If your current mod of +5 funny doesn't tell you something then you're not paying attention.
However I'm glad you fessed up after our discussion the other day, problem is we regular skeptics don't know what you guys are saying because you keep changing the subject to political conspiracy theories, when that goes nowhere you go back to cherry-picking and red-herrings....I've tried the tinfoil but it simply does not work. Perhaps it's time for you to stop behaving like the shop keeper in Monty Pythons dead parrot sketch.
This, from a guy that said:
...NASA and science in general fucks up every now and then...
Isn't that what I said, but in a much more humorous fashion? So, basically, you've come around to my side on this issue by admitting that scientists are fallible. Now all that is left is for you to catch up and come to the conclusion that we shouldn't give up all our rights and possessions to politicians on reports from flawed scientists.
Speaking of taking things out of context, note that psuedo-skeptics have reduced the entire enquiry down to "our committee does not believe that the climate is warming".
Please do not attempt to speak for us pseudo-skeptics. We are not saying that the climate is not warming. We are not saying that the climate IS warming. What we are saying is that we don't know. So when you say, reduced the entire enquiry down to "our committee does not believe that the climate is warming"., it should read, "our committee thinks the climate is warming. I mean, we're pretty sure. I know we keep saying that we KNOW for sure this time, only to find some boneheaded mistake someone made to either get a grant, political reasons or just stupid. Still, all that aside, we are pretty sure that the climate is warming. And while there is some debate over weather (pun, not grammar) it's warming or not, there is much more debate over why. Oh, and will someone please tell Al Gore to SHUT UP!"
I think you just accidentally made one of the better arguments I've heard for not allowing every moron with a hundred quid and a letter certifying them as 'sane' to have a gun.
Oh the irony. It was the British who convinced the early Americans that the right to bear arms was necessary.
That viewpoint leads to some more sensitive issues, though.
For example, Forward-Looking-Infrared (FLIR). Police can use it from a public place (like a street) to get an idea of what's going on in your home (heat-wise, anyway). IIRC the supreme court has ruled that police cannot use FLIR on your home without a warrant as it would constitute a search.
Much like the visible-spectrum light that Google captures for Street View, the IR light the police can process is "just light". But the gov't holds them to be different (a decision that I support).
Google is not a government agency. The Bill O' Rights does not apply to them.
Then again, The Bill Of Rights is not valid in England anyway.
And this BS about 'being worried this would attract burglers'.
The answer to that one is simple. You put your "affluent" neighborhood on Google. Let the burglers come in and shoot them. You provided a service for the whole country!
What? What do you mean they don't have the second amendment?
Oh, nevermind. Guess they have to be afraid of Google's cameras shooting at them. They can't shoot back.
Today, in response to the recent discovery that alcohol production creates CO2, the Obama administration placed all alcoholic beverages under the Cap and Trade program, causing them to be heavily taxed.
In related news, public support for Global Warming Prevention programs fell by 98%. One local citizen even stated that he was feeling a bit chilly.
Relax. I never accused you of anything. I said disliking people for no other reason than their political views (an R or a D after their name) is akin to racism or bigotry. When did I accuse you of that? I said that I, meaning ME, not you, would not hold Arianna's political views into account when considering my like or dislike of her. That was all.
Gandhi had political views that are radically different than my own, but that doesn't mean I have no respect for the man, his cause or his methods.
original post calling HP a shill site is offering an opinion not a fact. this opinion is relative and has no way of being a "fact". You can't take the Huff seriously. IT's a political shill site.that is a troll/flamebait and you know it.
Um, no. I'm pretty sure Arianna Huffington would agree that her site has more than a slight liberal slant. Here is a quote from her Bio:
Huffington describes herself as a "former right-winger who has evolved into a compassionate and progressive populist". She is the founder of The Huffington Post, a liberal online news and commentary website and aggregated blog.
I don't think you will find anyone to the right of Stalin that says HuffPo is not a left leaning site at the very least. That's fine. It's great that she can do that. That's what free speech is all about. However, that must be taken into consideration when branching out to "investigative journalism". The source must be considered in all matters. Besides, don't you think the political leanings of TownHall.com would have been mentioned in the summary if they were claiming to start "investigative journalism"? It needed to be pointed out, regardless if it leans left or right.
you my friend need help. i suggest a 12 step program myself. maybe a regime of daily masturbation will help. you obviously have something exerting pressure on your brain.
I'm not the one doing the accusing here. Nor am I the one taking offense when none was meant. Do you know what trolling means?
Now, please, step away from the crack pipe and pick up the bong and relax. No one is trying to insult you or piss you off. Then again, given your already heightened sense of paranoia, maybe a bong is not the best thing for you either.
First, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. Please don't speak as if they were separate things.
Mostly true. They are the first ten amendments to The Constitution. In other words, these are things that were added to it. Yes, it is NOW part of the Constitution, but was not part of the original.
In other words, the list of federal powers listed in the Constitution is a limit on them...
Exactly! The Bill Of Rights is there to place a limit on federal powers. In this case, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" The first five words in that is a direct limit on federal powers, by definition.
Anonymity is not protected in the Bill of Rights. However, as you pointed out, the Establishment Clause states that just because something is not directly listed does not mean that it is not a right. It's up to the courts and congress to decide if anonymity is protected or not. Also, this may be a state issue and since "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the States respectively...", Alaska may be in its right here if the Feds don't find that anonymity should be protected.
