It is well known that the audiences of the Daily Show and Colbert Report entertainment shows on the Comedy channel do very well on polls of public knowledge. What is less appreciated is that those two shows have some unexpected competition.
Pew Research Center - Key News Audiences Now Blend Online and Traditional Sources Data from table: Education, Age, and Knowledge (Near bottom of page.)
High Knowledge / Source
44% - NPR 43% - Hardball 42% - Hannity & Colmes 36% - Rush Limbaugh 34% - BBC 34% - Colbert Report 33% - NewsHour 30% - Daily Show 22% - Daily newspaper 21% - NBC News 19% - CNN 19% - ABC news 19% - Fox News 18% - National Average 17% - Local TV news 10% - CBS News
I have to admit to a bit of surprise that the Colbert Report audience outscored the Daily Show audience, but there it is.
(Queue down mods by the "open minded" for this bit of sacrilege.)
"YES, I AM EVIL! BUT YOU CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT, SO OBEY ME, LITTLE PEOPLE, . . . !!!" is not a kind of "introspection and self-criticism" to be proud of.
Perhaps someday we will live in a world where Daily Show and Colbert Report viewers are as well informed as Rush Limbaugh listeners, but not today.
Believing that Fox News makes you stupid or misinformed is a comforting lie backed by cooked polls that people tell themselves to reassure themselves of their superiority. It may in some fashion be comforting, but it isn't true.
If you want to be informed, you have to read all the news services and take them all with a grain of salt.
Despite your current moderation, that view isn't really popular with large segments of people on Slashdot. It seems many people here don't like news from a different perspective, or providing inconvenient facts, if you know what I mean. (Cue posts about Fox News lying, reality has a liberal bias, etc. . . . . and then see parent post.) I guess to many people it is vital that we all look different, but think the same.
No internet makes it easier to recreate the success of the 1981 attack on Hama again if they think it is needed, while suppressing news about it. You may want to recall Hama the next time you read some claim about how ruthless the Israelis are for killing a dozen Arabs trying to blow them up.
You can't use nuclear weapons to resolve every conflict, that has been known for nearly 60 years. See Korea or Vietnam.
You apparently didn't read the Head Start article because it discusses the study that shows it is a failure, and a rather spectacular and expensive one at that. The real solution isn't Head Start, but in the 3rd item.
The 3rd item provides useful answers. The Republicans are for marriage, as it is. By "expanding it" I assume you refer to the creation of an institution of so-called "same sex marriage?" "Expanding marriage" wouldn't really help due to the lifestyle choices of gays and lesbians.
According to McWhirter and Mattison, most homosexual men understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression.
In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.[19]
Brad Hayton provides insight into the attitudes of many homosexuals towards commitment and marriage:
Homosexuals...are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good "marital" relationship.[20]
While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.
LEVEL OF COMMITMENT IN HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS
If homosexuals and lesbians truly desired the same kind of commitment signified by marriage, then one would expect them to take advantage of the opportunity to enter into civil unions or registered partnerships, which grant them legal recognition as well as the legal rights of marriage. However, surprisingly few homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into such legally recognized unions where such arrangements are available, indicating that such couples do not share the same view of commitment as typified by married couples. . .
Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont who have entered into civil unions: USA Today reports that, as of January 2004, only 936 homosexual or lesbian couples (for a total of 1,872 individuals) have entered into civil unions.[23] This indicates that only about 21 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont has entered into civil unions. Put another way, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions. . ..
Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Sweden who have registered their unions: The number of registered same-sex unions in Sweden is reported to be about 1,500 (for a total of 3,000 individuals) out of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 140,000.[26] This indicates that only about two percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into legally recognized unions. Put another way, about 98 percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians do not officially register as same-sex couples. . ..
Number of Dutch homosexuals and lesbians who have registered their unions: A news report by the Gay Financial Network predicted that "some 10,000 gay couples could be married" in the first year following the legalization of gay "marriage" in the Netherlands. In reality, far fewer chose to solemnize their relationships. The Office of Legislative Resear
The geek is not always going to like what he finds out there.
In related news, the city of San Francisco, a mere 40 miles from Silicon Valley, is considering a ban on public nudity in reaction to the infamous (minimally pixilated, but still may be NSFW) San Francisco naked protests.
San Francisco's Congressional representative, Nancy Pelosi, has made no comment.
