That's my thoughts--anyone as DUMB as she is won't believe her!
But this is beyond stupidity--she is clearly mentally ill and you've got to wonder why the husband, banks, family members ALLOWED this to go on. It wasn't like no one knew what she was doing. Why couldn't they have her name removed from accounts and not allowed access to the funds...declare her mentally unfit or whatever it took?
This is similar to those stories you hear once and awhile on how some old person spent thousands on magazines they didn't need, thinking it would help them win the Publisher's Clearing House prize.
First of all it depends on the state. In fact, one that I looked through even allow police to frisk you if they've stopped you (for cause) and then suspect you're carrying a weapon (Louisiana). Others don't specify if an officer has to accept a verbal identification. In Vermont, for example, it reads, "The person may be detained only until the person identifies himself or herself satisfactorily to the officer."
Yes, he was vindicated, but what did he get? His bag still got searched (by the police officer) to make sure he wasn't shoplifting and then he gets to pay $5,000+ in legal fees for the privilege of "being right." I'm sorry, but I don't have sympathy with people who make a mountain out of a molehill. And yes, this was a molehill. There are far greater crimes and bigger battles to be fought. If you have a problem with a store's policy, then fine, complain to the store (upper) management, the state attorneys general and/or give your business to someone else.
We also don't know what was said (or how it was said) to the police officer. First of all, I as a citizen would rather have a cop patrolling for really bad guys than having to go handle a dispute where someone is stopped and asked to see his store bag. I can imagine that when he gave his name, the cop asked if he had an ID. If the guy then says, "Yes, but I don't have to show you that," the cop is obviously going to figure that he's being given a false ID.
I think there are plenty of times we must stand up for our civil rights, but to me, this borders on the ridiculous. And I imagine that Circuit City is STILL asking shoppers to peek into their bag and see their receipt. So nothing was really won here, except for his attorney.
It seems to me, however, that some people are just trying to cause a lawsuit.... It wasn't his decision to refuse the search of his bag at an area Circuit City that got him behind bars. It was getting smart with the police officer (that he, himself called) that landed him in jail. If you have an ID and the police asks for it and you refuse, you are obstructing. (The blogger does also say this at the end of the article.) Now the guy want the ACLU to come to his rescue and is soliciting donations to fund his defense.
I've not shopped much at Circuit City, but I don't recall anyone wanting to review my receipt there. They do at BestBuy (rarely) and Fry's, but Fry's is the only one I've seen that's actually makes a serious comparison. BestBuy has a guy stationed near the cash registers at the exit/entrance, so he can see you just came out of the checkout line.
Frankly, I think the reason they're going out of business is because they simply don't carry the stuff people want at the right prices. It's weird, they seem *almost* the same as BestBuy, but the times I have been there, I rarely end up buying something. But we buy a lot at BestBuy and I also like to take advantage of the X months, no interest, depending on how much you buy.
Perhaps news reporters and those that work in the media are more educated than your average American voter and vote more intelligently.
Oh please....now you're trolling.
As you said, correlation does not equal causation. Newspapers are routinely written on about a 7th grade reading level. So Not a lot of William F. Buckleys or perspicacious intellects in the profession. Although quite a few DO seem think they're much smarter...a lot like the Hollywood elite. And those who think rural=dumb when many of the poorest and least educated live in urban areas. I suspect this comes from too much time spent hanging around with like-minded elitists until the all convince themselves they know best.
But what we're talking about is news bias. Journalist tend to vote to the left and they apparently have no ethics problem letting that bias into their stories. Journalists today often see themselves as activists. There were actually reporters breaking down and telling THEIR stories when Obama won. That's unprofessional: It's one thing to turn and ask a member of the crowd how they feel, it's another to just break down and start talking about YOUR father, etc.
It might interest you to know that FOX is not right-tilted but WAS actually 'fair and balanced' when it came to the election. Most critics like to lump in their commentary shows O'Reilly factor, Hannity & Colmes, etc. But those are commentary, just like a newspaper has an editorial section. In election coverage Fox News has 22/40 pos/neg coverage of McCain and a 25/40 pos/neg coverage of Obama. Contrast that with MSNBC had 73% negative stories on McCain vs. 14% on Obama.
I agree the questions asked of Sarah Palin in the were rather sexist. For example there was focus on how much money she spent on her wardrobe, where she buys her clothes etc. A male candidate would have never been asked that question.
Agree. And the thing is, she didn't spend that money or ask for a new wardrobe. It sounds like her handlers didn't like her current wardrobe or didn't find it sophisticated enough for THEM. They make the decision and the selections, the clothes were brought in and in several sizes to make sure they fit...then the little cowards backstab her about it. I think there were some in the campaign that were pissed that their favorite candidate didn't get picked for VP and they were out to set her up. I don't didn't see the Couric interview, but I don't think the wardrobe question was asked directly to her in an interview. She finally had to respond after it kept coming up in the media.
