Time for a plug. My favorite search engine is this. Doesn't give you exactly what you are looking for, but it uses clustering technology. The clustering of the reulsts, IMHO, makes it easier to sift through the results than either Google or Jeeves.
The candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges.
Interesting. I can't figure it out either. My best guess is that one candidate can't turn to the other and say something like "If elected, I pledge to cut taxes.". Although, that is probably not correct.
Anyway, you are right to question the whole term 'debate'. These are not debates, nor have they ever been debates. They are purely opportunities to provide sound bites and for the candidates to look good. Even going back to the Kennedy / Nixon campaign, they were not formal 'debates'.
Oh, please, put away the tin-foil hat for just a minute. They ran a cover story in full support of Gay Marriage just a few months ago. And, they support stem cell research.
And, who cares what the editorial content is? I don't agree with many of their editorials. What matters is the breadth of the news organization. I know of no other magazine that covers the entire world, including a significant amount of content devoted to developments in Africa, Souteasthern & Central Asia, like the Economist.
Might I suggest you take a look at the Economist? That British mag actually supported the Iraq War and GWB's handling of it (not that it matters, but for the record, I am opposed to the war). And, they've been covering the election rather well. They cover the battleground states one at a time and discuss the regional, generational and economic voting trends in each of the battleground states.
They are also the only magazine I know of that covers every region of the world in detail. They first ran articles on Darfur back in January and really started covering it back in May.
As you can guess by the title of the magazine, they are Fiscal conservatives. They do occasionally jump to the other side of the fence on social issues.
Maybe you shouldn't have only pointed the finger at FOX?
You missed my point. The poster was questioning why certain slashdotters were using non-US media sources as their primary source of information. The poster said that journalists from non-US countries could not understand the US. From which, one could insinuate that we would be better off only listening to US sources for news on the US.
Therefore, I pointed out that if we could only use US news media to understand US news, then how could we trust the US media to understand the middle east?
I did only use Fox as an example, but that was because I was playing on the OPs sig on being part of the "right-wing conspiracy". However, I wasn't picking on Fox. I was picking on the OPs idea that only reporters that are from the US could possibly write good and valid articles on the US.
In other words, you can't just limit your news sources to domestic (US) news sources. There are good journalists from other countries that do a great job of reporting on the news here in the United States. Just like the fact that there are good journalists here in the US that do a great job of reporting from other spots around the world.
who was monitoring CBS News before they perpetrated their big lie?
Odd, here I am reading this, while, watching Bill O'Reilly at the same time. O'Reilly just made the comment that blames Rather for poor reporting, but he doesn't think Rather was trying to influence the election. O'Reilly chastises right-wing blogs for turning poor reporting into some sort of left-wing CBS conspiracy.
Radical leftists, "activists" and other revolutionary types love to make stink about FOX News, but you don't see them being caught trying to influence the outcome of the election by passing off counterfeit documents, do you?
Of course, one of the reasons that you don't see Fox News being caught in this kind of work is that they simply do not have the size of a news department of a CNN or any of the other networks. Fox does a great job of throwing a few reporters out there and running commentators 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It leaves the investigative reporting to CNN, CBS, ABC, and most other news organizations.
Why? Who knows? Of course, it probably costs CNN alot more money to keep a staff on-site in every major and minor national capital around the world, whereas Fox only has to pay for a few dozen support personnel to sit behind their desk at the company Headquarters.
The Bonus for Fox is that it doesn't have to run the risk of getting the story wrong. It lets the other news organizations dig up the story. Then, it just has the commentators put their own spin on the news, after someone else spends the money to break the story (read this site take a look at the last couple of paragraphs on how Fox uses controlled interviews with paid internal staffers). And, because all it is doing is making commentary, it gets the ratings because commentary is alot more interesting than watching "real news".
I get my news from outside the US, like a mirror I find it's a very revealing reflection of how others view us as well as exploring news topics commonly overlooked on home ground
Agreed. The BBC and The Economist. Of course, I can't wouldn't refer to myself as elitist by having the BBC as my primary news source. After all, the BBC tends to spend alot of time covering the Posh Spice marriage to Beckham.
