I am the first to admit that conservatives tend to hyperventilate about media bias more than they should (in many cases, the bias of the mainstream media has been only mildly left, no worse than Fox's bias rightwards). But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this is one of those times.
Ah ha. Ah ha. Ha. After the last decade, still claiming that the media has a liberal bias is as laughable as Nader continuing to say that there really wouldn't have been a difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency. As laughable as a Miramax exec still thinking passing up on Lord of the Rings was a good decision, after Peter Jackson brought New Line eleven oscars and a few billion dollars.
If the media has such a liberal bias, why did they hate Al Gore's guts back in 2000, while giving Bush a free pass on his business failures, especially Harken Energy (a mountain next to the molehill of Whitewater)? They were so busy inventing Gore "fib factor" stories they didn't pay any attention to when Bush took credit for passing HMO legislation that he actually vetoed as governor of Texas:
Touting his support for a patients' bill of rights in the third debate (10/17/00), Bush said: "As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the state of Texas, to get a patients' bill of rights through." In fact, Governor Bush vetoed the Patients' Bill of Rights the Texas State Legislature passed in 1995. When it was passed again in 1997, the bill's support was strong enough to withstand his threatened veto (New York Times, 10/18/00).
If the media has such a liberal bias, why was it so gung ho on the Iraq war? In 2002-2003, the media conversation was dominated by neocons and pro-war hawks. What has changed since then, long after the public has turned against the war? Now the conversation is dominated by pro-war hawks, some of whom now think "mistakes were made" in the occupation, not that invading was a mistake in the first place. Those who were right that the war would be a disaster are as excluded from the media narrative today as they were in 2003.
And finally, just to put this turd to bed once and for all, compare representatives Gary Condit and Joe Scarborough. In May 2001, Gary Condit's aide, Chandra Levy, went missing. For months, the press obsessed over it, the allegations that he was having an affair and that he might have had something to do with her disappearance. Her body turned up in a park, and while no connection to Condit was found, he eventually admitted to having an affair with her.
In July 2001, Joe Scarborough's aide Lori Klausutis turned up dead, in his office, of blunt force trauma to the head. Dead. In his office. OF BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA TO THE HEAD. No scandal, no media obsession.
Now, try and tell us again with a straight face that the media has a liberal bias.
No - they attacked McCain for supposedly running a racist ad (apparently you can't mention close associations with corrupt CEOs if they happen to be black).
Um, because it was? The CEO in the ad has no connection whatsoever to Obama, but is black. The CEO that did actually have a connection to Obama is white, but was not in the ad. So do, please, explain how that ad was not racist. McCain's ads are littered with code and dog whistles. Watch his "The One" ad and pay attention to the subtext of Obama being a false prophet - aka the anti-Christ. No, I'm not kidding. Or his celebrity ad, which juxtaposes footage of Obama, two pretty white girls (Britney Spears and Paris Hilton) and phallic symbols like the Washington Monument and the Tower of Piza. Now, you might be able to make a case for the Washingto
Similarly, I see nothing wrong with Black Panthers keeping weapons, and advising people to shoot federal agents in the head
Wonderbar. But even if you are Gordon Kahl, Jr., you can't deny that there's an enormous double standard here.
As for Rev. Wright, anyone who goes to his church for 20 years has no business being President, in this voter's opinion. The guy is a nut; some of the things he said may be true, but the crap about the government inventing AIDS to kill black people completely overshadows that.
Naturally, because you're an ignorant troglodyte. Wright made his comments with regards to how the U.S. government has shat all over blacks and American indians - he grew up during Jim Crow and the Tuskegee Experiments, where the government secretly tested poor black men with syphilis.
But chances are that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a far better American than you. He voluntarily gave up his student deferment to serve two tours of duty in Vietnam as a United States Marine. And when he completed that service, he re-enlisted in the Navy as a medical corpsman and was good enough to be on the team for LBJ's surgery in 1966.
Re:Every time I read an article like this
on
OS X On the MSI Wind
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Except... hackintosh-ing invites rampant piracy.
