Do you object to someone donating organs after they have passed on? There is a certain nobility to sacrificing oneself for the betterment of the group when it is clear that you are not going to survive. If you really do believe that an embryo is equivalent to a baby, I can't imagine why you would choose to let them die pointlessly instead of making their existence have at least some sort of purpose.
Do I object to organ donors? Absolutely not. We are free to donate any part of our bodies that we wish. I have no problem with that. But that's not the same thing as using embryos for scientific research until the embryos agree to it.
This is really a questionable statement. People had been getting grant money to do embryonic stem research well before Bush became president. He became the first to create a specific category of NIH funding towards stem cell research, but that was with the major caveat that you could only use existing stem cell lines which in effect froze embryonic stem cell research in the US and set it back 5 years. It's akin to setting aside NSF funds for space exploration research but then saying you can only use Legos to do it.
No, it would be like saying you can experiment with all the corn you want, but you can only experiment with the corn that is already in the US. You may not import any more corn. You see, stem cells divide endlessly. There is no point in creating more stem cell lines. Just like you can plant new corn from the old and grow it forever. How did that set back stem cell research 5 years? If anything, it made scientists stop creating new lines for the sake of creating new lines and made them do actual work with the existing lines. If it did set us back 5 years, then why wasn't this discovery made by Kyoto University and the University of France? Shouldn't Europe be 5 years ahead of us now? Evidently, they are not because this discovery was made by Kyoto University and the University of Wisconsin, right here in the US and paid for with government funds (at least the WI part of it).
Because they are two different questions? That would be a good enough reason for me. What you have given is a classic example of a slippery slope. Excellent work.
No, they are both the same questions with different variables. Both are examples of slippery slope arguments. Why is that argument valid or invalid in one case and not in the other?
Quite impressive. You completely avoided my question and even changed the subject. After you proved that you did not have what it takes to provide an answer, you even had the gall to call me an idiot. Pot, meet kettle. By trying to prove that you are not an idiot, you removed any doubts we had about your intelligence. By dropping to the level of personal attacks, you removed any doubts anyone had about your level of class. Congratulations. Anyone who reads your posts knows exactly what kind of man you are.
In your post, you've shown that you have a remedial understanding of high-school statistics. How about a little demonstration of what makes you human? That is the only question I asked and the only one that I expected an answer for. So instead of trying to change the subject, how about you prove that you are intelligent enough to answer a single question by doing so.
What is your earliest memory? Because to you, YOU do not even exist before that point. Use the earliest verifiable memory as a starting point for abortion. (That or when the cell clump/fetus/baby is capable of independent breathing and feeding with an operational brain)
I don't remember being a baby. So is it OK to do scientific experiments on babies then? That's my point. While one person thinks it's OK to experiment on babies, another may say that it's OK to experiment on babies as long as they haven't been born yet. The Nazis thought it was OK as long as they were Jews or Gay. Where do you draw the line? What makes your statement any different than the Nazis. I'm not calling you a Nazi, but who's set of morals do we use. Of course, you'll say yours. What makes yours morally superior to the Nazis? What makes yours any morally superior than my own?
I feel we shouldn't take the chance and end the debate. A human is a human, even at the single cell embryo stage. You go any further than that, and you're a Nazi to someone.
I can't even begin to understand how you could equate a couple of cells in a petree dish to a human.
At what age does a human/zygote make the cut so that it is no longer available for scientific research? Two months? Six months? Birth? Five years? When they are potty trained? What classifies a human as a human deserving human rights? What test must be passed before that clump of cells is human? Who are you to decide? What if the government decided the age of liberty was your age +1? How would that make you feel?
I'd say that one of the main ethical issues is that it is unethical to tell people that a ban on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines would spare the destruction of those embryos when it only really means that those embryos would be destroyed as medical waste instead.
Think of it this way. The government wants to do X. X in itself is not that bad, but it is a minor version of Y, which is totally unacceptable. X can lead to Y if you are not careful. Do you allow X?
Now let's say X is limited wire tapping of international phone calls without a warrant and Y is a police state. Do you allow X?