"Or vice-versa the humans toilet. The Earth-Vulcan politicians are squabbling over the respective costs, and don't want non-citizens using their toilets." - United Federation of Planets, official notice
That's what Star Trek would be like if it were realistic - trade and cost disputes. Or just watch Babylon 5 ("By Any Means Necessary").
I thought they just beamed the crap directly from your colon into the anti-matter reaction chamber or Jefferies tubes or something.
my original post that you replied to was about BIAS. the original post that i replied to had used bias in his definition (as did GP) and that in fact was reason enough to not mod parent up.
Maybe so, but the GG*P post did not deserve to be down-modded for stating fact, either. That's why it needed to be modded up, to counter the down-mod.
and about ms anna. i thought you had a distaste for her and that post script was an ill fated attempt at humour.
I got it. The point is that I don't dislike someone because of their political views. To do so is akin to racism or bigotry, IMHO. As for Arianna, I find her to be respectful in her interviews and sincere in her beliefs. Her website is a different matter.
The U.S. Constitution does not "grant" rights to the people. It grants powers to the government, and if it doesn't grant them the explicit power to "look into your shit", they don't have that power.
The Constitution spells out what government's job is. The Bill of Rights spells out what the government can NOT do. What do you thing "Congress shall make no law..." means?
Even if you can prove a Constitutional right to privacy based on the Fourth, that has nothing to do with the First, which guarantees free speech and is exactly what we are talking about here. Anonymous is not mentioned in the First Amendment.
That is the whole idea behind the Free Speech portion of the First Amendment is that you can speak freely without having to be anonymous.
If you don't like my source, provide one of your own. Either way, don't attack the messenger unless it truly is a bad source. And, true, while wikipedia is not the best source, it's accurate more times than not. Besides, I've never heard anyone accuse Wikipedia of right-leaning bias!
Would you take the Washington Post meet your standards as a source?
The most notable change is that HuffPost has morphed from a left-leaning site with a modest conservative presence to a pugnaciously liberal operation in which the banner headlines and majority of bloggers holler about the latest outrage perpetrated by the Bush administration.
"We are opposed to the war in Iraq," Huffington says from her Los Angeles home. "We think the troops should come home. The headlines are going to reflect what is in the best interests of the country."
As Lerer puts it: "Attitude is a huge positive, not a negative. People don't have to love you. Maybe people come to you because they don't love you."
After President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence last week, HuffPost put up 15 blogs -- every one of them critical -- including one from Huffington and another by Russell Shaw headlined "President Bush, You Are a Disgrace to My Flag."
Now that we've established that the point of HuffPo is to promote left thinking ideology, do you think that it can be trusted to do non-biased "investigative journalism"? That's what we are discussing here.
(also, note that Scooter Libby did NOT out Valerie Plame. His problem was with his memory which led to perjury. Did Russell Shaw display the same outrage when Bill Clinton committed the same crime as Scooter Libby? Of course not. Scooter's biggest crime was that he was a conservative, not that he lied under oath. Google "Russell Shaw impeachment" for more views of this seemingly non-biased individual. This is the type of "journalism" I expect to see from HuffPo)
As for my personal opinion of Arianna Huffington? Yeah, I like her. I just don't like that she treats people different based on their political beliefs. And her "blog" is the worst. In the example I gave above, people don't see the irony in it. They act as if the crimes from their side is no big deal, but the the other side do it.... OK, imagine if Bush, Rove or Rice ever said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." Wouldn't they get hammered over it? Well, Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and Hillary Clinton all said something to that effect? Where is the outrage on HuffPo (or any other media source)? Where are the calls for impeachment? Nothing, just crickets. Anyway, THAT'S my problem with bias on either side. It sets up a double standard. (disclaimer: I was against the Clinton impeachment as well)
If you look at Newsweek I would see a every so slightly liberal agenda.
You're joking, right? Here are two photos from the same issue, one of Obama, one of McCain. You think they treat both equally? (Ignore the source, just look at the pictures). Then, there's this: http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/liberal-bias-at-newsweek/
Oh, hell, I'm tired of finding articles. Just google "Newsweek bias" (no quotes) and read through the over 850,000 hits. Funny, none of them mention Newsweek as bring biased to the right.
I'll agree that Fox is right of center, but they are alone. That's why they are number one. Conservatives make up about 40% of the population. Liberals make up about 40%. The problem for most of the media is that Fox automatically gets most of the conservative 40%. The rest of the media has to split up the liberal audience.
As for MSNBC... I don't know if they are left of Newsweek, but they are definitely left. Even their not-supposed-to-be-biased journalists got "thrills up their legs" when Obama spoke. Then there is Olbermann. What a joke! The guy can't be parodied because he is a parody of himself. Oh, and didn't NBC put him back on football on Sunday nights to try to promote him? Yeah, no bias in that network.
And yeah, radio is far right, but it sells. Air America tried it and failed. They had to steal money from charities to stay afloat. Rush, Hannity, Beck and the rest don't have that problem. Liberals just don't listen to talk radio. As for TV, it appears that liberals don't sell too well there either, but these guys don't really care much. Their ideology trumps their pocket books, for now.
Oh, and the Big Three, NBC, ABC and CBS, may not be terribly liberal on their local news, but their national news shows are extremely liberal. Are you telling me that Katie Couric is a conservative? The closest thing I've seen to a conservative on any of the network news shows has been John Stossel, and he's not really conservative. He's a libertarian who just calls it like he sees it. He'll gladly hammer either side when they are acting stupid. The guy's awesome!