No, because getting OS X to run on a vanilla PC has some technical hurdles, and the number of pirates goes down with each hoop that needs to be jumped through. If Apple releases a version of Leopard that installs (if not runs) on PC's without trouble, goodnight Shirley.
One thing that Apple does actually do to encourage piracy is the fact that they don't have a mid to low end tower. I'm considering doing a Hackintosh after Apple adds ZFS support, as I want a tower with four terabyte hard drives but want my total cost to be less than $1000, not start out at $2800 (base Mac Pro) before I even add the drives.
Yes, interesting how fast we go from "unconstitutional" to "subject to review".
The states do have their own National Guard units for Army and Air Force.\
They sure can. The point is that Congress is limited to funding armies or navies - not separate intelligence agencies nor an air force. Oh, and I forgot one: spy satellites. Of course you can say that the founding fathers would have included an air force, spy satellites and NORAD if they could have conceived of them, but with a strict interpretation of Article 1, Section 8 that's too damned bad.
Let the states manage them, say I, or at least give me an opt-out.
Because some states wont do it. States rights are great for stopping things like Real ID, not so great for worker safety or civil rights.
I want the Fed borking my retirement
Social Security is the best name for any government program, ever. It's to provide security to our society - so we don't have food riots or people starving in the streets when the economy takes a dive. It's to preserve capitalism and democracy - during the Great Depression we could have fallen into communism or fascism.
as much as I want them borking my health care
Yes, because opposing better care for less money makes so much sense.
The reason you want social programs, even if you're the biggest elitist on the planet, is because they help form the basis for our economy: the middle class. It helps those below it, reach it. It helps people get back in if they fall out. It creates actual social mobility. And a larger, more affluent middle class means more customers for whatever line of business you are in or invested in. This is why the rich do as well under Democratic presidents as Republican presidents, even if they pay more taxes, because Democrats grow the whole economy, not just siphon all it's benefits to the top. However, the middle class does twice as well under Democrats and the poor do six times as well as under Republicans.
Or as that old bumper sticker says: everyone does better when everyone does better.
I've got a better idea. How about we stop arguing over whose interpretation of the Constitution, and whose interpretation of the Bible, and whose interpretation of God and the State is best, and just discuss whose *ideas* are best?
But to do that, you have to get the wingnuts and the Libertarians past their selective reading of the Constitution and views on government power. Which was the whole point of my replay to the parent.
So you agree that these people have delusions of grandeur, as they will always be outgunned.
Re:Every time I read an article like this
on
OS X On the MSI Wind
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Good luck competing against Windows if you can't run on the same hardware. Not to mention the time wasted and customer dissatisfaction when a customer buy's OS X for their new Vaio only to find out it isn't supported.
Re:Every time I read an article like this
on
OS X On the MSI Wind
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No, WATB, they have an obsession with not going out of business. They don't have an OS monopoly and can't lock in Dell or HP into selling OS X on their machines. They can't make the $$$ on volume like Microsoft can, so they'd have to charge much more money for their operating systems - inviting rampant piracy.
Too lazy to use an href? That's okay, I went to the page anyway, and was quite unsurprised to find that your assertions were crap, crap, crap, crap, and crap, respectively.
No, I did, you're just wrong on all counts. "Forcing FM/FM to lend to poor minorities" did not cause this mess, deregulation allowing banks and investment banks to merge (removing economic firewalls) and allowing predatory lending is what caused it. Oh, and letting Wall Street "invest" more money in "retail products" based on credit swaps than the GDP of the entire planet.
The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the effect not the cause of this financial meltdown.
Yes, he is. He voted against a measure that would forbid the CIA to waterboard suspects:
Republican presidential front-runner John McCain bluntly called waterboarding "torture and illegal" Wednesday morning, again challenging the Bush administration's defense of a harsh interrogation tactic that makes prisoners think they are drowning.
But later the same day, McCain cast a vote against Democratic-sponsored legislation supported by anti-torture advocates that sought to ban waterboarding and other coercive tactics by the CIA.
