Totally. The MacNeil Lehrer Newhour is on at 6:30 EST on PBS. In addition to mature, responsible, evenhanded reporting tone, they give both sides (left and right) a voice on the issues. At 9 EST is NOW with Bill Moyers for an hour, and at 11:30 Charlie Rose does his interviews (Charlie, you're the man!) PBS' schedule is at pbs.org.
BBC World is on at 6 EST, but I am a Groening addict so I get my Beeb from news.bbc.co.uk... and for the ever vigilant news junkie, you can follow the Israeli view of the middle east conflict at debka.com
Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the main issue was about "tying", that is, having everything default to IE and making it really hard (next to impossible) to remove?
>>Duh. Would you rather fight [terrorists] in Iraq and Afganistan or in Iowa and New York?
Um.. I would prefer to fight them wherever they are. If they are in Iowa and New York, we need to fight them there also. What sense does it make to fight terrorism in Afganistan if you're going to let it fester elsewhere? Have we learned nothing from Vietnam? You don't give your enemy a place to hide and regroup. That's why we went into Afganistan.
>>Since when is telling the truth Flamebait? Are all the moderators Bush Cabinet/Ashcroft fanboys now?
Yes. This is getting common. Offensive remarks aimed at non conservatives are left alone. Neocon unfriendly observations/facts/links get mod-abused out of existence. I don't know where it's coming from.
Oops, I spoke my mind. That's a thoughtcrime here these days.
Why would terrorists want Bush gone? He turned down the taliban's offer to turn over Osama. He turned world opinion against the US. He's overextended our military. He's turned Iraq into a terrorist playground and shooting gallery (and we're the ducks). He called our actions in the middle east a "crusade". He frames the war on terror in religious terms.
Terrorists love Bush. He's their best gaurantee they'll get more recruits forever and have ever more reasons to hate america and attack us.
So, I'll ask you outright: Are you implying that to differ with the republican party is to be an enemy of the state? 'Cause it sure sounds like it. And if that's the case I think you're a god damn nazi. But I'm listening in case you can explain it to me.
Well, that's even more heartening. And thanks, I appreciate your implication that as a liberal, I should not be in a position of ignorance. Although I didn't see your comment on the place of slander in politics. Just because democratic 527s spent 10x as much doesn't mean they hit below the belt, as conservative groups do continuously. BTW, any conservative who complains about CBS deserves to have Rupert Murdoch and Faux News thrown at them.
And since I'm on a roll.. I understand that the first blogged comments about the CBS documents appeared nearly instantaneously. For a moment, I thought "Hm, if I were Karl Rove and I wanted to tie off the damage to Bush over the Guard AWOL issue, would I consider slipping CBS some fake documents via a patsy, then slamming them for their coverage?" Yeah, that would work. Just conjecture, but hey, who needs reality when one has faith?
It's good to hear about a 527 that's not bent on demolishing Kerry.
In light of the whisper campaigns and the dirty tricks of copresident Rove, and the rhetoric of the RNC ("Iraq was our response to 9/11" etc), I don't know whether to hope liberal 527's play fair or not. I haven't seen enough politics to have an opinion other than blatant cynicism (all politics is dirty, right?). My gut says that a group headed by an engineer would be more interested in facts than slander... but does anyone win anything without slinging filth? Maybe it's my liberal bias talking but it seems to me that Rove & co think it's key, and it seems quite effective. Are people really swayed by "whisper campaigns" and personal slander, or is it just fodder?
You appear to base your views on knowledge instead of emotion. Good_on_you!! I will remember you well the next time I feel the urge to oppose something on the basis of partisanship.
You're right on about change.
I'm torn between the desire to politely equivocate and the desire to push my party's position. So I'll stop here.
>>I don't really understand the logic of voting against someone rather than for someone.
Okay, well, consider this: instead of Bush/Kerry it's Mussolini/Chirac (hypothetical). You may dislike Chirac but (presumably) Mussolini is just unacceptable. Many people feel like that, about Bush.
>>By voting Kerry, you're not voting for Kerry (if I understand you right), but rather you're voting against Bush.