I peronally avoid blogs as much as I possibly can. What makes the bloggers any better than the idiots that run network news? Better to hit a few major sites and then draw your own conclusions.
What's the use of buying something that your are paying for in the first place?
Huh? What article are you reading?
I might be way off here, but I think the poster meant to say "Why pay for something that you can get for free in the first place?" I'm guessing that because he doesn't seem to agree with paying for satellite radio when he can turn on the regular radio in his home or office.
An Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman each order a Guiness in a pub. Upon being served, each finds a fly in their beer. Repulsed, the Englishman sends his back. The Scotsman gently flicks the fly out of his mug and begins drinking. The Irishman, carefully lifts the fly up by its wings and screams, "Spit it out! Spit it out!"
An Irishman walks into a bar and orders three glasses of Guiness, drinking them one at a time. Noticing this odd ritual, the bartender explains that the beer goes flat when poured and informs the man his beer would be much fresher if he ordered one glass at a time.
The Irishman explains he began this custom with his two brothers, who have moved to America and Australia, respectively. This is their way of remembering all the time they spent drinking together.
The man becomes a regular at the pub, well-known for always ordering three beers at once. One day he walks in and orders only two beers. Assuming the worst, a hush falls among other patrons.
When the Irishman returns to the bar to order his second round, the bartender quietly offers his condolences. The man looks confused for a moment, and then explains, "No, everyone's fine. I gave up beer for lent."
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, we already tried disposable cars, and they failed miserably. Anybody else remember these cars?
I might be interested. Is there a water bed and a mirror ball in the back?
I disagree, here is a great one-seat commuter 'car'.
Which is probably the main reason the junior Senator from New York has a last name of Clinton and not Lazio.
Thanks for clarifying that statement. It confused me, as well.
Or, end up like me, and spend the rest of your days sleeping with the fishes!
Although, Don Corleone does throw a great wedding.
Time for a plug. My favorite search engine is this. Doesn't give you exactly what you are looking for, but it uses clustering technology. The clustering of the reulsts, IMHO, makes it easier to sift through the results than either Google or Jeeves.
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
AHHHHHH! I just had a visualization of inbound pigeon SPAM.
Interesting. I can't figure it out either. My best guess is that one candidate can't turn to the other and say something like "If elected, I pledge to cut taxes.". Although, that is probably not correct.
Anyway, you are right to question the whole term 'debate'. These are not debates, nor have they ever been debates. They are purely opportunities to provide sound bites and for the candidates to look good. Even going back to the Kennedy / Nixon campaign, they were not formal 'debates'.
Oh, please, put away the tin-foil hat for just a minute. They ran a cover story in full support of Gay Marriage just a few months ago. And, they support stem cell research.
And, who cares what the editorial content is? I don't agree with many of their editorials. What matters is the breadth of the news organization. I know of no other magazine that covers the entire world, including a significant amount of content devoted to developments in Africa, Souteasthern & Central Asia, like the Economist.
Might I suggest you take a look at the Economist? That British mag actually supported the Iraq War and GWB's handling of it (not that it matters, but for the record, I am opposed to the war). And, they've been covering the election rather well. They cover the battleground states one at a time and discuss the regional, generational and economic voting trends in each of the battleground states.
They are also the only magazine I know of that covers every region of the world in detail. They first ran articles on Darfur back in January and really started covering it back in May.
As you can guess by the title of the magazine, they are Fiscal conservatives. They do occasionally jump to the other side of the fence on social issues.
I know he was calling you one. I just wasn't sure if he was referring to me.
Why are you such a troll?
Uh, are you calling me a neo-con? Because if you are, you are wrong.
You missed my point. The poster was questioning why certain slashdotters were using non-US media sources as their primary source of information. The poster said that journalists from non-US countries could not understand the US. From which, one could insinuate that we would be better off only listening to US sources for news on the US.
Therefore, I pointed out that if we could only use US news media to understand US news, then how could we trust the US media to understand the middle east?