Now the way I see it is this. X is experimenting with human embryos. Y is experimenting with fully formed humans. Do you allow X?
If you did not provide the same answer for both, can you explain why?
These assholes who are against stem cell research will just find a new angle to attack this research. They will claim we are playing god or some such retarded objection.
i mean after all wtf is wrong with playing god? if we listened to these whacko's we'd still be praying on our needs in a dirt hut.
If i was a rich billionaire i'd pump shit tins of money into stem cell research and have them make me some kind of catdog style animal.
Wow! That's not only a troll, but 100% Grade-A Certified Organic FUD!
Conservatives, or more accurately, Christian Conservatives, have nothing against stem cell research. Hell, Bush was the first president in history to authorize funding of stem cell research. Yes, George Bush authorized funding for stem cell research, as long as the money was not spent on NEW stem cell lines derived from embryos. Existing stem cell lines from embryo's, chord blood stem cells, this type of stem cells, or any other, is fine and government funded. This type of funding is perfectly fine with everyone, including Christian Conservatives.
So your comment only shows that you are either ignorant or the facts or simply a liar. Which one is it?
As a matter of fact, what sort of superiour intelligence, which could get here, would use earth as anything other than their own Botany Bay Colony?
Who said anything about superior intelligence? Microbial life could have simply ridden an asteroid to our planet and survived re-entry. If that is how life started on Earth, then we are all aliens!
I've read reports that say that Earth could have been populated (seeded) by life that survived on meteors or other objects from space. I like to call it not-so-intelligent-design. Either way, if these theories are accurate, then that really would make us the "aliens" along with all other life on Earth.
32-bit opera installs just fine on 64-bit ubuntu. Flash works just fine in 64-bit firefox on 64-bit ubuntu. Java requires a little work but it is till doable under 64-bit firefox. Gutsy will even ask if you want to install flash when you visit a site that uses it (and installs it successfully, I might add).
I'm still running swiftfire or swiftfox or whatever that allowed it. I haven't tried Opera since upgrading to 7.10, but just googling "opera 64-bit ubuntu 7.10" Take this site for exampe:
Be aware before you install the 64bit version that you will not be able to install Flash, Opera, Wine, Komodo Edit, or any of the new cool Adobe Air products. Boy this is got me where it hurts being a web developer. Now none the less, most of these can be installed by following the tutorials for installing on a 64bit machine, but what I would really love to see in future versions is by default, Ubuntu have the capability of installing and running 32 and 64 bit versions of software. Now I've got no clue how one would begin creating such a work of art, but Apple did it, and I have full faith in the Ubuntu community. There are no tutorials or scripts that need to be run for the 32-bit version; It just works.
I still have not found a way to get freenx server running on it, but I have not looked in a couple of weeks. I'm sure there is a way, but VNC is working for now.
The communication is wireless. Either they were not encrypted, did not frequency hop or were jammed. Probably a combination. Or the claim is just nonsense. Link please. Can the Slashdot editors PLEASE stop picking up pointless press-releases-in-a-blog? I didn't think I needed a link to show that combat vehicles use wireless communication. You can't very well maneuver a brigade of tanks with wires connecting them all. THAT would be embarrassing.
(Now it is true that there is some wired communication. When I was an armor crewman about 15 years ago, when parked, we did run wires between the tanks. That is not what the TFA was about as it was a pretty damn secure way of communication, if not a PITA trying to keep other tanks from running over your wire! Also, I don't ever remember actually using it for anything beyond testing.)
Or just shoot any one coming towards you with a laptop!
First, the military has their own set of frequencies that they operate with. Your typical D-link PCMCIA wireless NIC won't allow you on the network. Second, military vehicles have their own network. It's not like they are pulling up Google Maps to see where the enemy is. ("Hey Johnson, go out side and wave while I look at the map. There we are."
With these two things in mind, it takes quite an infrastructure just to intercept military traffic. Off the shelf components wont' cut it. While it may be possible to "tweak" a receiver to listen at the range of frequencies used by the military, it's probably cheaper to receive assistance from a government, like Russia or Iran in this case.