Also, don't forget that Palin was questioned if she could do the job AND raise a family! No male candidate, including Joe Biden, who became a single parent after his wife died, would EVER be asked a question like that!
However, that's where Sarah Palin should have stood up and drive the interview towards the issues. She kept trying to pander to midwestern house wives. She deserved her own fate. How are you going to let Katie Couric make you look stupid?!
And that was another problem with the handlers. They keep her under wraps and then give her first interviews with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson who they had to know were going to ask *gotcha* questions. They should have arranged some local interviews to get her warmed up and so she could get familiar with the issues and McCain's take on them.
Keep in mind the media also totally ignored any gaffs made by Biden such as when he talked to Couric about Americans sitting around the TV watching FDR after the stock market crashed in 1929! Had Palin said something like that, it would have been all over the news that she was so stupid she thought FDR was president in 1929 and that people had television back then.
Palin is going to be on with Greta Van Susteren tonight, so it will be interesting to see how she answers the anonymous critics that won't show their faces.
First, in my experience only MSNBC has a liberal bias. Second, so? Obama was hitting themes that struck a chord with Americans.
No, that's just wrong. Journalists are there to report, not support. (catchy, huh;-)
"Journalists love the new..."
No, journalists love the Democrat! Around 81% of journalists vote Democrat. Sarah Palin was also new and all most journalists wanted to do was trash her, even to the point of annoying some democrat women who clearly saw the sexism of those covering the campaign.
While one cannot rule out all bias, today's media hardly tries! They are supposed to REPORT news, not put their spin or commentary in a news story. Basically a lot of jouranists are producing propaganda, not news. But today's journalist (and my degree is in journalism) sees their role as changing the world rather than observing it.
Now some in the media are starting to backpedal. Tom Brokaw apparently said on Charlie Rose Show that "We don't know anything about Barack Obama." Well you had a good year and a half to find out and dozens of reporters who could have been assigned! I don't think they WANTED to know. They didn't want to dig too deep and possibly find something that might bring Obama down. Now they want to cover their ass in case something does come out.
"The Ghostbusters game, which features all four actors from the original movie and a new script by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, is a follow-up to Ghostbusters II."
Looking at the video at http://www.ghostbustersgame.com/, nice graphics, but it looks like the script is IDENTICAL to the movie.
Troll? Damn you're a bunch of touchy bastards. That was a JOKE! It seems though you don't mind when Palin's account was broken into because you thought they found dirt. Different when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?
Oh NOW we must put aside our differences and come together? That's so hypocritical! What happened eight years ago? Bush/Cheney didn't even get a chance to be sworn in and the left started screaming bloody murder and the name calling. And no, I didn't agree with everything Bush did, but I thanked God he was elected instead of Gore when we were attacked in 2001. And what about the thinking of the country first before calling American soldiers cold-blooded killers (Murtha) and the anti-war rhetoric. Way to support our enemies.
Frankly I don't think it will be undeserved, but I will have at least the decency to let him create some bad policies before I criticize them. Obama has already told us what he's going to do. But his supporters just don't believe THEY'LL be directly affected. They think they'll all be on the receiving end of the goodies and some bad old rich person is going to pay for all this. Pelosi can't wait to start pushing the party's liberal agenda. He'll have no excuse that he can't get his agenda through.
Everyone knows Stevens is going to prison. His reelection just serves as a placeholder for the person who's actually going to take the Senate seat in his stead.
Not so fast. It turns out the juror who left DURING DELIBERATIONS because her dad was dying--turned out she just wanted to bet on the ponies. If that doesn't call for a retrial, I don't know what would!
Yeah well, welcome to payback time. We've had to put up with all the Bush/republican bashing (even though the democrat congress numbers were ALSO in the toilet after they took over!) So don't expect me to *embrace* the new president after having put up with hearing 8 years of (mostly) undeserved crap from the day Bush entered office. You want change, you've got it and you can have it. We've got a liberal president and a liberal congress and while some of you may get a check in the mail, you better hold onto your wallet because the money is going to bleeding out the other end.
Oh and don't forget Biden promised us Obama will be tested in the first six months. Those of you overseas who are happy Obama won: You'd better hope that test doesn't involved your country because we won't be there. He's going to cut the military, remember? But he'll sit down to tea with your enemy for you and negotiate the surrender. Oh and while he's gutting the military, he wants to have a civilian national security force built up. (Hmmm, where in history have we seen a civilian national security force before....)
I just don't want to hear any whining from Obama supporters about inflation, job loss, etc. in the next 4 years because according you and the media, we've have just been given utopia.
Quotes to remember: July 2, 2008 in Colorado Springs (Obama): "We cannot continue to only rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
From You-Tube Video, undated (Obama): "...I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.
Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.
