Red herring. The point of the handgun ban wasn't to absolutely reduce the number of hand guns to zero, anymore than speed limits mean people don't speed. The point is to reduce the number of guns, just as speed limits are supposed to cut down the amount of speeding.
Stop blathering bullshit for two seconds and consider the cold, hard reality that while you might not like Obama, McCain is another four years of Bush. Deal with it.
My point is that if people cared so much about the constitution, as they blather about telecomm immunity, they might actually be more concerned about the government collecting ALL of our financial data.
Except they don't. There is some bad legislation, like the "know your neighbor laws", but that's a molehill next to the mountain of telecom immunity. Once immunity has passed, it can never be undone.
In the case of telecomm immunity, we're really arguing about whether or not a corporation can be sued for complying with an illegal government surveillance request.
There, fixed that for you. And this is a lame argument, because if the telecoms held out for a warrant or a subpeona, they would have no choice but to comply, and their asses would be 100% covered.
How this helps anyone is utterly beyond me, other than lawyers getting rich. And that's what its all about, its just getting lawyers getting rich.
Yeah, who cares about massive Constitional vilolations when there's a risk that some lawyers might make some money!
And no, it's NOT about lawyers getting rich, that is a bullshit fascist talking point. The primary litigants are the ACLU and the EFF - organizations devoted to protecting our rights, not making money by filing lawsuits. The primary purpose for which is to find out 1) how large the scale is and who's been spied on and 2) pressure telecom executives to agree to testify to avoid jail time.
If you wanted to get rid of fascism in the United States, then you ought to get rid of the IRS!
Except of course the annoying fact that the income tax is the fairest tax ever devised.
The parent I replied to was quite meticulous in listing only Republicans as corrupt
Because it's no contest. Recent Democratic scandals have consisted of Monica Lewinsky, Spitzer's prostitute problem, and William Jefferson using his freezer as a bank. Whoop de frikkin do. Compare that to Foley, Delay, Hassert, Bush, Cheney, Ney, Cunningham, Abramoff, Stevens - the tip of the iceberg.
my favorite part is how the "shit-weasels get back into positions of power the next time a Republican slithered into office."
Because it's true. The Bush administration is an amalgam of the worst officials from the Nixon and Reagan administrations.
If you're talking about Guantanamo Bay, the average prisoners gains 30 pounds over his stay, has access to religious artifacts and clergy and military tribunals.
Fuck you and your Fox News talking points. Why don't you try spending the next five years of your life in solitary confinement and see how much you way, cocksucker.
but it's worth noting that none of the prisoners can claim any protections under the Geneva Protocols. You kinda have to be a uniformed soldier for that.
Lies. You're either a soldier and afforded POW status, or you're a civilian who might be suspected of a crime. There is no third "rightless" category. And even if there was, those who torture people and launch illegal wars have no grounds to complain about the attire of those who shoot back at them.
Funny how anything the opposite party does is a "crime."
It would be funny what monumental fuckwits you guys are, if you hadn't spent the last few decades running this country into the ground.
The problem is they benefit off the suffering of others and the benefit more than those who suffer.
Which again goes back to the point that many Americans would rather have money stay in the hands of the companies that screwed them over instead of (gasp) lawyers. Take John Edwards, for example. His biggest case was for a girl who had her guts hydraulically sucked out by a faulty pool drain. He got a $25 million settlement from the manufacturer, and took a third of the judgment as his fee. Do you really think the family gives a flying fuck that he got that big a fee? Do you really think they said, "no, we shouldn't give so much money to the lawyer - lets give it back to the country that disemboweled our daughter."
I think it is fine for people to dislike this system and to look down upon the greedy lawyer types.
Yeah, there are a lot of really, really stupid people in this country. If a company rips off a million customers for an average of $10, no individual is going to file a lawsuit over $10, even in small claims court. But a class action lawsuit will punish the company involved and get the customers something despite not having made any effort on their own. Take away class action lawsuits, and companies will happily rip off their customers because they know they wont suffer any legal consequences.