In the case mentioned in TFA, I'm willing to bet that the Israelis were transmitting in the clear, or non-encrypted and on a single channel. The US military network uses encryption as well as a pre-set frequency hopping method that even makes it nearly impossible to listen to the encrypted static. The inventor of the CINGARS radio can not calculate the next frequency that the radios will be hopping to and it hops frequencies hundreds of times per second. The only way to eavesdrop on US military traffic is to actually capture a radio that has the freq-hop-set programmed into it. This hop-set changes at regular intervals (daily, weekly, whenever) so even this would only last a short time.
If we are ignoring that, someone in the Pentagon needs be retired. Our failure to detect them could have been due to inadequate equipment, or else incompetent personnel or practices, or worse, arrogance. I'm not too thrilled with any of these cases.
It was probably just that they were doing exercises and not on a war footing. Everyone in the sonar room was probably busy looking at the simulated blips that were pre-programmed in. I doubt the sonar was even pinging or that anyone was listening.
onservatives often complain about a "liberal bias" in the mainstream media. There is no such thing, of course - media outlets are as conservative as the corporations that own them...
You're fucking kidding me, right? Uh, I just got done seeing all my favorite TV shows (the three that I watch) get taken over by NBC's Green Week. The entire fucking week, including football were taken over by Al Gore. BTW, take a look at this graphic that didn't make the cut in An Inconvenient Truth. Of course, NBC or any of the other media outlets won't run it, because it's too conservative.
Let's see if we can find some more examples: Swift-boating is a term where a political group hammers a candidate. Notice that it is not called "Cindy Sheehaning" or "Code Pinking". Hell, even "MoveOning" has a ring to it. Let's take a look at The View. A show that is second only to Oprah. How many conservatives are on there? ONE. How many liberals? Uh, all of 'em that are left. Take a look at MSNBC and Keith Uberman. How many conservatives do you see commentating on pro football games. Rush Limbaugh did it for about an hour before the outrage had him fired. Now you have Ubermann on NBC every fucking Sunday night. What is his other job? Bashing the president for one hour every night. BTW, he has a "worst person of the world" segment every single night. It's usually Bill O'Reilly that makes the list. Sometimes it's Rush Limbaugh or Michelle Malkin (when he's not making fun of her real name... she's Oriental), but never, EVER, since he has been on the air has it been Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorists. Yes, Keith Ubermann, MSNBC and NBC think that Bill O'Reilly is worse than Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il. Do you know who Jack Abramoff is? How about Tom Delay? Ever heard of William Jefferson? While I'm sure you have heard of the first two, I doubt you've heard of the third. William Jefferson was the Rep from New Orleans that had $90,000 of bribe money (that he was filmed taking) stuffed into his freezer. Know what party he is from? Not if you have followed the story from the media. (He's a Democrat, obviously) Hear any good news in Iraq lately? Of course not. I've seen the video of reporters saying that good news from Iraq is not newsworthy but bad news is. Here is the quote
KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on Lou Dobbs Tonight. Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don't know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.
KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.
STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress? We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.
HERE is the video. Watch it and tell me that the media is slanted to the right! And don't even get me started on the AP. Google Pallywood and watch the video of that. I've seen the AP ac
but you site Daily KOS! Actually, I was citing Stephen Colbert, source of the "liberal bias" soundbite. Oh! A comedy show. That's so much better. I always turn to Comedy Central for my news and facts.
actually ran a story saying that we could end all wars with Islamic countries if we just submitted to the will of Allah and became a Muslim country....(and no, it was not a joke) It wasn't a joke, no; it was just a modest proposal. You need to get your satire detector re-calibrated. No, it was not satire. It was not a joke. Many of the KOSacks wondered about that, but it was a serious post. What is really shocking is the number of KOSacks that actually AGREED with the sentiment! They were not being satirical either.
(I also find it ironic that someone who uses Steven Colbert as a source tells me I need my satire detector re calibrated.)