And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."
October 19, 2008 - Seatte (Joe Biden) "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
October 30, 2007 Democrat Debate: Brian Williams: What would make it crystal clear in your mind that the United States should attack Iran?
SEN. OBAMA: "I don't think we should be talking about attacking Iran at this point, for some of the reasons that Chris and Joe just talked about. Look, we have been seeing, during the Republican debates, the drumbeat of war. The president has been talking about World War III. That is a continuation of the kinds of foreign policy that rejects diplomacy and sees military action as the only tool available to us to influence the region. And what we should be doing is reaching out aggressively to our allies b
Current global climate change exists because of our selfish and blind activity, and this is something we CAN change.
Neither of those assertions is proven. A changing climate is a natural phenomum and there is no proof that there is anything man-made about it. Neither can it be shown that we can "fix" anything. You need to look at data versus statements made by those who have a political agenda tied into this cause.
No, but there is evidence that since humans came to the scene, and especially since the industrial age, the species are going extinct at a rate from 100s to 1000s of times greater than before.
I would like to see the stats on that--I believe that is (once again) purely conjecture made up by those who make environmentalism into a political football instead of science.
Being that we're still FINDING new species, I don't believe we have the evidence that species are going extinct 100x much less 1000x. One of the biggest die outs was the dinosaurs which we had no part in. Then there were mammals such as the wooly mammoth, saber-toothed tiger which died out and I hardly think man was populated enough to do them in. Yet we have their cousins and those of several other species. And the question, did they die off or did they simply assimilate into something like what we have today. Even with man scientists are questioning if the Neanderthal actually died out or did it interbreed with modern man and simply assimilate the gentic structure.
We are also saving countless species that I believe if they had been left up to their own, would have died out. In some ways, we may be mucking things up by not having natural selection. We save a cute owl only to find it gobbles up the last of species of mice. Do we run in and try to save the mice? If the mice die out, was that the only food the owl could eat and it sealed it's own doom? It could turn into a "butterfly effect" in reverse because we are making the selection for something not to die.
Example: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. If the sheep votes, he is implicitly supporting that voting system and cannot complain when the carving knives come out. He had his democratic say, how can he complain about the outcome? The only option which makes sense, which lends any weight to his position, is to refuse to vote and so refuse to endorse the system.
"Winner takes all" is not a just outcome. What is needed is a diplomatic process to reach mutual agreement, with concessions on all sides if necessary. Oh but that requires effort.
Except that we are NOT a true democracy, otherwise your example would be valid. This is WHY we are a respresentative system. This is why each state has two senators, no matter how small the state--in that branch everyone gets equal number of representatives to protect the minority states from being overrun by the larger ones. In the House of Representaives, it goes by No. of congressmen = % of population. Which helps balance out the other end so a minority of the population can't run everything. No it's not perfect. For example, I hate when people gripe about taxes, but then keep voting in their OWN porkbarrel representatives time after time. We also have the electorial college so the candidates don't just court the states with the large populations.
But the attitude, "Well I'm just going to pick up my marbes and go home," is foolish (in my nicest vernacular.) If you want change then you start on the grassroots level. Find a person running for office you can support and volunteer your time. Even if it's just a local race. A lot of times, the decisions that affect you the most are done at the local level, not the national. If you don't want to participate, then you might as well move to another country. (Note: I'm NOT saying "love it or leave it," but what is the use of staying in a country where you can't stand and don't plan to participate in, the electoral system?) Find some NEW US citizens and ask them how they feel about voting. They will likely tell you it's the most important thing you can do and is one of the reasons they became a US citizen!
I DO agree with your assessment of "winner take all" and I think that's why it's rare that the population votes in a Congress and President from the same party. They want some debate and compromise. They don't want one side or the other running everything through unopposed and unquestioned.
Biologists at the University of California, San Diego, have shown that amphibians are the first to respond to environmental changes, thanks to their sensitivity to both air and water.
So maybe we're seeing why the dinosaurs died out. They were too sensitive to environment change. They couldn't adapt to the changes in climate and died.
The article starts out blaming man and herbicides, but then has to conclude that even areas free from herbicides, such as national parks "provide no refuge." So that is blamed on global warming (no doubt man-made), causing the ponds to dry out. Neither of these are supplemented with facts, but is all speculative. Frogs and salamanders are dying, so we must be causing it.
Even though we may want to, there is no way we can save every species from extinction. We talk time and again about survival of the fittest in science class, yet we can't seem to acknowledge that species must adapt or die. Animal species that are hardy will thrive. Those who are not will not. We could have the perfect ecosystem for frogs and salamanders, and that would threaten some other species that found the weather too damp or warm to thrive. We blame ourselves for everything, when in fact there's no evidence that, if we all vanished tomorrow, animals wouldn't continue to die out as they always have.