That's why he cosponsored a bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac far more strictly in 2005. If the Democrats hadn't blocked that bill, the companies wouldn't have melted down.
Garbage. And how did poor minorities drag down Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers and AIG? This problem was caused by deregulation and greed, not FM/FM. FM/FM are symptoms of the disease, not the cause.
Of course, if the Democrats hadn't blocked that bill, they wouldn't have been able to give so much to Democrats in campaign contributions.
If you're referring to the wingnut talking point that Obama received donations from FM/FM, that talking point is a lie. He's received donations from employees of FM/FM, not the companies themselves - big difference.
Given that you launched your presidential campaign from Mr. Ayers home, how do you explain this discrepancy?
That talking point is crap, but lets go ahead and play the associations game, jackass. John McCain is good friends with G. Gordon Liddy, who has hosted fundraisers for McCain that McCain has attended. Liddy said this in response to the fiasco at Waco:
Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches.
Now, imagine for a second that Obama attended fundraisers hosted by a Black Panther who advised people to shoot federal agents in the head. That's right, the world would blow up. Or how Hannity, who can't talk about Ayers enough, it good buddies with the white supremacist Hal Turner.
Barack Obama, records show that you have received the second largest amount of monetary donations from the now bankrup Fannie Mae mortgage lender.
Liar. He didn't receive donations from Fannie Mae, he received them from employees of Fannie Mae. Big difference.
You have worked extensively with one such group, ACORN, which recently endorsed you for president,
Ah, the associations game again. You forgot Rev. Wright! How can you post a bunch of pathetic smears and leave out Jeremiah Wright? Bad wingnut, no cookie.
Yes, for those "soap box, ballot box, ammo box" types, I ask them to name a single time that using firearms on the feds has ever worked. Doing so just brings more feds with more guns and an ever increasing desire to kill you.
And when you do use guns to defend yourself from feds or LEO's and aren't shot on sight, don't look to the NRA for help. The 2nd most powerful domestic lobby should be breaking down the doors of folks like Randy Weaver or Cory Maye with $10,000 an hour lawyers, but the NRA doesn't do shit. And then wingnuts have the nerve to complain that ACLU doesn't take gun cases.
FYI Obama supports a total handgun ban, 500% increase on firearms and ammunition taxes, reinstatment of the Clinton Gun Ban, voted against a bill to allow self-defense in your house in Chicago, and on and on.
I'm speaking of Federal programs that appear to violate Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
Promote the General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. And if you go by the old saw of "promote not provide", Article I Section 8 uses the word "provide".
So then you might insist that the "general welfare" part of Article I, Section 8 only applies to the enumerated powers in that section. The problem is that would apply equally to "common defense". So if Social Security is unconstitutional, so are:
the United States Air Force (since it's not an army nor a navy)
But for some reason I've never heard of a single conservative complain about any of these, with the exception of DHS. It's almost as if they're picking and choosing when to complain about supposed 10th Amendment violations, like Evangelical hacks rant about homosexuality but not adultery from Republicans nor usurious rates from Countrywide. Huh, interesting.
Harping on Freddie Mac and Fannie May is a gigantic red herring. The problems were:
1) banks were allowed to push loans on people who couldn't afford them 2) deregulation allowed too many mergers and destroyed old firewalls that limited economic damage 3) banks took way to many liabilities on the amount of assets they had - 30:1, 40:1 4) banks sold insurance on bad mortgages to each other 5) the amount of this insurance/credit swap market was more than the GDP of the ENTIRE WORLD
Freddie and Fanny weren't the cause of the problem, they were the result. Blaming the collapse on minorities is straight up racist bullshit, as those loans were a fraction of a drop in the bucket.
Just showing up at a debate is not a sign that you'll get support - just ask Richardson, Dodd and Kucinich. It would make as much sense to have Hillary join the debates, since she got far more votes than all the independents will combined.
Those who excel (or at least believe they do) have no incentive to give up their freedom and opportunities for advancement to protect those who don't perform as well.