Something I have NOT seen progressives do with the likes of Rosie O'Donnell, Markos Molitas, Keith Olbermann, Code Pink, ANSWER, or Sandy Berger. Exactly what problem do you have with this list other than you disagree with them? Let's see... Rosie O'Donnell said that Christians are just as dangerous as radical Muslims. Really? I haven't seen a whole lot of Christians sawing people's heads off chanting, "Merry Christmas." She also said that terrorists were "mothers and fathers". This is true. I remember when a suicide bomber who blew up about 19 Jewish kids in a pizza parlor holding up his picture. I the killer's mother holding up a picture of her son. She was quite proud of her boy.
Keith Olbermann had Arianna Huffington as a guest and went on a rant about a week ago saying that Giuliani is a liar because he said that Democrats would invite Ahmadenijad and Osama Bin Laden to the white house. He even played the clip of Giuliani saying it. This is all fine and good, except Giuliani never said, "Osama". It was plain from the tape that he said, "Assad", the leader of Syria. When corrected, he apologized to Giuliani immediately before named him "worse, worser and worst person in the world". The next day, Barak Obama said he would invite Ahmadenijad to the White House if elected. Olbermann also stated that Daniel Levin stated that waterboarding was torture. He then called the Bush administration criminal and said that there should be a statue of Levin in Washington. However, Daniel Levin never said that. He said that it could be torture if not done correctly. Levin also said that if done correctly, waterboarding is NOT torture. Levin volunteered and was waterboarded himself as part of his investigation. Finally, we all remember him putting a Bill Oreilly mask on and giving a Nazi salute. Yeah, he's a real class act.
Code Pink? Where do I begin? Let's just say I don't find any organization that claims to be patriots cozying up with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. They also scribbled "Recruiters are traitors" across the door of a recruiting station and chose Walter Reed Medical Center. I guess that is there way of supporting the troops.
ANSWER? See this post of mine. Should explain it all. These pictures are classic and say more than I ever could about anti-war groups such as ANSWER, MoveOn and Code Pink. There are some real patriots in that lot!
Sandy Berger stole classified documents from the National Archives related to the Clinton administration and 9-11 by stuffing them into his pants and socks during the 9-11 investigation. It is currently unknown what he took and what impact it would have had. We will probably never find out. Sandy Berger was the National Security adviser under Bill Clinton. To prove that these "progressives" do not distance themselves from these types, Berger is now a foreign policy adviser to the Hilary Clinton campaign.
It brings up an interesting question, though. On my blog, I have two layers of filtering against spam, and I'll delete any spam that gets through. I'll also delete the insults and obvious trolls. But sometimes I'll leave the dumb comments intact. I don't know if it's pity, or the kind of amusement one gets out of, say, lolcats, or what. Excellent point. I believe that stupidity is protected under the first amendment. I should also note that stupidity is fought in the fifth.
Slashdot Mirror
Plug-in Hybrids can be powered from solar installations, which will help with the whole 'moving the problem upstream'.
That sounds great, except that most people will be charging their cars at night. Unfortunately, I don't think that Lunar power is up to the task yet.
Do you object to someone donating organs after they have passed on? There is a certain nobility to sacrificing oneself for the betterment of the group when it is clear that you are not going to survive. If you really do believe that an embryo is equivalent to a baby, I can't imagine why you would choose to let them die pointlessly instead of making their existence have at least some sort of purpose.
Do I object to organ donors? Absolutely not. We are free to donate any part of our bodies that we wish. I have no problem with that. But that's not the same thing as using embryos for scientific research until the embryos agree to it.
This is really a questionable statement. People had been getting grant money to do embryonic stem research well before Bush became president. He became the first to create a specific category of NIH funding towards stem cell research, but that was with the major caveat that you could only use existing stem cell lines which in effect froze embryonic stem cell research in the US and set it back 5 years. It's akin to setting aside NSF funds for space exploration research but then saying you can only use Legos to do it.