With class action lawsuits, all the risk is borne by the lawyers. If they don't win, they don't get paid. People whine that the consumer gets a $20 coupon while the lawyers make bank, but the consumer is getting something with no effort made or risk taken on his own. So if you don't like it, hire your own damn attorney and file your own damn lawsuit.
They say the devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he didn't exist. The devil has been one-upped; people in America have been brainwashed into thinking that standing up for themselves through unions or lawsuits is bad. They would rather money stay in the hands of those that wronged them rather than have it fall into the hands of (gasp) lawyers. They'd rather save $1000 a year in union dues rather than make another $10 an hour with 50% more vacation time. Americans excel at cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
Ahh, the Thomas Hobbes apology-for-tyranny approach, where any action the government takes is OK because without government your life would be primitive, brutish, and short.
Straw man, and a stupid one at that, as UHC provides better care for less money. The point is that anarchists who whine about the very ideas of government and taxation are free to see how well that works out in an actual anarchy, like much of Somalia and Afghanistan. But anarchies tend to have shitty living conditions and security, thus the need for an AK-47.
Most other countries do not today spend 90% of health care money in the last year of a person's life. In the US today, that is pretty much the way it works. The only way that any sort of "universal health care" works is to stop that. What everyone wants to know is how exactly do you stop that?
No, the problem is that we pass our health care money through blood sucking leeches called insurance companies. Countries with UHC provide better care for less money, a little fact ignored in the wingnut reality distortion field.
But given the penchant for government programs in the US wanting to manage costs and control every little thing does make people wonder.
What happened to complaining about $150 hammers and endless cost over runs? Would you guys make up your minds?
That is according to your definition of "stupid law making", which conveniently excludes the property and privacy rights violations that are required for universal healthcare to even exist .
Taxes are constitutional, and they along with government services are the difference between stable prosperity and being a third world country. You have far more rights, freedom, security, and yes money with taxes and services than you would without.
And for those who don't accept it?
Then move to Afghanistan or Somalia, bitch. You'll have all the freedom from beaurocrats that you could ever want. Just make sure to bring your body armor and AK-47.
And during the day, their shows always have two opposing viewpoints
The regular networks have 2:1 biases in favor of conservative commentators, much less on Fox News. And as someone else pointed out, the hosts are invariably spouting the GOP talking points.
left-wing guests
Democrat != left wing.
And neither are doormats
There are three types of Democrats on Fox: doormats who get humiliated, those who get shouted over, and DINO's like Joe Lieberman.
At least no moreso than, say, MSNBC (hi, Keith Olbermann!).
False equivalency. O'Reilly has rants when stores put up signs saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Olbermann gets angry when the government lies to us and tortures people. Just a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit of a difference.
He wasn't responsible? So he is nothing more than a news reader?
Yawn. If the same standard was applied to Fox News, there wouldn't be a single employee in the building. But then Republicans are pros at hypocritical double standards, like on investigating the activities of presidents. They were free to root around in Bill Clinton's life in search of a crime, yet stonewall any investigation into known crimes committed by the Bush Administration with claims of "executive privilege" and "national security". They made tremendous hay over Al Gore's (perfectly true) claim that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" when their candidate had to struggle to put a sentence together. They ripped John Kerry "for being for it before he was against it" yet didn't care that Bush took credit for health care legislation in Texas that he vetoed when he was governor. Republicans in New York threatened to impeach Spitzer within 48 hours of his hooker scandal if he didn't resign, yet Senator Vitter from Louisiana was met with a standing ovation from Republicans when he returned after his own hooker scandal.
The Republican party is so full of shit these days they could solve the world food shortage by planting crops on their heads.
Oh yeah, the Bush guard memos. They were never proven to be forgeries, and the memos were sourced for content. If they were forged, someone forged the truth.
And speaking of Republicans and their being full of shit, were was the outrage over the Niger memos, which actually were forgeries?
