Fox has many, many conservative commentators and contributors, no doubt, but when it comes to real news, they do typically just present the news. People often overshadow the news broadcasts by pointing at O'Reilly and Hannity, conveniently forgetting Colmes and Greta and the rest of the actual news reporters that are on throughout the day. I'd be interested in seeing itemizations from people on how they made their right/left leaning determination.
A great book to read on this topic is 'Bias', by Bernie Goldberg. Not because he's an exceptional writer or because he approaches the topic without a bias, but because it opened my eyes to what issues determine bias. It's not just Republican vs. Democrat agenda...it's how they cover issues like taxes, abortion and crime as well, probably more importantly. For instance, the example Goldberg gives in his book is that when Forbes was running for president and was a big proponent of the flat tax. I think it was CBS, but Goldberg said one news program had three economists on all railing *against* the flat tax, and they basically called it a joke. While certainly a conservative idea, the flat tax Forbes was pushing was a legitimate tax plan that had merits, and they sluffed it off. Similar 'discussion' of abortion or anti-crime measures were commonplace as well.
My point is that way too many people look at the bias meter and think only "Which side are they shilling for?" There's a lot more depth to a question of bias than that question represents.
They may be slanted but at least they're focused on news that's important to you.
Perhaps it's different in Orlando, but where I live (Centreville, Va) we have the Washington Post for most of our news, but the locality also distributes the Centreville Times. The Times doesn't even attempt to capture any national news (it might occasionally touch on metro news), it's objective is to keep us up on what's going on in our local neighborhoods. Even if most print publications go bankrupt, I doubt the Times would be affected...plenty of people buy ad space specifically because it's a way of reaching the locals.
Can't have any nasty liberals leaving him messages, can we?
I'm sure you think you're joking, but sites with even limited visibility on *both* sides of the political spectrum are beacons for assholes wanting to interject their (poorly spelled and punctuated) thoughts. I post occasionally on Newshounds, a far left wing board, and there are plenty of trolls of both flavors. Free Republic gets the exact same thing.
Unless Hastert uses a moderation system or is allowed some editorial control (which I seriously doubt he has time for, and I'd hate to speculate on the ramifications of being labeled a censor), he's going to wind up with a ridiculously low signal-to-noise ratio.
What I want politicians to do is listen to a small, trusted set of smart people and do the "right thing", regardless of whether it's popular or not.
Then you're living under the wrong form of government (assuming you're from the US). Representative democracies are not about "doing the right thing." They're about a small group voting for representatives to go to a larger, more powerful body and vote based on their wishes. If the citizens of Pennsyltucky want mandatory prayer in school, their representative should absolutely push for it whether it is right or wrong. If he doesn't, he should (and most likely will) be voted out of office.
I'm going to take a stab and guess that you would expect a "trusted set of smart people" to think approximately like you do. Would you be willing to live under the same form of government with a set of "smart people" who think the polar opposite of what do you? I doubt it.
I for one don't want politicians listening to the great unwashed masses
BTW, remove your head from your ass. People who don't want the same thing as you still have the right to have their voices heard.
FYI, the Dragon Quest series was called "Dragon Warrior" in the states...Dragon Warrior I, II and III were all out for the original NES. It's not exactly "debuting" in the states, but admittedly DQ8 looks awesome.
Seriously, those are almost exactly the steps that I (and, apparently, many others) took to get to where we are now (I would place 2 after 5, but whatever). The unfortunate part is that I can't really tell you, in all good conscience, to leave any one of those steps out. They were all invaluable in teaching me how to become a good coder. You have to start out with something that makes you *think* like a computer (LOGO), then write something that's logical and linear (BASIC), then write something that's procedural (Pascal), then write something more powerful (C), then figure out OOP and basic data objects (C++), then...well, then you just start getting more complicated with what you already know. Twelve through 14 are really just paradigm shifts that are more commercially viable and built on the previous 11 steps.
Sadly, I agree with both your sentiment and the parent post's experience. Way too many managers, including many in my own experience, hire for specific buzz words on a resume instead of looking for and actually interviewing based on a breadth and understanding of CS concepts. The more you work with Java, PHP, Web Design, etc, the more you realize it's the same concept that good developers have been using for years, just packaged up with a different syntax and interface. People who don't understand the concept, but have 5+ years experience with Java, still won't understand the Struts framework.