If you take the entire US media market and then look at it in perspective globally the whole thing including Washington Post is actually biased to the right
I love the BBC. Not their specials, but their interviews. They'd hammer Mother Theresa if they got an interview. They ask the hard questions of anyone. They simply don't care who they offend.
Finally, as for stem cell research... read my sig. It is a close quote from the guy that practically invented stem cell research. (the whole quote wouldn't fit within the 2 to 3 words you are allowed as a sig). The full quote is "if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough". But you are correct on the left of me part, but that's human nature.
The bottom line is that we all see center of the road to be right in front of us. So anyone to the right of us is right of center. Conservatives see Fox News as truly "Fair and Balanced" and liberals see them as far right wing. It's compounded when Fox is compared to the rest of media. I try to base my comparison by comparing them to the competition. I also look at things like, "how many liberals do I see on Fox News?" "How many conservatives do I see on MSNBC?" Answers: Plenty and Zero, respectively. So, by that alone, Fox is much more balanced than MSNBC. (Many liberals actually work at Fox as returning talking heads and true, full time employees)
Oh, and the true source from The Heritage Foundation page is actually Rates from Joint Committee on Taxation publication #JCX-6-01; Receipts from FY 2009 Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Table 2.3.
The Heritage Foundation just put in a pretty graph form. As long as you have all the numbers and they are not "adjusted", Numbers don't lie, no matter what the source is.
Are you suggesting that 100% of income taxes on Europeans go to health care? If so, are you suggesting this because you're stupid, or are you actively trying to deceive people?
Well, they are not spending on their military, that's for damn sure. Oh, and dental care appears to be out too!
$400 a month for a family plan? A decade ago when I worked at an HMO and wrote proposals, family plans were way more expensive than that.
No, I said LESS THAN $400 a month. I've never spent more than that. It may actually cost more than that, but I have a job that helps me pay for my health insurance. So yeah, I'm ignoring my employer contribution... and I know, you are going to tell me that if my employer didn't pay that, they'd pay me more, right? Uh, wrong. Jobs that pay less almost always offer less in benefits, with the exception of temporary or contract jobs.
Now, how about the quality government run health care. Sure, I could find a thousand links that say it sucks, but I don't have to. Go to the DMV or Social Security office or any other government run institution and tell me that's how you want your medical care run. Where do you think the phrase "good enough for government work" came from? Do you want your doctor saying that when he's removing your kid's tonsils?
Finally, I've lived under government run health care and it sucked. I was in the military. When you are in the military, you are government property and must go to government doctors. For starters, you have no say in your treatment. It may be good, it may not. Odds, are, after waiting in line outside in January for three hours, you get to see a medic who hands you some over the counter pills and tells you to come back if you still have problems. Surgery? NO WAY. I was completely conscious when I had two of my wisdom teeth pulled. I saw the smoke, heard the drilling and cracking, saw the bone and blood flying and felt the dentist's knee on my chest holding me down. You see, they only have me a local anesthetic. That means he just numbed my mouth. He didn't give a shit if I was happy with my treatment or not because he was paid all the same. If I didn't come back, well that's just one less patient he has to deal with after they waited in line for three hours.
So yes, it IS cheaper and better here in the US. And since the vast majority of the world has government health care, go get it. Move. I don't mean to say love it or leave it, but the US is one of the few places left in the world that gives ME control of MY healthcare. Why would you take that away when from me when you could go to where the government runs it and we will both be happy.
Sorry, but no thanks! I think I'll pay for my own. The payer has the power and I'm not giving up control of my body to the government (again!)
wikipedia, the source that anyone can edit is chock full of bias and in no way should be used as "fact". the use of "liberal" in that sentence is as a descriptor, which in and of itself is - biased. cue (citation needed) AC post now.;-)
Seriously? Are you trying to say that Arianna Huffington and the Huffington Post are NOT liberal?
No, Seriously, tell me that you think they are both middle of the road. Then, tell me what a liberal is because if HuffPo is middle, I'd like to know what leftist really is.
Did the recession start when we cut taxes with a surplus of money or years later after two wars ate into the available funds leftover from "giving the extra money back?"
Nah, had to be 10 months after the Democrats took control...that makes MUCH more sense.
(Here's the answer to your question: Anyone who doesn't blame the Republicans and Bush's leash on Congress from 2001-2007 is full of shit. The Democrats get some blame, but I reduce it some by considering the Rove-ian campaign that was led from 9/11 and on to make every Democrat look unpatriotic for questioning Bush's policies. Between that and Bush's grip on Congress, they had little effect on changing the money spending, tax cutting policies. After 2007, the Dems have no excuse and get the full blame for helping run it all into the ground by failing to change what the previous 6 years massively fucked.)
First, what was the vote for the Iraq war in the Senate? Wasn't it something like 99-0? How is that Bush's war again?
Anyone who goes around trying to place blame on anyone should really have some sort of idea as to what they are talking about. Republicans held the Senate for only four years of Bush's eight. That means that Democrats held the Senate exactly half the time that Bush was in office, not six years. It also happens to be the first two and the last two that Democrats held the power in the Senate. Strangely enough, those were also the years that the economy dropped in the Bush administration. Coincidence? Either way, you were exactly 50% off. So, are you fuckin ignorant or just a fuckin liar? Judging by your post, I'm going to guess a whole lot of both.