I already responded to you above, but since you repeated the "Rathergate" talking points, the debunking needs to be repeated as well.
That's a crock, sir. Dan Rather was not an innocent bystander in the reporting of that story. He wasn't a stiff mannequin that simply read what the teleprompter told him to say.
1) Rather wasn't the producer. 2)Why is Rather held to high standards when Fox News should be free to do whatever the fuck they want?
even when evidence proved the documents were faked with a word processor
The documents were never proven to be forgeries. And where you calling for heads to roll in the Bush Administration over the Niger memos, which actually were forged? Somehow I doubt it. And the CBS producer sourced the Bush documents for accuracy; if they were forged, someone forged the truth.
To sum it up, you, like many wingnuts, think that accountability only applies to Democrats.
In your righteous anger, I don't see you condeming Keith Olbermann and MSNBC. I don't see you condemning Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert (yes, I know they have comedy shows, but face it, more twentysomethings get their news from those two than from CNN or FOX or the New York Times.
False equivilancy alert. Olbermann has angry rants, so he's the same as Bill O'Reilly. Al Franken complains about Republicans, so he's the same as Ann Coulter. Russ Feingold is far from Dick Cheney on the political spectrum, so he's as far out left as Cheney is to the right.
It's all bullshit. O'Reilly gets angry when people walk into a Target in December and see a sign that says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Olbermann gets angry when our government tortures people. Al Franken mocks O'Reilly for lying about winning a Peabody award. Ann Coulter mocks 911 widows for being glory hounds. Russ Feingold is solidly with the majority of the American public on issue after issue, yet he's the fringe politician. It comes from a desire to find balance where none exists.
You seem to be mainly pissed that an opinion you don't like is popular at one network.
Straw man. The problem with Fox isn't opinions, it's that lying and making shit up is part of their business model. And the other networks treat them as a serious news network, so Fox can start talking about some bullshit story and the other networks will pick it up.
and the fault of Air America's failure isn't due to any conspiracy
Newspapers owned by Rupert Murdock, Richard Mellon Scaife and Sun Moon have lost billions of dollars. Why oh why are conservatives so terrible at business?
Besides, you do have NPR, which is pretty popular.
Ah, the old "if it's not right wing it must be liberal" fallacy that invariably gets applied to NPR.
Academia also tends to be more liberal
Ditto.
And where conservatives once had more think-tanks than liberals, that gap has disappeared as well. MoveOn.org is arguably more influential than the AEI or the Heritage Foundation now.
Uh, no. You couldn't even name a liberal think tank, you named an activist group and called it a think tank instead.
If you don't like Fox, don't watch it. It's one network. It's not like your choices are limited.
It's the impact on the rest of the media, stupid. If the rest of the networks treated Fox News as the rag it is, there wouldn't be a problem. But since they've treated it as a legitimate news source, right wing propaganda makes it's way through Rush or Drudge to Fox News, and from there it goes to CNN and MSNBC and print media and so on.
And it seems like you're mainly pissed that they're allowed to have an audience at all.
No way was it a perfect 10 as a lot of sites claimed.
That's why I usually subtract about 30% off the score. Some sites seem to have their baseline at 85% and go up from there.
One big GTA4 issue was the lack of mid mission check points.
Yeah. I actually just reinstalled the PC version of San Andreas and just got to San Fierro. Most of the time it's not too bad, but on the harder missions it can be quite a PITA.
Somehow i think McCain is a better candidate than Obama
So rather than vote for the pussy (who will at least vote against immunity) you'll vote for the candidate that supports immunity AND torture. Perfect fucking sense.
Straight-shooter
Straight bullshitter, you mean.
doesn't lie
McCain lies all the time. He lied about the confederate flag. He lied about Petraus using unarmored Humvees. He lied about canceling a fundraiser with the rape jokester. He lied about not knowing much about the economy.
and is experienced
Not on economics he isn't. Said so himself. Not on foreign policy, as he keeps mixing up Sunnis and Shiites, and thinks Iran (Shiite) is training Al Queda (Sunni).