I didn't notice who you're referring to; some people see Bush as a free-form failure with no end in sight and are willing to "gamble" on someone else. Note: Some people actually like Kerry!
>>Is that to say you don't care who else wins so far as it isn't Bush? I mean, if we got enough of those, Badnarik would have a chance...
How do you figure? The Green party doesn't have the draw the democrats have. Look at what happened in France last election. The liberals all voted their conscience, and ended up with a choice between Chirac (who sucks) and some other guy who was way, way worse. We liberals face a well organized adversary in the republicans. I'd love to see Nader or Badnarik president. But lets face reality; the democrats are the other major party, and even so the race is dead tight. Next election I'd like Nader to run. But I feel that voting for Nader will have as much effect as writing a letter to Bush asking him to "play nice". I don't want to demoralize the independents, but we NEED Bush OUT.
I have written this explanation under the benefit of the doubt that you are a liberal and really honestly wonder what you asked. If you are trolling.... >:)
You know, I don't troll or disrespect the forum. But the militant conservatives are beginning to annoy me. So since you're pissing on my parade, I'm going to go make a nuisance of myself on some right-wing site.
It all depends on what counts as 'evil'. If Google is blocked from China, the loss of marketshare could allow competitors (like AskJeeves) to leapfrog them. If Google lost the spotlight they might get it back.. or not. Now that they have stock out they are somewhat bound by their commitments to their stockholders.
When it comes right down to it, most of us are killing something every time we turn on a light or drive to the store (excepting ppl with solar houses etc).
"Don't be evil" doesn't mean "forget about money".
The facts are against the right wing, so just blabber until you piss off the opposition! WHee!!
How about this: When bush says that Saddam sought "uranium in Nigeria", or that "Saddam and Al-Quaeda were working together" or that "Iraq was a threat to the US"... you understand that, right? Even though it's all total bullshit? Of course. STFU.
I modded that loony flamebait and troll... but/. undid my moderation when I posted an anonymous comment.
You're totally right of course... and you could point a rightwinger's eyeballs at the naked Sun, they'd tell you it was dark if they thought it would help their party line.
I'm so bummed. I'm just posting this because it's the only thing I can really add... I just don't have the energy to pound his empty, pointy little head in today.:-/
Darl McBride was reached for comment and had the following comments to make:
There are no American tanks in Baghdad! They are nowhere near Baghdad. Their forces committed suicide by the hundreds.... The battle is very fierce and God made us victorious. The fighting continues.
Ooops, wrong script. (fumbles with papers)
IBM is lying about the lack of stolen code. We need another delay to find stolen code. There can be no doubt that Linux contains stolen code.
Slashdot Mirror
BBC World is on at 6 EST, but I am a Groening addict so I get my Beeb from news.bbc.co.uk ... and for the ever vigilant news junkie, you can follow the Israeli view of the middle east conflict at debka.com
Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the main issue was about "tying", that is, having everything default to IE and making it really hard (next to impossible) to remove?
Um.. I would prefer to fight them wherever they are. If they are in Iowa and New York, we need to fight them there also. What sense does it make to fight terrorism in Afganistan if you're going to let it fester elsewhere? Have we learned nothing from Vietnam? You don't give your enemy a place to hide and regroup. That's why we went into Afganistan.
I can't even point out that his post isn't flamebait? Abusing the moderation system makes this forum less enjoyable for everyone.
Yes. This is getting common. Offensive remarks aimed at non conservatives are left alone. Neocon unfriendly observations/facts/links get mod-abused out of existence. I don't know where it's coming from.
Oops, I spoke my mind. That's a thoughtcrime here these days.
This is not flamebait.
Java Developer needed. Must have 3+ years experience with Java 1.5, to start immediately.
Burn any good books lately, nazi?
Terrorists love Bush. He's their best gaurantee they'll get more recruits forever and have ever more reasons to hate america and attack us.
So, I'll ask you outright: Are you implying that to differ with the republican party is to be an enemy of the state? 'Cause it sure sounds like it. And if that's the case I think you're a god damn nazi. But I'm listening in case you can explain it to me.