No ADT doesn't come in and remove the equipment--that was likely the previous owners--but they're still a scam. You BUY the equipment along with the monitoring. But if you cancel, not only does the monitoring go away--the equipment that you bought NO LONGER WORKS! Unless you can either hack it or sign up with a different monitor, you're screwed. That's just wrong. You should be able to get the use of your equipment with or without their service. It's the alarm that scares the burglar away--they don't know that it's not being monitored. In fact you're probably fine if you just have one of those signs out front that says you have ADT or whatever system.
The other rip-off we discovered here is you have to register your alarm with the police or law enforcement agency in your area. If you don't then they might not respond if the monitoring company calls.
And yes, we could visit friends, but ideally our kids would watch the first part and then go to bed -- and a sitter would be expensive if we have to wait until late for the result.
The question is not whether you can wait up that late...it's also possible we have another "hanging chad" type screw up and have to wait for weeks....
Between Acorn and electronic voting machines, there's all kinds of places where, if the race is close, it will be contested.
I disagree with you that the "average CEO" makes 400x a worker's salary. Only in the largest companies do we see massive salaries. Most companies that provide the bulk of US jobs are the smaller ones. Their owner/operator CEO's are not making huge salaries, in fact they may be making less than their employees, but will be the ones affected by Obama's redistribute the wealth plan. These are the average men and women who either have or want to have their own business.
I've have friends that either have or had a small business. Most people don't want to just be the only person on the job and many can't do it all alone, depending on the type of business. (One friend owned a custom frame shop, the other owns a chain of restaurants.) They want to expand their business. And yes, they care about their employees and would like to give them competitive benefits. When you think of running a business AND trying to expand $250K is really a drop in the bucket. That 250K profit could go to getting a larger buidling, taking on a big job that needs capital, supplying workers with insurance, hiring more workers, etc.
This tax is going to kill a lot of dreams and a lot of businesses. Once the government steps in and says, "Hey you make too much, give it to us," they have just provided a disincentive for small business growth. And who benefits from that: the very large, mega-corporations that you just complained about. They're the ones who are getting bailed out or they've got enough cash or leverage to raise prices, move overseas or otherwise cover additional taxes.
What should be required reading in school is, "The Millionaire Next Door." It not only shares how they gained their wealth, but you'll be surprised about just who these wealthy people are and how anti-stereotypical.
I would like to also add that businesses DO NOT PAY TAXES. Taxes are passed on to the consumer as the cost of goods or cuts in their budgets, such as hiring or other costs like benefits, raises, etc. In any way, shape or form, WE all pay for those additional taxes.
Actually that's probably because the president has very little to do with the economy. Congress passes the budget, the president just signs or vetoes it. The president can make suggestions, but although he may take the blame or the credit for the state of the economy, he has very little to do with it.
I found this article interesting regarding the history of where Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae came from. Written in 2003, it's notes that, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the only two Fortune 500 companies that are not required to inform the public about any financial difficulties that they may be having."
Rather prophetically, the author adds:
In the event that there was some sort of financial collapse within either of these companies, U.S. taxpayers could be held responsible for hundreds of billions of dollars in outstanding debts. A recent investigation by the Justice Department and the SEC into the accounting practices at Freddie Mac revealed accounting errors in the amount of 4.5 to 4.7 billion dollars and resulted in the termination of three of the company's top executives. Ongoing investigations by Congress, particular the House Finance Services subcommittee that oversees the activity of GSEs, will determine the future role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the secondary mortgage market that they dominate.
However, members of both parties on the House Financial Services Committee have had a cozy relationship with Freddie and Fannie lobbyists who strived to keep regulation at bay. It's somewhat ironic that congress and opposing political parties heap ALL the blame on the incumbent president while they quietly go on filling THEIR coffers for their next re-election campaign. If anyone is the "little man behind the curtain" it's more our elected representatives than anyone else.
Since when is a PhD in Computer Science needed to register a vote ?
There's not. How many people do you know who just WON'T read the damn instructions? I *get* the example above about a mouse, but there is no mouse. On our machines, there a nice big dial that you spin to highlight the right candidate and then push the nice, big button to enter an X, then go to the next race, senatorial, congress, etc. Then at the end it gives you a chance to review your entries and you push the even BIGGER button that says Cast Vote. I don't know how they could make it any simpler. I realize there are some machines that are different, but they're probably similar in design.
If these things were truly "switching votes," a lot more than 3 people would have noticed. They're probably turning the dial to on thing and then not pushing the button to enter the X, then they move the dial and say, "Hey this machine is changing my vote."
Slashdot Mirror
That's my thoughts--anyone as DUMB as she is won't believe her!
But this is beyond stupidity--she is clearly mentally ill and you've got to wonder why the husband, banks, family members ALLOWED this to go on. It wasn't like no one knew what she was doing. Why couldn't they have her name removed from accounts and not allowed access to the funds...declare her mentally unfit or whatever it took?