Wait, wait wait. Maybe you're thinking of Bill Clinton. I'm sure you thought he did a great job right? Republicans held the house and senate for six of his eight, maybe THAT'S what you were thinking of.
As for being unpatriotic for questioning Bush, how long did that last? Let me guess, you think that any country in the world would have done anything for the US, but Bush fucked it up, right? Well, if that were true that any country in the world would have done ANYTHING, then it would have been impossible for Bush or anyone else to fuck it up. Then again, as we learned in the last paragraph, you are either too stupid or dishonest to understand the irony in that.
As for Bush's "money spending, tax cutting policies", I have to agree with you about the spending part, but that's what happens you don't have a strong majority. You need to bribe the other side to get them to shut up and sit down. But, if you were upset about the spending then, why are not just LIVID about the spending now? Shouldn't you be talking about that instead?
Now, as for the taxing, I've shown several times, and it's easy to research for yourself, that the government actually made MORE MONEY after Bush cut taxes! I know, it's hard to understand if you are simple minded. May I suggest you look up the Laffer curve for an explanation.
Listen, I don't mean to make you look stupid. You did that with your ignorant comment. But seriously, you really should educate yourself with the facts before you spout off. Don't bitch about Bush's economy and act like you don't remember Alan Greenspan. Before 2007, wasn't he called the Maestro because the economy was so strong? Greenspan received honorary Knighthood from the Queen of England the economy was so friggin strong! Don't act like you don't remember. Don't lie to us and especially don't lie to yourself to try to justify your hatred.
Umm. That's correct. Or is the rest of the world not proof enough for you? You know, the world in which everyone else spends less, per capita, on healthcare than the US while covering more people?
Are you saying that the 30-50% tax rates that most European countries pay are somehow less than the $400/month I pay to insure a family of three?
I'm sure many right wing type people will dismiss your remark out of hand without considering it for a moment, but consider:
1) Which nation did this huge economic disaster start? America, a country that had been under complete Republican rule for 6 of the last 8 years and had undergone many deregulations over the past three decades which directly contributed to this crisis.
BZZZTTTT! Wrong! First, Republicans never really controlled anything. Remember "Jumping" Jim Jeffords? He was the Republican who turned Independent to give control of the Senate back to the Democrats after the first Congressional election of Bush's term. Even the next election when Republicans took control of both houses, they only did by a couple of votes and couldn't pass anything without Democrats filibustering it. The next election, Democrats took over congress right about the time the economy tanked. You could just as easily blame congress as the President. Seeing that Congress writes and passes the budget, I think they should take more of the blame, if blaming someone is your goal.
As for deregulation, where did the problems start? Banking? Sure. Who was in charge of the Banking committee when the banks started failing. I'll give you a hint. It rhymes Dodd and Frank (neither of which are Republican).
2) Which European countries have most felt the economic fallout of this? Iceland and Ireland, the two most free-wheeling democracies in Europe. For years Republicans would use Ireland as an example for us to follow since they had the lowest commercial tax rates in the world. Since Ireland's economy has been in free-fall I haven't heard Republicans mention them at all (I wonder why?).
Does Bush run the Irish economy as well? I had no idea. It would appear to me that the problem is that economies grow and shrink naturally. We are in a shrinking trend right now.
3) Which European countries have been effected least? Spain and France due to their more conservative banking regulations and greater safety net for people living there.
Spain and France were in the tank long before this recession hit. You could say that they led the pack.
The first top economic adviser to Bush 43 resigned shortly into Bush's first term because he was simply ignored and believed their economic policy would be disastrous (paying for wars with tax cuts was an extremely bad idea). It's hard to argue that he was wrong now (it really was even then...).
First, the economy did very VERY well during Bush's first six years (minus the 9-11 recession and the recession he inherited). As for paying with wars with tax cuts, national receipts went UP after tax cuts. If the economy sucked, how do the feds raise receipts after a tax cut? Hmmm... Seems as if the facts disagree with you. Maybe you should get away from the mirror and go back and retake Intro to Economics. You might also want to brush up on recent history as well.
Here is a chart that proves what I just said. You will clearly not a drop in tax receipts ending around 2002 and then a sharp increase of government revenue AFTER BUSH'S TAX CUTS!
So please, tell me genius, if the economy sucked during Bush's eight years, as you stated, how was there an increase in tax revenue when taxes were cut? I LAFF at your ignorance of how economies work.
You can't take the Huff seriously. IT's a political shill site.
He's not the only one who feels that way. Allow me to quote Wikipedia:
The Huffington Post (often referred to on the Internet as HuffPost or HuffPo) is an American liberal[1] news website and aggregated weblog founded by Arianna Huffington and Kenneth Lerer, featuring various news sources and columnists. The site covers a wide range of topics, including sections devoted to politics, entertainment, media, living, business, and the green movement.
Please read the bold part. Parent stated fact and was downmodded for it.
Mods based on opinion have no place on slashdot and are against the moderator guidelines. The Mod should have posted a reply if he/she disagreed rather abusing moderator power.
Slashdot Mirror
If your current mod of +5 funny doesn't tell you something then you're not paying attention.
However I'm glad you fessed up after our discussion the other day, problem is we regular skeptics don't know what you guys are saying because you keep changing the subject to political conspiracy theories, when that goes nowhere you go back to cherry-picking and red-herrings....I've tried the tinfoil but it simply does not work. Perhaps it's time for you to stop behaving like the shop keeper in Monty Pythons dead parrot sketch.