And since I'm on a roll.. I understand that the first blogged comments about the CBS documents appeared nearly instantaneously. For a moment, I thought "Hm, if I were Karl Rove and I wanted to tie off the damage to Bush over the Guard AWOL issue, would I consider slipping CBS some fake documents via a patsy, then slamming them for their coverage?" Yeah, that would work. Just conjecture, but hey, who needs reality when one has faith?
better than the prequels.
If he's exactly the same, no loss. If he's better, gain. I can't imagine how he could be worse... but my tinfoil is getting thin anyways. ;)
As for scientific research, at least for one thing, Kerry isn't as likely to bend over backwards to stop stem-cell research.
In light of the whisper campaigns and the dirty tricks of copresident Rove, and the rhetoric of the RNC ("Iraq was our response to 9/11" etc), I don't know whether to hope liberal 527's play fair or not. I haven't seen enough politics to have an opinion other than blatant cynicism (all politics is dirty, right?). My gut says that a group headed by an engineer would be more interested in facts than slander... but does anyone win anything without slinging filth? Maybe it's my liberal bias talking but it seems to me that Rove & co think it's key, and it seems quite effective. Are people really swayed by "whisper campaigns" and personal slander, or is it just fodder?
Must.. get.. facts... straight... arrrg...
You're right on about change.
I'm torn between the desire to politely equivocate and the desire to push my party's position. So I'll stop here.
Okay, well, consider this: instead of Bush/Kerry it's Mussolini/Chirac (hypothetical). You may dislike Chirac but (presumably) Mussolini is just unacceptable. Many people feel like that, about Bush.
>>By voting Kerry, you're not voting for Kerry (if I understand you right), but rather you're voting against Bush.
I didn't notice who you're referring to; some people see Bush as a free-form failure with no end in sight and are willing to "gamble" on someone else. Note: Some people actually like Kerry!
>>Is that to say you don't care who else wins so far as it isn't Bush? I mean, if we got enough of those, Badnarik would have a chance...
How do you figure? The Green party doesn't have the draw the democrats have. Look at what happened in France last election. The liberals all voted their conscience, and ended up with a choice between Chirac (who sucks) and some other guy who was way, way worse. We liberals face a well organized adversary in the republicans. I'd love to see Nader or Badnarik president. But lets face reality; the democrats are the other major party, and even so the race is dead tight. Next election I'd like Nader to run. But I feel that voting for Nader will have as much effect as writing a letter to Bush asking him to "play nice". I don't want to demoralize the independents, but we NEED Bush OUT.
I have written this explanation under the benefit of the doubt that you are a liberal and really honestly wonder what you asked. If you are trolling.... >:)
Ehc-thphbt*honk* ugh...
Ta.
You say that like Scalia won't do it anyway. You laugh, but I'm not joking. See you all in Gitmo...
When it comes right down to it, most of us are killing something every time we turn on a light or drive to the store (excepting ppl with solar houses etc).
"Don't be evil" doesn't mean "forget about money".
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
QuakeIII is for... is for... oh who am I kidding, I need this like Bush needs credibility.
The facts are against the right wing, so just blabber until you piss off the opposition! WHee!!
How about this: When bush says that Saddam sought "uranium in Nigeria", or that "Saddam and Al-Quaeda were working together" or that "Iraq was a threat to the US"... you understand that, right? Even though it's all total bullshit? Of course. STFU.
I modded that loony flamebait and troll... but /. undid my moderation when I posted an anonymous comment.
You're totally right of course... and you could point a rightwinger's eyeballs at the naked Sun, they'd tell you it was dark if they thought it would help their party line.
I'm so bummed. I'm just posting this because it's the only thing I can really add... I just don't have the energy to pound his empty, pointy little head in today. :-/
He's really crazy tho :) Best wishes, Phy
that's good :) I like that. heh heh
There are no American tanks in Baghdad!
They are nowhere near Baghdad.
Their forces committed suicide by the hundreds.... The battle is very fierce and God made us victorious. The fighting continues.
Ooops, wrong script. (fumbles with papers)
IBM is lying about the lack of stolen code.
We need another delay to find stolen code.
There can be no doubt that Linux contains stolen code.