No those things just add to the list, but the primary thing would be that backstabbing a former ally creates a bad reputation especially if the former ally has truckloads of dirt on behaviour of secret services that fits the category of war crimes.
If you say so. When it comes to "back stabbing", don't you think the Syrians saw the way the Europeans treated Khadafi after he started coming clean and gave up his nuclear weapons program? That ship has already sailed.
It seems to me that you greatly exaggerate the closeness of the relationship between the US and Syria, and the efficacy of any claims that they might make. After all, what form would they take? "The United States returned a man of Syrian heritage to our security services in Syria, and how did we greet him? We tortured the hell out of him! . . . Just like we do to thousands and thousands of others. . . just not to death in his case. We did offer him the kindness of suggesting he not settle in Hama, where we are recreating some of our success from 1982."
Frankly, I think that anyone who believes your position already believes the US is among the worst countries on the planet, and little is likely to change that for good or ill.
Innocent until publicly proven guilty in a court of law
You are quite mistaken, and a big hint is your phase, "court of law." A court of law is used in criminal matters to judge guilt or innocence before imposing punishment of the guilty. Dealing with Al Qaida, the Taliban, and company, is primarily a question of war and military action, not law enforcement, arrests, and courts of law. (Besides, what legal jurisdiction do you propose over the tribal territories in Pakistan? The Pakistani government itself cannot reliably control events there.) Bin Laden made his declaration of war on behalf of Al Qaida, and several years and many attacks later, the US returned the favor after 9/11. So it is war, not police raids, at their choice. If you don't like that, it doesn't change the facts one bit.
Do these look like car thieves? How many police from what agency would you bring to overcome their numbers, machineguns and rocket propelled grenades? How could you arrest and try men before shooting in a situation like this?
Especially when those same people are all to happy to murder innocent people by remote control and guilt it measured by, seems like they might be up to something,
One of the reasons it's difficult to make a choice about Syria is they were one of the nations torture was outsourced to
What makes Syria difficult is that they have fairly strong support from both Russian and China, Iranian troops fighting for the Syrian government, a heavily armed army, the possibility of drawing support and fighters from Hezbollah, an open threat of using chemical and biological weapons, uncertain prospects for the rebels, and Al Qaida militants fighting with the rebels. I don't think the possibility of Syria announcing that in addition to the thousands and thousands of people they have killed and tortured that they volunteered to mistreat a few outsiders is much of a threat. I would consider the possibility of a Syrian army chemical warhead or biological bomb falling into Al Qaida rebel hands is a much bigger problem.
Also I'm astonished that you think that the total number of highly classified interrogation sessions using waterboarding would be published in the press
The fact that an activity was highly classified doesn't seem to have been much of an impediment to its being leaked over the last 10 years as classified program after program was leaked to the press. For example, the NSA surveillance programs, financial protocols to track terrorist funding, the enhanced interrogation programs, and more were all leaked. When the Obama administration took office, it released a variety of materials regarding the terrorist interrogation programs, including the interrogation protocols, against the strong recommendations of several former CIA Directors. If the number three was actually wrong I have little doubt we would have heard of it by now.
I can understand how it might seem that it must be more. There has been a mighty mountain range of outrage and denunciation made out of the actual molehill of fact.
As for "review any link, reference, or citation" - come out of that coma and read a fucking newspaper or listen to the radio instead of just watching some cocaine addled ex-DJ on Fox.
Allow me to draw your attention to the sources I reference above: The Dawn in Pakistan, ABC News (US, not Australian), and National Review magazine. In this post, CNN. No Fox at all. As to your sources, it appears, In short, you've got nothing. All right then. Cheers.
it would be surprising if there wasn't CIA involvement with death squads
Why is that? Don't you think the people in those countries could figure out how to kill someone they wanted to kill? That doesn't take much sophistication, no need for the "gringos" to show them how to do it, even if they were inclined to do so.
Coming from an educated man such as you, I'm intrigued. I would love to review any link, reference, or citation you care to provide since I'm sure you must have some facts to back that up.
Three weeks before the 2006 midterm elections gave Democrats control of Congress, a shocking study reported on the number of Iraqis who had died in the ongoing war. It bolstered criticism of President Bush and heightened the waves of dread -- here and around the world -- about the U.S. occupation of Iraq. --- Data Bomb
(I'm pretty sure FDR didn't have to fight this kind of press as well as the Axis powers.)