I did only use Fox as an example, but that was because I was playing on the OPs sig on being part of the "right-wing conspiracy". However, I wasn't picking on Fox. I was picking on the OPs idea that only reporters that are from the US could possibly write good and valid articles on the US.
In other words, you can't just limit your news sources to domestic (US) news sources. There are good journalists from other countries that do a great job of reporting on the news here in the United States. Just like the fact that there are good journalists here in the US that do a great job of reporting from other spots around the world.
Odd, here I am reading this, while, watching Bill O'Reilly at the same time. O'Reilly just made the comment that blames Rather for poor reporting, but he doesn't think Rather was trying to influence the election. O'Reilly chastises right-wing blogs for turning poor reporting into some sort of left-wing CBS conspiracy.
Radical leftists, "activists" and other revolutionary types love to make stink about FOX News, but you don't see them being caught trying to influence the outcome of the election by passing off counterfeit documents, do you?Of course, one of the reasons that you don't see Fox News being caught in this kind of work is that they simply do not have the size of a news department of a CNN or any of the other networks. Fox does a great job of throwing a few reporters out there and running commentators 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It leaves the investigative reporting to CNN, CBS, ABC, and most other news organizations.
Why? Who knows? Of course, it probably costs CNN alot more money to keep a staff on-site in every major and minor national capital around the world, whereas Fox only has to pay for a few dozen support personnel to sit behind their desk at the company Headquarters.
The Bonus for Fox is that it doesn't have to run the risk of getting the story wrong. It lets the other news organizations dig up the story. Then, it just has the commentators put their own spin on the news, after someone else spends the money to break the story (read this site take a look at the last couple of paragraphs on how Fox uses controlled interviews with paid internal staffers). And, because all it is doing is making commentary, it gets the ratings because commentary is alot more interesting than watching "real news".
Really? If you think that, then you must think that Fox News has no idea what is going on in the Middle East.
Agreed. The BBC and The Economist. Of course, I can't wouldn't refer to myself as elitist by having the BBC as my primary news source. After all, the BBC tends to spend alot of time covering the Posh Spice marriage to Beckham.
I peronally avoid blogs as much as I possibly can. What makes the bloggers any better than the idiots that run network news? Better to hit a few major sites and then draw your own conclusions.
You must be a mind reader.
Well, no, it can't do any of that. But it is full of stars.
Hmm, I wonder if I should add that to my resume'?
Wow. Where are you buying your coffee? Is the mug gold-plated? At most Starbucks-type coffee shops, a medium coffee (sorry, TALL) is about $1.50.
Now, I could understand spending $3.99 for a latte...
What's the use of buying something that your are paying for in the first place?
Huh? What article are you reading?
I might be way off here, but I think the poster meant to say "Why pay for something that you can get for free in the first place?" I'm guessing that because he doesn't seem to agree with paying for satellite radio when he can turn on the regular radio in his home or office.
Hey, are you that Alaskan who stuck his tongue to a frozen flagpole?
Ok, a couple of more, from here.
An Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman each order a Guiness in a pub. Upon being served, each finds a fly in their beer. Repulsed, the Englishman sends his back. The Scotsman gently flicks the fly out of his mug and begins drinking. The Irishman, carefully lifts the fly up by its wings and screams, "Spit it out! Spit it out!"
An Irishman walks into a bar and orders three glasses of Guiness, drinking them one at a time. Noticing this odd ritual, the bartender explains that the beer goes flat when poured and informs the man his beer would be much fresher if he ordered one glass at a time.
The Irishman explains he began this custom with his two brothers, who have moved to America and Australia, respectively. This is their way of remembering all the time they spent drinking together.
The man becomes a regular at the pub, well-known for always ordering three beers at once. One day he walks in and orders only two beers. Assuming the worst, a hush falls among other patrons.
When the Irishman returns to the bar to order his second round, the bartender quietly offers his condolences. The man looks confused for a moment, and then explains, "No, everyone's fine. I gave up beer for lent."