Perhaps I'm missing your point. The link you provided shows the US with 1/4 of the world's GDP, closely followed by an unranked European Union, presumably because the EU is a collection of 25 countries. The next closest, Japan, has a little less than half our GDP.
Outfoxed was garbage. From the number of anonymous sources they used, to the splicing of footage (notice how often the picture jumps or statements are oddly mistimed), to cropping people, especially liberals, out of the picture to make their points...it's a stretch to call it a documentary. They don't use anything resembling the scientific method to produce a conclusion; they went in with a predetermined outcome and made a "documentary" that "proved" it. Check out who they used to collect their data.
After watching it, my feeling was that given a few thousand dollars and a couple of months worth of footage, I could string together enough damning clips of PBS to make you think *it* was horribly conservative/Republican.
And you can't tell me that Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Laura Ingram and Anne Coulter are proper, non-biased political analysts?
They aren't, but neither are Susan Estrich, Ellis Hennican or Juan Williams. They are, however, openly left-wing. People rattle off the list of analysts that FNC has on that are conservative/right-wingers and then conveniently forget that they also have representatives from the opposite end of the political spectrum.
I'll give you this; FNC has more well known right-wingers than left-wingers. While not a great explanation, I offer up that FNC is the most conservative/traditional network out there, so they would be likely to attract the bigger right-wing names just like an MSNBC or CNN would be more likely to attract the bigger left-wing names.
I wouldn't read several in a row, it would upset my sensibilities.
Does the world you live in have the same effect on you? The vast majority of the world is religious or has religious beliefs, so discounting or ignoring religion in any piece of literature is to ignore a fundamental foundation of society.
While Card inserts religious themes into lots of his works, it's not usually the overriding message or story (with exceptions).
In addition to what dasunt said, when I signed up last week, they had an offer going where you get 100 trades for free. Since they're free, you're only paying shipping, which for a single disc is $.37 for the stamp.
Bush repeatedly assured the nation that he had solid evidence that Iraq had WMDs.
I'll grant you he was wrong, but stating he lied about it implies that he knew the truth and knowingly offered up something else. The same intel was seen and consensus was given by members of both parties and several other countries. If WMDs were the only reason we invaded, I wouldn't back the war, but since they had a history of breaking UN sanctions, embezzled money from the Oil-for-Food program, didn't work with weapons inspectors for years and committed more than enough human rights violations, I found enough justification that removal of Saddam, with or without WMDs, was a good idea.
China is beginning to undercut a huge amount of US manufacturing business, and we are weak right now.
One of the greatest and worst things about free markets is that competition drives prices. China undercuts us, so we either adjust the correct way, changing our methods to reduce cost or moving to another industry, or we adjust the wrong way and try to control the market through taxes. Other countries having powerful economies doesn't hurt us; it actually makes everyone more dependant, and thereby more interested in the health of, the international market.
You seem to be happy with tax cuts, and unconcerned with spending.
I don't think that's what I said; I think I said I liked the tax cuts and I was a propponent of the war. That doesn't mean I don't want a balanced budget, that means I want us to cut spending elsewhere. Discretionary spending and entitlement programs get a ton of money that they shouldn't. Bush is a terrible fiscal conservative.
If the Republicans time it right, they will force the Dems to take responsibility for paying for Republican programs with higher taxes.
This is what's happened in the past and it's worked well for the GOP, however, there was also a viable Democrat party that served the GOP's purpose. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore; honestly, I haven't heard a good idea come out of the Democrats in years. I'm not saying this to be a partisan hack; in the year and a half leading up to the 2004 election, I was anxiously trying to find a Clinton-esque Democrat who would 1) actually have a plan, and 2) not just trash all the GOP's ideas/programs. That didn't happen, and as far as I'm concerned the Democrat party line is still "We're not Bush/GOP, so vote for us because of that." The two best options that I consider good candidates in their parties, Lieberman and McCain, will never get their party's backing, which is sad.