The only thing McCain is experienced at is bullshitting the press and selling himself out to lobbyists and fund raisers. His campaign is run by the former, and try Googling Donald Diamond for the latter.
Like being against adultery and voting for Giuliani.
Mccain is honest.
Except when he's lying. Which he does, a lot. He lied about the confederate flag. He lied about Petraus using unarmored Humvees. He lied about canceling a fundraiser with the rape jokester. He lied about not knowing much about the economy.
The only thing he does more than lie is flip flop, which he's done on just about any issue you can name. He's such a horrible flip flopper that he wouldn't vote for his own immigration bill.
People want real change this year, and neither Obama nor McCain offer it, not really.
Really? Getting out of Iraq isn't change you're interested in? You'd rather stay in at least another 4 years and spend another couple thousand lives? How about the subject of this article, warrantless wiretapping? How about avoiding another 30% increase in the national debt? How about another four years of torture? Finally, are you really interested in a president drowning in lobbyists?
I understand not being exited when the two main candidates don't fit your views. But Nader said one of the dumbest things of all time when he said there would be no difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency, and that was before eight years of incompetent warmongering fascism.
Which is why people ought to vote libertarian where governmental taking is just plain frowned upon.
Except Libertarians are crazy. I understand the ideas of wanting minimal federal government and maximum individual liberty, but for Libertarians that only applies to the federal government. State and local entities are free to send you to a pound-me-in-the-ass penitentiary without even giving you a reacharound.
Case in point, Ron Paul is rightly against warrantless wiretapping. But he's also introduced legislation that would strip federal courts of jurisdiction over First Amendment cases. So too bad for you if you live in Alabama and they pass a law mandating Southern Baptist preaching in public schools.
Wanting to be free from all federal influence while bending over for state governments, just because they wear a different hat, doesn't make any damned sense whatsoever.
This issue shouldn't be a dealbreaker when we're still fighting about habeas corpus.
Why shouldn't blatant violations of the Constitution be considered dealbreakers? For Democrats supporting telecom immunity, I wouldn't be threatening to withhold donations, I'd be threatening to donate and support primary challengers. As for habeas corpus, wasn't there a Supreme Court ruling on that last week?
If you applied your standard across the board, I imagine we would have to arrest almost every high-level politician in the US.
Baseless assertion. And if you are against corruption, they only solution is to pay officials a decent amount of money and have only publicly financed campaigns.
Don't limit your vitriol to the Republicans.
Red herring. Should we have not prosecuted O.J. Simpson for murder because some white dude beat a jaywalking ticket?
We could name plenty of garbage that FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton pulled while in office and go around and around about that.
If you're a prosecutor and have probable cause, knock yourself out. And even if you're a Republican, how the hell do you ever go after a Democrat from now on with a straight face if Bush and Co. get off scott free?
No, there was plenty there, just he was protected by enough Democrats.
There was nothing there. If Congress spent a $60+ million investigating every inch of your life, would the best thing prosecutors could come up were manufactured charges of perjury and obstruction of justice? The difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush is that Republicans dug through Clinton's life looking for crimes to prosecute. With Bush, we know for fact that he's violated habeas corpus, four Constitutional Amendments, international treaties, Congressional subpoenas and laws against using federal agencies for partisan gain. In other words, High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
So please, sir, lay off the false equivalency bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
Red herring. The point of the handgun ban wasn't to absolutely reduce the number of hand guns to zero, anymore than speed limits mean people don't speed. The point is to reduce the number of guns, just as speed limits are supposed to cut down the amount of speeding.
Stop blathering bullshit for two seconds and consider the cold, hard reality that while you might not like Obama, McCain is another four years of Bush. Deal with it.
My point is that if people cared so much about the constitution, as they blather about telecomm immunity, they might actually be more concerned about the government collecting ALL of our financial data.
Except they don't. There is some bad legislation, like the "know your neighbor laws", but that's a molehill next to the mountain of telecom immunity. Once immunity has passed, it can never be undone.