No, it would be like saying you can experiment with all the corn you want, but you can only experiment with the corn that is already in the US. You may not import any more corn. You see, stem cells divide endlessly. There is no point in creating more stem cell lines. Just like you can plant new corn from the old and grow it forever. How did that set back stem cell research 5 years? If anything, it made scientists stop creating new lines for the sake of creating new lines and made them do actual work with the existing lines. If it did set us back 5 years, then why wasn't this discovery made by Kyoto University and the University of France? Shouldn't Europe be 5 years ahead of us now? Evidently, they are not because this discovery was made by Kyoto University and the University of Wisconsin, right here in the US and paid for with government funds (at least the WI part of it).
Because they are two different questions? That would be a good enough reason for me. What you have given is a classic example of a slippery slope. Excellent work.
No, they are both the same questions with different variables. Both are examples of slippery slope arguments. Why is that argument valid or invalid in one case and not in the other?
Quite impressive. You completely avoided my question and even changed the subject. After you proved that you did not have what it takes to provide an answer, you even had the gall to call me an idiot. Pot, meet kettle. By trying to prove that you are not an idiot, you removed any doubts we had about your intelligence. By dropping to the level of personal attacks, you removed any doubts anyone had about your level of class. Congratulations. Anyone who reads your posts knows exactly what kind of man you are.
In your post, you've shown that you have a remedial understanding of high-school statistics. How about a little demonstration of what makes you human? That is the only question I asked and the only one that I expected an answer for. So instead of trying to change the subject, how about you prove that you are intelligent enough to answer a single question by doing so.
So this whole post is rather pointless.
Well, we agree on that.
What is your earliest memory? Because to you, YOU do not even exist before that point. Use the earliest verifiable memory as a starting point for abortion. (That or when the cell clump/fetus/baby is capable of independent breathing and feeding with an operational brain)
I don't remember being a baby. So is it OK to do scientific experiments on babies then? That's my point. While one person thinks it's OK to experiment on babies, another may say that it's OK to experiment on babies as long as they haven't been born yet. The Nazis thought it was OK as long as they were Jews or Gay. Where do you draw the line? What makes your statement any different than the Nazis. I'm not calling you a Nazi, but who's set of morals do we use. Of course, you'll say yours. What makes yours morally superior to the Nazis? What makes yours any morally superior than my own?
I feel we shouldn't take the chance and end the debate. A human is a human, even at the single cell embryo stage. You go any further than that, and you're a Nazi to someone.
I can't even begin to understand how you could equate a couple of cells in a petree dish to a human.
At what age does a human/zygote make the cut so that it is no longer available for scientific research? Two months? Six months? Birth? Five years? When they are potty trained? What classifies a human as a human deserving human rights? What test must be passed before that clump of cells is human? Who are you to decide? What if the government decided the age of liberty was your age +1? How would that make you feel?
I'd say that one of the main ethical issues is that it is unethical to tell people that a ban on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines would spare the destruction of those embryos when it only really means that those embryos would be destroyed as medical waste instead.
Think of it this way. The government wants to do X. X in itself is not that bad, but it is a minor version of Y, which is totally unacceptable. X can lead to Y if you are not careful. Do you allow X?
Now let's say X is limited wire tapping of international phone calls without a warrant and Y is a police state. Do you allow X?
Now the way I see it is this. X is experimenting with human embryos. Y is experimenting with fully formed humans. Do you allow X?
If you did not provide the same answer for both, can you explain why?
These assholes who are against stem cell research will just find a new angle to attack this research. They will claim we are playing god or some such retarded objection.
i mean after all wtf is wrong with playing god? if we listened to these whacko's we'd still be praying on our needs in a dirt hut.
If i was a rich billionaire i'd pump shit tins of money into stem cell research and have them make me some kind of catdog style animal.
Wow! That's not only a troll, but 100% Grade-A Certified Organic FUD!
Conservatives, or more accurately, Christian Conservatives, have nothing against stem cell research. Hell, Bush was the first president in history to authorize funding of stem cell research. Yes, George Bush authorized funding for stem cell research, as long as the money was not spent on NEW stem cell lines derived from embryos. Existing stem cell lines from embryo's, chord blood stem cells, this type of stem cells, or any other, is fine and government funded. This type of funding is perfectly fine with everyone, including Christian Conservatives.