Waterboarding / "torture" was another popular one for a while, of course it was only three people, it stopped 10 years ago, it was legal at the time, the US does it to its own pilots and special forces, and so on. There often seems to be far more vitriol directed against the United States for waterboarding three terrorists than against Al Qaida and its affiliates for killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
The establishment media is seemingly obsessed with “grim milestones” in the War on Terror, as the Associated Press reminds us this past weekend. But in the next week those same establishment media outlets will probably stand mute when yet another “grim milestone” is reached – the10,000th attack by Islamic terrorists and militants since 9/11, which is responsible for approximately 60,000 dead and 90,000 injured
And both seem to want to increase government surveillance and trade freedom for safety.
Excuse me, sir, since trivial research shows a fairly regular stream of arrests and convictions for terrorism related offenses in the United States, could you point me toward the American political party that would be indifferent to truck bombs going off in American shopping malls, as well as various other sorts of terrorist attacks and activities? You seem to believe that wanting to prevent that is a bug, not a feature, and with a large number of political parties in existence, surely one of them must be indifferent to Americans being killed by terrorists, and unwilling to engage in the surveillance necessary to prevent it, and therefore by your reckoning worthy of being voted into power? Which do you recommend?
I will try to give you a fuller answer later, but in the meantime, could you point me to the trial records for these people that the Federal government shot down?
Would I be misrepresenting your stance if I summarized it thusly: "Whether or not you can blast brown people into a red pulp depends completely and entirely on where they were born"?
You would not only be misrepresenting my stance, but engaging in race-baiting as well. Will it comfort you to know that when it comes to killing foreigners, the United States has mostly killed white and yellow people, AKA Europeans and Asians? Maybe you've heard of World War 2, World War 1, the Spanish-American War, the War of 1812? Vietnam? Korea? Vast numbers of Europeans and Asians dead, not much in the way of "brown people" at all. Feel better?
I'm afraid you've missed the salient point - it is the fact that some group is attacking the United States, not the color of their skin, or even where they were born, that determines if they are subject to, in your terms, being blasted into a red pulp. Race or color doesn't play into it.
Were the victims of the 7/7 attacks any more or less dead based on the race of their attackers?
If there is still a question I might be able to work up a car analogy, possibly using different colors if need be.
It is NOT needed for the election, because it is not used in any other State.
Each state choosing what they want to do isn't a bug, it is a feature of American federalism. If Ohio wants to use CSV files to feed their system, that is their business, not Indiana's or Michigan's. Some states have better ideas on various questions than others.
The order for the software was placed in September, but they were talking to the company in May, and probably June, just based on the record.
So, if "fraud" was detected, who complained to the Secretary of State? Who complained to the Attorney General? Which newspapers were alerted? Or is this all a last minute election spoiler since the "wrong" person might be the winner?
Slashdot Mirror
It is well known that the audiences of the Daily Show and Colbert Report entertainment shows on the Comedy channel do very well on polls of public knowledge. What is less appreciated is that those two shows have some unexpected competition.
Pew Research Center - Key News Audiences Now Blend Online and Traditional Sources
Data from table: Education, Age, and Knowledge (Near bottom of page.)
High
Knowledge / Source
44% - NPR
43% - Hardball
42% - Hannity & Colmes
36% - Rush Limbaugh
34% - BBC
34% - Colbert Report
33% - NewsHour
30% - Daily Show
22% - Daily newspaper
21% - NBC News
19% - CNN
19% - ABC news
19% - Fox News
18% - National Average
17% - Local TV news
10% - CBS News
I have to admit to a bit of surprise that the Colbert Report audience outscored the Daily Show audience, but there it is.
(Queue down mods by the "open minded" for this bit of sacrilege.)
"YES, I AM EVIL! BUT YOU CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT, SO OBEY ME, LITTLE PEOPLE, . . . !!!" is not a kind of "introspection and self-criticism" to be proud of.
Indeed. And yet you often seem to take pro-Soviet positions. Well, we know the outcome of not being sufficiently pro-Soviet, eh Comrade?
Sorry Mr. Slippery, but Fox News is indeed a news channel that also provides commentary.
Fox News viewers overall are about equally informed as other networks, and viewers of particular shows are better informed.