This is similar to those stories you hear once and awhile on how some old person spent thousands on magazines they didn't need, thinking it would help them win the Publisher's Clearing House prize.
First of all it depends on the state. In fact, one that I looked through even allow police to frisk you if they've stopped you (for cause) and then suspect you're carrying a weapon (Louisiana). Others don't specify if an officer has to accept a verbal identification. In Vermont, for example, it reads, "The person may be detained only until the person identifies himself or herself satisfactorily to the officer."
Yes, he was vindicated, but what did he get? His bag still got searched (by the police officer) to make sure he wasn't shoplifting and then he gets to pay $5,000+ in legal fees for the privilege of "being right." I'm sorry, but I don't have sympathy with people who make a mountain out of a molehill. And yes, this was a molehill. There are far greater crimes and bigger battles to be fought. If you have a problem with a store's policy, then fine, complain to the store (upper) management, the state attorneys general and/or give your business to someone else.
We also don't know what was said (or how it was said) to the police officer. First of all, I as a citizen would rather have a cop patrolling for really bad guys than having to go handle a dispute where someone is stopped and asked to see his store bag. I can imagine that when he gave his name, the cop asked if he had an ID. If the guy then says, "Yes, but I don't have to show you that," the cop is obviously going to figure that he's being given a false ID.
I think there are plenty of times we must stand up for our civil rights, but to me, this borders on the ridiculous. And I imagine that Circuit City is STILL asking shoppers to peek into their bag and see their receipt. So nothing was really won here, except for his attorney.
I don't think he'd use a pager, tended to prefer the mail. My advise, stamp it "return to sender."
My advice: Don't stamp ANYTHING from Ted Kaczynski!
It seems to me, however, that some people are just trying to cause a lawsuit.... It wasn't his decision to refuse the search of his bag at an area Circuit City that got him behind bars. It was getting smart with the police officer (that he, himself called) that landed him in jail. If you have an ID and the police asks for it and you refuse, you are obstructing. (The blogger does also say this at the end of the article.) Now the guy want the ACLU to come to his rescue and is soliciting donations to fund his defense.
I've not shopped much at Circuit City, but I don't recall anyone wanting to review my receipt there. They do at BestBuy (rarely) and Fry's, but Fry's is the only one I've seen that's actually makes a serious comparison. BestBuy has a guy stationed near the cash registers at the exit/entrance, so he can see you just came out of the checkout line.
Frankly, I think the reason they're going out of business is because they simply don't carry the stuff people want at the right prices. It's weird, they seem *almost* the same as BestBuy, but the times I have been there, I rarely end up buying something. But we buy a lot at BestBuy and I also like to take advantage of the X months, no interest, depending on how much you buy.
Perhaps news reporters and those that work in the media are more educated than your average American voter and vote more intelligently.
Oh please....now you're trolling.
As you said, correlation does not equal causation. Newspapers are routinely written on about a 7th grade reading level. So Not a lot of William F. Buckleys or perspicacious intellects in the profession. Although quite a few DO seem think they're much smarter...a lot like the Hollywood elite. And those who think rural=dumb when many of the poorest and least educated live in urban areas. I suspect this comes from too much time spent hanging around with like-minded elitists until the all convince themselves they know best.
But what we're talking about is news bias. Journalist tend to vote to the left and they apparently have no ethics problem letting that bias into their stories. Journalists today often see themselves as activists. There were actually reporters breaking down and telling THEIR stories when Obama won. That's unprofessional: It's one thing to turn and ask a member of the crowd how they feel, it's another to just break down and start talking about YOUR father, etc.
It might interest you to know that FOX is not right-tilted but WAS actually 'fair and balanced' when it came to the election. Most critics like to lump in their commentary shows O'Reilly factor, Hannity & Colmes, etc. But those are commentary, just like a newspaper has an editorial section. In election coverage Fox News has 22/40 pos/neg coverage of McCain and a 25/40 pos/neg coverage of Obama. Contrast that with MSNBC had 73% negative stories on McCain vs. 14% on Obama.
I agree the questions asked of Sarah Palin in the were rather sexist. For example there was focus on how much money she spent on her wardrobe, where she buys her clothes etc. A male candidate would have never been asked that question.
Agree. And the thing is, she didn't spend that money or ask for a new wardrobe. It sounds like her handlers didn't like her current wardrobe or didn't find it sophisticated enough for THEM. They make the decision and the selections, the clothes were brought in and in several sizes to make sure they fit...then the little cowards backstab her about it. I think there were some in the campaign that were pissed that their favorite candidate didn't get picked for VP and they were out to set her up. I don't didn't see the Couric interview, but I don't think the wardrobe question was asked directly to her in an interview. She finally had to respond after it kept coming up in the media.
