Re:McAuliffe likes Nader being in there
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 0
They'd never do that. But I ask myself the same question. It doesn't appear that anyone other than Guiliani is being groomed.
Re:McAuliffe likes Nader being in there
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 0
By your logic, Pataki wouldn't make it through nomination either. He's a "big-tenter", and is for dropping the pro-life litmus test. So he basically wants to beat the other side by becoming them.
McAuliffe likes Nader being in there
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'm wearing my tinfoil hat again, but the signals I'm receiving from outerspace tell me that the DNC and Clinton puppet Terry McAuliffe like Nader being in there.
I doubt you could convince me that Hillary Clinton is pushing for a Kerry victory. There's no way the most ambitious woman in the world has given up on running against Guiliani in '08.
The wringing of hands and gnashing of angry liberal teeth here is palpable.
It's an opinion piece. They OWN THE COMPANY. The airwaves are public, but they have licensed those airwaves.
AFAIK, the equal time rules don't apply here. If a broadcaster allows time for one candidate for public office, it must allow equal time for all others. But this isn't "for Bush" and it isn't "by Bush". That's why equal time doesn't apply.
Please you people, don't make up these silly reasons about how "despicable" this is. Politics is dirty. Your guy is on the receiving end, and that's what you don't like.
Cut the intellectual dishonesty. Remember, you're the "end justify the means" crowd.
In exactly what way is this flamebait? Is it flamebait because someone disagrees that the Democrats' base is balkanized?
Does someone disagree that the majority of inner-city African Americans support school vouchers to give their children a chance in life, which are opposed by teachers unions?
Whoever marked this as flamebait, you're a coward.
Maybe it's because you're a stupid Kyoto-loving "person of tolerance" idiot who doesn't have the brains to closely examine what Kyoto actually is.
The USSR's economic policy was built on a house of cards
Not only that, but they polluted the HELL out of their country while they were struggling to keep us from spending them to death. I know, I was their in 1988 and it was a joke.
The leftists forget about that. They are intellectually dishonest when they talk about how much they respected Soviet policies. Their environment was and is a total disaster. Kyoto will not make a dent in it.
I guess the commies and the environmentalists are just another example of the balkanized "base" of the left. Like inner city African-Americans vs. teachers unions, gun-owning union members vs. anti-gun forces, etc.
Brent, I think you may misunderstand me. When I spoke about a woman from a major party, I was referring to the Democrats nominating Hillary Clinton next time.
You may have assumed that I was referring to the Republicans nominating Condi Rice. I don't believe that will happen, though I do give the best odds for her being nominated as a Veep to Guiliani in '08. I'd rather have that ticket the other way around, myself.
This election is no more or less important than the last one or the next one. Or any other ones. It might be the "most important one this century" because it's the first one this century. No, 2000 doesn't count, the millenium didn't begin until 2001. There was no "year zero".
In fact, SOME of "you people" may even say the next election is more important, since it will be the first time a woman receives the presidential nomination from one of the two major parties.
Bush by 15%, and that's the way the Clintons want it.
Word. They sometimes say that they are for Bush because he helps in their recruitment effort, but that is bullshit. They didn't have ANY idea he would come after them after 9/11.
Bin Laden thought the US was soft, and the US gave him a damned good example to think this. Somalia. And I need not say any more about that. And bin Laden also took the "lesson" of Vietnam to heart.
Because of those two events, he thought he could strike with impunity. Never did he think he'd have a Predator drone gunning for his ass in the middle of nowhere.
I don't think he's dead at all. I do, however, think he was seriously spooked, and has laid low in order to stay alive long enough to reevaluate his enemy.
We're going to see just how efficient a cell-based organization is in the near future. There are both advantages and serious disadvantages to having the limited communication of a cell-based outfit. We're actually seeing it already. These guys have been flipping left and right for three years. NOBODY wants to go to fucking Gitmo. If the US can't break some of these fuckers, they're extradited to a place like Yemen where there's no laws barring "persuasion", and where US operatives are allowed to "observe".
The argument presented by the USA was, that the developing countries should also reduce their emission. An argument that, IMHO, does not make much sense as these countries emit very litte
If they emit so little, then why can't they play along?
And if they're asking for all of their debt to be forgiven, one could say that it is but a small thing to ask them to reduce their already miniscule emissions.
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but you see how the argument can go the other way.
Nearly all reporters (the ones that write their own stories anyway, and don't have ghostwriters) write a shell ahead of time, especially when there is a major event that is going to require news to be published almost immediately following the event.
Let's not forget the set up with Joe fucking Lockhart of the Kerry campaign either. You're exposing your bias here.
Cameron had his shell, and filled in the parts he was going to grab from the debates with fictional filler quotes, that were meant to be replaced after he got the real quotes.
He, or an assistant, sent the wrong copy. It was a mistake in professionalism rather than a mistake in ethics.