Data from table: Education, Age, and Knowledge
High
Knowledge / Source
44% - NPR
43% - Hardball
42% - Hannity & Colmes
36% - Rush Limbaugh
34% - BBC
34% - Colbert Report
33% - NewsHour
30% - Daily Show
22% - Daily newspaper
21% - NBC News
19% - CNN
19% - ABC news
19% - Fox News
18% - National Average
17% - Local TV news
10% - CBS News
Why does this sort of disparity in outcomes exist?
Jon Stewart Slams Fox Viewers as Most Misinformed, But He's the Ignorant One
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Perhaps someday we will live in a world where Daily Show and Colbert Report viewers are as well informed as Rush Limbaugh listeners, but not today.
Believing that Fox News makes you stupid or misinformed is a comforting lie backed by cooked polls that people tell themselves to reassure themselves of their superiority. It may in some fashion be comforting, but it isn't true.
If you want to be informed, you have to read all the news services and take them all with a grain of salt.
Despite your current moderation, that view isn't really popular with large segments of people on Slashdot. It seems many people here don't like news from a different perspective, or providing inconvenient facts, if you know what I mean. (Cue posts about Fox News lying, reality has a liberal bias, etc. . . . . and then see parent post.) I guess to many people it is vital that we all look different, but think the same.
No internet makes it easier to recreate the success of the 1981 attack on Hama again if they think it is needed, while suppressing news about it. You may want to recall Hama the next time you read some claim about how ruthless the Israelis are for killing a dozen Arabs trying to blow them up.
You can't use nuclear weapons to resolve every conflict, that has been known for nearly 60 years. See Korea or Vietnam.
You apparently didn't read the Head Start article because it discusses the study that shows it is a failure, and a rather spectacular and expensive one at that. The real solution isn't Head Start, but in the 3rd item.
The 3rd item provides useful answers. The Republicans are for marriage, as it is. By "expanding it" I assume you refer to the creation of an institution of so-called "same sex marriage?" "Expanding marriage" wouldn't really help due to the lifestyle choices of gays and lesbians.
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples .
According to McWhirter and Mattison, most homosexual men understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression.
In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.[19]
Brad Hayton provides insight into the attitudes of many homosexuals towards commitment and marriage:
Homosexuals...are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good "marital" relationship.[20]
While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.
LEVEL OF COMMITMENT IN HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS
If homosexuals and lesbians truly desired the same kind of commitment signified by marriage, then one would expect them to take advantage of the opportunity to enter into civil unions or registered partnerships, which grant them legal recognition as well as the legal rights of marriage. However, surprisingly few homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into such legally recognized unions where such arrangements are available, indicating that such couples do not share the same view of commitment as typified by married couples. . .
Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont who have entered into civil unions: USA Today reports that, as of January 2004, only 936 homosexual or lesbian couples (for a total of 1,872 individuals) have entered into civil unions.[23] This indicates that only about 21 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont has entered into civil unions. Put another way, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions. . . .
Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Sweden who have registered their unions: The number of registered same-sex unions in Sweden is reported to be about 1,500 (for a total of 3,000 individuals) out of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 140,000.[26] This indicates that only about two percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into legally recognized unions. Put another way, about 98 percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians do not officially register as same-sex couples. . . .
Number of Dutch homosexuals and lesbians who have registered their unions: A news report by the Gay Financial Network predicted that "some 10,000 gay couples could be married" in the first year following the legalization of gay "marriage" in the Netherlands. In reality, far fewer chose to solemnize their relationships. The Office of Legislative Resear
The geek is not always going to like what he finds out there.
In related news, the city of San Francisco, a mere 40 miles from Silicon Valley, is considering a ban on public nudity in reaction to the infamous (minimally pixilated, but still may be NSFW) San Francisco naked protests.
San Francisco's Congressional representative, Nancy Pelosi, has made no comment.
You seem to be almost as useful of a guide to the Republican party, its platform, and leadership, as a vegan restaurant critic is to a steak house.
That, and I want a smaller government:
No standing army.
No standing army? That strategy pretty much ran its course in the 1700s. Same for the navy.
Head Start: Can a Failed Program Ever Be Killed?
Marriage, Family Structure, and Children's Educational Attainment
Yeah, it's a common lie in the US that we have "high taxes" when we have low taxes, especially on the rich.
Unless math has changed recently, both 33% and 35% are > 29%.