In the case of telecomm immunity, we're really arguing about whether or not a corporation can be sued for complying with an illegal government surveillance request.
There, fixed that for you. And this is a lame argument, because if the telecoms held out for a warrant or a subpeona, they would have no choice but to comply, and their asses would be 100% covered.
How this helps anyone is utterly beyond me, other than lawyers getting rich. And that's what its all about, its just getting lawyers getting rich.
Yeah, who cares about massive Constitional vilolations when there's a risk that some lawyers might make some money!
And no, it's NOT about lawyers getting rich, that is a bullshit fascist talking point. The primary litigants are the ACLU and the EFF - organizations devoted to protecting our rights, not making money by filing lawsuits. The primary purpose for which is to find out 1) how large the scale is and who's been spied on and 2) pressure telecom executives to agree to testify to avoid jail time.
If you wanted to get rid of fascism in the United States, then you ought to get rid of the IRS!
Except of course the annoying fact that the income tax is the fairest tax ever devised.
Not a straw man at all.
Complete straw man.
The parent I replied to was quite meticulous in listing only Republicans as corrupt
Because it's no contest. Recent Democratic scandals have consisted of Monica Lewinsky, Spitzer's prostitute problem, and William Jefferson using his freezer as a bank. Whoop de frikkin do. Compare that to Foley, Delay, Hassert, Bush, Cheney, Ney, Cunningham, Abramoff, Stevens - the tip of the iceberg.
my favorite part is how the "shit-weasels get back into positions of power the next time a Republican slithered into office."
Because it's true. The Bush administration is an amalgam of the worst officials from the Nixon and Reagan administrations.
If you're talking about Guantanamo Bay, the average prisoners gains 30 pounds over his stay, has access to religious artifacts and clergy and military tribunals.
Fuck you and your Fox News talking points. Why don't you try spending the next five years of your life in solitary confinement and see how much you way, cocksucker.
but it's worth noting that none of the prisoners can claim any protections under the Geneva Protocols. You kinda have to be a uniformed soldier for that.
Lies. You're either a soldier and afforded POW status, or you're a civilian who might be suspected of a crime. There is no third "rightless" category. And even if there was, those who torture people and launch illegal wars have no grounds to complain about the attire of those who shoot back at them.
Funny how anything the opposite party does is a "crime."
It would be funny what monumental fuckwits you guys are, if you hadn't spent the last few decades running this country into the ground.
The problem is they benefit off the suffering of others and the benefit more than those who suffer.
Which again goes back to the point that many Americans would rather have money stay in the hands of the companies that screwed them over instead of (gasp) lawyers. Take John Edwards, for example. His biggest case was for a girl who had her guts hydraulically sucked out by a faulty pool drain. He got a $25 million settlement from the manufacturer, and took a third of the judgment as his fee. Do you really think the family gives a flying fuck that he got that big a fee? Do you really think they said, "no, we shouldn't give so much money to the lawyer - lets give it back to the country that disemboweled our daughter."
I think it is fine for people to dislike this system and to look down upon the greedy lawyer types.
Yeah, there are a lot of really, really stupid people in this country. If a company rips off a million customers for an average of $10, no individual is going to file a lawsuit over $10, even in small claims court. But a class action lawsuit will punish the company involved and get the customers something despite not having made any effort on their own. Take away class action lawsuits, and companies will happily rip off their customers because they know they wont suffer any legal consequences.
What part of "if you don't like it, hire your own damn attorney and file your own damn lawsuit" did you not understand?
With class action lawsuits, all the risk is borne by the lawyers. If they don't win, they don't get paid. People whine that the consumer gets a $20 coupon while the lawyers make bank, but the consumer is getting something with no effort made or risk taken on his own. So if you don't like it, hire your own damn attorney and file your own damn lawsuit.