Also, don't forget that Palin was questioned if she could do the job AND raise a family! No male candidate, including Joe Biden, who became a single parent after his wife died, would EVER be asked a question like that!
However, that's where Sarah Palin should have stood up and drive the interview towards the issues. She kept trying to pander to midwestern house wives. She deserved her own fate. How are you going to let Katie Couric make you look stupid?!
And that was another problem with the handlers. They keep her under wraps and then give her first interviews with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson who they had to know were going to ask *gotcha* questions. They should have arranged some local interviews to get her warmed up and so she could get familiar with the issues and McCain's take on them.
Keep in mind the media also totally ignored any gaffs made by Biden such as when he talked to Couric about Americans sitting around the TV watching FDR after the stock market crashed in 1929! Had Palin said something like that, it would have been all over the news that she was so stupid she thought FDR was president in 1929 and that people had television back then.
Palin is going to be on with Greta Van Susteren tonight, so it will be interesting to see how she answers the anonymous critics that won't show their faces.
First, in my experience only MSNBC has a liberal bias. Second, so? Obama was hitting themes that struck a chord with Americans.
No, that's just wrong. Journalists are there to report, not support. (catchy, huh ;-)
"Journalists love the new..."
No, journalists love the Democrat! Around 81% of journalists vote Democrat. Sarah Palin was also new and all most journalists wanted to do was trash her, even to the point of annoying some democrat women who clearly saw the sexism of those covering the campaign.
While one cannot rule out all bias, today's media hardly tries! They are supposed to REPORT news, not put their spin or commentary in a news story. Basically a lot of jouranists are producing propaganda, not news. But today's journalist (and my degree is in journalism) sees their role as changing the world rather than observing it.
Now some in the media are starting to backpedal. Tom Brokaw apparently said on Charlie Rose Show that "We don't know anything about Barack Obama." Well you had a good year and a half to find out and dozens of reporters who could have been assigned! I don't think they WANTED to know. They didn't want to dig too deep and possibly find something that might bring Obama down. Now they want to cover their ass in case something does come out.
"The Ghostbusters game, which features all four actors from the original movie and a new script by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, is a follow-up to Ghostbusters II."
Looking at the video at http://www.ghostbustersgame.com/, nice graphics, but it looks like the script is IDENTICAL to the movie.
Troll? Damn you're a bunch of touchy bastards. That was a JOKE! It seems though you don't mind when Palin's account was broken into because you thought they found dirt. Different when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?
So FUCK OFF!
Oh NOW we must put aside our differences and come together? That's so hypocritical! What happened eight years ago? Bush/Cheney didn't even get a chance to be sworn in and the left started screaming bloody murder and the name calling. And no, I didn't agree with everything Bush did, but I thanked God he was elected instead of Gore when we were attacked in 2001. And what about the thinking of the country first before calling American soldiers cold-blooded killers (Murtha) and the anti-war rhetoric. Way to support our enemies.
Frankly I don't think it will be undeserved, but I will have at least the decency to let him create some bad policies before I criticize them. Obama has already told us what he's going to do. But his supporters just don't believe THEY'LL be directly affected. They think they'll all be on the receiving end of the goodies and some bad old rich person is going to pay for all this. Pelosi can't wait to start pushing the party's liberal agenda. He'll have no excuse that he can't get his agenda through.
But did they find out if either campaign used their email for personal reasons?
Everyone knows Stevens is going to prison. His reelection just serves as a placeholder for the person who's actually going to take the Senate seat in his stead.
Not so fast. It turns out the juror who left DURING DELIBERATIONS because her dad was dying--turned out she just wanted to bet on the ponies. If that doesn't call for a retrial, I don't know what would!
(This is where someone says they don't like the BBC because they have a British slant.)
Correction: (This is where someone says they don't like the BBC because they have a liberal slant.)
There, fixed that for you.
Yeah well, welcome to payback time. We've had to put up with all the Bush/republican bashing (even though the democrat congress numbers were ALSO in the toilet after they took over!) So don't expect me to *embrace* the new president after having put up with hearing 8 years of (mostly) undeserved crap from the day Bush entered office. You want change, you've got it and you can have it. We've got a liberal president and a liberal congress and while some of you may get a check in the mail, you better hold onto your wallet because the money is going to bleeding out the other end.
Oh and don't forget Biden promised us Obama will be tested in the first six months. Those of you overseas who are happy Obama won: You'd better hope that test doesn't involved your country because we won't be there. He's going to cut the military, remember? But he'll sit down to tea with your enemy for you and negotiate the surrender. Oh and while he's gutting the military, he wants to have a civilian national security force built up. (Hmmm, where in history have we seen a civilian national security force before....)
I just don't want to hear any whining from Obama supporters about inflation, job loss, etc. in the next 4 years because according you and the media, we've have just been given utopia.