Yes, that's why Alex Rodriegez is paid more money than some other baseball teams with players with more seniority. IT elitists are idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's probably because I work, rather than living off investments.
As John Edwards said, Republicans believe in taxing work, not wealth.
Because it's provides better care for less money than the insurance industry. Any other obvious questions?
I am the first to admit that conservatives tend to hyperventilate about media bias more than they should (in many cases, the bias of the mainstream media has been only mildly left, no worse than Fox's bias rightwards). But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this is one of those times.
Ah ha. Ah ha. Ha. After the last decade, still claiming that the media has a liberal bias is as laughable as Nader continuing to say that there really wouldn't have been a difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency. As laughable as a Miramax exec still thinking passing up on Lord of the Rings was a good decision, after Peter Jackson brought New Line eleven oscars and a few billion dollars.
If the media has such a liberal bias, why did they hate Al Gore's guts back in 2000, while giving Bush a free pass on his business failures, especially Harken Energy (a mountain next to the molehill of Whitewater)? They were so busy inventing Gore "fib factor" stories they didn't pay any attention to when Bush took credit for passing HMO legislation that he actually vetoed as governor of Texas:
If the media has such a liberal bias, why was it so gung ho on the Iraq war? In 2002-2003, the media conversation was dominated by neocons and pro-war hawks. What has changed since then, long after the public has turned against the war? Now the conversation is dominated by pro-war hawks, some of whom now think "mistakes were made" in the occupation, not that invading was a mistake in the first place. Those who were right that the war would be a disaster are as excluded from the media narrative today as they were in 2003.
And finally, just to put this turd to bed once and for all, compare representatives Gary Condit and Joe Scarborough. In May 2001, Gary Condit's aide, Chandra Levy, went missing. For months, the press obsessed over it, the allegations that he was having an affair and that he might have had something to do with her disappearance. Her body turned up in a park, and while no connection to Condit was found, he eventually admitted to having an affair with her.
In July 2001, Joe Scarborough's aide Lori Klausutis turned up dead, in his office, of blunt force trauma to the head. Dead. In his office. OF BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA TO THE HEAD. No scandal, no media obsession.
Now, try and tell us again with a straight face that the media has a liberal bias.
No - they attacked McCain for supposedly running a racist ad (apparently you can't mention close associations with corrupt CEOs if they happen to be black).
Um, because it was? The CEO in the ad has no connection whatsoever to Obama, but is black. The CEO that did actually have a connection to Obama is white, but was not in the ad. So do, please, explain how that ad was not racist. McCain's ads are littered with code and dog whistles. Watch his "The One" ad and pay attention to the subtext of Obama being a false prophet - aka the anti-Christ. No, I'm not kidding. Or his celebrity ad, which juxtaposes footage of Obama, two pretty white girls (Britney Spears and Paris Hilton) and phallic symbols like the Washington Monument and the Tower of Piza. Now, you might be able to make a case for the Washingto
Similarly, I see nothing wrong with Black Panthers keeping weapons, and advising people to shoot federal agents in the head
Wonderbar. But even if you are Gordon Kahl, Jr., you can't deny that there's an enormous double standard here.
As for Rev. Wright, anyone who goes to his church for 20 years has no business being President, in this voter's opinion. The guy is a nut; some of the things he said may be true, but the crap about the government inventing AIDS to kill black people completely overshadows that.
Naturally, because you're an ignorant troglodyte. Wright made his comments with regards to how the U.S. government has shat all over blacks and American indians - he grew up during Jim Crow and the Tuskegee Experiments, where the government secretly tested poor black men with syphilis.
But chances are that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a far better American than you. He voluntarily gave up his student deferment to serve two tours of duty in Vietnam as a United States Marine. And when he completed that service, he re-enlisted in the Navy as a medical corpsman and was good enough to be on the team for LBJ's surgery in 1966.
Except... hackintosh-ing invites rampant piracy.