This, from a guy that said:
...NASA and science in general fucks up every now and then...
Isn't that what I said, but in a much more humorous fashion? So, basically, you've come around to my side on this issue by admitting that scientists are fallible. Now all that is left is for you to catch up and come to the conclusion that we shouldn't give up all our rights and possessions to politicians on reports from flawed scientists.
Speaking of taking things out of context, note that psuedo-skeptics have reduced the entire enquiry down to "our committee does not believe that the climate is warming".
Please do not attempt to speak for us pseudo-skeptics. We are not saying that the climate is not warming. We are not saying that the climate IS warming. What we are saying is that we don't know. So when you say, reduced the entire enquiry down to "our committee does not believe that the climate is warming"., it should read, "our committee thinks the climate is warming. I mean, we're pretty sure. I know we keep saying that we KNOW for sure this time, only to find some boneheaded mistake someone made to either get a grant, political reasons or just stupid. Still, all that aside, we are pretty sure that the climate is warming. And while there is some debate over weather (pun, not grammar) it's warming or not, there is much more debate over why. Oh, and will someone please tell Al Gore to SHUT UP!"
I think you just accidentally made one of the better arguments I've heard for not allowing every moron with a hundred quid and a letter certifying them as 'sane' to have a gun.
Oh the irony. It was the British who convinced the early Americans that the right to bear arms was necessary.
That viewpoint leads to some more sensitive issues, though.
For example, Forward-Looking-Infrared (FLIR). Police can use it from a public place (like a street) to get an idea of what's going on in your home (heat-wise, anyway). IIRC the supreme court has ruled that police cannot use FLIR on your home without a warrant as it would constitute a search.
Much like the visible-spectrum light that Google captures for Street View, the IR light the police can process is "just light". But the gov't holds them to be different (a decision that I support).
Google is not a government agency. The Bill O' Rights does not apply to them.
Then again, The Bill Of Rights is not valid in England anyway.
And this BS about 'being worried this would attract burglers'.
The answer to that one is simple. You put your "affluent" neighborhood on Google. Let the burglers come in and shoot them. You provided a service for the whole country!
What? What do you mean they don't have the second amendment?
Oh, nevermind. Guess they have to be afraid of Google's cameras shooting at them. They can't shoot back.
Who says they didn't check it?
Who says the "Queen" is part of the government?
Sure, she has a role, but it's not like she's making the battle plan for Afghanistan or anything.
Today, in response to the recent discovery that alcohol production creates CO2, the Obama administration placed all alcoholic beverages under the Cap and Trade program, causing them to be heavily taxed.
In related news, public support for Global Warming Prevention programs fell by 98%. One local citizen even stated that he was feeling a bit chilly.
If this were used to power a glucose meter and microprocessor, and throttled appropriately, could it be used to manage blood sugar for diabetics?
Until the yeast gets smart enough to figure out that it can fudge the results to feed itself.
Note IANA(Whatever-the-appropriate-letter-is)
Bio-chemi-physio-yeastisist?
Oh, and "Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense" is not my quote. That's Orwell.
Relax. I never accused you of anything. I said disliking people for no other reason than their political views (an R or a D after their name) is akin to racism or bigotry. When did I accuse you of that? I said that I, meaning ME, not you, would not hold Arianna's political views into account when considering my like or dislike of her. That was all.
Gandhi had political views that are radically different than my own, but that doesn't mean I have no respect for the man, his cause or his methods.
original post calling HP a shill site is offering an opinion not a fact. this opinion is relative and has no way of being a "fact". You can't take the Huff seriously. IT's a political shill site.that is a troll/flamebait and you know it.
Um, no. I'm pretty sure Arianna Huffington would agree that her site has more than a slight liberal slant. Here is a quote from her Bio:
Huffington describes herself as a "former right-winger who has evolved into a compassionate and progressive populist". She is the founder of The Huffington Post, a liberal online news and commentary website and aggregated blog.
I don't think you will find anyone to the right of Stalin that says HuffPo is not a left leaning site at the very least. That's fine. It's great that she can do that. That's what free speech is all about. However, that must be taken into consideration when branching out to "investigative journalism". The source must be considered in all matters. Besides, don't you think the political leanings of TownHall.com would have been mentioned in the summary if they were claiming to start "investigative journalism"? It needed to be pointed out, regardless if it leans left or right.
you my friend need help. i suggest a 12 step program myself. maybe a regime of daily masturbation will help. you obviously have something exerting pressure on your brain.
I'm not the one doing the accusing here. Nor am I the one taking offense when none was meant. Do you know what trolling means?
Now, please, step away from the crack pipe and pick up the bong and relax. No one is trying to insult you or piss you off. Then again, given your already heightened sense of paranoia, maybe a bong is not the best thing for you either.
First, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. Please don't speak as if they were separate things.
Mostly true. They are the first ten amendments to The Constitution. In other words, these are things that were added to it. Yes, it is NOW part of the Constitution, but was not part of the original.
In other words, the list of federal powers listed in the Constitution is a limit on them...
Exactly! The Bill Of Rights is there to place a limit on federal powers. In this case, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" The first five words in that is a direct limit on federal powers, by definition.
Anonymity is not protected in the Bill of Rights. However, as you pointed out, the Establishment Clause states that just because something is not directly listed does not mean that it is not a right. It's up to the courts and congress to decide if anonymity is protected or not. Also, this may be a state issue and since "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the States respectively...", Alaska may be in its right here if the Feds don't find that anonymity should be protected.
