a majority winner.
This would be perfect for this kind of situation. People could list the votes as 1. Nader 2. Gore 3. Bush. Then when Nader gets knocked out, the votes would go to Gore (for the sake of argument). This would allow people to express strong opinions for third party candidates, and maybe even let them win, since there would be no reason not to vote for one. But it would also prevent the "wasted vote" scenario -- all votes "count", even in the final run off between the two most popular candidates.
I don't think you can ever forget the real, tangible consequences of your actions. And at this point, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
Look at the polls. Ever the professional know-it-alls in the media have given up trying to predict this election. Meanwhile, Nader is sitting at 5%. The scenario that W. wins by less than 5% is a not only possible, it's probable.
Come November 8, many of you may experience a long, sinking feeling. Nader supporters have strong opinions about preserving the environment and reining in the corporations and they could be directly responsible for electing the man who is by far the most hostile to their agenda among all the current candidates.
It reminds me of when I lived in Canada. There, the conservative party split into two because many conservatives thought that the "official" conservative party wasn't nearly conservative enough. The result, of course, is that the liberal party has had a stranglehold on elections for the last decade and will maintain it for the foreseeable future. Those archconservatives must feel proud for bringing their people into the political wilderness.
So, by all means, make your statements, influence the agenda, make the major parties scramble to adopt your more popular positions, and then quietly change your vote to Gore on November 7th. This election is too close, and too important, to do otherwise.
I'm all for tax cuts, too. That's why I want to see the national debt paid off, so we can all get a permanent tax cut. We'll also be doing right by the next generation, which is something the Republican party doesn't give a damn about. This will happen under Gore, it will never happen under Bush.
No, Gorbechev wanted the cold war to end. The fact that the Soviet Union collapsed shortly afterward was no doubt something of a surprise to him.
Come on, now. That's a conservative tactic if there ever was one. Conservatives are always ranting at length about the horrible direction the country is headed. According to them, our entire society is disintigrating due to those damn liberals.
Never mind that pretty much every statistic you can find supports the viewpoint that this is the best time there's ever been to be alive. Incomes are high, unemployment is low, crime is down, more people are getting good educations, there's lower rates of teen pregnancy and infant mortality, the list goes on and on. Yet somehow I know that Bush, Lott, Helms, and company are going to be telling me I'd better vote for them or the whole shithouse is going to burn to the ground.
Those belonging to the Cult of Reagan like to repeat that line. It helps them to evade the charge that Reagan ran up the debt in a totally irresponsible manner, leaving it a problem for the next generation to solve.
It always seemed funny to me that archconservatives swallow this version of history whole. Aren't they supposed to be against horrendously excessive spending? Only when it's not done by a Republican, I guess.
The truth, of course, is that cold war really did end largely due to the actions of a single man with vision. His name is Gorbechev.
You're wrong on all points.
Sure, you could have a short-term boost in employment by looting the treasury to fund a project which doesn't have the slightest chance of success. Russia used to have lots of phony make-work programs like that to guarantee full employment. Is that the kind of government you have in mind? And you have the gall to accuse others of leftism?
Really, you should know better than to ask that. Of course they don't have any examples. They never do.
To the conservative mindset, any time a news outlet doesn't print one of their press releases verbatim it's evidence of a "liberal media".
I remember when it was the liberals who were annoying, whiny assholes.
P.S. Here's a couple of stories about Bush that so far have been under reported.
Left-wing apologists like David Horowitz, eh?
Go smoke another rock, buddy.