So your comment only shows that you are either ignorant or the facts or simply a liar. Which one is it?
As a matter of fact, what sort of superiour intelligence, which could get here, would use earth as anything other than their own Botany Bay Colony?
Who said anything about superior intelligence? Microbial life could have simply ridden an asteroid to our planet and survived re-entry. If that is how life started on Earth, then we are all aliens!
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty normal.
What is normal?
I've read reports that say that Earth could have been populated (seeded) by life that survived on meteors or other objects from space. I like to call it not-so-intelligent-design. Either way, if these theories are accurate, then that really would make us the "aliens" along with all other life on Earth.
We ARE the Aliens!
I'm still running swiftfire or swiftfox or whatever that allowed it. I haven't tried Opera since upgrading to 7.10, but just googling "opera 64-bit ubuntu 7.10" Take this site for exampe: Be aware before you install the 64bit version that you will not be able to install Flash, Opera, Wine, Komodo Edit, or any of the new cool Adobe Air products. Boy this is got me where it hurts being a web developer. Now none the less, most of these can be installed by following the tutorials for installing on a 64bit machine, but what I would really love to see in future versions is by default, Ubuntu have the capability of installing and running 32 and 64 bit versions of software. Now I've got no clue how one would begin creating such a work of art, but Apple did it, and I have full faith in the Ubuntu community. There are no tutorials or scripts that need to be run for the 32-bit version; It just works.
I still have not found a way to get freenx server running on it, but I have not looked in a couple of weeks. I'm sure there is a way, but VNC is working for now.
What hardware do you have that doesn't have 64 bit drivers?
Adobe Flash and Opera.
OK, it's not hardware or even drivers, but it's enough to make me regret installing 64-bit Ubuntu.
I think you're both right.
(Now it is true that there is some wired communication. When I was an armor crewman about 15 years ago, when parked, we did run wires between the tanks. That is not what the TFA was about as it was a pretty damn secure way of communication, if not a PITA trying to keep other tanks from running over your wire! Also, I don't ever remember actually using it for anything beyond testing.)
Or just shoot any one coming towards you with a laptop!
First, the military has their own set of frequencies that they operate with. Your typical D-link PCMCIA wireless NIC won't allow you on the network.
Second, military vehicles have their own network. It's not like they are pulling up Google Maps to see where the enemy is. ("Hey Johnson, go out side and wave while I look at the map. There we are."
With these two things in mind, it takes quite an infrastructure just to intercept military traffic. Off the shelf components wont' cut it. While it may be possible to "tweak" a receiver to listen at the range of frequencies used by the military, it's probably cheaper to receive assistance from a government, like Russia or Iran in this case.
In the case mentioned in TFA, I'm willing to bet that the Israelis were transmitting in the clear, or non-encrypted and on a single channel. The US military network uses encryption as well as a pre-set frequency hopping method that even makes it nearly impossible to listen to the encrypted static. The inventor of the CINGARS radio can not calculate the next frequency that the radios will be hopping to and it hops frequencies hundreds of times per second. The only way to eavesdrop on US military traffic is to actually capture a radio that has the freq-hop-set programmed into it. This hop-set changes at regular intervals (daily, weekly, whenever) so even this would only last a short time.
So while the US military my be interested in
The communication is wireless. Either they were not encrypted, did not frequency hop or were jammed. Probably a combination.
It's certainly known that the Chinese have rubber-coated anti-sonar subs, see:
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/type039song.asp [sinodefence.com]
If we are ignoring that, someone in the Pentagon needs be retired. Our failure to detect them could have been due to inadequate equipment, or else incompetent personnel or practices, or worse, arrogance. I'm not too thrilled with any of these cases.
It was probably just that they were doing exercises and not on a war footing. Everyone in the sonar room was probably busy looking at the simulated blips that were pre-programmed in. I doubt the sonar was even pinging or that anyone was listening.
You're fucking kidding me, right? Uh, I just got done seeing all my favorite TV shows (the three that I watch) get taken over by NBC's Green Week. The entire fucking week, including football were taken over by Al Gore. BTW, take a look at this graphic that didn't make the cut in An Inconvenient Truth. Of course, NBC or any of the other media outlets won't run it, because it's too conservative.