"Or vice-versa the humans toilet. The Earth-Vulcan politicians are squabbling over the respective costs, and don't want non-citizens using their toilets." - United Federation of Planets, official notice
That's what Star Trek would be like if it were realistic - trade and cost disputes. Or just watch Babylon 5 ("By Any Means Necessary").
I thought they just beamed the crap directly from your colon into the anti-matter reaction chamber or Jefferies tubes or something.
i could care less about your politics.
It's "couldn't care less", not "could".
my original post that you replied to was about BIAS. the original post that i replied to had used bias in his definition (as did GP) and that in fact was reason enough to not mod parent up.
Maybe so, but the GG*P post did not deserve to be down-modded for stating fact, either. That's why it needed to be modded up, to counter the down-mod.
and about ms anna. i thought you had a distaste for her and that post script was an ill fated attempt at humour.
I got it. The point is that I don't dislike someone because of their political views. To do so is akin to racism or bigotry, IMHO. As for Arianna, I find her to be respectful in her interviews and sincere in her beliefs. Her website is a different matter.
Have a good one.
The U.S. Constitution does not "grant" rights to the people. It grants powers to the government, and if it doesn't grant them the explicit power to "look into your shit", they don't have that power.
The Constitution spells out what government's job is. The Bill of Rights spells out what the government can NOT do. What do you thing "Congress shall make no law..." means?
Even if you can prove a Constitutional right to privacy based on the Fourth, that has nothing to do with the First, which guarantees free speech and is exactly what we are talking about here. Anonymous is not mentioned in the First Amendment.
That is the whole idea behind the Free Speech portion of the First Amendment is that you can speak freely without having to be anonymous.
If you don't like my source, provide one of your own. Either way, don't attack the messenger unless it truly is a bad source. And, true, while wikipedia is not the best source, it's accurate more times than not. Besides, I've never heard anyone accuse Wikipedia of right-leaning bias!
Would you take the Washington Post meet your standards as a source?
The most notable change is that HuffPost has morphed from a left-leaning site with a modest conservative presence to a pugnaciously liberal operation in which the banner headlines and majority of bloggers holler about the latest outrage perpetrated by the Bush administration.
"We are opposed to the war in Iraq," Huffington says from her Los Angeles home. "We think the troops should come home. The headlines are going to reflect what is in the best interests of the country."
As Lerer puts it: "Attitude is a huge positive, not a negative. People don't have to love you. Maybe people come to you because they don't love you."
After President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence last week, HuffPost put up 15 blogs -- every one of them critical -- including one from Huffington and another by Russell Shaw headlined "President Bush, You Are a Disgrace to My Flag."
Now that we've established that the point of HuffPo is to promote left thinking ideology, do you think that it can be trusted to do non-biased "investigative journalism"? That's what we are discussing here.
(also, note that Scooter Libby did NOT out Valerie Plame. His problem was with his memory which led to perjury. Did Russell Shaw display the same outrage when Bill Clinton committed the same crime as Scooter Libby? Of course not. Scooter's biggest crime was that he was a conservative, not that he lied under oath. Google "Russell Shaw impeachment" for more views of this seemingly non-biased individual. This is the type of "journalism" I expect to see from HuffPo)
As for my personal opinion of Arianna Huffington? Yeah, I like her. I just don't like that she treats people different based on their political beliefs. And her "blog" is the worst. In the example I gave above, people don't see the irony in it. They act as if the crimes from their side is no big deal, but the the other side do it.... OK, imagine if Bush, Rove or Rice ever said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." Wouldn't they get hammered over it? Well, Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and Hillary Clinton all said something to that effect? Where is the outrage on HuffPo (or any other media source)? Where are the calls for impeachment? Nothing, just crickets. Anyway, THAT'S my problem with bias on either side. It sets up a double standard. (disclaimer: I was against the Clinton impeachment as well)
If you look at Newsweek I would see a every so slightly liberal agenda.
You're joking, right? Here are two photos from the same issue, one of Obama, one of McCain. You think they treat both equally? (Ignore the source, just look at the pictures).
Then, there's this:
http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/liberal-bias-at-newsweek/
Oh, hell, I'm tired of finding articles. Just google "Newsweek bias" (no quotes) and read through the over 850,000 hits. Funny, none of them mention Newsweek as bring biased to the right.
I'll agree that Fox is right of center, but they are alone. That's why they are number one. Conservatives make up about 40% of the population. Liberals make up about 40%. The problem for most of the media is that Fox automatically gets most of the conservative 40%. The rest of the media has to split up the liberal audience.
As for MSNBC... I don't know if they are left of Newsweek, but they are definitely left. Even their not-supposed-to-be-biased journalists got "thrills up their legs" when Obama spoke. Then there is Olbermann. What a joke! The guy can't be parodied because he is a parody of himself. Oh, and didn't NBC put him back on football on Sunday nights to try to promote him? Yeah, no bias in that network.
And yeah, radio is far right, but it sells. Air America tried it and failed. They had to steal money from charities to stay afloat. Rush, Hannity, Beck and the rest don't have that problem. Liberals just don't listen to talk radio.
As for TV, it appears that liberals don't sell too well there either, but these guys don't really care much. Their ideology trumps their pocket books, for now.