Quotes to remember:
July 2, 2008 in Colorado Springs (Obama):
"We cannot continue to only rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
From You-Tube Video, undated (Obama):
"...I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.
Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.
And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."
October 19, 2008 - Seatte (Joe Biden)
"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
October 30, 2007 Democrat Debate:
Brian Williams: What would make it crystal clear in your mind that the United States should attack Iran?
SEN. OBAMA: "I don't think we should be talking about attacking Iran at this point, for some of the reasons that Chris and Joe just talked about. Look, we have been seeing, during the Republican debates, the drumbeat of war. The president has been talking about World War III. That is a continuation of the kinds of foreign policy that rejects diplomacy and sees military action as the only tool available to us to influence the region. And what we should be doing is reaching out aggressively to our allies b
Current global climate change exists because of our selfish and blind activity, and this is something we CAN change.
Neither of those assertions is proven. A changing climate is a natural phenomum and there is no proof that there is anything man-made about it. Neither can it be shown that we can "fix" anything. You need to look at data versus statements made by those who have a political agenda tied into this cause.
No, but there is evidence that since humans came to the scene, and especially since the industrial age, the species are going extinct at a rate from 100s to 1000s of times greater than before.
I would like to see the stats on that--I believe that is (once again) purely conjecture made up by those who make environmentalism into a political football instead of science.
Being that we're still FINDING new species, I don't believe we have the evidence that species are going extinct 100x much less 1000x. One of the biggest die outs was the dinosaurs which we had no part in. Then there were mammals such as the wooly mammoth, saber-toothed tiger which died out and I hardly think man was populated enough to do them in. Yet we have their cousins and those of several other species. And the question, did they die off or did they simply assimilate into something like what we have today. Even with man scientists are questioning if the Neanderthal actually died out or did it interbreed with modern man and simply assimilate the gentic structure.
We are also saving countless species that I believe if they had been left up to their own, would have died out. In some ways, we may be mucking things up by not having natural selection. We save a cute owl only to find it gobbles up the last of species of mice. Do we run in and try to save the mice? If the mice die out, was that the only food the owl could eat and it sealed it's own doom? It could turn into a "butterfly effect" in reverse because we are making the selection for something not to die.
It's just something we need to consider.
Example: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. If the sheep votes, he is implicitly supporting that voting system and cannot complain when the carving knives come out. He had his democratic say, how can he complain about the outcome? The only option which makes sense, which lends any weight to his position, is to refuse to vote and so refuse to endorse the system.
"Winner takes all" is not a just outcome. What is needed is a diplomatic process to reach mutual agreement, with concessions on all sides if necessary. Oh but that requires effort.
Except that we are NOT a true democracy, otherwise your example would be valid. This is WHY we are a respresentative system. This is why each state has two senators, no matter how small the state--in that branch everyone gets equal number of representatives to protect the minority states from being overrun by the larger ones. In the House of Representaives, it goes by No. of congressmen = % of population. Which helps balance out the other end so a minority of the population can't run everything. No it's not perfect. For example, I hate when people gripe about taxes, but then keep voting in their OWN porkbarrel representatives time after time. We also have the electorial college so the candidates don't just court the states with the large populations.
But the attitude, "Well I'm just going to pick up my marbes and go home," is foolish (in my nicest vernacular.) If you want change then you start on the grassroots level. Find a person running for office you can support and volunteer your time. Even if it's just a local race. A lot of times, the decisions that affect you the most are done at the local level, not the national. If you don't want to participate, then you might as well move to another country. (Note: I'm NOT saying "love it or leave it," but what is the use of staying in a country where you can't stand and don't plan to participate in, the electoral system?) Find some NEW US citizens and ask them how they feel about voting. They will likely tell you it's the most important thing you can do and is one of the reasons they became a US citizen!
I DO agree with your assessment of "winner take all" and I think that's why it's rare that the population votes in a Congress and President from the same party. They want some debate and compromise. They don't want one side or the other running everything through unopposed and unquestioned.
Biologists at the University of California, San Diego, have shown that amphibians are the first to respond to environmental changes, thanks to their sensitivity to both air and water.
So maybe we're seeing why the dinosaurs died out. They were too sensitive to environment change. They couldn't adapt to the changes in climate and died.
The article starts out blaming man and herbicides, but then has to conclude that even areas free from herbicides, such as national parks "provide no refuge." So that is blamed on global warming (no doubt man-made), causing the ponds to dry out. Neither of these are supplemented with facts, but is all speculative. Frogs and salamanders are dying, so we must be causing it.
Even though we may want to, there is no way we can save every species from extinction. We talk time and again about survival of the fittest in science class, yet we can't seem to acknowledge that species must adapt or die. Animal species that are hardy will thrive. Those who are not will not. We could have the perfect ecosystem for frogs and salamanders, and that would threaten some other species that found the weather too damp or warm to thrive. We blame ourselves for everything, when in fact there's no evidence that, if we all vanished tomorrow, animals wouldn't continue to die out as they always have.