Let's see if we can find some more examples:
Swift-boating is a term where a political group hammers a candidate. Notice that it is not called "Cindy Sheehaning" or "Code Pinking". Hell, even "MoveOning" has a ring to it.
Let's take a look at The View. A show that is second only to Oprah. How many conservatives are on there? ONE. How many liberals? Uh, all of 'em that are left.
Take a look at MSNBC and Keith Uberman. How many conservatives do you see commentating on pro football games. Rush Limbaugh did it for about an hour before the outrage had him fired. Now you have Ubermann on NBC every fucking Sunday night. What is his other job? Bashing the president for one hour every night. BTW, he has a "worst person of the world" segment every single night. It's usually Bill O'Reilly that makes the list. Sometimes it's Rush Limbaugh or Michelle Malkin (when he's not making fun of her real name... she's Oriental), but never, EVER, since he has been on the air has it been Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorists. Yes, Keith Ubermann, MSNBC and NBC think that Bill O'Reilly is worse than Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il.
Do you know who Jack Abramoff is? How about Tom Delay? Ever heard of William Jefferson? While I'm sure you have heard of the first two, I doubt you've heard of the third. William Jefferson was the Rep from New Orleans that had $90,000 of bribe money (that he was filmed taking) stuffed into his freezer. Know what party he is from? Not if you have followed the story from the media. (He's a Democrat, obviously)
Hear any good news in Iraq lately? Of course not. I've seen the video of reporters saying that good news from Iraq is not newsworthy but bad news is. Here is the quote
KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on Lou Dobbs Tonight. Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don't know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.
KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.
STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress? We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.
HERE is the video. Watch it and tell me that the media is slanted to the right!
And don't even get me started on the AP. Google Pallywood and watch the video of that.
I've seen the AP ac
I wasn't aware that conjoined twins could be legally married.
Do they have a choice?
and...
Who are you to say who can and can't get married!??!
Paramount welcomes its Quantum leap fanboys...
They did that with Enterprise.
(I also find it ironic that someone who uses Steven Colbert as a source tells me I need my satire detector re calibrated.)
Keith Olbermann had Arianna Huffington as a guest and went on a rant about a week ago saying that Giuliani is a liar because he said that Democrats would invite Ahmadenijad and Osama Bin Laden to the white house. He even played the clip of Giuliani saying it. This is all fine and good, except Giuliani never said, "Osama". It was plain from the tape that he said, "Assad", the leader of Syria. When corrected, he apologized to Giuliani immediately before named him "worse, worser and worst person in the world". The next day, Barak Obama said he would invite Ahmadenijad to the White House if elected. Olbermann also stated that Daniel Levin stated that waterboarding was torture. He then called the Bush administration criminal and said that there should be a statue of Levin in Washington. However, Daniel Levin never said that. He said that it could be torture if not done correctly. Levin also said that if done correctly, waterboarding is NOT torture. Levin volunteered and was waterboarded himself as part of his investigation. Finally, we all remember him putting a Bill Oreilly mask on and giving a Nazi salute. Yeah, he's a real class act.
Code Pink? Where do I begin? Let's just say I don't find any organization that claims to be patriots cozying up with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. They also scribbled "Recruiters are traitors" across the door of a recruiting station and chose Walter Reed Medical Center. I guess that is there way of supporting the troops.
ANSWER? See this post of mine. Should explain it all. These pictures are classic and say more than I ever could about anti-war groups such as ANSWER, MoveOn and Code Pink. There are some real patriots in that lot!
Sandy Berger stole classified documents from the National Archives related to the Clinton administration and 9-11 by stuffing them into his pants and socks during the 9-11 investigation. It is currently unknown what he took and what impact it would have had. We will probably never find out. Sandy Berger was the National Security adviser under Bill Clinton. To prove that these "progressives" do not distance themselves from these types, Berger is now a foreign policy adviser to the Hilary Clinton campaign.