Oh, and the Big Three, NBC, ABC and CBS, may not be terribly liberal on their local news, but their national news shows are extremely liberal. Are you telling me that Katie Couric is a conservative? The closest thing I've seen to a conservative on any of the network news shows has been John Stossel, and he's not really conservative. He's a libertarian who just calls it like he sees it. He'll gladly hammer either side when they are acting stupid. The guy's awesome!
If you take the entire US media market and then look at it in perspective globally the whole thing including Washington Post is actually biased to the right
I love the BBC. Not their specials, but their interviews. They'd hammer Mother Theresa if they got an interview. They ask the hard questions of anyone. They simply don't care who they offend.
Finally, as for stem cell research... read my sig. It is a close quote from the guy that practically invented stem cell research. (the whole quote wouldn't fit within the 2 to 3 words you are allowed as a sig). The full quote is "if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough". But you are correct on the left of me part, but that's human nature.
The bottom line is that we all see center of the road to be right in front of us. So anyone to the right of us is right of center. Conservatives see Fox News as truly "Fair and Balanced" and liberals see them as far right wing. It's compounded when Fox is compared to the rest of media. I try to base my comparison by comparing them to the competition. I also look at things like, "how many liberals do I see on Fox News?" "How many conservatives do I see on MSNBC?" Answers: Plenty and Zero, respectively. So, by that alone, Fox is much more balanced than MSNBC. (Many liberals actually work at Fox as returning talking heads and true, full time employees)
Between this and the Heritage foundation links, it is easy to see why your comments are so laughable.
Um... did you find anything that counters the numbers from the Herritage Foundation graph? No? So you'll ignore facts because you don't like the messenger? You'll only believe what you WANT to be true. Fine, here's a New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?pagewanted=print
others:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104655.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1411.html
Oh, and the true source from The Heritage Foundation page is actually Rates from Joint Committee on Taxation publication #JCX-6-01; Receipts from FY 2009 Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Table 2.3.
The Heritage Foundation just put in a pretty graph form. As long as you have all the numbers and they are not "adjusted", Numbers don't lie, no matter what the source is.
Are you suggesting that 100% of income taxes on Europeans go to health care? If so, are you suggesting this because you're stupid, or are you actively trying to deceive people?
Well, they are not spending on their military, that's for damn sure. Oh, and dental care appears to be out too!
$400 a month for a family plan? A decade ago when I worked at an HMO and wrote proposals, family plans were way more expensive than that.
No, I said LESS THAN $400 a month. I've never spent more than that. It may actually cost more than that, but I have a job that helps me pay for my health insurance. So yeah, I'm ignoring my employer contribution... and I know, you are going to tell me that if my employer didn't pay that, they'd pay me more, right? Uh, wrong. Jobs that pay less almost always offer less in benefits, with the exception of temporary or contract jobs.
Now, how about the quality government run health care. Sure, I could find a thousand links that say it sucks, but I don't have to. Go to the DMV or Social Security office or any other government run institution and tell me that's how you want your medical care run. Where do you think the phrase "good enough for government work" came from? Do you want your doctor saying that when he's removing your kid's tonsils?
Finally, I've lived under government run health care and it sucked. I was in the military. When you are in the military, you are government property and must go to government doctors. For starters, you have no say in your treatment. It may be good, it may not. Odds, are, after waiting in line outside in January for three hours, you get to see a medic who hands you some over the counter pills and tells you to come back if you still have problems. Surgery? NO WAY. I was completely conscious when I had two of my wisdom teeth pulled. I saw the smoke, heard the drilling and cracking, saw the bone and blood flying and felt the dentist's knee on my chest holding me down. You see, they only have me a local anesthetic. That means he just numbed my mouth. He didn't give a shit if I was happy with my treatment or not because he was paid all the same. If I didn't come back, well that's just one less patient he has to deal with after they waited in line for three hours.
So yes, it IS cheaper and better here in the US. And since the vast majority of the world has government health care, go get it. Move. I don't mean to say love it or leave it, but the US is one of the few places left in the world that gives ME control of MY healthcare. Why would you take that away when from me when you could go to where the government runs it and we will both be happy.
Sorry, but no thanks! I think I'll pay for my own. The payer has the power and I'm not giving up control of my body to the government (again!)
wikipedia, the source that anyone can edit is chock full of bias and in no way should be used as "fact". ;-)
the use of "liberal" in that sentence is as a descriptor, which in and of itself is - biased.
cue (citation needed) AC post now.
Seriously? Are you trying to say that Arianna Huffington and the Huffington Post are NOT liberal?
No, Seriously, tell me that you think they are both middle of the road. Then, tell me what a liberal is because if HuffPo is middle, I'd like to know what leftist really is.
Did the recession start when we cut taxes with a surplus of money or years later after two wars ate into the available funds leftover from "giving the extra money back?"
Nah, had to be 10 months after the Democrats took control...that makes MUCH more sense.
(Here's the answer to your question: Anyone who doesn't blame the Republicans and Bush's leash on Congress from 2001-2007 is full of shit. The Democrats get some blame, but I reduce it some by considering the Rove-ian campaign that was led from 9/11 and on to make every Democrat look unpatriotic for questioning Bush's policies. Between that and Bush's grip on Congress, they had little effect on changing the money spending, tax cutting policies. After 2007, the Dems have no excuse and get the full blame for helping run it all into the ground by failing to change what the previous 6 years massively fucked.)
First, what was the vote for the Iraq war in the Senate? Wasn't it something like 99-0? How is that Bush's war again?