2011 Tax Computation Worksheet—Line 44
At least $100,000 but not over $174,400 = 28% rate
Over $174,400 but not over $379,150 = 33% rate
Over $379,150 $ = 35% rate
U.S. corporate tax rate: No. 1 in the world
No those things just add to the list, but the primary thing would be that backstabbing a former ally creates a bad reputation especially if the former ally has truckloads of dirt on behaviour of secret services that fits the category of war crimes.
If you say so. When it comes to "back stabbing", don't you think the Syrians saw the way the Europeans treated Khadafi after he started coming clean and gave up his nuclear weapons program? That ship has already sailed.
It seems to me that you greatly exaggerate the closeness of the relationship between the US and Syria, and the efficacy of any claims that they might make. After all, what form would they take? "The United States returned a man of Syrian heritage to our security services in Syria, and how did we greet him? We tortured the hell out of him! . . . Just like we do to thousands and thousands of others. . . just not to death in his case. We did offer him the kindness of suggesting he not settle in Hama, where we are recreating some of our success from 1982."
Frankly, I think that anyone who believes your position already believes the US is among the worst countries on the planet, and little is likely to change that for good or ill.
Innocent until publicly proven guilty in a court of law
You are quite mistaken, and a big hint is your phase, "court of law." A court of law is used in criminal matters to judge guilt or innocence before imposing punishment of the guilty. Dealing with Al Qaida, the Taliban, and company, is primarily a question of war and military action, not law enforcement, arrests, and courts of law. (Besides, what legal jurisdiction do you propose over the tribal territories in Pakistan? The Pakistani government itself cannot reliably control events there.) Bin Laden made his declaration of war on behalf of Al Qaida, and several years and many attacks later, the US returned the favor after 9/11. So it is war, not police raids, at their choice. If you don't like that, it doesn't change the facts one bit.
Do these look like car thieves? How many police from what agency would you bring to overcome their numbers, machineguns and rocket propelled grenades? How could you arrest and try men before shooting in a situation like this?
dickwad.
Civility to match your understanding?
| Iran has strong religious values, and gas at 50 cents a gallon and the most polluted capital city anywhere.
That is what they wish for.
Suicide bombers and all? Somehow I think you are projecting based on a total lack of understanding.
The difficulties at BBC started long before this.
BBC chief Mark Thompson admits 'Left-wing bias'
Not quite.
Most of those killed in drone attacks were terrorists: military
One of the reasons it's difficult to make a choice about Syria is they were one of the nations torture was outsourced to
What makes Syria difficult is that they have fairly strong support from both Russian and China, Iranian troops fighting for the Syrian government, a heavily armed army, the possibility of drawing support and fighters from Hezbollah, an open threat of using chemical and biological weapons, uncertain prospects for the rebels, and Al Qaida militants fighting with the rebels. I don't think the possibility of Syria announcing that in addition to the thousands and thousands of people they have killed and tortured that they volunteered to mistreat a few outsiders is much of a threat. I would consider the possibility of a Syrian army chemical warhead or biological bomb falling into Al Qaida rebel hands is a much bigger problem.
Also I'm astonished that you think that the total number of highly classified interrogation sessions using waterboarding would be published in the press
The fact that an activity was highly classified doesn't seem to have been much of an impediment to its being leaked over the last 10 years as classified program after program was leaked to the press. For example, the NSA surveillance programs, financial protocols to track terrorist funding, the enhanced interrogation programs, and more were all leaked. When the Obama administration took office, it released a variety of materials regarding the terrorist interrogation programs, including the interrogation protocols, against the strong recommendations of several former CIA Directors. If the number three was actually wrong I have little doubt we would have heard of it by now.
I can understand how it might seem that it must be more. There has been a mighty mountain range of outrage and denunciation made out of the actual molehill of fact.
As for "review any link, reference, or citation" - come out of that coma and read a fucking newspaper or listen to the radio instead of just watching some cocaine addled ex-DJ on Fox.
Allow me to draw your attention to the sources I reference above: The Dawn in Pakistan, ABC News (US, not Australian), and National Review magazine. In this post, CNN. No Fox at all. As to your sources, it appears, In short, you've got nothing. All right then. Cheers.
it would be surprising if there wasn't CIA involvement with death squads
Why is that? Don't you think the people in those countries could figure out how to kill someone they wanted to kill? That doesn't take much sophistication, no need for the "gringos" to show them how to do it, even if they were inclined to do so.