It's inconceivable to me, but Howard Dean is actually a worse DNC chair than Terry McAulliffe. He may be firing up the base, but he's alienating those of us that would like to see the parties just come up with ideas, present them and have the country vote on whose ideas are better.
I'm willing to admit that history may justify the lies that got us where we are today in Iraq.
Okay, what lies? Honestly, I see no proof that the administration lied in order to start this war. I see a lot of conjecture and some details that are fuzzy, but there's no definitive smoking gun; each time something is proposed as a definitive smoking gun, it has so many holes in it that it appears people are just crying wolf for the sake of hoping something will stick and tarnish Bush to the point of impeachment. If he's actually done something wrong, there are a lot of people who had to be duped and cover it up...I just don't buy the conspiracy theories. Ocham's razor tears most of them to shreds.
I'm unhappy that many of our boys and girls are still stuck in Afghanistan
Honestly, we still have troops in Germany and Korea, I'm not sure what you were expecting. We establish bases and leave troops there for decades, rotating them in and out over time.
I'm unhappy that our intelligence community has lost its credibility
I'm unhappy our intelligence community is so incompetent sometimes; they deserved the loss in credibility.
I'm unhappy with the amount of nuclear sabre-rattling that we're doing.
I fully agree here. My theory, and it's only a theory, is that we're doing it for two reasons, the first because we protect Israel no matter what they do, and the second to prove how inept and useless the UN is. The UN should be this great bastion of hope that can unite the entire world. Instead it's a corrupt organization with too many parties having too much power and all of them wanting different things. There seems to be no compromise on any issue and no weight behind it's threats.
there are many great 3rd party candidates out there
I actually did look at the 3rd party candidates...and thought they were all nuts. Badnarik, Cobb, and Peroutka were all nut jobs; their remarks on their websites scared me, and I'm assuming those are toned down versions of what they stood for. I considered Nader, but I just didn't like his anti-war stance, nor did I think he would be good for the economy. The others, well, the prohibition and people's choice parties just didn't seem...sane.
So the question is, do you still think Bush is doing a better job than Kerry or Gore would have done?
It's hard to guess what they would have done, especially Kerry, since one of the reasons I didn't vote for him was that I didn't feel *he* had a firm grasp of what he was going to do. I'm not talking about the flip-flop bull that was flung back and forth, but reading his economic plan, I really couldn't see where he was going to get the money from; the numbers didn't add up. Further, it bothered me that he kept saying he was for this, that and the other and he would push XYZ many bills to accomplish them if we elected him; he'd been a freaking senator for 20 years! If he was so hard up for some of these proposals, why didn't he submit the bill *when he was in a position to do the submitting*?
Gore fell into the same category for me, though I don't remember his specific speeches terribly well at this point. I remember him losing my vote, which he had solidly, during the debates.
Not that Bush is much better, but I did like the tax cuts and I was/am behind the war. I do think it would be interesting to see how the media would portray the war were a Democrat in the WH, but I'm not going to claim liberalism is 100% the reason behind it; if it bleeds, it leads seems to be the media's stance during any presidency.
On civil liberties, I really don't see what the Republicans have done wrong. The Patriot act makes it easier for them to do things that they could already do before, and allows them to do some things that they couldn't before, but that I don't consider violations of civil liberties.
On foreign policy, Bush ain't the best, but I don't think Kerry's solution would have been the right answer either. I didn't have a problem with him going into Iraq, I thought it should have been finished off in 91 or by Clinton.
I gotta say, the state of the world today is about what I expected each time Bush got elected.
I assume you see the state of the world in a negative way? See, maybe that's my problem...I don't. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, the economy is growing. It's not 1999, but it's not bad by a long shot. How do you see it?
Yes, unfortunately, the majority of the country seemingly believes that creation myths have the same quality and quantity of supporting evidence as evolution, that hurricanes are the result of gay people and that crippled people don't deserve to walk again or move their arms, if it means utilizing stem-cells.