No ADT doesn't come in and remove the equipment--that was likely the previous owners--but they're still a scam. You BUY the equipment along with the monitoring. But if you cancel, not only does the monitoring go away--the equipment that you bought NO LONGER WORKS! Unless you can either hack it or sign up with a different monitor, you're screwed. That's just wrong. You should be able to get the use of your equipment with or without their service. It's the alarm that scares the burglar away--they don't know that it's not being monitored. In fact you're probably fine if you just have one of those signs out front that says you have ADT or whatever system.
The other rip-off we discovered here is you have to register your alarm with the police or law enforcement agency in your area. If you don't then they might not respond if the monitoring company calls.
And yes, we could visit friends, but ideally our kids would watch the first part and then go to bed -- and a sitter would be expensive if we have to wait until late for the result.
The question is not whether you can wait up that late...it's also possible we have another "hanging chad" type screw up and have to wait for weeks....
Between Acorn and electronic voting machines, there's all kinds of places where, if the race is close, it will be contested.
Damn...someone needs to "smoke you up" (read earlier thread).
You're going to have an aneurism before the election's done.
I disagree with you that the "average CEO" makes 400x a worker's salary. Only in the largest companies do we see massive salaries. Most companies that provide the bulk of US jobs are the smaller ones. Their owner/operator CEO's are not making huge salaries, in fact they may be making less than their employees, but will be the ones affected by Obama's redistribute the wealth plan. These are the average men and women who either have or want to have their own business.
I've have friends that either have or had a small business. Most people don't want to just be the only person on the job and many can't do it all alone, depending on the type of business. (One friend owned a custom frame shop, the other owns a chain of restaurants.) They want to expand their business. And yes, they care about their employees and would like to give them competitive benefits. When you think of running a business AND trying to expand $250K is really a drop in the bucket. That 250K profit could go to getting a larger buidling, taking on a big job that needs capital, supplying workers with insurance, hiring more workers, etc.
This tax is going to kill a lot of dreams and a lot of businesses. Once the government steps in and says, "Hey you make too much, give it to us," they have just provided a disincentive for small business growth. And who benefits from that: the very large, mega-corporations that you just complained about. They're the ones who are getting bailed out or they've got enough cash or leverage to raise prices, move overseas or otherwise cover additional taxes.
What should be required reading in school is, "The Millionaire Next Door." It not only shares how they gained their wealth, but you'll be surprised about just who these wealthy people are and how anti-stereotypical.
I would like to also add that businesses DO NOT PAY TAXES. Taxes are passed on to the consumer as the cost of goods or cuts in their budgets, such as hiring or other costs like benefits, raises, etc. In any way, shape or form, WE all pay for those additional taxes.
Actually that's probably because the president has very little to do with the economy. Congress passes the budget, the president just signs or vetoes it. The president can make suggestions, but although he may take the blame or the credit for the state of the economy, he has very little to do with it.
I found this article interesting regarding the history of where Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae came from. Written in 2003, it's notes that, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the only two Fortune 500 companies that are not required to inform the public about any financial difficulties that they may be having."
Rather prophetically, the author adds:
In the event that there was some sort of financial collapse within either of these companies, U.S. taxpayers could be held responsible for hundreds of billions of dollars in outstanding debts. A recent investigation by the Justice Department and the SEC into the accounting practices at Freddie Mac revealed accounting errors in the amount of 4.5 to 4.7 billion dollars and resulted in the termination of three of the company's top executives. Ongoing investigations by Congress, particular the House Finance Services subcommittee that oversees the activity of GSEs, will determine the future role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the secondary mortgage market that they dominate.
However, members of both parties on the House Financial Services Committee have had a cozy relationship with Freddie and Fannie lobbyists who strived to keep regulation at bay. It's somewhat ironic that congress and opposing political parties heap ALL the blame on the incumbent president while they quietly go on filling THEIR coffers for their next re-election campaign. If anyone is the "little man behind the curtain" it's more our elected representatives than anyone else.
Since when is a PhD in Computer Science needed to register a vote ?
There's not. How many people do you know who just WON'T read the damn instructions? I *get* the example above about a mouse, but there is no mouse. On our machines, there a nice big dial that you spin to highlight the right candidate and then push the nice, big button to enter an X, then go to the next race, senatorial, congress, etc. Then at the end it gives you a chance to review your entries and you push the even BIGGER button that says Cast Vote. I don't know how they could make it any simpler. I realize there are some machines that are different, but they're probably similar in design.
If these things were truly "switching votes," a lot more than 3 people would have noticed. They're probably turning the dial to on thing and then not pushing the button to enter the X, then they move the dial and say, "Hey this machine is changing my vote."