No, because getting OS X to run on a vanilla PC has some technical hurdles, and the number of pirates goes down with each hoop that needs to be jumped through. If Apple releases a version of Leopard that installs (if not runs) on PC's without trouble, goodnight Shirley.
One thing that Apple does actually do to encourage piracy is the fact that they don't have a mid to low end tower. I'm considering doing a Hackintosh after Apple adds ZFS support, as I want a tower with four terabyte hard drives but want my total cost to be less than $1000, not start out at $2800 (base Mac Pro) before I even add the drives.
Sure. All of these ideas are subject to review.
Yes, interesting how fast we go from "unconstitutional" to "subject to review".
The states do have their own National Guard units for Army and Air Force.\
They sure can. The point is that Congress is limited to funding armies or navies - not separate intelligence agencies nor an air force. Oh, and I forgot one: spy satellites. Of course you can say that the founding fathers would have included an air force, spy satellites and NORAD if they could have conceived of them, but with a strict interpretation of Article 1, Section 8 that's too damned bad.
Let the states manage them, say I, or at least give me an opt-out.
Because some states wont do it. States rights are great for stopping things like Real ID, not so great for worker safety or civil rights.
I want the Fed borking my retirement
Social Security is the best name for any government program, ever. It's to provide security to our society - so we don't have food riots or people starving in the streets when the economy takes a dive. It's to preserve capitalism and democracy - during the Great Depression we could have fallen into communism or fascism.
as much as I want them borking my health care
Yes, because opposing better care for less money makes so much sense.
The reason you want social programs, even if you're the biggest elitist on the planet, is because they help form the basis for our economy: the middle class. It helps those below it, reach it. It helps people get back in if they fall out. It creates actual social mobility. And a larger, more affluent middle class means more customers for whatever line of business you are in or invested in. This is why the rich do as well under Democratic presidents as Republican presidents, even if they pay more taxes, because Democrats grow the whole economy, not just siphon all it's benefits to the top. However, the middle class does twice as well under Democrats and the poor do six times as well as under Republicans.
Or as that old bumper sticker says: everyone does better when everyone does better.
I've got a better idea. How about we stop arguing over whose interpretation of the Constitution, and whose interpretation of the Bible, and whose interpretation of God and the State is best, and just discuss whose *ideas* are best?
But to do that, you have to get the wingnuts and the Libertarians past their selective reading of the Constitution and views on government power. Which was the whole point of my replay to the parent.
So you agree that these people have delusions of grandeur, as they will always be outgunned.
Good luck competing against Windows if you can't run on the same hardware. Not to mention the time wasted and customer dissatisfaction when a customer buy's OS X for their new Vaio only to find out it isn't supported.
No, WATB, they have an obsession with not going out of business. They don't have an OS monopoly and can't lock in Dell or HP into selling OS X on their machines. They can't make the $$$ on volume like Microsoft can, so they'd have to charge much more money for their operating systems - inviting rampant piracy.
Stop drinking the anti-Apple Kool Aid.
Too lazy to use an href? That's okay, I went to the page anyway, and was quite unsurprised to find that your assertions were crap, crap, crap, crap, and crap, respectively.
Liar.
You weren't reading.
No, I did, you're just wrong on all counts. "Forcing FM/FM to lend to poor minorities" did not cause this mess, deregulation allowing banks and investment banks to merge (removing economic firewalls) and allowing predatory lending is what caused it. Oh, and letting Wall Street "invest" more money in "retail products" based on credit swaps than the GDP of the entire planet.
The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the effect not the cause of this financial meltdown.
John McCain is NOT in favor of torture.
Yes, he is. He voted against a measure that would forbid the CIA to waterboard suspects:
That's why he cosponsored a bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac far more strictly in 2005. If the Democrats hadn't blocked that bill, the companies wouldn't have melted down.
Garbage. And how did poor minorities drag down Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers and AIG? This problem was caused by deregulation and greed, not FM/FM. FM/FM are symptoms of the disease, not the cause.
Of course, if the Democrats hadn't blocked that bill, they wouldn't have been able to give so much to Democrats in campaign contributions.