They say the devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he didn't exist. The devil has been one-upped; people in America have been brainwashed into thinking that standing up for themselves through unions or lawsuits is bad. They would rather money stay in the hands of those that wronged them rather than have it fall into the hands of (gasp) lawyers. They'd rather save $1000 a year in union dues rather than make another $10 an hour with 50% more vacation time. Americans excel at cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
Ahh, the Thomas Hobbes apology-for-tyranny approach, where any action the government takes is OK because without government your life would be primitive, brutish, and short.
Straw man, and a stupid one at that, as UHC provides better care for less money. The point is that anarchists who whine about the very ideas of government and taxation are free to see how well that works out in an actual anarchy, like much of Somalia and Afghanistan. But anarchies tend to have shitty living conditions and security, thus the need for an AK-47.
Most other countries do not today spend 90% of health care money in the last year of a person's life. In the US today, that is pretty much the way it works. The only way that any sort of "universal health care" works is to stop that. What everyone wants to know is how exactly do you stop that?
No, the problem is that we pass our health care money through blood sucking leeches called insurance companies. Countries with UHC provide better care for less money, a little fact ignored in the wingnut reality distortion field.
But given the penchant for government programs in the US wanting to manage costs and control every little thing does make people wonder.
What happened to complaining about $150 hammers and endless cost over runs? Would you guys make up your minds?
Taxes are constitutional, and they along with government services are the difference between stable prosperity and being a third world country. You have far more rights, freedom, security, and yes money with taxes and services than you would without.
And for those who don't accept it?
Then move to Afghanistan or Somalia, bitch. You'll have all the freedom from beaurocrats that you could ever want. Just make sure to bring your body armor and AK-47.
And during the day, their shows always have two opposing viewpoints
The regular networks have 2:1 biases in favor of conservative commentators, much less on Fox News. And as someone else pointed out, the hosts are invariably spouting the GOP talking points.
left-wing guests
Democrat != left wing.
And neither are doormats
There are three types of Democrats on Fox: doormats who get humiliated, those who get shouted over, and DINO's like Joe Lieberman.
At least no moreso than, say, MSNBC (hi, Keith Olbermann!).
False equivalency. O'Reilly has rants when stores put up signs saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Olbermann gets angry when the government lies to us and tortures people. Just a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit of a difference.
He wasn't responsible? So he is nothing more than a news reader?
Yawn. If the same standard was applied to Fox News, there wouldn't be a single employee in the building. But then Republicans are pros at hypocritical double standards, like on investigating the activities of presidents. They were free to root around in Bill Clinton's life in search of a crime, yet stonewall any investigation into known crimes committed by the Bush Administration with claims of "executive privilege" and "national security". They made tremendous hay over Al Gore's (perfectly true) claim that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" when their candidate had to struggle to put a sentence together. They ripped John Kerry "for being for it before he was against it" yet didn't care that Bush took credit for health care legislation in Texas that he vetoed when he was governor. Republicans in New York threatened to impeach Spitzer within 48 hours of his hooker scandal if he didn't resign, yet Senator Vitter from Louisiana was met with a standing ovation from Republicans when he returned after his own hooker scandal.
The Republican party is so full of shit these days they could solve the world food shortage by planting crops on their heads.
Oh yeah, the Bush guard memos. They were never proven to be forgeries, and the memos were sourced for content. If they were forged, someone forged the truth.
And speaking of Republicans and their being full of shit, were was the outrage over the Niger memos, which actually were forgeries?
I already responded to you above, but since you repeated the "Rathergate" talking points, the debunking needs to be repeated as well.
That's a crock, sir. Dan Rather was not an innocent bystander in the reporting of that story. He wasn't a stiff mannequin that simply read what the teleprompter told him to say.
1) Rather wasn't the producer. 2)Why is Rather held to high standards when Fox News should be free to do whatever the fuck they want?
even when evidence proved the documents were faked with a word processor
The documents were never proven to be forgeries. And where you calling for heads to roll in the Bush Administration over the Niger memos, which actually were forged? Somehow I doubt it. And the CBS producer sourced the Bush documents for accuracy; if they were forged, someone forged the truth.