Dan Rather and CBS sought out the mentally handicapped ex-guarsdman from Texas. The producer of that story, Mary Mapes (widely known among her friends and coworkers as an unabashed liberal) had been working that story for five years. It had no legs in 2000, yet her "righteous anger" forced her to try to squeeze blood from a turnip.
CBS quoted their experts as having verified the documents. They misquoted them. The experts came out the next day and said they did no such thing. One gentleman verified the signature, but not the document itself.
When they finally saw that they were digging a hole, they had to apologize. Rather has such an inflated sense of his own importance that he thought he could pull it off. He said if CBS was wrong, he wanted to "break the story himself". Too bad he said it a week and a half after the story broke.
Carl Cameron, and really no adult employed by any news agency, would try to pass clearly fictional and facetious quotes from a presidential contender off as real. I know Fox is as biased as hell, but you're being intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.
Do you know how many senators voted not to ratify the treaty?
98 out of 100. Two senators did not vote.
So even John Kerry voted not to ratify Kyoto. Hell, even fathead Ted Kennedy did. Because it's not about "the environment", it's about shackling the economies of the west. And if you look deeper, you will see the huge trade concessions made to Russia (by EU member states) in order for them to sign.
Apparently, 98 senators who are normally split along party lines figured that one out. There's 1+1=2 for you.
No, he wasn't weak. They do that on purpose, with a dull blade. The condemned person's family has the opportunity to pay money for a "upgrade"; a sharp knife. That's what I heard years ago, anyway.
This is the sort of thing that is beginning to bother me.
I will vote for George W, and I am somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan...
But this debate agreement stuff is no better than the scripted CNN Clinton/Albright Town Hall meetings.
How to make this stuff better... Could it be that campaign finance reform had the right idea, even though it's toothless feel-good legislation?
Something tells me that the founding fathers wouldn't go for much of this stuff.
Maybe I just need some sleep. I'll be back to my old fascist self in the morning.
Slashdot Mirror
They'd never do that. But I ask myself the same question. It doesn't appear that anyone other than Guiliani is being groomed.
By your logic, Pataki wouldn't make it through nomination either. He's a "big-tenter", and is for dropping the pro-life litmus test. So he basically wants to beat the other side by becoming them.
I'm wearing my tinfoil hat again, but the signals I'm receiving from outerspace tell me that the DNC and Clinton puppet Terry McAuliffe like Nader being in there.
I doubt you could convince me that Hillary Clinton is pushing for a Kerry victory. There's no way the most ambitious woman in the world has given up on running against Guiliani in '08.
Of course not, I understand the electoral college.
Sane election laws? You mean that you vote for the party, and the party picks your "Prime Minister". How very fucking quaint. And European.
This lack of Stanley Cups has affected your thinking up there.
I agree, I don't understand that part. I think that the equal time rule is equally misunderstood everywhere.
Of course there may be case law, however incorrect, which contradicts my reading of it as well.
The wringing of hands and gnashing of angry liberal teeth here is palpable.
It's an opinion piece. They OWN THE COMPANY. The airwaves are public, but they have licensed those airwaves.
AFAIK, the equal time rules don't apply here. If a broadcaster allows time for one candidate for public office, it must allow equal time for all others. But this isn't "for Bush" and it isn't "by Bush". That's why equal time doesn't apply.
Here is a nice description of equal time for you.
Please you people, don't make up these silly reasons about how "despicable" this is. Politics is dirty. Your guy is on the receiving end, and that's what you don't like.
Cut the intellectual dishonesty. Remember, you're the "end justify the means" crowd.
In exactly what way is this flamebait? Is it flamebait because someone disagrees that the Democrats' base is balkanized?
Does someone disagree that the majority of inner-city African Americans support school vouchers to give their children a chance in life, which are opposed by teachers unions?
Whoever marked this as flamebait, you're a coward.
Maybe it's because you're a stupid Kyoto-loving "person of tolerance" idiot who doesn't have the brains to closely examine what Kyoto actually is.
There's your flamebait, sweetheart.
Not only that, but they polluted the HELL out of their country while they were struggling to keep us from spending them to death. I know, I was their in 1988 and it was a joke.
The leftists forget about that. They are intellectually dishonest when they talk about how much they respected Soviet policies. Their environment was and is a total disaster. Kyoto will not make a dent in it.
I guess the commies and the environmentalists are just another example of the balkanized "base" of the left. Like inner city African-Americans vs. teachers unions, gun-owning union members vs. anti-gun forces, etc.
I forgot capitalist.
Brent, I think you may misunderstand me. When I spoke about a woman from a major party, I was referring to the Democrats nominating Hillary Clinton next time.
You may have assumed that I was referring to the Republicans nominating Condi Rice. I don't believe that will happen, though I do give the best odds for her being nominated as a Veep to Guiliani in '08. I'd rather have that ticket the other way around, myself.