If you're referring to the wingnut talking point that Obama received donations from FM/FM, that talking point is a lie. He's received donations from employees of FM/FM, not the companies themselves - big difference.
Given that you launched your presidential campaign from Mr. Ayers home, how do you explain this discrepancy?
That talking point is crap, but lets go ahead and play the associations game, jackass. John McCain is good friends with G. Gordon Liddy, who has hosted fundraisers for McCain that McCain has attended. Liddy said this in response to the fiasco at Waco:
Now, imagine for a second that Obama attended fundraisers hosted by a Black Panther who advised people to shoot federal agents in the head. That's right, the world would blow up. Or how Hannity, who can't talk about Ayers enough, it good buddies with the white supremacist Hal Turner.
Barack Obama, records show that you have received the second largest amount of monetary donations from the now bankrup Fannie Mae mortgage lender.
Liar. He didn't receive donations from Fannie Mae, he received them from employees of Fannie Mae. Big difference.
You have worked extensively with one such group, ACORN, which recently endorsed you for president,
Ah, the associations game again. You forgot Rev. Wright! How can you post a bunch of pathetic smears and leave out Jeremiah Wright? Bad wingnut, no cookie.
Problem: you are full of shit. FM/FM are symptoms of the disease, not the cause. That would be deregulation.
Yes, for those "soap box, ballot box, ammo box" types, I ask them to name a single time that using firearms on the feds has ever worked. Doing so just brings more feds with more guns and an ever increasing desire to kill you.
And when you do use guns to defend yourself from feds or LEO's and aren't shot on sight, don't look to the NRA for help. The 2nd most powerful domestic lobby should be breaking down the doors of folks like Randy Weaver or Cory Maye with $10,000 an hour lawyers, but the NRA doesn't do shit. And then wingnuts have the nerve to complain that ACLU doesn't take gun cases.
FYI Obama supports a total handgun ban, 500% increase on firearms and ammunition taxes, reinstatment of the Clinton Gun Ban, voted against a bill to allow self-defense in your house in Chicago, and on and on.
[citation needed]
I'm speaking of Federal programs that appear to violate Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
Promote the General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. And if you go by the old saw of "promote not provide", Article I Section 8 uses the word "provide".
So then you might insist that the "general welfare" part of Article I, Section 8 only applies to the enumerated powers in that section. The problem is that would apply equally to "common defense". So if Social Security is unconstitutional, so are:
But for some reason I've never heard of a single conservative complain about any of these, with the exception of DHS. It's almost as if they're picking and choosing when to complain about supposed 10th Amendment violations, like Evangelical hacks rant about homosexuality but not adultery from Republicans nor usurious rates from Countrywide. Huh, interesting.
Harping on Freddie Mac and Fannie May is a gigantic red herring. The problems were:
1) banks were allowed to push loans on people who couldn't afford them
2) deregulation allowed too many mergers and destroyed old firewalls that limited economic damage
3) banks took way to many liabilities on the amount of assets they had - 30:1, 40:1
4) banks sold insurance on bad mortgages to each other
5) the amount of this insurance/credit swap market was more than the GDP of the ENTIRE WORLD
Freddie and Fanny weren't the cause of the problem, they were the result. Blaming the collapse on minorities is straight up racist bullshit, as those loans were a fraction of a drop in the bucket.
Just showing up at a debate is not a sign that you'll get support - just ask Richardson, Dodd and Kucinich. It would make as much sense to have Hillary join the debates, since she got far more votes than all the independents will combined.
1) it's not an acronym
2) they already have a civil war. Sunni vs Shiite, and Shiite militias vs different Shiite militias
No, you'd blame Republicans for both. Obviously.
Please cite the law that allows them to do this.
It's already happened here.
Those who excel (or at least believe they do) have no incentive to give up their freedom and opportunities for advancement to protect those who don't perform as well.
Yes, that's why Alex Rodriegez is paid more money than some other baseball teams with players with more seniority. IT elitists are idiots.