To sum it up, you, like many wingnuts, think that accountability only applies to Democrats.
I don't revel in being a defender of big media, but those who pan Fox News never seem to understand what they're criticizing.
It probably seems that way because you don't understand what you're defending.
Fox's primetime lineup consists of personality-driven opinion shows.
The entire network is a bullhorn for the Republican party.
and a liberal who have control over the content and accuracy of their respective shows
Laughable on both counts. First, the idea that any real liberal has any control over content, and that Fox gives a rats ass on accuracy.
and I think it has a place in the discourse
As long as you like your "discourse" filled with misdirection, lies and propaganda, sure.
Fox news isn't doing anything different from NBC, CBS and ABC.
Yes, they are. The others are not blatant propaganda outlets for the Republican party.
Most notably, exploding trucks
Yup.
and fake documents
Nope. The "Rathergate" memo was never proven to be fake, and CBS did source for content. If the document was forged, they were forging the truth.
In your righteous anger, I don't see you condeming Keith Olbermann and MSNBC. I don't see you condemning Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert (yes, I know they have comedy shows, but face it, more twentysomethings get their news from those two than from CNN or FOX or the New York Times.
False equivilancy alert. Olbermann has angry rants, so he's the same as Bill O'Reilly. Al Franken complains about Republicans, so he's the same as Ann Coulter. Russ Feingold is far from Dick Cheney on the political spectrum, so he's as far out left as Cheney is to the right.
It's all bullshit. O'Reilly gets angry when people walk into a Target in December and see a sign that says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Olbermann gets angry when our government tortures people. Al Franken mocks O'Reilly for lying about winning a Peabody award. Ann Coulter mocks 911 widows for being glory hounds. Russ Feingold is solidly with the majority of the American public on issue after issue, yet he's the fringe politician. It comes from a desire to find balance where none exists.
You seem to be mainly pissed that an opinion you don't like is popular at one network.
Straw man. The problem with Fox isn't opinions, it's that lying and making shit up is part of their business model. And the other networks treat them as a serious news network, so Fox can start talking about some bullshit story and the other networks will pick it up.
and the fault of Air America's failure isn't due to any conspiracy
Newspapers owned by Rupert Murdock, Richard Mellon Scaife and Sun Moon have lost billions of dollars. Why oh why are conservatives so terrible at business?
Besides, you do have NPR, which is pretty popular.
Ah, the old "if it's not right wing it must be liberal" fallacy that invariably gets applied to NPR.
Academia also tends to be more liberal
Ditto.
And where conservatives once had more think-tanks than liberals, that gap has disappeared as well. MoveOn.org is arguably more influential than the AEI or the Heritage Foundation now.
Uh, no. You couldn't even name a liberal think tank, you named an activist group and called it a think tank instead.
If you don't like Fox, don't watch it. It's one network. It's not like your choices are limited.
It's the impact on the rest of the media, stupid. If the rest of the networks treated Fox News as the rag it is, there wouldn't be a problem. But since they've treated it as a legitimate news source, right wing propaganda makes it's way through Rush or Drudge to Fox News, and from there it goes to CNN and MSNBC and print media and so on.
And it seems like you're mainly pissed that they're allowed to have an audience at all.
Liar.
No way was it a perfect 10 as a lot of sites claimed.
That's why I usually subtract about 30% off the score. Some sites seem to have their baseline at 85% and go up from there.
One big GTA4 issue was the lack of mid mission check points.
Yeah. I actually just reinstalled the PC version of San Andreas and just got to San Fierro. Most of the time it's not too bad, but on the harder missions it can be quite a PITA.
That WAS meant to be sarcastic.
WHOOSH! There are so many kool aid drinkers here that that it's hard to tell anymore. :) One of em's even an an editor here.
Because none of you guys protested like your dads and moms did during Vietnam War.
People have, actually. But if there are massive protests and the media ignores them, did they really happen?