Anyone who goes around trying to place blame on anyone should really have some sort of idea as to what they are talking about. Republicans held the Senate for only four years of Bush's eight. That means that Democrats held the Senate exactly half the time that Bush was in office, not six years. It also happens to be the first two and the last two that Democrats held the power in the Senate. Strangely enough, those were also the years that the economy dropped in the Bush administration. Coincidence? Either way, you were exactly 50% off. So, are you fuckin ignorant or just a fuckin liar? Judging by your post, I'm going to guess a whole lot of both.
Wait, wait wait. Maybe you're thinking of Bill Clinton. I'm sure you thought he did a great job right? Republicans held the house and senate for six of his eight, maybe THAT'S what you were thinking of.
As for being unpatriotic for questioning Bush, how long did that last? Let me guess, you think that any country in the world would have done anything for the US, but Bush fucked it up, right? Well, if that were true that any country in the world would have done ANYTHING, then it would have been impossible for Bush or anyone else to fuck it up. Then again, as we learned in the last paragraph, you are either too stupid or dishonest to understand the irony in that.
As for Bush's "money spending, tax cutting policies", I have to agree with you about the spending part, but that's what happens you don't have a strong majority. You need to bribe the other side to get them to shut up and sit down. But, if you were upset about the spending then, why are not just LIVID about the spending now? Shouldn't you be talking about that instead?
Now, as for the taxing, I've shown several times, and it's easy to research for yourself, that the government actually made MORE MONEY after Bush cut taxes! I know, it's hard to understand if you are simple minded. May I suggest you look up the Laffer curve for an explanation.
Listen, I don't mean to make you look stupid. You did that with your ignorant comment. But seriously, you really should educate yourself with the facts before you spout off. Don't bitch about Bush's economy and act like you don't remember Alan Greenspan. Before 2007, wasn't he called the Maestro because the economy was so strong? Greenspan received honorary Knighthood from the Queen of England the economy was so friggin strong! Don't act like you don't remember. Don't lie to us and especially don't lie to yourself to try to justify your hatred.
Umm. That's correct. Or is the rest of the world not proof enough for you? You know, the world in which everyone else spends less, per capita, on healthcare than the US while covering more people?
Are you saying that the 30-50% tax rates that most European countries pay are somehow less than the $400/month I pay to insure a family of three?
I'm sure many right wing type people will dismiss your remark out of hand without considering it for a moment, but consider:
1) Which nation did this huge economic disaster start? America, a country that had been under complete Republican rule for 6 of the last 8 years and had undergone many deregulations over the past three decades which directly contributed to this crisis.
BZZZTTTT! Wrong! First, Republicans never really controlled anything. Remember "Jumping" Jim Jeffords? He was the Republican who turned Independent to give control of the Senate back to the Democrats after the first Congressional election of Bush's term. Even the next election when Republicans took control of both houses, they only did by a couple of votes and couldn't pass anything without Democrats filibustering it. The next election, Democrats took over congress right about the time the economy tanked. You could just as easily blame congress as the President. Seeing that Congress writes and passes the budget, I think they should take more of the blame, if blaming someone is your goal.
As for deregulation, where did the problems start? Banking? Sure. Who was in charge of the Banking committee when the banks started failing. I'll give you a hint. It rhymes Dodd and Frank (neither of which are Republican).
2) Which European countries have most felt the economic fallout of this? Iceland and Ireland, the two most free-wheeling democracies in Europe. For years Republicans would use Ireland as an example for us to follow since they had the lowest commercial tax rates in the world. Since Ireland's economy has been in free-fall I haven't heard Republicans mention them at all (I wonder why?).
Does Bush run the Irish economy as well? I had no idea. It would appear to me that the problem is that economies grow and shrink naturally. We are in a shrinking trend right now.
3) Which European countries have been effected least? Spain and France due to their more conservative banking regulations and greater safety net for people living there.
Spain and France were in the tank long before this recession hit. You could say that they led the pack.
The first top economic adviser to Bush 43 resigned shortly into Bush's first term because he was simply ignored and believed their economic policy would be disastrous (paying for wars with tax cuts was an extremely bad idea). It's hard to argue that he was wrong now (it really was even then...).
First, the economy did very VERY well during Bush's first six years (minus the 9-11 recession and the recession he inherited). As for paying with wars with tax cuts, national receipts went UP after tax cuts. If the economy sucked, how do the feds raise receipts after a tax cut? Hmmm... Seems as if the facts disagree with you. Maybe you should get away from the mirror and go back and retake Intro to Economics. You might also want to brush up on recent history as well.
Here is a chart that proves what I just said. You will clearly not a drop in tax receipts ending around 2002 and then a sharp increase of government revenue AFTER BUSH'S TAX CUTS!
So please, tell me genius, if the economy sucked during Bush's eight years, as you stated, how was there an increase in tax revenue when taxes were cut? I LAFF at your ignorance of how economies work.
You can't take the Huff seriously. IT's a political shill site.
He's not the only one who feels that way. Allow me to quote Wikipedia:
The Huffington Post (often referred to on the Internet as HuffPost or HuffPo) is an American liberal[1] news website and aggregated weblog founded by Arianna Huffington and Kenneth Lerer, featuring various news sources and columnists. The site covers a wide range of topics, including sections devoted to politics, entertainment, media, living, business, and the green movement.
Please read the bold part. Parent stated fact and was downmodded for it.
Mods based on opinion have no place on slashdot and are against the moderator guidelines. The Mod should have posted a reply if he/she disagreed rather abusing moderator power.