Coming from an educated man such as you, I'm intrigued. I would love to review any link, reference, or citation you care to provide since I'm sure you must have some facts to back that up.
By now it must be well over a thousand terrorists killed by drones in Pakistan by the US, few if any high value terrorists captured recently, and a decade ago three terrorists waterboarded.
This is no surprise, but a natural outcome.
Detainee Madness
Washington Post Confirms We Are No Longer Capturing & Interrogating High-Value Terrorists
Oh, please. The mainstream media never got on Bush's ass 24x7 about *anything*.
Should we welcome you to America, or out of a coma?
3,000 Deaths in Iraq, Countless Tears at Home
At Grim Milestone, White House Says Focus Is on Success in Iraq
A Grim Milestone: 500 Amputees
Iraq war casualties: We're nearing another grim milestone; vigils planned nationwide
Three weeks before the 2006 midterm elections gave Democrats control of Congress, a shocking study reported on the number of Iraqis who had died in the ongoing war. It bolstered criticism of President Bush and heightened the waves of dread -- here and around the world -- about the U.S. occupation of Iraq. --- Data Bomb
(I'm pretty sure FDR didn't have to fight this kind of press as well as the Axis powers.)
Waterboarding / "torture" was another popular one for a while, of course it was only three people, it stopped 10 years ago, it was legal at the time, the US does it to its own pilots and special forces, and so on. There often seems to be far more vitriol directed against the United States for waterboarding three terrorists than against Al Qaida and its affiliates for killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA
A Grim Milestone Ignored - Thursday, November 15, 2007
The establishment media is seemingly obsessed with “grim milestones” in the War on Terror, as the Associated Press reminds us this past weekend. But in the next week those same establishment media outlets will probably stand mute when yet another “grim milestone” is reached – the10,000th attack by Islamic terrorists and militants since 9/11, which is responsible for approximately 60,000 dead and 90,000 injured
If they can't beat Obama in this economy, with his results, they really need to stare at their navels and figure out why people hate them so much.
A mystery? No.
And both seem to want to increase government surveillance and trade freedom for safety.
Excuse me, sir, since trivial research shows a fairly regular stream of arrests and convictions for terrorism related offenses in the United States, could you point me toward the American political party that would be indifferent to truck bombs going off in American shopping malls, as well as various other sorts of terrorist attacks and activities? You seem to believe that wanting to prevent that is a bug, not a feature, and with a large number of political parties in existence, surely one of them must be indifferent to Americans being killed by terrorists, and unwilling to engage in the surveillance necessary to prevent it, and therefore by your reckoning worthy of being voted into power? Which do you recommend?
I will try to give you a fuller answer later, but in the meantime, could you point me to the trial records for these people that the Federal government shot down?
Would I be misrepresenting your stance if I summarized it thusly: "Whether or not you can blast brown people into a red pulp depends completely and entirely on where they were born"?
You would not only be misrepresenting my stance, but engaging in race-baiting as well. Will it comfort you to know that when it comes to killing foreigners, the United States has mostly killed white and yellow people, AKA Europeans and Asians? Maybe you've heard of World War 2, World War 1, the Spanish-American War, the War of 1812? Vietnam? Korea? Vast numbers of Europeans and Asians dead, not much in the way of "brown people" at all. Feel better?
I'm afraid you've missed the salient point - it is the fact that some group is attacking the United States, not the color of their skin, or even where they were born, that determines if they are subject to, in your terms, being blasted into a red pulp. Race or color doesn't play into it.
Were the victims of the 7/7 attacks any more or less dead based on the race of their attackers?
If there is still a question I might be able to work up a car analogy, possibly using different colors if need be.
It is NOT needed for the election, because it is not used in any other State.
Each state choosing what they want to do isn't a bug, it is a feature of American federalism. If Ohio wants to use CSV files to feed their system, that is their business, not Indiana's or Michigan's. Some states have better ideas on various questions than others.
The order for the software was placed in September, but they were talking to the company in May, and probably June, just based on the record.
So, if "fraud" was detected, who complained to the Secretary of State? Who complained to the Attorney General? Which newspapers were alerted? Or is this all a last minute election spoiler since the "wrong" person might be the winner?
So you are calling Al Qaida members attacking the United States, American patriots?
I'm gonna call bull on that one.