This election is no more or less important than the last one or the next one. Or any other ones. It might be the "most important one this century" because it's the first one this century. No, 2000 doesn't count, the millenium didn't begin until 2001. There was no "year zero".
In fact, SOME of "you people" may even say the next election is more important, since it will be the first time a woman receives the presidential nomination from one of the two major parties.
Bush by 15%, and that's the way the Clintons want it.
So you must be one of the abortion Christians.
Word. They sometimes say that they are for Bush because he helps in their recruitment effort, but that is bullshit. They didn't have ANY idea he would come after them after 9/11.
Bin Laden thought the US was soft, and the US gave him a damned good example to think this. Somalia. And I need not say any more about that. And bin Laden also took the "lesson" of Vietnam to heart.
Because of those two events, he thought he could strike with impunity. Never did he think he'd have a Predator drone gunning for his ass in the middle of nowhere.
I don't think he's dead at all. I do, however, think he was seriously spooked, and has laid low in order to stay alive long enough to reevaluate his enemy.
We're going to see just how efficient a cell-based organization is in the near future. There are both advantages and serious disadvantages to having the limited communication of a cell-based outfit. We're actually seeing it already. These guys have been flipping left and right for three years. NOBODY wants to go to fucking Gitmo. If the US can't break some of these fuckers, they're extradited to a place like Yemen where there's no laws barring "persuasion", and where US operatives are allowed to "observe".
I'm all for it. Fuck 'em, let's go get 'em.
If they emit so little, then why can't they play along?
And if they're asking for all of their debt to be forgiven, one could say that it is but a small thing to ask them to reduce their already miniscule emissions.
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but you see how the argument can go the other way.
I was wrong on the vote. It was Senate Resolution 98. It wasn't a 98-0 vote.
It was a 95-0 vote.
Here's a little ditty from the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, quoting the US Senate's vote.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BT/1997/0/ SR0134P1678.HTM/
Or just google on +senate +kyoto +95 to find out more on the Byrd/Hagel Resolution, as it's known.
Here's what happened to Cameron:
Nearly all reporters (the ones that write their own stories anyway, and don't have ghostwriters) write a shell ahead of time, especially when there is a major event that is going to require news to be published almost immediately following the event.
Let's not forget the set up with Joe fucking Lockhart of the Kerry campaign either. You're exposing your bias here.
Cameron had his shell, and filled in the parts he was going to grab from the debates with fictional filler quotes, that were meant to be replaced after he got the real quotes.
He, or an assistant, sent the wrong copy. It was a mistake in professionalism rather than a mistake in ethics.
Dan Rather and CBS sought out the mentally handicapped ex-guarsdman from Texas. The producer of that story, Mary Mapes (widely known among her friends and coworkers as an unabashed liberal) had been working that story for five years. It had no legs in 2000, yet her "righteous anger" forced her to try to squeeze blood from a turnip.
CBS quoted their experts as having verified the documents. They misquoted them. The experts came out the next day and said they did no such thing. One gentleman verified the signature, but not the document itself.
When they finally saw that they were digging a hole, they had to apologize. Rather has such an inflated sense of his own importance that he thought he could pull it off. He said if CBS was wrong, he wanted to "break the story himself". Too bad he said it a week and a half after the story broke.
Carl Cameron, and really no adult employed by any news agency, would try to pass clearly fictional and facetious quotes from a presidential contender off as real. I know Fox is as biased as hell, but you're being intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.
It's not an analysis, it's an analyzation.
Do you know how many senators voted not to ratify the treaty?
98 out of 100. Two senators did not vote.
So even John Kerry voted not to ratify Kyoto. Hell, even fathead Ted Kennedy did. Because it's not about "the environment", it's about shackling the economies of the west. And if you look deeper, you will see the huge trade concessions made to Russia (by EU member states) in order for them to sign.
Apparently, 98 senators who are normally split along party lines figured that one out. There's 1+1=2 for you.
Your IP address has been logged and your threat status upgraded.
But of course you support all the assholes that fled to Canada, I'm sure.
You people suffer from multiple personality disorder.
No, he wasn't weak. They do that on purpose, with a dull blade. The condemned person's family has the opportunity to pay money for a "upgrade"; a sharp knife. That's what I heard years ago, anyway.
How did the parent get modded as flamebait?
This is the sort of thing that is beginning to bother me. I will vote for George W, and I am somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan... But this debate agreement stuff is no better than the scripted CNN Clinton/Albright Town Hall meetings. How to make this stuff better... Could it be that campaign finance reform had the right idea, even though it's toothless feel-good legislation? Something tells me that the founding fathers wouldn't go for much of this stuff. Maybe I just need some sleep. I'll be back to my old fascist self in the morning.