Or we don't believe any of that crap and just thought he'd do a better job than the other guy. Many people, and I'm saying 'many' based on an informal survey of group containing 'people I know who voted in 2004', thought that it was a choice between a bad and worse candidate. Neither were terribly appealing, and both had lots of negatives. Some (lots) of us who voted for Bush did so because we disliked Kerry, not because we thought Bush was right on everything.
Because a great many YRO articles have to do with court cases dealing with privacy. Many of those, including the recent filesharing case, make it to the SCOTUS. The selection of a new judge (replacing a notorious swing vote, incidentally) will change the outcome of those cases in the future.
You freaking moron...this bill is sponsored by a Democrat (Steny Hoyer, Democrat, Maryland 5th district). I'm sure they're intending to use it to keep Bush in office forever.
I was trying to get a group going, but we were missing 2 players for a full game and the group lost interest. I still play a lot on some of the internet judges, and you can find information on those here. Very easy to do, the commands are simple to learn and there are enough game types (orders due weekly, daily, weekdays, etc) that you'll find one that interests you.
It is to protect the 1st Amendment from abuse of power by the legislature
How is the first amendment under assault by this legislation? It seems to me that since it's opt-in, this is no harm no foul, so the ACLU is troubled by this why? It's cases like this that lead me to believe the ACLU has an agenda beyond just defending the Bill of Rights.
It's hard to keep track of terrorists when we create so many so efficiently.
Not to bring up politics in a conversation about Star Wars, but this is an asinine statement. We didn't 'create' them; depending on the terrorist group you're talking about, we may have given them varying reasons to hate us, but we certainly aren't to blame for creating their destructive tendencies.
Please tell me you at least know what his beef with the US is.
Sure I do, now. Until the embassy bombings and USS Cole incident I didn't, and I doubt most people did. There are plenty of terrorists like him that I guarnatee neither you nor I know of; it's only when they pull off something truly large scale that they become infamous.
Slashdot Mirror
Fox has many, many conservative commentators and contributors, no doubt, but when it comes to real news, they do typically just present the news. People often overshadow the news broadcasts by pointing at O'Reilly and Hannity, conveniently forgetting Colmes and Greta and the rest of the actual news reporters that are on throughout the day. I'd be interested in seeing itemizations from people on how they made their right/left leaning determination.
A great book to read on this topic is 'Bias', by Bernie Goldberg. Not because he's an exceptional writer or because he approaches the topic without a bias, but because it opened my eyes to what issues determine bias. It's not just Republican vs. Democrat agenda...it's how they cover issues like taxes, abortion and crime as well, probably more importantly. For instance, the example Goldberg gives in his book is that when Forbes was running for president and was a big proponent of the flat tax. I think it was CBS, but Goldberg said one news program had three economists on all railing *against* the flat tax, and they basically called it a joke. While certainly a conservative idea, the flat tax Forbes was pushing was a legitimate tax plan that had merits, and they sluffed it off. Similar 'discussion' of abortion or anti-crime measures were commonplace as well.
My point is that way too many people look at the bias meter and think only "Which side are they shilling for?" There's a lot more depth to a question of bias than that question represents.
--trb
Anyone else noticing the irony of the first person who may be immune to a deadly disease being gay and thus probably not reproducing?
--trb
They may be slanted but at least they're focused on news that's important to you.
Perhaps it's different in Orlando, but where I live (Centreville, Va) we have the Washington Post for most of our news, but the locality also distributes the Centreville Times. The Times doesn't even attempt to capture any national news (it might occasionally touch on metro news), it's objective is to keep us up on what's going on in our local neighborhoods. Even if most print publications go bankrupt, I doubt the Times would be affected...plenty of people buy ad space specifically because it's a way of reaching the locals.
--trb
Can't have any nasty liberals leaving him messages, can we?
I'm sure you think you're joking, but sites with even limited visibility on *both* sides of the political spectrum are beacons for assholes wanting to interject their (poorly spelled and punctuated) thoughts. I post occasionally on Newshounds, a far left wing board, and there are plenty of trolls of both flavors. Free Republic gets the exact same thing.
Unless Hastert uses a moderation system or is allowed some editorial control (which I seriously doubt he has time for, and I'd hate to speculate on the ramifications of being labeled a censor), he's going to wind up with a ridiculously low signal-to-noise ratio.