Somehow i think McCain is a better candidate than Obama
So rather than vote for the pussy (who will at least vote against immunity) you'll vote for the candidate that supports immunity AND torture. Perfect fucking sense.
Straight-shooter
Straight bullshitter, you mean.
doesn't lie
McCain lies all the time. He lied about the confederate flag. He lied about Petraus using unarmored Humvees. He lied about canceling a fundraiser with the rape jokester. He lied about not knowing much about the economy.
and is experienced
Not on economics he isn't. Said so himself. Not on foreign policy, as he keeps mixing up Sunnis and Shiites, and thinks Iran (Shiite) is training Al Queda (Sunni).
The only thing McCain is experienced at is bullshitting the press and selling himself out to lobbyists and fund raisers. His campaign is run by the former, and try Googling Donald Diamond for the latter.
I think i'm going to vote for Mccain.
Like being against adultery and voting for Giuliani.
Mccain is honest.
Except when he's lying. Which he does, a lot. He lied about the confederate flag. He lied about Petraus using unarmored Humvees. He lied about canceling a fundraiser with the rape jokester. He lied about not knowing much about the economy.
The only thing he does more than lie is flip flop, which he's done on just about any issue you can name. He's such a horrible flip flopper that he wouldn't vote for his own immigration bill.
People want real change this year, and neither Obama nor McCain offer it, not really.
Really? Getting out of Iraq isn't change you're interested in? You'd rather stay in at least another 4 years and spend another couple thousand lives? How about the subject of this article, warrantless wiretapping? How about avoiding another 30% increase in the national debt? How about another four years of torture? Finally, are you really interested in a president drowning in lobbyists?
I understand not being exited when the two main candidates don't fit your views. But Nader said one of the dumbest things of all time when he said there would be no difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency, and that was before eight years of incompetent warmongering fascism.
Which is why people ought to vote libertarian where governmental taking is just plain frowned upon.
Except Libertarians are crazy. I understand the ideas of wanting minimal federal government and maximum individual liberty, but for Libertarians that only applies to the federal government. State and local entities are free to send you to a pound-me-in-the-ass penitentiary without even giving you a reacharound.
Case in point, Ron Paul is rightly against warrantless wiretapping. But he's also introduced legislation that would strip federal courts of jurisdiction over First Amendment cases. So too bad for you if you live in Alabama and they pass a law mandating Southern Baptist preaching in public schools.
Wanting to be free from all federal influence while bending over for state governments, just because they wear a different hat, doesn't make any damned sense whatsoever.
This issue shouldn't be a dealbreaker when we're still fighting about habeas corpus.
Why shouldn't blatant violations of the Constitution be considered dealbreakers? For Democrats supporting telecom immunity, I wouldn't be threatening to withhold donations, I'd be threatening to donate and support primary challengers. As for habeas corpus, wasn't there a Supreme Court ruling on that last week?
If you applied your standard across the board, I imagine we would have to arrest almost every high-level politician in the US.
Baseless assertion. And if you are against corruption, they only solution is to pay officials a decent amount of money and have only publicly financed campaigns.
Don't limit your vitriol to the Republicans.
Red herring. Should we have not prosecuted O.J. Simpson for murder because some white dude beat a jaywalking ticket?
We could name plenty of garbage that FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton pulled while in office and go around and around about that.
If you're a prosecutor and have probable cause, knock yourself out. And even if you're a Republican, how the hell do you ever go after a Democrat from now on with a straight face if Bush and Co. get off scott free?
No, there was plenty there, just he was protected by enough Democrats.
There was nothing there. If Congress spent a $60+ million investigating every inch of your life, would the best thing prosecutors could come up were manufactured charges of perjury and obstruction of justice? The difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush is that Republicans dug through Clinton's life looking for crimes to prosecute. With Bush, we know for fact that he's violated habeas corpus, four Constitutional Amendments, international treaties, Congressional subpoenas and laws against using federal agencies for partisan gain. In other words, High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
So please, sir, lay off the false equivalency bullshit.