--trb
What I want politicians to do is listen to a small, trusted set of smart people and do the "right thing", regardless of whether it's popular or not.
Then you're living under the wrong form of government (assuming you're from the US). Representative democracies are not about "doing the right thing." They're about a small group voting for representatives to go to a larger, more powerful body and vote based on their wishes. If the citizens of Pennsyltucky want mandatory prayer in school, their representative should absolutely push for it whether it is right or wrong. If he doesn't, he should (and most likely will) be voted out of office.
I'm going to take a stab and guess that you would expect a "trusted set of smart people" to think approximately like you do. Would you be willing to live under the same form of government with a set of "smart people" who think the polar opposite of what do you? I doubt it.
I for one don't want politicians listening to the great unwashed masses
BTW, remove your head from your ass. People who don't want the same thing as you still have the right to have their voices heard.
--trb
FYI, the Dragon Quest series was called "Dragon Warrior" in the states...Dragon Warrior I, II and III were all out for the original NES. It's not exactly "debuting" in the states, but admittedly DQ8 looks awesome.
--trb
Get out of my head damn demon!
Seriously, those are almost exactly the steps that I (and, apparently, many others) took to get to where we are now (I would place 2 after 5, but whatever). The unfortunate part is that I can't really tell you, in all good conscience, to leave any one of those steps out. They were all invaluable in teaching me how to become a good coder. You have to start out with something that makes you *think* like a computer (LOGO), then write something that's logical and linear (BASIC), then write something that's procedural (Pascal), then write something more powerful (C), then figure out OOP and basic data objects (C++), then...well, then you just start getting more complicated with what you already know. Twelve through 14 are really just paradigm shifts that are more commercially viable and built on the previous 11 steps.
--trb
Sadly, I agree with both your sentiment and the parent post's experience. Way too many managers, including many in my own experience, hire for specific buzz words on a resume instead of looking for and actually interviewing based on a breadth and understanding of CS concepts. The more you work with Java, PHP, Web Design, etc, the more you realize it's the same concept that good developers have been using for years, just packaged up with a different syntax and interface. People who don't understand the concept, but have 5+ years experience with Java, still won't understand the Struts framework.
--trb
Perhaps I'm missing your point. The link you provided shows the US with 1/4 of the world's GDP, closely followed by an unranked European Union, presumably because the EU is a collection of 25 countries. The next closest, Japan, has a little less than half our GDP.
Was the parent poster wrong?
--trb
Outfoxed was garbage. From the number of anonymous sources they used, to the splicing of footage (notice how often the picture jumps or statements are oddly mistimed), to cropping people, especially liberals, out of the picture to make their points...it's a stretch to call it a documentary. They don't use anything resembling the scientific method to produce a conclusion; they went in with a predetermined outcome and made a "documentary" that "proved" it. Check out who they used to collect their data.
After watching it, my feeling was that given a few thousand dollars and a couple of months worth of footage, I could string together enough damning clips of PBS to make you think *it* was horribly conservative/Republican.
--trb
And you can't tell me that Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Laura Ingram and Anne Coulter are proper, non-biased political analysts?
They aren't, but neither are Susan Estrich, Ellis Hennican or Juan Williams. They are, however, openly left-wing. People rattle off the list of analysts that FNC has on that are conservative/right-wingers and then conveniently forget that they also have representatives from the opposite end of the political spectrum.
I'll give you this; FNC has more well known right-wingers than left-wingers. While not a great explanation, I offer up that FNC is the most conservative/traditional network out there, so they would be likely to attract the bigger right-wing names just like an MSNBC or CNN would be more likely to attract the bigger left-wing names.
--trb
I wouldn't read several in a row, it would upset my sensibilities.
Does the world you live in have the same effect on you? The vast majority of the world is religious or has religious beliefs, so discounting or ignoring religion in any piece of literature is to ignore a fundamental foundation of society.
While Card inserts religious themes into lots of his works, it's not usually the overriding message or story (with exceptions).
--trb
In addition to what dasunt said, when I signed up last week, they had an offer going where you get 100 trades for free. Since they're free, you're only paying shipping, which for a single disc is $.37 for the stamp.
--trb
Bush repeatedly assured the nation that he had solid evidence that Iraq had WMDs.
I'll grant you he was wrong, but stating he lied about it implies that he knew the truth and knowingly offered up something else. The same intel was seen and consensus was given by members of both parties and several other countries. If WMDs were the only reason we invaded, I wouldn't back the war, but since they had a history of breaking UN sanctions, embezzled money from the Oil-for-Food program, didn't work with weapons inspectors for years and committed more than enough human rights violations, I found enough justification that removal of Saddam, with or without WMDs, was a good idea.
--trb
China is beginning to undercut a huge amount of US manufacturing business, and we are weak right now.
One of the greatest and worst things about free markets is that competition drives prices. China undercuts us, so we either adjust the correct way, changing our methods to reduce cost or moving to another industry, or we adjust the wrong way and try to control the market through taxes. Other countries having powerful economies doesn't hurt us; it actually makes everyone more dependant, and thereby more interested in the health of, the international market.
You seem to be happy with tax cuts, and unconcerned with spending.
I don't think that's what I said; I think I said I liked the tax cuts and I was a propponent of the war. That doesn't mean I don't want a balanced budget, that means I want us to cut spending elsewhere. Discretionary spending and entitlement programs get a ton of money that they shouldn't. Bush is a terrible fiscal conservative.
If the Republicans time it right, they will force the Dems to take responsibility for paying for Republican programs with higher taxes.
This is what's happened in the past and it's worked well for the GOP, however, there was also a viable Democrat party that served the GOP's purpose. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore; honestly, I haven't heard a good idea come out of the Democrats in years. I'm not saying this to be a partisan hack; in the year and a half leading up to the 2004 election, I was anxiously trying to find a Clinton-esque Democrat who would 1) actually have a plan, and 2) not just trash all the GOP's ideas/programs. That didn't happen, and as far as I'm concerned the Democrat party line is still "We're not Bush/GOP, so vote for us because of that." The two best options that I consider good candidates in their parties, Lieberman and McCain, will never get their party's backing, which is sad.
It's inconceivable to me, but Howard Dean is actually a worse DNC chair than Terry McAulliffe. He may be firing up the base, but he's alienating those of us that would like to see the parties just come up with ideas, present them and have the country vote on whose ideas are better.
I'm willing to admit that history may justify the lies that got us where we are today in Iraq.
Okay, what lies? Honestly, I see no proof that the administration lied in order to start this war. I see a lot of conjecture and some details that are fuzzy, but there's no definitive smoking gun; each time something is proposed as a definitive smoking gun, it has so many holes in it that it appears people are just crying wolf for the sake of hoping something will stick and tarnish Bush to the point of impeachment. If he's actually done something wrong, there are a lot of people who had to be duped and cover it up...I just don't buy the conspiracy theories. Ocham's razor tears most of them to shreds.
I'm unhappy that many of our boys and girls are still stuck in Afghanistan
Honestly, we still have troops in Germany and Korea, I'm not sure what you were expecting. We establish bases and leave troops there for decades, rotating them in and out over time.
I'm unhappy that our intelligence community has lost its credibility
I'm unhappy our intelligence community is so incompetent sometimes; they deserved the loss in credibility.
I'm unhappy with the amount of nuclear sabre-rattling that we're doing.
I fully agree here. My theory, and it's only a theory, is that we're doing it for two reasons, the first because we protect Israel no matter what they do, and the second to prove how inept and useless the UN is. The UN should be this great bastion of hope that can unite the entire world. Instead it's a corrupt organization with too many parties having too much power and all of them wanting different things. There seems to be no compromise on any issue and no weight behind it's threats.
And I'm unhappy that so many US citizens
there are many great 3rd party candidates out there
I actually did look at the 3rd party candidates...and thought they were all nuts. Badnarik, Cobb, and Peroutka were all nut jobs; their remarks on their websites scared me, and I'm assuming those are toned down versions of what they stood for. I considered Nader, but I just didn't like his anti-war stance, nor did I think he would be good for the economy. The others, well, the prohibition and people's choice parties just didn't seem...sane.
--trb
So the question is, do you still think Bush is doing a better job than Kerry or Gore would have done?
It's hard to guess what they would have done, especially Kerry, since one of the reasons I didn't vote for him was that I didn't feel *he* had a firm grasp of what he was going to do. I'm not talking about the flip-flop bull that was flung back and forth, but reading his economic plan, I really couldn't see where he was going to get the money from; the numbers didn't add up. Further, it bothered me that he kept saying he was for this, that and the other and he would push XYZ many bills to accomplish them if we elected him; he'd been a freaking senator for 20 years! If he was so hard up for some of these proposals, why didn't he submit the bill *when he was in a position to do the submitting*?
Gore fell into the same category for me, though I don't remember his specific speeches terribly well at this point. I remember him losing my vote, which he had solidly, during the debates.
Not that Bush is much better, but I did like the tax cuts and I was/am behind the war. I do think it would be interesting to see how the media would portray the war were a Democrat in the WH, but I'm not going to claim liberalism is 100% the reason behind it; if it bleeds, it leads seems to be the media's stance during any presidency.
On civil liberties, I really don't see what the Republicans have done wrong. The Patriot act makes it easier for them to do things that they could already do before, and allows them to do some things that they couldn't before, but that I don't consider violations of civil liberties.
On foreign policy, Bush ain't the best, but I don't think Kerry's solution would have been the right answer either. I didn't have a problem with him going into Iraq, I thought it should have been finished off in 91 or by Clinton.
I gotta say, the state of the world today is about what I expected each time Bush got elected.
I assume you see the state of the world in a negative way? See, maybe that's my problem...I don't. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, the economy is growing. It's not 1999, but it's not bad by a long shot. How do you see it?
--trb
Yes, unfortunately, the majority of the country seemingly believes that creation myths have the same quality and quantity of supporting evidence as evolution, that hurricanes are the result of gay people and that crippled people don't deserve to walk again or move their arms, if it means utilizing stem-cells.
Or we don't believe any of that crap and just thought he'd do a better job than the other guy. Many people, and I'm saying 'many' based on an informal survey of group containing 'people I know who voted in 2004', thought that it was a choice between a bad and worse candidate. Neither were terribly appealing, and both had lots of negatives. Some (lots) of us who voted for Bush did so because we disliked Kerry, not because we thought Bush was right on everything.
--trb
Because a great many YRO articles have to do with court cases dealing with privacy. Many of those, including the recent filesharing case, make it to the SCOTUS. The selection of a new judge (replacing a notorious swing vote, incidentally) will change the outcome of those cases in the future.
--trb
You freaking moron...this bill is sponsored by a Democrat (Steny Hoyer, Democrat, Maryland 5th district). I'm sure they're intending to use it to keep Bush in office forever.
--trb
I was trying to get a group going, but we were missing 2 players for a full game and the group lost interest. I still play a lot on some of the internet judges, and you can find information on those here. Very easy to do, the commands are simple to learn and there are enough game types (orders due weekly, daily, weekdays, etc) that you'll find one that interests you.
--trb
The 3 letter government organization I work for is looking to get off NT before EOY. Won't happen either, IMO.
--trb
It is to protect the 1st Amendment from abuse of power by the legislature
How is the first amendment under assault by this legislation? It seems to me that since it's opt-in, this is no harm no foul, so the ACLU is troubled by this why? It's cases like this that lead me to believe the ACLU has an agenda beyond just defending the Bill of Rights.
--trb
It's hard to keep track of terrorists when we create so many so efficiently.
Not to bring up politics in a conversation about Star Wars, but this is an asinine statement. We didn't 'create' them; depending on the terrorist group you're talking about, we may have given them varying reasons to hate us, but we certainly aren't to blame for creating their destructive tendencies.
--trb
Please tell me you at least know what his beef with the US is.
Sure I do, now. Until the embassy bombings and USS Cole incident I didn't, and I doubt most people did. There are plenty of terrorists like him that I guarnatee neither you nor I know of; it's only when they pull off something truly large scale that they become infamous.
--trb